Read More...

Whoa...wow...I'didn't see that coming. It's not April 1st and this place is way too serious for this to be a joke, right?

At any rate, I'm still grateful for all of the previous writing so I'd like to say Thank you and Good Luck with the future endeavour.

As a prelude; yes I am clear that there will be a separate site. Yes, I know that there is an active effort to compartmentalize this.

I feel that any conflation is too much. A separate site without any association or "plug" would have been preferable and I'd not have been even aware of it. Even bringing it up is a problem.

There are PLENTY of doomsteading and economic collapse sites with PLENTY of metaphysical content. I've seen them. I'm still horrified.

Even an umbilical cord is too much. The serenity is broken.

I appreciate that I'm oversensitive. I predict that I will see these messages as extremely unwise very shortly.

Oh well.

Cheers, one and all.

--Spiral Insana

Sir: you are delving into metaphysics. Metaphysics is the flailing of a tortured psyche and not a worthy focus of a balanced and healthy rational mind. Kant was right: metaphysics are impossible. Nietzsche was right; God is dead. Sun Ra of the Sun Ra Arkestra was right; anyone who would see the face of God will die.

I do not say this lightly.

The very Abrahamic framework you are discussing has been used to justify the very system you are so appalled by -- and some would argue it was responsible for CREATING it.

You can achieve nothing by reverting to this. Moreover, you are in serious danger of losing what amount of humanity you do have left.

The people I love the most on this Earth are deeply spiritual. They are also on heavy psychoactive prescriptions because of their various mental disorders. The only exceptions have had mental problems all of their lives and have alienated anyone who has loved them but will not accept help from "godless doctors." I listen to their ideas with love and patience. But nothing they say has anything to do with the world around them, human nature, how we are going to fix the living mess we are in, or any real experience that I can share with them.

You are, as it is all too within human nature to do, seeking comfort in ideas and emotions in your own head because they are beautiful, feel intensely real to you, and because they are too vivid for you to believe false. In so doing, you are cutting yourself off from what is really going on outside your head in the real world.

You are in pain. This is your brain fighting against this pain at any cost. It is essentially an hallucination.

I say this because I am scared too. My mind has responded in similar ways, but I've fought it off as best I can. I do this because I know what comes will require my clearest thinking and fastest action. I do this because the crazy loved ones I mention are the most beautiful people I have ever known and will need me to be sane for them. My tolerance of their insanity is rooted identically to my quest to maintain my own; I am morally obligated to maintain my agency to protect those I love. My atheism is a moral choice.

Yes, I am suggesting that religious convictions of any sort are indistinguishable from insanity. Yes, I know that this assertion is potentially offensive. That is why I generally do not publicly state as such unless I feel the religious are persecuting me or committing grossly immoral acts and there is no choice except to speak or act. The defacement of the good this site has done by the evocation of religion, mysticism, and/or metaphysics is dangerous. I feel I am forced to respond because of that.

What damage I can do in speaking out is likely minimal. Human readers will flame me and then regard me as a hateful idiot (this despite the fact that I am doing so because I fear for them and am saying something only to try to be helpful). Then, they will forget me.

I do not fear harming the Divine in any way, even if such exists. If there really is/are a/any God(s), then He/She/It/THEM is/are powerful enough that He/She/IT/THEY need not worry about my opinion. To the Divine, I am but mobile dirt. Some religions state that there is such thing as forgiveness if I am wrong. If anyone proves me wrong, then I will ask for forgiveness, reverse course, profess my new beliefs with vigor to atone, and all shall be well. There is nothing to fear in that case. As I would rather suffer eternally that submit to an immoral, hateful God, I do not fear unfair damnation either. Nobody need advise me of my metaphysical rights and obligations; I am clear on this point.

On the other hand, the Divine has a lot to answer to the Human race for, in my opinion. A Divine agency could have prevented all the misery the human race endures if it really were all loving or all powerful. It could at least have been more direct and honest about its own existence. In other words, I say that reality's imperfection and misery are adequate refutation of the existence of the Divine without further argument. I cannot see how the thesis that there exists an all loving, all powerful God could possibly be taken seriously. The logic is irrefutable and there is no escape.

I say the human race is responsible for its disposition and that there is no appeal outside to any power for either deliverance or to blame our failings on. I say that faith of this sort is a distraction. I go beyond this and insist that even if I am sorely wrong about all of this, we shouldn't have any mention of anything metaphysical on a site devoted to practical human problems. God is not the answer to something that is our fault. I would imagine any God being cross (pun intended) at anyone dragging Him/Her/It/Them into this mess. Worse, counting how many angels fit on pin heads is a distraction at best and a dangerous misuse of intellect at worst. This site should devote energy to D.I.Y. project advice and actually fulfill its promise to produce a workable preparation guide. Such activities are distracting, fulfilling, and practical. They could also be fun. Instead, we get a sermon. If a wanted that, there is a living, breathing schizophrenic preaching down the street who could suffice for that function.

I protest this loudly and harshly because you have made it clear that you now endanger my ability to maintain my own sanity. I have used this web site and read words from yourself and your colleagues to keep my perspective honed and balanced on the issues of global finance. I read things here to remain rational.

While I have the deepest sympathy for you, you have become a threat to my goal. I must stop reading your work, and possibly everything on this site. While you assure us that your mystical or metaphysical writing "is not being supported or endorsed by Ilargi or Stoneleigh," and that does reassure me somewhat that they are still thinking rationally, it would be far better for them to disassociate themselves entirely from your message. To fail to do so is extremely dangerous. This is not enough of a distancing. This stretches the function of the site and its mission incorrectly. I am, frankly, horrified.

Beyond even all that, I am shocked at how you seem to be proposing to cure the ills of modern Western culture by running into the arms of its dysfunctional metaphysical mother. The big three Abrahamic religions have made the world financial system's exploitation of native peoples possible by providing pseudo-moral, cosmic-scale justifications for genocide, cultural homogenization, the suppression of thought and diversity, and the dehumanization of anyone who fails to adopt strictly codified systems of behavior and thought. It is a unilateral disaster, however badly you feel practitioners of these faiths have upheld the principles of their founders. The record of these religions, bathed in blood as it is, speaks for itself. Any failure to accept this is merely willful ignorance of genocide.

I beg you to clear your head. You are transforming this metaphysical ideology free island into a battleground for destructive arguments over pure hypothetical suppositions and superstition. Modern Capitalist economics is also superstitious ideology about purely hypothetical phenomena. It is exactly this sort of thinking that must be combated and defeated to assure the continued survival of the Human race. You propose to replace one set of delusions for another. This is extremely dangerous at best.

I am essentially insisting that you are now "the enemy." I fear that now even this site will harbor flame wars blaming the economic collapse on sodomy, poor church attendance, divorce, African Americans, women wearing trousers and voting, the very existence of Lady Gaga, and so on.

You may in fact not, one could hope, irrationally hate sexual minorities or ethnicities other than your own. You still endorse a metaphysical system that makes such "othering" possible. If the solution had existed within the words and precepts of the Abrahamic traditions, then the sons and daughters of Abraham would have presented it to the grateful world long ago. You are leading us back into more of the same under a different guise. The same exact sorts of problems are inevitable. Your solution to both your own psychological and the entire world's cultural problems is essentially the hair of the dog that bit you.

I reject and denounce this. I beg you to reconsider your stance.

Failing that, know that I still value your life and individual rights. Know that I value you as a moral agent and a feeling being. Finally, rest assured that I send this afraid that it may wound your feelings or those of others. I only do this because I have a shred of hope that it may make a positive impact somewhere on someone, even if it is only to teach me never to do anything like this again.

It is your right to do what you are doing and I will defend it. I just think it is dangerously irrational. I also think it is my right to say so. I would hope you can respect my right to say this.

I do wish you the best regardless of what happens. I do hope your ideas bring you peace and happiness. It is simply a misfortune that they have caused me a lot of grief. I know this is not what you intended. Nevertheless, the damage is now done.

Please take care of yourself as best you can.

Sincerely,

Spiral Insana

I wondered why we haven't heard much from you Ashvin. I'm sad to see you have turned to ancient mysticism. Been there, done that my friend. Maybe it will turn out better for you.

Ash and Matt Savinar

Your arc of emotional development closely traces Matt Savinar's spiritual evolution. For you, Ash, it's Judeo Christianity. For Savinar, it was Astrology

For those who don't know him: Matt Savinar is, like Ash, a young lawyer who withdrew from his professional training to examine peak oil and societal collapse.

Savinar built and maintained the highly popular LATOC forum (life-after-the-oil-crash) from 2005-2010. His writings on peak oil were highlighted in congressional testimony.

Then, sometime around late 2010, he had an emotional breakdown. He abruptly shut-down LATOC (much to the dismay of the users, several thousand at that point) he shut down the website and shifted all of his time and energy to Astrology.

A link to Matt Savinar at his LATOC peak in 2006 (prior to breakdown) discussing the writing of Jay Hanson:


A link to angry discussions from LATOC readers following the abrupt termination of LATOC forum:
www.theoilage.com/what-happened-to-matt-savinar-t1758.html
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1251233/pg1

Matt Savinar's recent writings on Astrology:
northbayastrology.com/?author=1

Wow. Just. Wow.

On a lighter note (I just had to make an account to say this): If when there will be chanting in the hills, I prefer Ash does the sacrifices, for he can't sharpen a knife worth a damn.
Lighten up, dudes, it hasn't started yet. We still have a few ...maybe weeks? What will you do then?

Dislike!

I need information and reason to make decisions about the future of my household. Religion ain't it, especially the Abrahamic-flavored ones. Let's hope to see no more of this kind of thing here, and I regretfully will not take future posts from Ash with the same consideration as previously. I tried to participate in other online communities with similar outlooks on 'doom' and economics but that were majority christians. It wasn't possible to coexist with that level of self-disillusion.

I hope TAE distances itself from this religion nonsense.

Why do I sense Lucifer on this thread, spewing out evil, hatred and venom at a wonderful brilliant person that has nothing but good intentions in his heart and mind?

In reference to the posting by Golden Oxen
that is, posting #5252

One reason why you could sense Lucifer is because that is how you explain any evidence or expressed opinion contrary to your held beliefs. Another possibility is that I and those who think like me are deluded by forces that we cannot control and which must be overcome before we can see the truth.

The most rational course in either case is to first use whatever spiritual techniques you believe effective to remove any curse on myself and others so afflicted and, then, engage in rational debate so that I am either freed from this evil external force or you are freed of your delusions spawned by emotional pain and psychological trauma.

A morally unjustified course is to condemn us vaguely, fail to defend your point of view, fail to pray for us, and fail to take our ideas seriously.

It would be a violation of the precepts of your faith to deprive us of a chance to experience the truth by your inaction. It is also presumably a violation of the precepts of your faith to "cast the first stone" if the letter of your texts are to be taken seriously.

How will you act knowing the above?

--Spiral Insana

Before I get a rapid excommunication to the Bowels of Hell from which I spawned, I should say that the knife reference was a joke and Ash will surely get it. If other members don't get it, GO ahead with the exorcisms!

Was it Stoneleigh who said that people move to majical thinking when things become too tough? Speaking from personal experience, at times I find it is an effort to stay in the gritty, tough world of rationality in spite of the havoc we here are all so very highly atuned to in our world. I hope you will continue to spend some time with us Ash on this rational journey because you have much to offer and we need all the help we can get.

I'm with Spiral on this. I have the huge benefit of being surrounded by loving, caring, active and deeply committed atheists so I am free of the extra burden that SI carries. But nevertheless, I wake in the small hours a couple of times a week to acknowledge the scale and depth of my anxiety and the predicament that is causing it. I too worry that I will not be up to what is coming, however well I may have "prepared" for it. But, whatever the process and the outcome, there is no room in my cognitive apparatus for the booming certainties driven by ancient existential angst. Like BK, I wish you well, but I also bid you farewell. This is a place for hard-eyed, grounded people able to stare into the abyss and overcome their gfear that it might stare back.

Hi Ashvin,

I've greatly appreciated your musings on this site since I started reading it, and have found it intrigueing to ponder where your relationship with God was, especially in recent months. I've been actively looking for people who are pondering the circumstances we find ourselves in from a spiritual position, and very much look forward to reading your further work in this direction.

To those on this blog who are quick to dismiss Ashvins step change in focus as the ranting of a madmad, I would offer a few resources to ponder:
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/130 - Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. A great book about the journey to the outer reaches of humanistic modern philisophical thought, where the author finds himself on well trodden trails.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance - There are many mental paths that can lead to madness, and foremost among these is trying to create reason of the impenetrable, mysterious, perhaps even ineffable conundrums that we face daily.
I'd also offer the observation that perhaps we need to undergo a mental collapse of some sort, particularly with regard to self-reliance, in order to accept the change underway, and look with an open mind at the possibilities on offer (as JMG points out in thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/collapse-now-and-avoid-rush.html). I know I've felt that I'm undergoing something akin to this personally and feel better placed, having come through a period of doomer-gloom similar to that Ashvin described above, and I've been very glad of the hope that my faith offered through this 'dark night of the soul'. I'd also observe that the denial prevalent in our society regarding the inevitability of some of the topics under contemplation on this and related blogs is some form of mental illness in itself.

I'm reminded of the following passage from THHGTTG:
" Though his throat was sore again from his early morning yell of horror, he was suddenly in a terrifically good mood. He wrapped his dilapidated dressing gown tightly around him and beamed at the bright morning.

The air was clear and scented, the breeze flitted lightly through the tall grass around his cave, the birds were chirruping at each other, the butterflies were flitting about prettily, and the whole of nature seemed to be conspiring to be as pleasant as it possibly could.

It wasn't all the pastoral delights that were making Arthur feel so cheery, though. He had just had a wonderful idea about how to cope with the terrible lonely isolation, the nightmares, the failure of all his attempts at horticulture, and the sheer futurelessness and futility of his life here on prehistoric Earth, which was that he would go mad.

He beamed again and took a bite out of a rabbit leg left over from his supper. He chewed happily for a few moments and then decided formally to announce his decision.

He stood up straight and looked the world squarely in the fields and hills. To add weight to his words he stuck the rabbit bone in his hair. He spread his arms out wide.

``I will go mad!'' he announced.

``Good idea,'' said Ford Prefect, clambering down from the rock on which he had been sitting.

Arthur's brain somersaulted. His jaw did press-ups.

``I went mad for a while,'' said Ford, ``did me no end of good.''

``You see,'' said Ford, ``--- ...''

``Where have you been?'' interrupted Arthur, now that his head had finished working out.

``Around,'' said Ford, ``around and about.'' He grinned in what he accurately judged to be an infuriating manner. ``I just took my mind off the hook for a bit. I reckoned that if the world wanted me badly enough it would call back. It did.'' "
SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE QUOTE:www.angelfire.com/ca3/tomsnyder/hg-3-02.html

The above quote I like for it's humour (you may have to view it in context to 'get it') and also for the notion that isolation can be potentially far more metally toxic and destabilising than community. As such, whatever your personal views / experience of church life, I hope people can see that there's some truth in a thought I heard expressed in the last couple of years - the church is the modern custodian of living in community. We all have much to learn from faith communities that choose to live in closer relationship than is the societal norm, as there are not many other places where such a diverse group of people, from all walks of life are drawn together to try and live as a tribe. As it's often pointed out in the 'doomersphere' there are many who perceive that localism and therefore living in far closer relationship than we're used to in materially wealthy societies is an inevitable consequence of collapse. There are many churches today where it's more important that you belong, than believe or behave (particularly if they have a strong focus on God's grace - great teaching in the astronomical grace series here: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/destiny-church/id321106392), and I'd encourage those interested to seek out such groups as a 'crash course' in community.

For those more inclined to dismiss Ashvin's musings as obviously unscientific, and therefore of no interest, I offer the following:
mb-soft.com/public/duality.html - apply some scientific rigour to evidence and proof around christianity, and particularly the hot potato that is evolution / creation. I've not been able to pick major holes in it, but my knowledge of the current science is lacking a bit.
Along with the above, i would point out that in much of the comment submitted by many of the most thoughtful contributors to TAE demonstrate lines of reasoning that would indicate a spiritual perspective is at least a consideration, if not primary motivation. If you've derived value from the discussion, as I know I have, I would ask that you consider how much you value truth, whatever it's source, and why you might have an urge to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'..

I would offer the following blog/book as an interesting lead in the search for further revelation / inspiration as to spiritual influences to collapse. elizaphanian.blogspot.co.nz/p/about-my-book.html Whilst I felt he focused a bit too much on one aspect of relationship with God (holy communion), I found much that was enlightening, and particularly liked the reference to the prophet Jeremiah and the parallels that can be drawn between the time he lived in and our own. JMG seems interested, judging by his comment on the page, and I hope it's of use to you.

Finally, Ashvin, I've no idea as to your musical tastes, but these guys (www.lampmode.com/lyrics/) have some serious 'lyrical theology' that has been a source of comfort and help to me, even if I'm not 100% in agreement.

Grace and Peace to all the readers of this comment!

@Joanna theautomaticearth.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=16&id=5239&Itemid=96#5251

Could you point me to a few please?

Hi Ashvin

I've followed some of your posts on TAE (my user name = David Peter) over the past year where I find your perspectives are rewarding to read.

Along my path striving to picture and follow Christ, I am studying theologian James Alison as well as anthropologist René Girard.

If you have some time (which is so precious) to give James' website
jamesalison.co.uk
a brief look over to see whether you like it, I believe you will find rewarding views along your way to picturing and following Christ. I would be interested to hear what you think.

At the moment I am reading Michael Hardin's book "The Jesus Driven Life" (not to be confused with Rick Warren's book "Purpose Driven Life").

From the rear cover of the book: "Will the real Jesus please stand up? ... What has happened as Jesus, the rabbi from Galilee, has been displaced as the centre of the Christian faith and replaced with false portraits? How can we understand the relation between this nonviolent Jesus and the 'violent God' of most Christian traditions? ... Utilizing the work of René Girard, 'The Jesus Driven Life' takes us beyond the dead ends and false trails of Christian interterpretation of the Bible."

Good luck with your blog, Ash.

I'm glad you will have a place to quote a bunch of the bible. While that is not my path, I'm glad it gives others a boost and you have a place other than TAE to discuss all that.

I have appreciated your past thinking and compassion for the 99% and your essays that have focused on helping each other in the "coming hard times".

Community is an important aspect of prepping for the future and you have frequently stood up for the poor and underdogs of this world. That is one aspect of Xianity that I appreciate. The Catholic Workers are one group that have done some really fine work and the Quakers too.

Again - best of luck to you.

The evangelicals, like many religious groups, have a "platform" of precepts that are sometimes adopted wholesale by people within the faith. These precepts are presented as the Word of God - not open to interpretation or dispute by mere mortals.

Some of these precepts are great stuff. Other precepts I find to be intolerant self-righteous crap. And because both the good stuff AND the crap is said to be the Word of God, there's really no discussing the stuff I see as the crappy bits in any reasonable way with the "true believers" who adopt the platform wholesale. Who can possibly argue with the Word of God? (Logical fallacy: appeal to authority; I claim God didn't say it, some guy did)

Many people, whom I view as somewhat wiser, are members of said religious groups, and yet see fit to ignore or gloss over the crappy bits.

As a result of meeting these people, I try to determine what sort of person someone is prior to assuming they believe everything in the platform 100%. After all, one goal of mine is to co-exist harmoniously with many types of people, not simply the ones who agree 100% with everything that I believe.

So while I completely disagree with a lot of evangelical precepts, if we stick to the subjects of love and faith and we ignore what I see as the crappy bits, I'd have a lot to talk about with an evangelical.

As for issues of faith being "magical thinking" (where magical is defined as idiotic, futile, and/or dangerously stupid) I'd like to point out the placebo effect is a product of nothing more than faith - in this case, faith in western medicine. This effect is so strong that it will result in positive medical outcomes from sugar pills in 33% of cases. Its why drug trials are always double-blind placebo-controlled.

Can faith have power in the real world over and above the placebo effect? Certainly faith in ones own ability is quite important to successfully executing many real-world tasks. Backflips, martial arts techniques, interviews - all benefit from faith in ones-self that could ultimately be viewed as "magical" in nature. Yet if the magic goes away, your efforts tend to fail, regardless of the amount of training you've had. Faith in banking, fiat currency - faith really does have impact. Perhaps that impact IS magical (in this case, "impossible to explain"), and this confounds those of us who see existence as strictly physical.

Can faith do more than that? That is an interesting question; I think so, but it is something I haven't resolved to my own satisfaction just yet. And that's my spiritual journey.

Well that's my opinion anyway. Good luck Ash with your new site.

The spiritual site is part of our human existence and it is worthwile to nurture this site.
However I strongly feel that Christian thinking has immensely contributed to the predicament we are finding ourselves today. The "culture of death" that is celebrated today by the Empire is deeply rooted in the Christian myths and superstitions. That is how I feel. Good look with your spiritual journey.

I finished reading to my atheist 13 year old the other day "All quiet on the Western Front" and told him "There are no atheist in fox-holes". He was adamant that there is no God, etc. (so it shows that a kid can't feel the depths of such literature at all) But I interpreted it for him that in times of great distress like war you find self doubt and not the arrogance of the modern easy life.

Regardless of the answers one finds, which are of emotional import, they have to be specific to us and our situation. I got hinduism (one says "I found Jesus" in Christianity) and do yoga and Tai Chi -astrology is a part of that culture too (Chinese, Indian and Arabs have their own systems). Muslims have Sufi mystical system for example as well as catholics having mystical system (where does that Halo come from and the marks on jesus hands? Those are chakras of course- which you feel f you develop kundalini enough through years of practice).

We are not going to stop waht we earned already as humanity for our sins against nature, that is physical and spiritual karma (Newton's equal and opposite reaction law) as we see in the arctic and elsewhere today so we have to confront death and perhaps worse for us and our children and that leads us to God or to finidng god in us or our spiritual center and self examination. Self truth can be a bitter medicine. Perhaps an atheist can take this better as he/she would be also a realist without any false hopes.

Ashvin,

I enjoy your posts on automaticearth and have learned a lot from them.
As regards religion,Here are some thoughts.No criticism/confrontation meant..

The basic problem is in externalizing God. Then there will be an external Devil.
Now , we will have 3. Me, God, Devil. Each will limit the other. So we will end up with a limited Me(a relatively powerless Being), a Limited God(a very powerful being), and a Limited Devil(another very powerful Being).

Perhaps you have already done so….Maybe it may be worth exploring the roots of the name you bear. Here is one perspective on it. (please dont take it as patronising..I am exploring the possibilities of the meaning of the sanskrit words here, an hobby of mine)

Ashvin=THe twin healers of the gods(symbolic representation).THey bring word of the unlimited.In a world that is fragmented by separated/individualized objects/beings , where is the unlimited?what can be ever present? the ones who bring this knowledge are the Ashvins..and this knowledge does not pertain to a limited human’s notions of good/bad , God devil etc.As long as you separate humans from one another as distinct persona,one’s good is the other’s bad.Not limited to names/appellations like this religion or that religion.In fact it transcends them.

Pandu=>colloquial meaning=> a fruit(a mature object,fully ripe)
Paandu=> A person/thing knowledge that is fully mature(ripe)=>transcends the trivial.
Ranga=> Colored by the knowledge .Every thing /person/knowledge we perceive is distinguished from something else, even as one color is distinct from the other.But when one transcends these distinctions, everything gets swallowed into one particular paradigm/knowledge.One who has this quality of relating everything to the infinite and is never separated from it, is called PaanduRanga..

THe little I have read of the bible(old/new test) seems to me to be loaded with symbolism. One can interpret it in the way of the majority with an external god/devil and me that is separate. One can also relate it back to the upanishads for an extremely different perspective. The difference, in my opinion, is almost as big as climbing the map vs climbing the mountain.

Hi Ashvin,


The biggest problem to recognise is the difference between ‘religion’, which has its roots in the notion of obligation and true spirituality which (imho) is much more about the edict ‘know thyself’. Check out what post-modern sage George Carlin has to say:



& ‘The Big Club’ – ‘no critical thinking’ allowed:


If you want a true insight into the ‘path’ that xtianity has to offer check out Bernadette Roberts and her inspiring interview here.

Good luck with your research – all I can suggest is (which is what the Buddha also said) is to investigate everything for yourself and take nobodies word for it! You have to find what works for you...

L.

Sid.

Good luck with your new site, Ash. I'm sure you'll find your walk continually interesting and inspiring. I do hope you keep posting here, too. TAE has been richer because of your contributions.

If you haven't already, you should check out some of the writings of Francis Collins, the world-renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian.

Hi Ash,

Congratulations on adding a new dimension to your "walk" on this spinning orb flying through space.

I'll be sure to stop by as all things God fascinate me. I do get why people are turned off to "religion," though. They confuse the bad human examples with the real thing that says humans will always be bad examples.

One note, though. What happened to the online version of A Century of Challenges? The original site is down and I can't access it.

Can you give a status as to when/where it will be back up?

This article was simply meant as a plug for the new blog, not as an opportunity for me to defend my faith here. I have noticed a few people raised points of substantive criticism, and I encourage them to express that on PC. I am more than willing to get into substantive debates there over spiritual issues... and smash the atheist worldview to pieces

For those who raised no substance whatsoever, but just made wild accusations of Christianity being "magical", "irrational", or otherwise unworthy of even the slightest consideration, I would ask them to reflect on WHY they have such a knee-jerk response. I also encourage them to visit the site, check out the content, keep an open mind and then express their specific concerns. I am confident at least a few people will reconsider what they thought they knew about the Christianity and the Bible, just as I did. Its richness and depth is absolutely stunning when you actually consider it seriously.

My mind is not working any differently than it was a year ago before I came to faith. I still think rationally, logically, analytically and critically about everything, including Christianity and other religions. I spend a lot of time listening to the critics of Christianity to see what kind of substantive arguments they are making, and what kind of responses are available to them. I never hesitate to acknowledge that there are many difficult questions raised by Christianity, but I also never hesitate to try and answer them honestly.

To all those who expressed support, thank you and I hope we can continue discussing these vital issues over at PC. David Peter, I just started looking into Girard's work, but here is a link to my latest post that focuses on his "scapegoat mechanism" - picturingchrist.org/the-devils-scapegoat/. I'd love to know what you think! And to those who expressed a greater affinity for Eastern spiritual traditions, I will probably spend a lot of time discussing that over at PC, so please feel free to drop by and join in.

Triv, that's very well said - "they confuse the bad human examples with the real thing that says humans will always be bad examples"! The Bible itself is filled with examples about how hypocritical the "faithful" can be, but I guess a lot of people don't really pick up on that... selective reading and all...

Spiral Insana, I see your frustration with my beliefs, I acknowledge your rejection and denouncement, but I am not going to "reconsider my stance". If you want, you can make your arguments against the Abrahamic traditions on and then we can discuss them there... When I emailed Ilargi about posting this plug, I said this:

The only problem would be the fact that I am already associated with TAE, and people who are inherently antagonistic to Christianity might decide to take that out on TAE...

I truly hope that I am wrong about that. PC is not associated with TAE in any way, and obviously TAE is not a site about religion or spirituality, while PC is almost entirely about those things. There is really no need to conflate the two just because Ilargi and Nicole were kind enough to help me get the word out about my new blog.

One thing I know for sure is that religion will retake the place of economics, finance and law. There are a lot of future prospects right there.

Speaking of religion gets me all fired up... can't resist speaking my mind on this issue... so here goes.(you may disagree, as this is a topic most seem to believe they have the right belief.. all sewed up, nothin' further to discuss.) especially fundamentalist of all stripes.

There's that old saying that human beings didn't come with an instruction manual. Well, you can put that to rest. In 1955 The Urantia Book was published. Imagine the excitement of those few who had access to the papers from about 1924 to 1955... only on the premises of what was to become the headquarters of the Urantia Foundation, they were not allowed to take them off premise.

The great day came to much excitement when the world could know the truth of our existence, and... nothing. More than 50 years later, still nothing. Only a relative few have read and accepted the truths contained within. But, that's human beings.

We had the creator of our local universe here on earth in the guise of human form a mere 2000 years ago... and we all know what happened to him. HOWEVER, once you've discovered the history of the human race, our seeming failure to perceive truth even when laid out before us becomes easier to understand.

I have coined all so-called religious beliefs in existence before the publishing of this book, Evolutionary Belief Systems – evolutionary BS for short. These differences have caused great destruction in the past; looks like they will continue dividing us in the near future. And while it may take decades or more for this realization, it is literally true that we are all brothers, even in the physical sense; especially so in the spiritual sense.

Someday, 10 or a hundred or more years from now, those who come after us will widely accept the contents of this book. Only then can we call ourselves civilized human beings, for now we are no more than rank savages.

A "well found" acquaintance once remarked, "My old man told me at a very young age, that if I wanted to live a long and happy life, stay away from doctors, politicians and preachers." Point taken, and it has worked for me so far. Guess I'm just suspicious of the supernatural, having observed the unintended consequences of such "faith" in it, and other, "polishing solutions" for the rough edges of life.

I suppose, if my soul ever wanders from within and becomes lost, I can always summon "outside" assistance in relocating it.

Hi Ash
I have usually enjoyed your many comments and articles here on TAE, however unconcise the usual presentation. IMO you have taken the wrong fork in the road. In Southern towns, there is a direct proportion between church spire density and observed xenophobia and hateful intolerance. And in this case, I think the positive correlation DOES indicate causality. I look forward to your comments in the future, but please leave the religious commentary on PC.

The progression of divine nature...polytheism, deity anthropomorphism, deity astralazation, to monotheism is a bumpy road. What inference patterns are you using to favor one god over many? What inference patterns are you using to favor the bible over many spiritual writings?

Holy books/writings/oral traditions are mutually underdetermined 

Deities are mutually underdetermined 

Even the books within the bible are mutually underdetermined with books that were not selected as bible material. Hence the over 200 versions of the bible .  What bible to you adhere to?

One can appreciate the compassion and love morals of the bible, but most of it is a means of social control and social cohesion.

This mutual underdetermination of religious belief Is why people have been killing each other for millennia. God vs god, book vs book.


I believe we are at a critical time in human history where primitive religions are selected out and go extinct. They were adaptive social constructs that became wide spread because altruism was favored in a group selection. 

WW3 is the perfect selection force of religious evolution. Let the Christians, Jews and Muslims kill each other, each in the name of their god. Using hegalian .dialectic tptb will demonize the mutual underdetermination  of primitive religions and propose a new world religion based on the divinity of planet earth. Everyone needs air, food and water. Planet earth provides food air and water. Planet earth has a degree of divinity. This simple reality is hard to underdetermine. In the face of ecological collapse and threats to human posterity on this planet the people of this earth need a new religious reality (not belief) that does not contradict biophysical reality. 

7billion people believing the earth is flat does not make it flat. Belief is not correlated with truth. Humans need to plot a trajectory away from falsehood towards truth. We may only be able to approach truth asymptotically, but at least we would be on a path of progression. Christianity, Islam, Judaism are stagnant. Entities that to not embrace change and adapt to the changing environment are evolutionary dead ends. 

Time for religious reality and the age of reason. The age of illumination.

All great things emerge from chaos

Ashvin, you have always been a kind and understanding soul. I wish you all the best in your search, and look forward to reading more of your good articles. Thank you.

Anyone who has a fundamental belief in a god is not someone I would trust to explain anything. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence shows that believing and praying to a god (take your choice) is a fruitless pursuit except for the temporary relief one might get from that.

Four people die in Libya from an attack (believers in their god) and everyone asks god to give the families peace. Why was god so powerless to stop the attack? This is not a test of faith..it is simply there is no god to do it.

Religious people constantly promote this false belief which only gives false hope or worst case they kill those who don't go along with them. In all the disasters why don't the believers just wait for god to help? Because they truly know only humans will do it. Religion is the worst invention of mankind.
Ashvin you are wasting your time.

Best wishes on your inner spiritual journey, Ashvin. I began my inner journey within a Christian sect and have gradually moved toward a sort of earthy mystical atheism. I recognize there are still some valuable ideas taught by the old religious stories. Apparently these stories repeat themselves through time: this explains similarities between religions of different places and eras. And the similarities demonstrate both the lie that these story events ever took place and the truth of the perennial philosophy they convey. Hence the wisdom that the Jesus of Nazereth purportedly taught is more important than for instance Paul of Tarsus's later interpretation of his life story which it turns out is not really Jesus' life story at all, if we compare it to the story of Egypt's Horus for instance.

I have found that personal spiritual journey can begin with or without a belief in a supreme deity. A healthy mix of open-mindedness and logical skepticism will see you through. The journey stalls when those 2 go out of balance. Many fanatical adherents to religious sects lose their way when they refuse to question religious authority. Many atheists lose their way when they refuse to investigate their own powerful spiritual energy.

Christian philosophy is merely one of many fine ways of exploring that power.

Good luck.

Ashvin! Karibuni nymbani na familia ya Mungu Baba na Mwanawake Yesu Kristo!

I've been reading TAE since Sept 2010 and enjoy, not that that's always the right word depending on what's being discussed/revealed, it very much. Thanks so much for all the effort and likewise to Ilargi and Stoneleigh too (who I saw/heard in Hamilton, New Zealand, but didn't meet personally due to work time constraints).
I sensed something was happening with you as metaphysical themes became of more interest to you and am not at all surprised to hear that our good Lord was behind your quest for the truth. Jesus found me out 40yrs ago at age 6 and despite my own lack of understanding what He was really about until more recent times (severe suffering was a huge part of that – thanks Lord!) I have found Jesus Christ to be absolutely faithful to His promises.
Great to see you have the guts to nail your flag to the mast as you set about sharing your journey with us at your new blog. And big kudos to Stoneleigh and Ilargi for agreeing to post your post despite, I would guess their probable ideological opposition to it. I love their take on so much stuff. TAE encouraged me along the path I was already on. I've never borrowed money, have always waited until I had the cash. Patience really is a virtue despite nearly everyone mocking those who practice it. I refused to borrow not from fear but because I thought that too often the system rewarded the wrong behaviour. Behaviour ultimately harmful to society. I've learnt to be content with little or much.

While your revelation has severely ruffled the feathers of many TAE readers censorship is never the solution if truth is truthfully being sought. As a writer and rational thinker you surpass me but I do own a science degree along with many years applying it in farming in both NZ and Tanzania. I've also done years of practical volunteer community development work in NZ, Tanzania and Uganda.
This work taught me how badly so many Christian organisations do at 'helping' in a big picture lasting way as well as in the short term. We make blunders at the micro and monumental level. But that is OUR fault not God's. In fact, despite liking my colleagues and the locality a lot, I resigned from my last position in Uganda due to them persisting with methods that my decade in Africa showed me don't work. So your post on 'white saviour guilt complexes etc' did not insult me. As always peoples true motives are often unknown to themselves as well as others. That said, Christians still do some good at times and, generally speaking here (there are always exceptions), they are the only ones doing it as soon as it becomes remote and underpaid. The different UN development orgs are in my experience the most conflicted and corrupted and self-interested in the development religion world. My how humanism can be a racket beyond all rackets.
Right now I've been working a year helping reintergrate released prisoners back into NZ society. Again, the majority of those working as volunteers are folk serving Jesus Christ. The men I help have, in some cases, done violent despicable things that would repulse me to the core if it were not for my knowledge of my own sins being covered by the grace of God through Christs atonement for them. I'm amazed at the love for these guys (from many different races, age groups, cultures, beliefs and religions) that God has enabled me to have and the complete lack of fear I can have because I know God has me here for His reasons not mine. It's never to late to repent, but if they don't care to we still love them however we can practically and relationally. Yes these men have been, or still are, terrible creeps and predators but if our justice system says they have paid their debt then we must all support them in many ways when they come out of prison not just leave them alone to fail. Love always involves risk.

As far as the claims against you now, re the lack of 'rational' thinking, I suggest checking out these sites, amoung others, for those thinking we God believers and creationists are mental writeoffs.


Perry Marshall is an electrical engineer and for quite some years now a world expert on Google Adwords marketing. I met him extremely briefly at a conference in Australia in 2004 where he was presenting. He is no slouch as his challenge re information theory will show. www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/

Glenn Miller is also an electrical engineer and IT man. His site looks ancient because it is Guess he's too busy to revamp it. christianthinktank.com/

Creation.com is a good resource site. I've met Dr. Jonathan Sarfarti who has a few books out easily debunking the likes of the very loud Sqwaukin' Dawkins creation.com/the-collapse-of-geologic-time

As for your own personal spiritual growth Ashvin, pray and study scripture and also read anything by A.W. Tozer, Os Guiness, Andrew Murray's “Waiting on God, J.I.Packer's “Knowing God” and John Piper's works re the Supremacy of Christ. And don't miss Henry Blackaby's “Experiencing God” - God used this to open my spiritual eyes and ears which, together with God speaking directly to me by various ways, has changed my life quite radically. Plenty more of course...but most importantly keep knowing Jesus Christ as your goal in all you do!

And people totally misunderstand Paul – he wrote the letter to the Galatians to help them avoid 'religion' and all it's associated performance of works to please God. In Phillipians he counts all that religious stuff in his past as 'rubbish'. His overarching desire was to know Christ and the power of His resurrection life. He was a totally rational man as well as a very spiritual one (he had visions etc – any reader who considers themselves more spiritual; can you claim such as well as still argue rationally). Both go together like the two oars on a rowboat. Pulled together you head somewhere, but on their own you just go around in circles.

This has got long so I'll post some simple thoughts of mine re truth on your new Pictures of Christ blog rather than here. Once again thanks Ashvin! My best regards to all commenters and lurkers too.

Sorry to see a member of the writers group of this blog and some commenters veer so far into religious babble. That's what it is. Babble.

Like some have said, "Been there, done that". I had, as a child, great 'faith' and believed in the RCC - even to the point of wanting to be a nun! When I discussed that with the head-nun of my high school, she worked VERY hard to talk me OUT OF IT. She left the convent a couple of years later. She did not mention nun-rape nor child abuse. I had to learn about that on my own.
ALL religions devolve into this. The moral motivation vanishes pretty quickly after the 'founders' passing - e.g., Saul of Tarsus... what an ignoble, misogynist crank.
Major creation MYTHS are very similar across religions - what does this tell you, Ash?? All based on the same inherent HUMAN myth-world. Take the ennobling parts of the myths and reject the formal structure of authority and control that all religions DEMAND. They require you to reject your own self-determination and buy your way to redemption. BS.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and dining with Stoneleigh and Ilargi. They are very realistic, compassionate, grounded pragmatists about the state of things. They have, lucky for us, not devolved into magical thinking to flesh out their world-view. We have come through the Enlightenment. We remember it. We want to live in a world that is dominated by rational thought not dogmatism and superstition. The BASIS of ALL religions is SUPERSTITION.

These myopic, cruel, humanity-hating religions are the main reason we are where we are. What other organization in the world has a 2,000 year history - but the RCC? Drug money-laundering, pederast org that it is. It controls a LOT more of what happens in the world than we realize. They have been in league with the ruling families and are considered the financial arm of European royalty.

I don't even want to list the other ills foisted upon humanity by religion - like withholding family planning ability to vast swaths of Earth so that we have a population that is not sustainable... the list is too long. Start with year 34 AD and move forward through pogroms, Inquisitions and witch-burnings.... Pretty horrible track record for a RELIGION.

Sorry - rant off... Just had to speak up and defend rational thought on here. It's what we count on. People that want to ramble on about their personal relationship with 'god' need to go do that somewhere else. It's all just hot air.
Carol

The issue comes down to hearing the explosive "good news". It was a message that so precious to all of us and it makes sense that it got so distorted and mixed with religion. I need to warn all of you that if you hear this true good news your world will be turned upside down by it. It is the very power of God (for those of you who have never experienced the power of God it will be a near death experience). Do not fear the economic, financial and industrial/environmental collapse - you can eddure this with a peace that passes understanding. Watch this:

More at: chapeloffatherslove.com/

Trolls or not - please take this stuff up somewhere else. Plenty of venues online for people who WANT to hear YOUR GOOD NEWS. Stop being so adolescent. This is NOT the new site Ash promised.. take this religiosity to that site.
Thanks.

Oh, BTW -
the statement:
The issue comes down to hearing the explosive "good news".

is soooooooo far off-base. YOUR issue may come down to this silliness, but OUR'S does not. It comes down to collapsing planet and resources.. one of the things that these stupid 'religions' NEVER do anything about but make things worse... like we OWN all creation. What nonsense.

@carolsiriusb
This is but a small part of the collapse, like it or not. I'm an atheist, and would not sell my soul to any G-d as long as my life does not depend on doing so, but I'm also realistic in knowing that religion might be the only thing keeping communities together. I truly hope the devolution stops were I live before the "deranged chanting in the hills", but this is the way it will be, I have no doubt about it. Want to blame something? Blame civilization, the spawn of agriculture, because religion, its method of control, is here to stay.

I am sure it's here to stay too. Plenty of people need hand-holding. My comment was directed to keeping this BS to a minimum on THIS site - which has been grounded in REASON.

Well, Carol, in case you haven't heard, religion is the next big thing for aspiring alphas.

New post up... picturingchrist.org/sabbath-testimonial-on-hangovers-and-blessings/

Sabbath Testimonial – On Hangovers and Blessings

Romans1 wrote:

Alpha Centaurians??

"Atheists can also know the truth" Anam Thubten, Buddhist Lama
this was my teacher's comment to my information that my teenage (now 21 y/o) son was an atheist.
I have reflected. My son does not believe in an external god, as so often portrayed, nor do I, nor have I ever.
My upbringing in Christianity gave me always the belief that "god" was inside me, not just watching me, else how could my every thought be known? God, therefore experiences all that I, or we experience.
Much later, I learned that everything existing within and of God, is at odds with at least Catholic theology, but it fits well with Shinto.
I am very serious when I say that it was my search for Jesus' deeper teachings, which first wore me out (they were not retained), then fortuitously led me to the very active practices of Buddhist meditation, reflection and questioning, with the blessings of Jesus, I feel.
Your mileage may vary....

Ashvin said I am more than willing to get into substantive debates there over spiritual issues... and smash the atheist worldview to pieces"
Ha, it is up to you sir to prove the existence of a god, not up to any atheist to prove there is not. The burden is on the believer and that task would prove impossible. All argument is just bullshit until you show that proof.

carolsiriusb wrote:


You're right, they're called alphas in nature, but in human pyramidal constructs the economists, lawyers, legendary investors might as well be called alpha centaurians. Other names have been tentatively given, but mentioning those names would be stretching it a bit. I have a feeling of being on the verge of a ban for only mentioning this, and if Ash has found a new path to pursue, it might actually be enjoyable for me not to be banned and comment here from time to time.

Babble wrote:


A lot of the content I add to the video/audio sections of the website will be devoted to apologetics, and what I feel are the best arguments in favor of God's existence and the truth of Biblical Christianity. I'm also in the process of getting a forum set up, so people can discuss these and other issues. For now, I would recommend you check out William Lane Craig's lectures/debates about the existence of God (his approach is extremely logical and coherent) - www.apologetics315.com/search/label/William%20Lane%20Craig

Monotheism versus monotheism... Father + son + holy spirit = 3
Perhaps the explanation for christianities success is that it bridged polytheism with monotheism. It also parasitized pagan religious dates such as winter soltice (Christmas) and easter ( pagan fertility festival). Ever wonder why bunnies and eggs are symbols of easter. Fertility.

Via evolution,
religion keeps adaptations that increase fitness. Religion evolves too. The once previous adaptations that increased fitness previously have
become maladaptive.

90+ percent depopulation of the world is the quota for tptb and to create a new world based on the tenants of the georgia guidestones they will destroy old world religious Meems by depopulating the meem carriers. Two birds one stone. WW3 will be the final act. Anti muslim sentiment is at a crescendo across Europe and the anti Muslim propaganda fitting seamlessly with the Iran nuclear issue. All that is needed in the appropriate trigger such as a false flag to garnish complete popular sentiment for war against Iran. China and Russia will be compelled to fight.

I have been reading these comments and decided it is time to say something. First is the PC hate that permeates the internet(and society as a whole)because you are unknown to the victums of your hate you feel justified and empowered in your rightous quest just as the KKK did in lynchings ,burnings,and general terrorism all with the mask of ananimity.
Second, am I the only one that had a history class that taught anything from the French revolution onward. Are the christians to blame for the french and russian revolutions, communist china,cambodia,north korea? Hundreds of millions died in the name of athistic states, is that all forgotten because it fought aginst christians superstitions with enlightenment and science? If history has taught us anything it is that evil people will use any means possible to achieve their ends,whether the cover is christian,science,enlightenment, superior and inferior races it all ends the same.
Lastly,the comment about God thinking of us as mobile dirt, you have it backwards. Those that trust in God are a living soul and precious to him. Those who don't believe in God but only themselves are the mobil dirt, there is no future just the here and now ,no higher purpose for you are only dirt, no right or wrong for there is no objective truth so Hitler murdering 11 million people is just their idea of making the world a better place for with no God there is no higher law and everyone does what they feel like doing, O what freedom! If you die what difference is there between you and a dog,you were both here for a short time,both return to dirt and forgotten. All you achieved is now in the hands of another but what do you care,why should anyone care if all we are is dirt and time and chance added together.
God is our only hope for an objective truth outside of ourselves and for survival on this earth!

Definitely not for me but - All the best Ash.

Ashvin: I will look at your Picturing Christ blog. However, I wonder how any conscious (i.e. 'awake') person can select one spiritual tradition over another as more truthful, except on the basis of personal or family history or tradition. Spiritual traditions point to the same truth. Period. It's great to acknowledge and follow a spiritual path; I do. Be 'evangelical' about that, but not that your chosen tradition is more true than another. 'Evangelical' yes; 'evangelical Christian' no. You immediately invalidate your claim.

God is our only hope for an objective truth outside of ourselves and for survival on this earth!

Which one?

New post up about the atheistic worldview (summed up by Russel's quote)...

Finding a Safe Habitation for the Soul

That Man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

-Bertrand Russell, A Free Man’s Worship (1903)

Why choose christianity?
If you want to put your faith in an omnipotent and omniscient God, why not go for Islam? They are after all, the only one of the great religions to have a (reasonably) active injunction against usury, the counting of interest.
You are smart, you must have done your homework, so you must know arguments against religions in particular and religion in general. Every one of them is tainted with blood and greed, but the only one to have sustained a nearly global commercial peace for more than a thousand years was Islam. Why choose the only religion that has never stopped proselytizing, never stopped missionary work, never stopped functioning in terms of growth and conquest? Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I really would like to know.

lukitas wrote:


lukitas,

I'm going to answer in general terms here, because I don't want to make this a thread swamped with Christian apologetics.

Yes, there are many rational and logical reasons to choose one spiritual tradition over another. I believe in objective truth (mostly due to logic and experience), and the fact is that most major traditions make exclusive truth claims about fundamental aspects of reality. To me, that means most of them must be wrong when it comes to those fundamental descriptions. Islam says Jesus was a great human prophet, but not divine, while Christianity says Jesus was the Son of God, and equal to the Father in divine essence. Those are radically different conceptions of this critical historical figure.

What I'm interested in is the truth. I don't care how much blood was spilled by this or that person practicing this or that religion, unless it is somehow relevant to figuring out the validity of the tradition's truth claims (usually it isn't relevant at all). As a poster said above, evil people will find all kinds of ways to do evil things, and that is in fact what Christian natural theology and Biblical revelation would predict. It also doesn't matter how practically useful the religion in your daily life on Earth, or how good it makes you feel. A lot of false beliefs are practically useful and make us feel good, and I'm only interested in figuring out the truth.

If you want to get into specifics about the truth claims of other religions or worldviews, I would be happy to do that with you on PC or via private communication, if you like. There are a ton of resources out there that can help us determine which metaphysics, which philosophies, which histories, which experiences, etc. are rooted in more objective truth than others.

I'm currently reading Endgame, by Derrick Jensen. What he says about spirituality, as distinct from religion, makes a lot of sense. I think he sees religion as a toxic mimicry of civilisation, particularly with its hierarchies. I would urge people not to confuse spirituality with religion and to seek a different route from religion, if seeking some spirituality in all of this.

From unregistered reader Luis Rivera:

"I am nowhere near your intellectual caliber, but I am another truth-searcher that, after a long and painful pilgrimage, was able to experience and conclude that Jesus is all He said He is. Oh, glorious day when my eyes were opened!

I find painfully ironic that some of the readers were quick to condemn you for agreeing with a “religion”, as if you had not used the capabilities of your mind to reach a reasonable conclusion. Instead of debating on the realm of ideas, they just take a dogmatic position to declare you “mad” or “confused”. Funny thing is that some of them think highly of Christ, but can’t swallow anybody taking His words at heart.

Jesus paints the most accurate picture of the evil inclinations we have in our hearts. Actually, that’s one of the things He came to save us from. Evil in the heart is the reason why these secular utopias never work.

I’ll keep this short, I just wanted to exhort you to continue growing in the Lord, and writing as He gives you wisdom and insight to do. Though many will probably sneer and oppose to what you say, others will hear and the Lord will open their hearts to understand and believe. I’ll pray for that. In the meantime, be a witness of the truth."

First/last comment here. Been a lurker on here for almost two years now, and want to thank all at Automatic Earth for opening my eyes to some important information. As a self-respecting gay man, however, this is my last visit. I'm just not that into the internet, anyway. Mostly, the evangelical christian thing gives me the creeps, life is short, and I've got important prepping/community/spiritual work to do.

Ashvin: beware the unholy alliance between leaders in your church and the MIC, especially the gunning for war with Iran and smokescreen scapegoating (gays, abortion). I've been attacked on the streets twice in my life, both during anti-gay political hate campaigns in Oregon, and both times by the children of evangelicals. Christianity is a religion of forgiveness and love.

There is a saying in Macrobiotics/Japanese: Shin Do Fu Ji. Body and earth are not two. In your zeal to save souls, don't dismiss a care for the earth or the human body. It was exactly that split, I believe, that contributed to 'christians' being able to slaughter muslims, native peoples, etc. and destroy the planet for so many centuries, all the while getting away with saying God is on their side. Gay people and abortion doctors didn't make the mess we're in.

I thank AE again, and wish you all well, but I'm done with this site. Life is too short to waste time with the haters, including their religious subscribers and apologists. And may God have mercy on all of us, especially self-righteous North Americans with heated homes, cars, computers, and time to typity type all day long.

Peace.

Thanks, but you left me flailing in limbo.

How does the search for truth point to evangelical christianity?

I know as little about The Truth as any other human being, but it has been one of my major hangups for quite a while.

I know my perception of the real is a construct, a simulation made by my brain, using sensory inputs, imagination and a little bit of deduction. Taking into account dreams, misperceptions and false perceptions, acknowledging that The Real exists is already a leap of faith.

Having accepted, as an axiom, the existence of The Real, I need to find out what, outside of my own perception, belongs to that reality. I have to rely on outside sources. Science is a powerful tool, fallible and limited as it is : one cannot always be sure the authors of scientific papers have done their homework, wether they have another agenda than absolute truth, and they may have made mistakes or influenced the outcome in some unknown, unseen manner.
Nonetheless, science is a lot more reliable than history, or the news media. We cannot be sure that Catilina was the perverted bastard Cicero describes : the only witness was his biggest enemy, who was not beyond a spot of histrionics. We don't know Caligula (or Nero) was as monstrous as described : the describers were political enemies.
We know even less about early christianity. Roman politics was written up by contemporaries, sometimes even protagonists. The closest we can get to Jesus is Three or four letters of St Paul's, who never even met the man. Mark, Luke, Mathew and John were compiled later, and all of the holy scripture is rife with inclusions, alterations and what can only be described as fakes. St. Peter's letters are all fakes, the man couldn't write, and he couldn't have been very good at Greek.
It would be a lot easier to reconstruct Mohammed's true words than to do so for Jesus, at least the Qur'an was written down as Mohammed spoke (even though they rearranged his sayings in a rather silly way).
Even so, If you disregard all the 'doubtful' material in holy scripture, what remains is powerful and dangerous. What remains is a communist utopia with strong spiritual bent. Maybe one could even deduce a rejection of God as the all-powerful creator : God the Father is the one who is killed in the person of his Son, (who cries out his doubt (disbelief?) at the end : Why hast thou forsaken me?) What remains is the 'Holy Spirit' which is what happens when Christians meet in communion, togetherness. God the Creator has taken his hands off his creation; we, 'the summit of creation' are the ones tasked with the building of paradise on earth.

If that is the sort of truth you are digging for, I can dig it.
Still wonder why you should call yourself evangelical. Such a silly word, like catholic and orthodox, bragging about the 'authenticity' and 'antiquity' of my particular set of beliefs.

Still, if I wanted to join a faith, and my principal preoccupation was The Truth, I would still go for Islam and the Qur'an every time.

lukitas wrote:


These are all questions... not facts. They are questions that have been answered to the best abilities of experts in the field. There are obviously difficulties in ascertaining historical truths from human accounts, and history is never 100% certain, but that shouldn't lead us to "give up" on history or accept the speculative claims of non-experts with an obvious bias or agenda. The only legitimate scholar I know of who comes close to endorsing your claims above is Bart Ehrman, and I can direct you to plenty of resources that undermine his arguments.

(but I'm not sure even he would claim that Paul never believed he met Jesus after the resurrection...)

Picturing Our Father of Faith

I’d like to spend some time today talking about what is arguably the most remarkable picture of Christ that we find in all of the Bible (and that’s saying something). This picture also happens to involve an episode of much consternation for both Christians and non-Christians. The former will usually read this chapter in Genesis and think, “wow… I don’t know how I would react if God ever asked me to do something like that…”. The latter will usually read it and think, “wow… that’s the last time I ever read the Old Testament or take the God of the Bible seriously!”

I’m sure you have already guessed that I’m talking about Genesis Chapter 22, when Abraham is given the ultimate test of faith – God asks him to provide his only son, Isaac, as a sacrificial burnt offering.

(more at link above)

Very interesting that you have identified materialism as the cause of the problem. May i ask your nationality? You might be Indian from your name. If that is the case, i would like to suggest you read the Bhagavad-gita. This remarkable book identifies materialism (identification with the self and the material world) as the cause of all misery, and goes on to provide the solution (bhakti-yoga, or devotional service). This rich and deep philosophy cannot be found elsewhere. Interestingly, it is the same spiritual philosophy of the Celts, the original inhabitants of northwestern Europe, and practiced by their high-priests, the Druids. It was the common spiritual philosophy of the Indo-European peoples, stretching from Europe to India. All this wisdom was extinguished with the Roman/Christian invasions of NW Europe. Had this not occurred, we would all be living in peace in harmony with each other and the natural world.

New Post - How the Bible Would Solve the World's Problems

People in modern cultures like to separate religion and spirituality from other areas of their lives, personal and professional. That is considered the appropriate thing to do, and in some cases it is the legally required thing to do. We always fall back on the notion of “separation of church and state” to justify this attitude, as if that catch-phrase can override the uncomfortable truth that spirituality is needed in every sphere of life, including state policy. The state obviously shouldn’t coerce people into any spiritual beliefs (which is logically impossible), and it shouldn’t have a clear preference for one spiritual tradition over another.

However, this doesn’t mean that anyone is forbidden from using their spiritual beliefs to inform their decisions, including public officials. I would argue that we should incorporate those beliefs into all aspects of our lives and be completely honest about doing so. For some [selfish] reason, people are put off by the notion that the best policies for human society may have already been given to us by a higher power, rather than cleverly worked out by humans themselves; that we are all like little children in need of clear instruction and guidance from our parents, even when we are fully grown. The truth is, though, that this is exactly what we are – dependent beings/societies that would dissolve into nothingness without the sustaining action of God along with His moral truths and guidance...

Problems discussed:

(1) The financial, social and psychological well-being of individuals and communities is being drastically curtailed by excessive levels of private and public debt, and the ever-increasing interest burdens on that debt.

(2) Our societies have become infatuated with market-based consumerism and turned every aspect of our lives into commodities defined by monetary values. This has created a level of socioeconomic inequality that only continues to grow larger and cause severe economic, social and psychological effects within these societies.

(3) Developed societies exhibit a level of consumption and waste that is destroying global ecosystems, such as forests and fisheries, and the ability of those who are less fortunate to survive, as well as depleting energy resources that these societies have made themselves dependent on.

(4) Developed and rapidly developing societies have pushed for industrialization and have sacrificed their ecosystems and environments in the process, leaving current and future generations with contaminated soil, polluted water, polluted air, etc.

(5) In tandem with over-consumption by developed populations, many parts of the world also have a problem with over-population, and therefore the resources necessary for a survival have become extremely strained.

(6) In the last century, human civilization has experienced some of the most horrific conflicts and wars in all of its history, many of which were completely unnecessary. After the advent of weaponry capable of mass destruction, any serious conflict carries with it the potential for disproportionately widespread destruction of life.

(7) The human institutions responsible for enacting and implementing policy have become hopelessly corrupt, responding to elite corporate interests rather than the will of the people.

( It is a credible argument that our predicaments go beyond the mere corruption of individual humans pursuing narrow goals, but also encompass active conspiracies between humans at the highest levels to pursue very broad, selfish and destructive goals. I would label the ultimate power behind such conspiracies as the spiritual entity known as Satan, but regardless of what you want to call him or it, it is clear that we find relevant warnings and solutions in the Bible.

Charles Alban wrote:


The existence and perception of a material reality is not inherently the problem, but rather our innate selfish and egoistic response to that reality.

I am aware of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy that views the "Fall" as our perception of a reality external to ourselves, including all material objects and relationships. This philosophy is a very powerful one, but it ultimately does not satisfy the scientific, historical or philosophical evidence, IMO.

For ex., in terms of pure experience and logic, this philosophical tradition would say that loving others is just as "evil" as hating others, because they both presume external relationships. That doesn't make any sense to me, and goes against my experience and logic.

New Post:

What Happened to the Holy Spirit

It seems that we often hear Christians talking about God the Father or Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but we hear very little about the third person of the Trinity – the Holy Spirit. We almost get the sense that the Holy Spirit is some impersonal force that extends from the first two persons, and that “it” isn’t very important to Christian theology or that “it” isn’t responsible for doing too much in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth, though, as we have received it from the scriptures.

The Holy Spirit is just as much a distinct person as the Father and the Son, and He is central to the Christian faith, theologically and practically. I suspect there are two basic reasons why He has erroneously been marginalized so much among Christians, and specifically Christians living in Western cultures – 1) It is simply harder for people to think of God in terms of three persons that are in relationship with each other, rather than two persons, and 2) Western Christians are very resistant to the idea that God is still very active in the physical world today (much, if not all, of that activity comes from the Holy Spirit).

Dr. Craig Keener has addressed point #2 with meticulous detail in his two-volume (1200 page) book, The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. He shows us how hundreds of millions of people living today have claimed to experience miracles around the world, and many of these claims are very well-attested and independently verified. It is truly our cultural values and filters in the West that blind us to the reality of God at work today, intervening daily in the lives of His children. I believe it is also clear that we are really talking about the work of the Holy Spirit when we reference miracles or divine providence.

(full post at link above)

New Post:

Picturing God’s Eternal Promise
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Brother of Sorrow


Many Christians believe that God has promised to eventually restore humanity to their original state in the Garden of Eden, before Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command at the behest of Satan. While this is a somewhat reasonable interpretation of the Bible, I believe it is incorrect. Instead, I believe the Bible reveals to us something much greater – a brand new creation that will be perfect and will act as a much greater reward to the faithful in Christ than anything Adam or Eve experienced. The reward for innocent humans in Eden was an Earthly paradise, but the reward for redeemed humans will be a heavenly Utopia.

There are many Biblical reasons to believe that the Garden of Eden was less than “perfect”, in the sense that most Christians use that word. When Adam was created by God, he was tasked with working in the Garden and taking care of it, which implies a good deal of physical effort (Genesis 2:15). After the Fall, we see that God tells Eve and Adam that they will experience more pain and more physical effort, which implies that pain and physical work were already present before the Fall (Genesis 3:16-19). Although the level of these physical burdens were relatively small in the paradise of Eden, they still existed and therefore Eden was less than perfect.

Another way in which we can picture this lack of perfection is through the physical laws of the Universe. All of these laws are intimately related to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the Universe has been in a continuous state of “decay” from its beginning. We find some Biblical support for this law in the Bible, when Paul talks about how “the creation was subjected to futility… because of him who subjected it [God]” and how “the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Romans 8:18-22). These statements seem to imply that the Universe was created with its physical laws in place, including thermodynamic decay, as a part of God’s ultimate purpose (the exposure and redemption of humanity from sin)

(full post at link above)

New Post:

The Thin Line Between Global Collapse and Faith
Posted on October 3, 2012 by Brother of Sorrow



I am pleased to present my first guest post here on Picturing Christ – an article by reader “JT”. His article focuses on one of the most basic questions that inspired me to start this blog in the first place – how do we truly respond to the systemic trials and tribulations that humanity faces in the upcoming decades? There are many blogs and websites dedicated to documenting these predicaments and offering advice on how to prepare for them.

Some of them even venture into questions of spirituality and faith from time to time. My own writings at The Automatic Earth over the last few months regularly touched on these issues. However, I recently started to feel like the constant divide between our Earthly predicaments and my spirituality was much too forced and arbitrary. I had the sense that there was a fundamental flaw in the process of offering insights and advice when they were artificially divorced from spiritual truths.

So, with that in mind, I was very glad to hear that fellow Christian and reader of PC also felt the same way, and decided to put those concerns into writing. As Christians, we cannot hesitate to rely on the word of God when it comes to all spheres of our lives. The fact that we may be talking about economics, finance, geopolitics, energy and environmental issues, psychology, etc. shouldn’t make a bit of difference. All of these issues are inextricably woven into the underlying philosophies of spirituality and faith, and, specifically, the God of the Bible and His word.

We are now living in a world where the structures that have come to dominate human civilization are crumbling. Financial contagion from the global banking crisis has spread to all regions of the world and is destroying economic growth. Tensions between Western nations and those in both the Near and Far East are growing, with several theaters of war already firmly established. Our total reliance on fossil fuels and industrial processes for global economic activity has destroyed our natural ecosystems and warmed our atmosphere to extremely dangerous levels, while also depleting those resources and creating the potential for systemic environmental, economic, political and social collapse.

So, before getting to JT’s excellent article, I would like to offer my own personal (yet brief) opinion on these grave matters of collapse and faith. The trying circumstances and events that confront all of us in the years ahead are exactly those which require us to remain resolute in the unconditional truth and morality of our faith. Jesus tells us that there will come a time in which “many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another… and because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold“. (Matthew 24:10, 12).

I believe that whether we are actually living in that specific time or not is irrelevant, because the underlying lesson applies to all times of tribulation before the second return of Christ. And there is no doubt in my mind that severe tribulations have already started to descend upon us, and that they will only grow more imminent and threatening to humanity over time. Therefore, we must always remember to be on guard and ensure that we are NOT the ones who are falling away from God’s truth, the ones hating each other or the ones watching our love for our fellow humans grow cold.

If our understanding and fear of systemic collapse ever begins to lead us towards such a mindset, then, regardless of whether we are physically prepared for Earthly concerns or not, we must immediately re-orient ourselves back towards our faith in Christ.

That being said, here is JT:

New post on the remarkable intersection of modern science and Christian faith:

The Entire Universe Revolves Around Humanity
Posted on October 7, 2012 by Brother of Sorrow




One of the most common arguments Christians run into from atheist or agnostic skeptics is what I would call “the problem of God’s perfect plan for humanity“. It is related to “the problem of evil” and other similar concerns about the nature of God, but it is also different in very important ways and encompasses a much more broad philosophical and scientific spectrum. Let me illustrate it with a hypothetical dialogue between a Christian and an atheist:

Christian: God allowed evil into the world because He has a plan for humanity, in which we will experience the shortcomings of the imperfect, material world and the seriousness of sin. Through this process, however, we will also be able to experience the immeasurable grace, love and redemption of God through Jesus Christ, and eventually the faithful will be perfected and return to exist in the presence of God.

Atheist: But if God’s ultimate plan is to perfect humanity in such a manner, then why did He decide to go through the whole trouble of allowing evil and suffering into the world. Surely, an omnipotent God could have just created humanity in a perfected state from the beginning, and saved us all the “blunders” of human civilization in between.

Christian: True, He could have… but the plan was much deeper and more loving than that. He wanted to create humanity in His own Image and allow us the capacity for free will and freely chosen faith, trust and love. Our original ancestors exercised their free will in rebellion to God’s wise commands, and therefore we have inherited their sinful spirits throughout succeeding generations. God correctly values the redemption of humanity from corruption more than he values pure, untested innocence.

Atheist: OK, but even if we are assuming all of that is true, why did God have to wait tens of thousands of years before finally providing humanity the ultimate atonement for sin through the incarnate Christ. Why couldn’t He just do all of that a few generations after the Fall? It seems like an omnipotent God could have concluded this whole business of sin, redemption and perfection many years ago.

Now, this may be the point at which many Christians get stuck. Why did God have to wipe out all human beings except Noah and his family with a flood, and then create the nation of Israel to imperfectly carry out His commands and transmit the promised Messianic seed down the generations? Wasn’t all of that a very roundabout process to achieve the final goal of forgiveness and redemption through Christ? I believe the answer to these questions rest in two primary concepts – 1) the unparalleled importance of humanity in all of the Universe, and 2) the inability of humans to fully grasp God’s perfect wisdom.

(full post at link above)

William Lane Craig appears to have debated the existence of God many times. Unfortunately, they are all over two hours and I don't have time, at present, to check them out. However, I did find an article by him, Does God Exist which I've started to read.

He starts off badly, with "three reasons why it makes a big difference whether God exists."

His first reason is that life is meaningless without God. This is purely an opinion of course and presupposes other questions about God, rather than just existence. It also suggests that those who don't believe in God must be leading a mundane life, barely making it from one day to the next, which is clearly not true.

His second reason is really just a twist on the first reason, that without God, we must live without hope, hope for deliverance. This presupposes, again, that merely the existence of God means that there is deliverance and also that there is something to be delivered from. Again, it suggests a miserable existence for those who don't believe in a god.

His third reason is, again, a twist of the first reason; that we can come to know and God and his love personally. Yet again, he assumes that the existence of God means that the type of God William Lane Craig wants to exist is the actual God that does exist.

Having dealt with the absolute necessity that God must exist (i.e. he starts off with the conclusion he is about to "prove", in order to prime the reader) he launches into the proof. I've only read part of the first point but it is again very weak, starting out with misrepresenting the "typical" atheist position (as if there is an atheist position) about the universe. He argues from incredulity that the universe must have had a beginning (though I would think most atheist probably think this anyway, even if the science doesn't necessarily match up to that) and goes on to make some odd points ("what is infinity minus infinity") that aren't really relevant to the topic.

Admittedly, I haven't read it all yet but if the start is anything to go by, I'm quite surprised you'd point to William Craig Lane as providing a good argument about the existence of God.

TonyPrep wrote:


He clearly states these are 3 reasons why people should even care about the existence of God. Are you arguing that, if the Christian God does exist, it would not make difference to peoples' lives? If not, then why you are even arguing about this part of his article? Your reasons may be different from his, but you both agree that it DOES make a difference.



Nope, not true. As you already know, he started with reasons why the debate even matters, not reasons why God exists. So he is not starting off with the conclusion he intends to prove.



I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but all scientists have concluded that the Universe (matter, energy, space and time) must have had a beginning. In fact, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose concluded that, if mass exists in the Universe and general relativity reliably predicts gravitational behavior (they do), then the inescapable conclusion is that the dimensions of space and time came into existence at a finite time in the past. I think everyone agrees that this is a radical discovery with radical implications, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists.

The most significant implication is that science can no longer rule out supernatural (or miraculous) causes for material events. Something transcendent of matter, energy, space and time that caused all of that to come into existence is, by definition, supernatural. Therefore, atheists can longer rely on their traditional assumption that scientific, observational evidence in the world can never be explained by supernatural causes, because we know for a fact that the biggest observation of them all, the ENTIRE Universe, was caused by just that.

"He clearly states these are 3 reasons why people should even care about the existence of God. Are you arguing that, if the Christian God does exist, it would not make difference to peoples' lives?"

No, but Craig is not arguing the reverse; he doesn't say "Christian God", he says "God". In any case, his reasons are really the same reason, stated different ways and presupposes that the lives of everyone are tedious and miserable unless they believe in a (Christian) God. This obviously makes sense to him but to no one else. If one doesn't believe, then those reasons are not reasons at all.

"Nope, not true. As you already know, he started with reasons why the debate even matters, not reasons why God exists. So he is not starting off with the conclusion he intends to prove."

In which case, it is badly written because it surely seems that way to me. If I go to read an article titled "Does God Exist", then why would the reasons (or his reasons) for wanting God to exist matter? Let's first figure out if God exists and then figure out what that means, either way. In fact, to my mind (I used to be very religious - Christian), the key question is not whether God exists but is God and interventionist God, in any way (e.g. sets rules for our lifestyles or takes direct action in our world).

"I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but all scientists have concluded that the Universe (matter, energy, space and time) must have had a beginning." I don't think scientists "conclude" in some definitive sense but, this universe, yes. Craig, however, claims that skeptics say that the universe has always been here, which is not true (i.e. it's not what they claim, generally). He then goes on from that to reason that the universe must have had a begining, i.e. have been created. However, some evolving hypotheses might "conclude" that the universe did not have a beginning but oscillated between collapse and expansion (some calculations show that huge distances are mathematically equivalent to tiny distances, for example).

"The most significant implication is that science can no longer rule out supernatural (or miraculous) causes for material events. Something transcendent of matter, energy, space and time that caused all of that to come into existence is, by definition, supernatural." I doubt any scientist (or hardly any scientist) would agree with that. Science would always rule out supernatural events because such events would make the world not discoverable (i.e. any single supernatural event would invalidate a bunch of scientific theories because they then couldn't explain that event). Science could not go on in a world of supernatural events. If you're saying it can't rule out a supernatural event only for the "begining" of the universe, then you are kind of agreeing that we don't have an interventionist God, but something like Loop Quantum Gravity is an example of a way to get past the "beginning" event. Science has also shown spontaneous creation of matter in this universe, including spontaneous creation of space as the universe expands.

"the biggest observation of them all, the ENTIRE Universe, was caused by just that"

The creation of the universe has not been observed and it certainly isn't known that its beginning (if it had a begining in the way you mean) was caused by some being creating it (and even this would raise the question of what caused that being - God - to come into existence, or was that being "always there", something Craig finds incredulous for the universe?).

TonyPrep wrote:


The skeptics fought big bang cosmology tooth and nail for many decades, because they didn't want to accept that space, time, matter and energy has a beginning, just as the Bible describes. Some atheists will even admit that was the reason they were so skeptical of BBT. However, in 1992, it basically became impossible to dispute that there was such a beginning. More recently, three astronomers discovered that no model of a Universe with mass and general relativity can get around the need for a transcendent cause to its beginning, including multiverse or oscillatory models (see BGV theorem).



Plenty of scientists would agree with that... only atheist scientists would still be skeptical. Supernatural events does not mean reality is not discoverable, it simply means that science is limited in its explanatory scope and power, and we must rely on other fields of knowledge to discover a greater extent of reality. However, even supernatural hypotheses can be tested and supported by science. For example, the Biblical hypothesis that life did not originate through natural abiogenesis, but rather it was created very early in Earth's history in the absence of prebiotics (at just the right time), under relatively hostile conditions, very rapidly and abundantly. If those conditions prove to be true, then the Biblical model gets a lot of support over natural models which have become less and less likely as the scientific evidence mounts.



Astronomers now have the capability to directly observe the earliest moments of creation by looking out into the Universe. As already stated, we definitely know that space, time, matter and energy came into existence. No one disputes that the Universe could have been eternal, as many naturalists and Eastern theists argued for centuries, it just turns out that it wasn't. The ultimate cause cannot be a created entity or force, but rather it must be uncreated and eternal. It must be capable of existing completely outside of our spatiotemporal dimensions. The primary question is whether this is some kind of mindless uncreated force, or it is an intelligent designer. I may not get you all the way to the Christian God, but other scientific evidence is capable of doing that (fine-tuning of Universe, origin of life, origin/development of humanity, etc.), and then of course we must look to fields that go beyond scientific reach.

ashvin wrote:

I've heard this line of argument before but I must say that, as someone who has been interested in science for most of his 58 years, and devoutly religious for about a decade of that, I don't recall such a fight by sceptics. The so-called Big Bang Theory wasn't, and isn't, even a theory. What scientists postulate is a phase of (almost) incredibly rapid expansion. The phrase "big bang" is just some way of visualising the "time" before the inflationary period. Research and hypothesising into that unfathomable period continues (I suspect it will continue for ever).
ashvin wrote:

Mmm, although I stopped reading much about the fabric of space and time about 5 years ago, I don't recall anything definitive about their having to have been a begining; such musings are still the subject of much theorizing and research. But, Craig is reasoning based on the idea that either something (the universe) was infinite, which is scientifically crazy, or that something had a begining and therefore must have been created by something else that was infinite. That is, we get into a loop because, of course, infiniteness is crazy, so the creating something must have had a begining and been created by something that is infinite ....

ashvin wrote:

Almost all scientists are atheist (or, at lease agnostic), but I feel sure that most scientists would agree that matter does spontaneously get created.
ashvin wrote:

I'm not sure what science supports creation of life. There is some interesting research about origins of life at the university of Edinburgh (I think) where life becomes almost inevitable on a warm wet rocky planet, though I doubt we'd ever get to test that hypothesis. Supernatural events can't be supported by natural science, by definition. If it is supernatural, it has no natural explanation. Consequently, supernatural events and God interventions in our world would make natural science impossible to carry out. But we do carry it out so, currently, there is clearly no evidence of supernatural events.

ashvin wrote:

You've stated that but we certainly don't definitely know that. What we do think we know is that what we think of as space and time now may have had changing characteristics in the distant past (e.g. the speed of light may have been different in the distant past). Indeed, time is a mysterious property that science continues to debate deeply (e.g. scientific theories don't distinguish between time going forward and time going backward). I'm not sure what you mean by the "earliest moments of creation" but astronomers can certainly not directly observe anything beyond cosmic background radiation and very early galaxies (as seen in Hubble Ultra Deep Space photos). They cannot directly observe the "earliest" moments of the rapid inflation phase.
ashvin wrote:

But if it was completely outside then it can't operate inside. That is, it could only have created the conditions in which the universe was "created" but not actually have created it. Consequently, it would be impossible to determine that something completely outside of our spatiotemporal dimensions had created the conditions for those dimensions to come into existence.
ashvin wrote:

Well, I would regard the primary question as being whether this hypothesised being should result in any impact on our day to day lives (and the lives of other species). Is this creator interventionist, does it requires certain behaviours of the creatures it created, that aren't built in to those creations and, if so, why, and how are those behaviours supposed to be manifested if they were not already built in? A supplementary question might be why is the message of what we're supposed to do so obscure and out of reach of so many (both in the past and now), why are the messages that are supposed to be there now able to be interpreted in so many different ways?

TonyPrep wrote:


The "big bang" is actually a way of describing how space, time, matter and energy came into existence. There are various models for how it progressed, the "inflationary" model being one of the most popular, but all of them agree that there was a beginning and a continuous accelerating expansion under constant laws of physics.

www.reasons.org/articles/a-beginner-s-and-expert-s-guide-to-the-big-bang-sifting-facts-from-fictions
The big bang is NOT a big “bang” as most lay people would comprehend the term. This expression conjures up images of bomb blasts or exploding dynamite. Such a “bang” would yield disorder and destruction. In truth, this “bang” represents an immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions.4 The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude.




No, that's what I'm saying... it's not. No serious astronomer/cosmologist denies this. If you are aware of one, I'd like to hear about it.



I don't know where you are getting that from, but there are plenty of theist scientists across the world.

What you are talking about is the casmir effect, in which certain types of matter can be shown to generate from a vacuum (under highly controlled circumstances). That is not at all the same thing as space-time, matter and energy coming from nothing at the beginning of the Universe. A vacuum existing in space and time is not "nothing".



Sorry, you are just completely wrong here. Supernatural aspects of reality can easily interact with natural laws and processes without making "science impossible to carry out", and hypotheses of supernatural causation can be logically deduced AND scientifically tested (there is a difference between science and "naturalism"). This is exactly what is going on in OOL research, as I showed you. There is no reason to think that a supernatural designer would make the physical Universe fundamentally unpredictable or unstable... in fact, we would expect the exact opposite to be true, and that's what we find.

ashvin wrote:


We know it with just as much certainty as we know that general relativity reliably predicts gravitational behavior. And we also know that the speed of light was not different in the "distant past"... that is the opposite of BBT.



www.reasons.org/articles/a-beginner-s-and-expert-s-guide-to-the-big-bang-sifting-facts-from-fictions
The simplest-to-grasp evidence in support of the big bang comes from pictures. With the help of various imaging devices, one can actually enjoy a kind of time-lapse photo of the big bang. The images show the universe in its various “growing up” stages, much as a time-lapse camera captures the opening of a flower, or as a photo album documents the development of a person from birth onward.

Such an album is made possible by light (or radiation) travel time. Observing a distant galaxy, for example, some 5 billion light-years distant is equivalent to seeing that galaxy 5 billion years ago, when the light now entering an earth-based telescope began its journey through space. In one sense, astronomers can only capture glimpses of the past, not of the present, as they peer out into space.

Thanks to the Keck and Hubble Space Telescopes, astronomers now have a photo history of the universe that covers nearly 14 billion years. It begins when the universe was only about half a billion years old and follows it to “middle age,” where it yet remains. The sequence of images [images not available online] presents highlights from this cosmic photo album.




No, something can be transcendent of something else yet still interact with it and operate within it. That is called "imminence" in philosophy/theology. You may be right that we can't determine exactly what created the Universe through science... but that is why we need to use other fields of knowledge.

Ashvin, you really are misrepresenting the science of the early part of the universe but this is hardly the place for such a discussion. I see myself decades ago following a similar tack (though the science wasn't as developed, of course) until something clicked in me. Perhaps it can be picked up again at a suitable point on your new blog.

Thanks for engaging.

New Post:

Why the Created Universe Will Disappear

In my last article, The Entire Universe Revolves Around Humanity, I pointed out one of the most fascinating aspects of the known material Universe – the fact that it is finely-tuned for the development of advanced life on planet Earth. This fine-tuning is evident at all scales, from the scale of the entire Universe to that of the Milky Way Galaxy, our solar system and planet Earth. Over time, the scientific trend has clearly progressed towards discovering more and more finely-tuned characteristics of the cosmos and our planetary environment that are required for life.

Many of these characteristics are only necessary for the development of intelligent life and civilization, capable of observing and measuring the Universe (humans), rather than more simple life forms. So we are talking about nearly 14 billion years of cosmic development that has managed to create the extremely rare set of circumstances needed for the existence of one species of life in one tiny portion of the Universe at just the right time. A good way to state this “anthropic principle” is that humanity’s existence places severe constraints on the physical constants, structure, and history of the universe, on the Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system, and Earth and its life.

The most astounding fact about this principle, though, is that life and humanity arrived on the scene at the earliest possible time it could have, and that humanity can only survive in a civilized state for about 20-40,000 years. Given the physics of our Universe, the building blocks of life could not have been engineered in giant star furnaces any sooner than they were, and an advanced species with the capacity for civilization would also require billions of years of organic processes by other life forms before it could sustain itself. On top of that, the accelerating expansion of the Universe will make sure that no life will survive for much longer (in geologic time).

(more at link above)

Tprep,

Sure, no problem.

Hey, Ash.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Omega-Point-Multiverse.png

This model provides a non-zero positive chance [converging to 100% probabilty over all universes] that sapient life contained in the multiverse will succeed in constructing an infinitely complex energy/information system which is mathematically indistinguishable from God, which would then generate the multiverse [including all possible paradoxes pertaining to self-generating existence].

There are cosmological configurations in which the percieved accelerated expansion of the visible cosmos is merely an optical illusion. The universe may be expanding at a stable rate but not actually accelerating. The quickening could be a localised artifact caused by the concurrent presence and imminent [absolute deterministic] demise of sensible perception on this planet, providing that there is no other sensible life within the boundary of the observable universe, there are abberations possible in space-time energy density which could produce the observed acceleration effect. The causally decoupled universe beyond the event horizon would then not necessarily be expanding at a quickening pace and may contain life.

Gravity wrote:


Gravity, does this model predict that our current Universe creates itself in the past from the future?

More importantly, is there any way to test this multiverse model?

ashvin wrote:


It seems to predict that, especially as Gravity is a recursive algorithm.
Actually, it only predicts that at least one possible inhabited universe will become a source universe in which the process of life produces all other inhabited universes in causal interrelation within a moral multiverse.
It is a formulation of the final anthropic principle, stating that sentient life must necessarily come into existence in at least one possible source universe, and once it comes into existence, such life will never die out, as a function of a pre-destination causality paradox. This process subsequently produces a maximal multiverse of all possible causally interrelated universes originating from a single source universe, by purposeful intent.

Any methodology of testing the veracity of this model should require a quantifiable process of consciously forced universe collapse by sentient life using some mechanism such as the posited baryon annihilation, thereby allowing for the theoretical possibility of such life subsisting until the end of time in a given universe, defeating entropic decay. I mentioned this model because it allows for the non-zero possibility that accelerating universe expansion could be forcibly halted and reversed, even within this universe.
If there is only a single possible universe initially, and not yet a multiverse, this initial source universe must contain an irreducible logical paradox to possibly exist by creating itself retroactively.

For the multiverse to be a moral agent in this model, sapient life in the source universe must make a conscious moral choice to construct an infinite God system encompassing all possible universes. In the initially godless source universe, moral free will is only a function of the pre-existence of God by means of a pre-destination paradox, but all subsequently caused universes would include free will as a paradox-free function of the resultant God system.

If the omega point is possible as an infinite information/energy system, it must constitute a form of life no less complex than the multiverse it yields, conforming to the knowable mathematical properties of God in any theist conception. This would also seem to require that every universe within the multiverse is a causal function of the same God.
Such notions as the final anthropic principle, relating to the omega point model, may someday prove beyond a doubt that life is important, and that the Bigger Bang is economically viable. Life in the universe would definitely seem less trivial if it could possibly reverse universe expansion and force a cosmogenic collapse of its own accord.

Ive reconsidered that logical paradoxes in a source universe cannot extend into multiversal interrelation unless every universe contains the same paradox, the only possible paradox, and that all possible universes are inhabited by sentient life capable of understanding paradoxes in relation to their own existence.

ashvin wrote:


I don't know.

I do prefer to contemplate cosmological models where free will may exist apart from the existence of God, as these models are often less complex and contain fewer paradoxes than those providing free will solely as a function of God.
I consider cosmological models that disallow free will as inviable, it would be useless to be forced or randomly moved to contemplate such models as a function of the pointless deterministic or chaotic universe which they result in.

One thing is clear; the omega point multiverse is distinct from other multiverse models because it has a definitive moral or philosophical dimension. Every possible universe resultant from the omega point is causally interrelated by a singular moral heuristic, whereby all possible universes capable of sentient life must allow for free will [as a function of the God system/!]; or all possible universes must contain sentient life and allow for free will [!].

Im not sure if this moral heuristic of multiversal free will is actually intended in the model itself, but it would necessarily be true. This must be why it seems more of a philosophical model rather than a scientific one, even if it were falsifiable.

Other multiverse models allow for causally decoupled verses, inherently existing without moral purpose. Some verses may allow for the random possibility of sentient life, either with or without free will, but most possible universes would be devoid of life. The accidental existence of God in any one universe would not necessitate the existence of the same God in other verses.

New Post:

New Post:

The Biblical Testing Method
Posted on October 21, 2012 by Brother of Sorrow



Christianity is unique from every other religion in its ability to rest peripheral and core theology on vast amounts of history and science. It possesses the only set of texts that obligate us to examine everything carefully and confirm the truth for ourselves. In fact, the Bible provides the original basis for the most rigorous testing method conceived – what we now call the “scientific method”. Most people don’t even realize that this method was derived from natural philosophers who examined the Bible carefully during the Reformation era, when such examination was finally encouraged.

They saw that the Bible repeatedly used a specific format for explaining what had happened and why. These accounts typically provide an opening frame of reference and a set of initial conditions, followed by a narrative description of certain physical events. Towards the end of the narrative, the writer provides final conclusions that flow from the previous conditions and descriptions. The Bible also covers the same descriptive material in many different places, allowing one textual passage to complement and inform others. A great example of this chronological format is found in the Genesis creation accounts and the numerous other books that deal with aspects of the creation narrative, such as the Book of Job.

The curious lay theologian trying to figure out exactly what the Bible is teaching must take all of the texts consistently, allowing specific accounts to validate the interpretations of more general ones. All of the Biblical evidence must be considered carefully and reconciled. Since it is imperfect and fallen humans doing the interpreting, our interpretations must remain fluid and subject to revision in light of any new evidence. Using this method, we can determine the truths of the Biblical texts with reasonable and increasing certainty over time. That, of course, is exactly what scientists have been doing for the last few centuries with their models of the Universe, starting most notably with Christians such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal.

Funny thing with the omega point multiverse.
The designer Tipler supposedly intended it as a practical device of consmogenic recollapse, used by supersapient life at the end of time to physically resurrect the dead, while the formation of God is a peripheral effect to this purpose.

theophysics.host56.com/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html

In the event that God is formed by such an omega point, the causally connected multiverse must be compatibilist in regards to the moral heuristic, allowing for a degree of freedom in willful action within a pre-ordained deterministic design, but the source universe would be operating on a deeper mode of compatibilism than the progeny universes it would be fated to generate.

Ive been investigating what mode of free fate is best for me.
Some multiverse models can simultaneously incorporate different modes of free will, mediating the same logical good in different universes. Yet all possible modes of free will as a function of God should be compatibilistic and require [omniscient] deterministic values in order to operate, whereas those possible modes of free will which do not arise solely as a function of God can use incompatibilistic modes of will, and do not require [unknowable] deterministic values to operate.
Therefore the doctrine of deontological gravitism is best to mediate the moral heuristic, using a godless free fate parameter instead, although God's plan could be integrated into the intercausal redeterminism of freeform future will.

Do people in hell have free will? They must have had it, if having been delivered there by the weight of their actions, but no subsequent moral agency seems possible from within such an unreasonable place. And if there is no free will possible in hell, then the magnitude of punishment accruing to the moral heuristic must be limited somehow, either by being less than infinite in duration or less than infinite in intensity. Otherwise it would be unfair.

Suffering For God’s Purposes

How do we reconcile all of the evil, pain and suffering that has existed throughout human history with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God? That is a question that has plagued people for many centuries, skeptics and believers alike. It is one of the most popular criticisms of the Christian God among atheists and agnostics, and it also seems to be one that believers are generally ill-equipped to handle. We frequently fall back on the idea that humans were created with free will, and evil was simply the price God had to pay for giving us such a capacity.

Although there is a lot of truth to that line of reasoning, it is also a simplistic and incomplete argument. Ultimately, the free will argument alone is not a satisfying answer to such a deeply emotional question. Most people in the world have either suffered great tragedies in their lives or have witnessed great tragedies occur around them, and they all deserve an honest answer about God’s involvement. The truth is that God is an omnipresent being who is sovereign over his entire creation, which means that no forms of evil or suffering are outside of his control. So, again, the question is why does God allow his children to suffer?

There is no easy or concise answer to such a question. First and foremost, it requires a humble mindset by the person asking the question – we must understand and accept the fact that we are limited in our understanding of God’s ultimate purposes for humanity. This limitation is a fundamental one that is similar to the uncertainty principle of quantum physics. No matter how much technology we develop or how much knowledge we gain, we will never be able to precisely gauge all of the variables in a given physical system. The same logic applies to all of the variables that determine God’s optimal plan for humanity.

Secondly, we must seek to continually bolster our understanding of God’s redemptive plan, including all of the evil and suffering it entails, by carefully examining the scriptures. That is exactly what Joni Eareckson Tada does in her book, When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty. In this book, she provides a list of 36 purposes that God has for our suffering. It is certainly not an exhaustive list, or one meant to settle the question entirely, but it provides a Biblically sound foundation for understanding the issue and witnessing to others who have major difficulties with it. It is critical to remember the concept contained in the title of Tada’s book – there is a divine purpose to our suffering; our sufferings matter.

The dichotomy between good and evil and the concept of sin do require a moral heuristic delineating the certainties of free fate, so causing accountable moral agency to suffer the choice of sin.

In the KJV, a word search reveals 216 instances of the verb 'to choose/chose/chosen' and 23 instances of the noun 'choice' throughout the old&new testaments. God himself does much of the choosing in the old testament, delineating fated parameters of the moral good.

Job
{34:4} Let us choose to us judgment:
let us know among ourselves what [is] good.

Apparently, God consistently chooses good things as the best possible things, serving a unique type of omniscient and transcendental utilitarianism which may possibly be justifiable in regards to the measure of necessary suffering, unlike every other type of utilitarianism.
In the bible, what is morally good is only knowable because God demonstrably ordaines such a good; any choice not made by God thus carries a knowable moral weight or accountable moral agency within a defined moral heuristic, pertaining to the concept of avoidable suffering.
In philosophical terms, any system of moral agency that is in accordance with God's plan must be formulated in a compatibilist mode of free volition, allowing for some measure of freedom in willful action bounded by parameters of foreordained determinism.

Philosophical or theological systems that include the concept of necessary suffering sometimes lapse into a fatalist mode of dysfunctional determinism when causing unjust and avoidable suffering to be [deliberately] misinterpreted as necessary and proper suffering. This kind of reasoning has often been abused for ideological apologism and may result in political apathy [such as the american rapture theology].

The doctrine of original sin is curious in that way, as anyone who chooses to be born is inevitably subjected to sinful suffering, thus resulting in the counterbalancing doctrine of moral redemption by free volition.
Some years ago, the catholic church abolished the institutional precept of purgatory for unbaptized children as an automatic consequence of original sin. After centuries of teaching this merciless consequence, the church reconsidered that God would not be so unreasonable, and this precept also wasn't a big selling point for the church in regions with high infant mortality.
This remarkable change indicates a calculated moral relativism in biblical interpretation which shouldn't be possible in an exact moral heuristic, it also proves the fallibility of the institutional church as an absolute arbiter of morality.

Considering the concept of sin, and that official church doctrine provides an imperfect insight into moral agency, it is an individual moral responsibility to closely examine what kinds of suffering are positively avoidable, and by what means they may be optimally avoided, and also to define which parameters of necessary suffering, resulting from modes of determinism/God's plan, are partially knowable or absolutely unknowable.
Diverse philosophical systems of moral agency, including those which produce free volition without divine intent, are also helpful to eliminate superstition and fallacious interpretation of scripture.

Ash
I appreciate your writings, and this topic does interest me from a philosophical perspective.

But actually, I find the possibility of free fate to be as much a profound mystery as the existence of necessary suffering, it seems that one can only be understood in deep relation to the other.

ashvin wrote:


That depends on how emotionally one approaches the free will argument, especially when framing it in the mode of God's will in creating or permitting suffering and evil, whether He had any choice given the possible parameters of free will applicable to Himself, and given that all things divine must be reasonable.

There are several free will arguments applicable to the question of suffering because there are several philosophical systems which provide free will by distinctly different means. Some are fully incompatible with determinism or divine intent of any sort, while some are compatible with various determinist modes. The meaning and modes of suffering may also vary between these systems. Suffering may be a more complex device in the compatibilist modes of free volition, including a more irreducible aspect of necessary and unavoidable suffering.

We must necessarily distinguish between necessary and avoidable suffering. In biblical terms of moral allegory, basically all avoidable suffering is evil and sinful, and caused by some sin or compounding of sins. Only avoidable suffering can be sinful and subject to reprehension, while all necessary suffering is by definition not sinful or morally accountable except unto God, notwithstanding limited understanding of neccesity.

There is still the remote possibility that all human souls personally choose to be born into this world, somehow emanating from a higher plane and physically manifesting by their free volition, bound to be governed by more severe rules of material determinism. This would make mortality itself a voluntary condition of the spiritual being.

It could also be that free evil is a prerequisite function of free volition of any sort, and that it is logically impossible even for God to create free will in the material or spiritual realm without the possibility of evil suffering. This line of reasoning is only as simplistic as the model of free will defined.

It is untrue that an omnipotent being such as God could freely choose to ignore reason itself if that were more suitable to His designs. If His existence is to be logically explicable at all, it must be bound by certain rules of universal logic He himself cannot change, without changing the nature of the divine. If God had made a rock so heavy He himself couldn't lift it, that rock would be God, or He would no longer be, logically.

Form another perspective, a particularly narrow definition of free will, it is free will itself that is inherently evil, and people more easily desire sinful evil of their own accord, so that only submission to the righteousness of divine will is truly sinless but also comparatively unfree.

Also, even without God, but permitting the conditional existence of evil, it is a moral responsibility anyhow to discern avoidable suffering and to avoid it by means of a moral heuristic, to delineate good and evil in the best possible way, and this wisdom pertaining to avoidable suffering seems possible only by the experience of necessary suffering, so that one pain may lessen another by some great mystery of normative utility.

The buddhist conception of suffering is also decent and practical; all existence is defined by suffering, the cause of suffering is desire and attachment, freedom from desire thus lessens suffering. This also appplies when releasing attachment to life itself, yet death is so unpopular.

And why is the existence of joy not a mystery of equal magnitude?
Certainly its evermore inexplicable as an experience, but inherently not seen as profoundly unjust or unnatural, so no one ever complains about the equally deficient and unaccountable allocation of joy.

Gravity

Gravity wrote:


I agree that God cannot be illogical, i.e. he is not exempt from rules of logic.

The reason I said the free will explanation alone is not adequate to answer the question of evil/suffering is because I believe God has revealed to us that he knew evil and suffering would be a part of our lives and it would further his optimized plan for humanity. So it goes beyond humans causing suffering independent of God's will.

A very simple analogy - a grad professor gives his students very difficult assignments and examinations to prepare them for future courses and eventually a career. The student confronts him and asks him why such brutal testing is required. The professor can say that it isn't really that hard and the student is simply making it harder on himself by slacking off, failing to take notes, not putting in the effort, etc. OR he can be honest and say that, despite whatever shortcomings the student has, the material is designed to be extremely hard. Why? Because that's the optimal way to truly prepare the student.

Similar logic applies to God's design of the Universe to be a place that will inevitably result in both moral and natural evil (natural disasters, illnesses, etc.). The scriptures are very honest about God's involvement, and may even logically necessitate such a conclusion, even though a lot of Christians would rather ignore those parts because they feel it weakens their position with skeptics. I say we should be honest, humble and try our best to understand what God has revealed to us.

With regards to reconciling free will and determinism, I see a few positions people can take:

1) God foreknows and predestines everything, and there is no human free will.

2) God foreknows everything, predetermines some things and there is human free will (ex. God knows exactly what will happen if you go somewhere, but that doesn't mean you are destined to go there; he only predestines the major aspects of his plan, such as Jesus' death on the cross)

3) God foreknows everything, predestines everything and there is still human free will.

I tend to lean towards #3, but I don't think we need "compatibilism" to explain how that's possible. Free will and determinism can be metaphysically compatible if we try to think in terms of extra dimensions. It's hard (if not impossible) for a 2-d being to truly imagine 3-d structures. Similarly, it may be very hard for us to imagine what kind of "structures" are possible in 4+ dimensions of space and 2+ dimensions of time. A non-physical, eternal God operating outside of our spatial and time dimensions could perhaps establish a physical Universe in which free will exists for his creation, yet he still remains sovereign over everything that happens. Instead of this being a logical contradiction, the apparent incompatibility stems from our limited capacity as beings that operate in a few spatial dimensions and one dimension of time.



Yes, I don't think "natural evil" can be classified as sinful. Moral evil is sinful. Yet I think it's clear that God planned for both to occur. In fact, it seems apparent that God allowed Satan into Eden as the ultimate test of original humanity's faith, knowing full well that they would fail the test. So we shouldn't try to downplay the fact that both forms of evil were a necessary part of God's optimal plan.

For example, we are increasingly discovering ways in which natural events (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) are absolutely essential for the survival of advanced life on Earth, and that there would probably be even more suffering if they weren't as frequent and powerful as they are. Same thing goes for predator-prey relationships, certain parasites and illnesses. However, I doubt we will ever comprehend the full extent of how/why these things are designed optimally. And there is no doubt that moral evil by humans enhances the effects of natural evil (which may be God's very clever way of stressing the importance of moral conduct through the laws of physics).

Similarly, suffering that stems from moral evil by humans is essential for spiritual growth, matured faith and true love, which will all culminate in the conquering of evil. I believe this Universe was established by God for that purpose - to raise his children into spiritual perfection in a fallen world (through faith and love) and conquer the evil that began with Satan (before Adam) once and for all.



Free will must create the possibility of evil, but I don't think it must always lead to evil. The unfallen angels are examples of that, and I believe human beings will become examples of that as well in the new creation. We will not be stripped of free volition, but we will always be obedient to God.



I don't really see the contradiction between submission to God and free will. Choosing to be forever faithful does not strip people of their status as free agents made in God's image.



Perhaps, but I find non-theistic explanations of morality (or immorality) to be extremely lacking in reason and logic.



My main problem with this philosophy is that it really seems to go against our ingrained sense of moral conscience. The Zen Buddhist would say that love is just as evil and contributes to as much suffering as does hate. Both actions or emotions imply a relationship, and all relationships are supposedly evil. Love and peace may sometimes lead to suffering, but I don't see any way in which they are equal in moral weight to hate and violence.



It seems to me that "joy" is a privilege, and one primarily reserved for redeemed and perfected creatures in a new creation. In our current universe, under our current laws of physics, subjected to rampant moral/natural evil, we shouldn't really expect there to be an over-abundance of joy. In fact, such rampant joy would probably undermine the goals of spiritual growth and maturity through faith and obedience to God.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You now seem to be saying that God is subject to some laws or limits, which means that God is not God. If God really is God, then it is all powerful and can do whatever it wants. Mind you, the notion of God having wants is another illogical (to me) notion. Where did these wants (desires) come from?

Almost every aspect of a creator interventionist God is illogical and impossible for humans (or at least this human) to understand. I've thought about these things for decades. The irrationality of it is what caused me to lose my faith, once I actually started to question what I believed.

Now we have the idea that suffering may be necessary, even though we don't suffer equally and some may not even suffer at all when suffering is measured against the average suffering.

Sorry, it's all illogical. Faith is something one has or one doesn't have; it's not explicable and cannot be objectively rationalised.

TonyPrep wrote:


The "rules" of logic are not laws like gravity. Logic is not something God created, but something that applies to him by his very nature. God cannot be illogical or immoral any more than he can choose not to exist.



Interestingly enough, the irrationality of materialist naturalism is what caused me to lose my faith in atheism and deism. Naturalists can't even explain why our thoughts can be irrational or illogical or immoral, because they have no basis for positing objective standards of rationality, logic or morality. The fact that we can even have this discussion is proof that God exists and we were created in his image.



The idea is that there are spiritual purposes for our mental and physical suffering.

I imagine you believe that people suffer chaos and violence for no reason whatsoever, and most of them will never get any sort of restoration or justice, i.e. the Universe just doesn't care one way or the other. It's a cold, purposeless Universe...

You may think that's the rational thing to believe, but it doesn't add up at all for me when observing and reflecting on the external and internal evidence.



Faith is something that everyone has, including you. The only question is what you choose to put your trust in at the end of the day.

ashvin wrote:


Its positive proof that the idea of God exists, at least as a provocative thought experiment and a moral ideal, if nothing else.
According to Voltaire; "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him". Voltaire would have meant this as a moral heuristic, that the idea of an omniscient creator could ideally inform moral agency or was a necessary aspect of philosophical consideration.
Even if this idea of God did not describe an objective reality, the faithful belief in this idea would create a subjective reality with similar moral consequences.

The biblical allegories often pose a moral dillema, where some element of necessary suffering enables moral agency, to avoid a greater suffering.
The weird things is that not all biblical suffering is evil, and sometimes the very attempts to avoid suffering cause greater suffering further on, and are thus revealed as evil by invoking sin. So in this way, the applicable definition of necessary suffering is that it must ultimately be justifiable in some plan of God's [although the ultimate objectives of this plan mostly remain unrevealed as a test of faith], and that to avoid this suffering has definitive evil consequences, leading to some avoidable sin.

Also, the kind of evil suffering caused by sin is most esthetically displeasing, ugly, whereas necessary suffering is not as ugly and can sometimes even have a quality of beauty.

Sometimes the bible seems to use the juxtaposition between necessary and avoidable suffering as a dialectic tool to lower cognitive discounting rates, while the common confusion of necessary suffering with avoidable suffering is essential to tragedy as a literary style.

I did not make any distinction between natural and moral evil, I figured that the mythical garden of eden had no natural evil, and everything afterwards experienced by humans in nature was influenced by the compounding of original sin.
From my understanding of the story of original sin and the expulsion form the garden, it seems that nature's wrath and human mortality were not pre-existent natural evil but a direct consequence of a moral evil committed with eve's apple and all.

ashvin wrote:


This option would conform to hard [theological] determinism, with all causal factors determined by God directly, but it logically eliminates the possibility of moral agency in good and evil and the concept of sin entirely, and God would know this. That there would remain an illusion of moral agency would be cruel and unreasonable, especially if people were sent to hell without cause, or only because of that apple thing.
I find that biblical allegory does treat free will as essential for moral agency, while also assuming that the moral good is always knowable by God's word. The bible itself seems to strongly disallow for option 1.

There's a clear conflict between the absence of free volition and orginal sin; logically, at least this first sin must have been voluntary, and not predetermined, to carry any moral agency and the consequence of reprehension. If not, God and the snake would seem to be on the same side.

ashvin wrote:


Options 2 and 3 are both compatibilist systems. Compatibilism is not an self-contained explanation but a category of logical systems which provide a variety of explanations, mostly framed in [quantum] physical and cosmological configurations, as to how modes of free will may possibly be compatible with determined and immutable causal factors, such as God's plan.

Only a compatibilist system may allow for option 2 and 3, incompatibilist systems simply disallow for [immutable] causal factors such as God's plan to exist simultaneously with free volition of any kind.

So the bible really indicates option 2 and 3, and the most solid compatibilist arguments of free volition and causal relations focus on option 3. God's plan would be a special subset of causally determined factors with an absolute moral dimension, but not always leading to only one possible outcome.

Conversely, some incompatibilist modes of free will require a degree of indeterminism in quantum physics, necessarily not determined by causal factors or God's plan, to provide a factor of random chance, a kind of random number generator somehow compiled into free volition.

The modes of free volition of the interactionist dualist variety, incompatibilist, also allow for the intergration of the non-material mind or soul as an information processing unit and moral agent, to eliminate causally determined factors of physicality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism

I find it challenging to integrate a given mode of free will into a gravitational field, as nothing in gravity is random at all, and the neural correlates of consciousness all seem subject to gravity very much.
So I'm working towards some form of metaphysical libertarianism or interactionist dualism for now, or any coherent incompatibilist mode providing some degree of free volition and moral agency, but I'm not ready to dismiss all possible compatibilist systems, some of those have good arguments too.

ashvin wrote:
Right, so there are limits to God's power, at least from a human perspective (since you have just stated that there is something God cannot do). I actually agree that God, assuming there is one, cannot be immoral because God can't possibly have any morals; there is nothing else for God to judge right and wrong; everything God does would just be what God does. For a similar reason, God cannot be illogical because, since God is all there is, there is no logic, from God's perspective. What we call logic would be something God invented and cannot apply to God, unless God wanted to impose some rules on itself. But that makes no sense because God can't really have wants or desires since that implies a lacking of something, which cannot possibly apply to God.

Gravity wrote:


I think it goes much further than that, though. When you really get down to it, there is no reason to think that socio biological evolution by itself would ever lead to self-aware beings who are capable of discovering objective truths about reality. Pastor and theologian Douglas Wilson uses the analogy of a Coke and a Pepsi can - if you put them on a stage, shake them up, open them and let them fizz, you can't say that one is fizzing "better" than the other, i.e. winning a debate.

If we were simply the result of chemical and biological reactions/processes, then all of this dialogue and debate would simply be us fizzing, without any basis for declaring one person's fizzing to be closer to any objective truth than the others. Basically, the atheists negate their own ability to argue for objective truth by standing on the premises of philosophical naturalism. They have to borrow the theist's "stage" before they can even engage in meaningful debate. The fact that we DO have meaningful debates means we are all standing on the same stage, regardless of whether we are atheists or theists.



First, you obviously seem to be starting with the premise that the Bible is mostly allegory and myth. That's not really a good way to investigate the Judeo-Christian philosophy/theology, because it is intimately tied into the historical events. As Paul says, if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead, then we have believed lies and our faith is meaningless.

Second, I think you are making an unnecessary distinction between "avoidable" and "necessary" suffering. Metaphysically speaking, we could say that ALL suffering of human history is unavoidable if we adopt a position in which God predestines everything. The difficulty is reconciling that position with the notion that humans can also increase or decrease suffering for themselves and others through their free agency, but I believe such a reconciliation can be achieved. By operating in extra spatial and temporal dimensions, God predestines that all of our free actions will lead to the optimal amount of suffering for his ultimate purposes.

Natural evil most certainly existed before the first humans sinned. The idea that it didn't stems from a misinterpretation of the Bible typified by young earth creationists. There is nothing in the Bible that says the Universe and Earth isn't billions of years old, and that animals weren't dying before humanity even came on to the scene. The Bible does tell us that the moral evil of humanity will compound natural evil and suffering, though. Adam and Eve were expelled from the relative paradise of Eden, where God provided all that was necessary to survive (but they still had to do work), out into the "real world", where they mostly had to fend for themselves.

ashvin wrote:


Yes, I agree. Calvin was otherwise a good theologian, but I believe he got this very wrong, which is evident from what the scriptures clearly say.



The conflict is between free agency and original sin, as you say, but NOT necessarily between free agency and predetermination. God could have allowed Satan into the garden with the predetermined plan of testing their faith, knowing with certainty they would fail, without violating their free agency. I think it's clear that Satan would not even be in the garden unless God wanted him to be.



If we take a very broad few of the term "compatibilism", then I guess you're right. My understanding was that compatibilists typically argue that determinism and free agency can coexist within social relations, but not really at a metaphysical level. I would argue that they can coexist at a metaphysical level as well.

Either way, I think the Bible necessitates some form of compatabilism based on God's absolute sovereignty over creation and the free agency of his creation. This is one area of metaphysics where I would start with the premise that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God before reaching any firm conclusions. The reason is because there are many different possibilities that are logically coherent, but only one or two that are consistent with the word of God.

I did confuse some terms there, the problem is that the systems of free volition are categorised first by accepting or dismissing the premise of a deterministic universe, and there are several possible systems for free volition, caused by God or not, in both determinist and indeterminist universes, I'll clarify.

ashvin wrote:


Option 1) is definitely hard theological determinsm which is most self-contradictory in regards to moral agency.

Option 2) would be compatibilist if it is still a deterministic universe, as God only predetermines some things. The important question is whether only non-physical things are indetermined or also physical things.

If any of the indetermined things have a physical quality, maybe quantum indeterminism, it would rather be an indeterministic universe with some degree of randomness and free volition to dynamically influence things. Metaphysical libertarianism is the dominant mode of thought there, but much of it seeks free volition by other means than God.
There are interactionist dualist positions that seem only mildly self-contradictory in regards to moral agency here.

Option 3) is some kind of compatibilism, since God predetermines everything physical and mental, this only allows for a deterministic universe with God's plan as a hidden variable or immutable causal force, even influencing quantum level fluctuations, yet free volition is still possible at some level.
This option is moderately self-contradictory in regards to moral agency.

Option 2) seems most reasonable for biblical interpretation, and the bible would allow for a system of free volition in an indeterministic universe, providing that this system may produce moral agency. Some forms of dualism may also include the soul as a moral agent without necessarily defining it as a property of God.

I suppose God could be placed in both determinist and indeterminist universes, depending on option 2 or 3, but if free volition is also to be placed in conjunction with God as a function of moral agency, it narrows the available options in the fully deterministic universe, I think only some system of compatibilism would suffice there.

Compatibilist arguments of free volition under causal relations would focus on option 3, since only that option clearly defines all physical things as immutable causal factors in a deterministic universe, but still allowing for free volition, compatibilsts mostly substitute God's plan with other sets of determined factors.

If tasked with finding a system that may provide free agency under God, most people would propbably choose a compatibilist system in a deterministic universe, but there are solid options also in an indeterministic universe, its just that God would then actually be playing dice with the universe, but only for the important parts.

I like the deterministic modes where the gravitational field itself is a moral agent or dynamic medium of moral agency.

I otherwise prefer the indeterminist modes where the gravitational field itself is a moral agent or a dynamic medium of moral agency.
When I manage to formulate a coherent framework, I'll name this system deontological gravitism, it'll be awesome and only mildly self-contradictory.

ashvin wrote:


I am starting with that premise, since I'm not a true believer, but I think that the moral teachings of scripture are more universally accessible when presented as allegory and not necessarily as gospel truth, so that even the atheists can appreciate the ethical considerations without being forced to make premature leaps of faith.
I agree that the moral content of stories concerning Jesus would become a sham when held as fictitious, and they do seem to be explicitly meant as a historical account of actual events. but not so for many other stories, they could be merely allegory and still contain useful moral content.
Much of the situational ethics in the bible could be fictitious or moral allegory but still useful as a literary or didactic device.

ashvin wrote:


This was in response to the assertion that suffering has purpose and meaning, and I used the distinction to illustrate that there is some type of suffering which can be useful [to learn] to avoid other suffering.
Although it does seem that not all suffering is equally useful or necessary, it may be that all suffering has spiritual meaning because of its minor or major utility for spiritual development.
The concept of sin really does indicate avoidable suffering, since I cannot conceive of any sin that is necessary and cannot be avoided, sin seems contradictory to necessity [except maybe for that judas incident, that seemed foreordained and inevitable somehow].
If sin exists, and is avoidable at all, it strongly argues in favor of making unnecessary and avoidable suffering a distinct moral category from necessary and unavoidable suffering.

There is a problem with defining the difference between unavoidable and avoidable, necessary and unnecessary suffering in a metaphysical sense, but not in terms of a moral heuristic or moral code, where some definitive distinction is necessary, such as between virtue and vice and in criminal law.
All types of crime which cause victims are in the category of unnecessary and avoidable suffering, and also largely conform to sinful conduct. No types of crime are in the category of necessary suffering according to law, since no crime should ever be necessary, and all victimful crimes should pertain to unnecessary and avoidable suffering somewhere.

ashvin wrote:


These dimensions must still be causally connected to our plane somehow, so they would be included in a single universal logic, seemingly allowing for a compatibilistic mode of free volition in a deterministic universe, so this would conform to option 3).

The idea of an optimal ammount of suffering for an ultimate purpose is an utilitarian function, uniquely informed by divine omniscience, which may make the measure of suffering justifiable beyond human logic. But as constrained by human logic, any policy towards such an ultimate purpose could never justify itself without accountable perfect foresight. One cannot argue that crime should be tolerated because its part of God's plan. It may be so, but that would be unknowable to any human system of justice. By default, we would have to judge all victimful crime as causing [or being caused by] unnecessary and avoidable suffering.

When you take these more defined concepts; sin, crime and justice, they reveal that making a provisional distinction in the qualities and moral magnitudes of suffering becomes a necessary suffering, hopefully to avoid greater suffering. It makes perfect sense from a certain point of view.

I agree on that point about the buddhist way of looking at suffering and attachment, that it can lead to a moral detachment which lessens compassion. I must have been confusing the buddhists with the jedi.

The idea of God can easily be proven to exist, as a subjective reality or moral force, more easily than as objective reality, but the very idea of God may lead into possible proofs that the soul exists as a moral agent, that the only way in which God can be understood as an idea is because the soul's comprehension of good and evil as an objective reality.
If it could be proven that the soul exists in an objective sense, a form of information-processing, then this may provide proof of the objective existence of God in some way. But the soul would probably be seen as subjective reality only.
Many philosophical systems produce the substance of the soul as a moral agent of free volition without incorporating the existence of God, so for questions of moral agency and the meaning of suffering, the possible existence of the soul seems of great importance, even for non-theists.
There is no immediate contradiction between the positive existence of the soul and the unexistence of God, which may allow for the moral agency of the soul as an intransient state of mind without the existence of God, although the logic would be similar.

ashvin wrote:


TonyPrep wrote:


Maybe there are things which God cannot do to us, under ethical or contractual obligation [enforced by the holy spirit?], since He would be running an inhabited universe for spiritual profit, it wouldn't do to suddenly shift elementary logic mid-universe, it would confuse the audience and disenfranchise the participants.

TonyPrep wrote:


This has always been a question in deistic discussions;
1) is everything that God does automatically [defined as] good [by Himself?] simply because God does it;
or 2) does God automatically do good things [and only good things] only because He knows they are [defined as] good? [by someone else?]

The first option defines morality as a function of God, by whatever God would choose to do, and if He chose to do absolute evil [and never good], then evil would be moral. There seems to be no objective distinction between good and evil here, not even under omniscience.

The second option defines God as a function of morality, God would be perfectly moral because He always chooses good things as the best of all possible things, He would be incapable [infinitely unwilling] of action that He knows to be evil and not a function of good [as dictated by the holy spirit?].

The moral preference arises because God wouldn't simply do things unto Himself, but affect His creations, with moral consequences He might care about [His creations might care about] [He would care for His creations separate from Himself and identical to Himself, a minor paradox]. This option might allow for an objective distinction between good and evil, especially under omniscience.

Its preferable to assert that God is a function of morality before asserting that morality is a function of God.

TonyPrep wrote:


On the contrary, everything would be logical from God's perspective. Semantically, the word 'perspective' implies a logical frame of reference, but in a subjective mode. God's possible perspective would be the only logical frame of reference which is truly objective [disregarding the holy spirit].

TonyPrep wrote:


God could only invent or manifest things which He already contains, if He came up with logic as a good idea, He must have a logical mind [because logic is creative?].
What we call God must minimally consist of supreme logic and reason, although yielding a paradoxical self-limiting construct to allow for existence as we understand it, God would at least have a creative desire [because creativity is logical], and He would necessarily create a universe written in the language of logic, as He would write what He knows.

The question is really if the workings of God or deity can ever be defined without logical paradox, and whether they should be. One shouldn't expect divine logic to be perfectly paradox free when reasoning from a linear perspective, but one should try to eliminate as many paradoxes as possible. If there remain any paradoxes, it is not necessarily a mistake or oversight.
Ash' multidimensional argument does work in that way; we mortals can have only limited understanding as to what an unlimited force and unlimited logic looks like, and why such infinity would choose to limit itself for the convenience of others.
I've been working on such arguments myself, but it is notoriously difficult to disprove the existence of God by an appeal to logical paradox, if He exists, He would be insufferably paradoxical.

Supergravity wrote:
Though this assumes that there was some reason for God to impose laws that make the universe understandable by humans. It kind of begs the question of God's existence. If God exists, then of course God did that because that's what we've got. However, if God doesn't exist, then the point is moot. There seems to be no reason for God to make the universe in any particular way.

Supergravity wrote:
The very terms "morality", "good" and "evil" have no meaning for God (assuming it's the only God) because there is nothing to judge these things by other than God itself and there can't be anything other than God as that implies God is inside or, or beside, something else that did not emanate from God.

So what you say is "preferable" is only preferable to you, there is no objective preference given that those terms previously mentioned are meaningless to God.

However, you raised an interesting point about God doing things unto himself. Does that make sense? If those things affect God, in any way, it implies that God has changed himself and is a different God than before such an action. This removes the "all" bit of God's attributes. If God can't affect himself, what is the point of his doing anything?

Supergravity wrote:
I'm not sure why you separate out the holy spirit, as though there is something else, apart from God, that was not created by God. However, I disagree about everything being logical from God's perspective. Everything just "is", from God's perspective. And that must apply to time, also. God can neither be logical or illogical - these are human traits, possibly created by God.

Supergravity wrote:
Again, "good" idea implies some yardstick that can be used to determine goodness or badness. Everything God does is just everthing God does. Even the notion of inventing or "came up with" don't make sense in some state of being that is timeless, since it implies a time when the thing invented or made didn't exist.

Actually, thinking about this (including what you said about God only being able to "invent" what he already contained), the universe must have always existed as part of God, thus making the concept of God irrelevant to us.

Supergravity wrote:
Desire implies lacking. God cannot have desires.

Supergravity wrote:
Where did these "others" come from? Why would God create the others so that he could limit himself for the convenience of them?

Supergravity wrote:
I've refined the question to whether God's existence is of relevance to us. As any attributes or actions of God appear to be almost impossible to understand, if they mean anything at all, I tend to think that it comes down to whether we should even consider the existence of God or why our individual or collective actions should be guided by some people's notions of what God might or might not want. As I've already mentioned, the idea of God wanting something seems ridiculous, since he has, indeed is, everything already.

Supergravity wrote:


I understand that, but the context of the Bible should dictate how the accounts are treated, just like any other text. If we are dealing with poetic "wisdom" literature, for ex, then we may find more allegory, metaphor, etc. However, even within that genre, there is plenty of historical narrative that is meant to be taken literally.

The one thing we shouldn't do is treat the accounts however we feel is best based on our modern cultural conceptions. That's what a lot of people like to do for the OT stories, making most of them less than literal, but there's no good textual reason for it. Jesus himself believed many of the events actually occurred, and I think it's safe to say he had a good idea of how the OT is meant to be read. A literal interpretation is also often necessary to understand the actual theology being communicated, because the Bible presents an ongoing and dynamic history of people and events that are all inter-connected.

I'm not looking to bring any atheists to the Bible as a source of moral teachings and nothing else. IMO, the Bible is useless unless it is understood as the true word of God. I wouldn't want to believe in something that purports to be divinely inspired just because it gives me some wise teachings, especially if it doesn't reflect the true nature of God and our relationship with him.



I think it really depends on whether we are taking a metaphysical perspective or a social (practical) perspective. If the former, then we are able to posit that our sins are predestined from the foundation of the Universe, but we still retain free agency to choose not to sin. In terms of human social relations, though, we cannot comprehend the full extent of that predestination, so we practically behave and react to others as free moral agents, just as God intended.



Yes, exactly.



Yeah, I think this is a powerful argument for the existence of god. The fact that we have moral conscience and the capacity to develop a relationship with the concept of god does not make much sense in terms of philosophical naturalism, but makes great sense in terms of theism.



I wasn't aware of these systems. How do they explain the existence of the soul/spirit apart from the existence of God? Assuming the soul/spirit is defined as immaterial substances of will, emotion and moral conscience.

ashvin wrote:


TonyPrep wrote:


Supergravity wrote:


There is no contradiction between a being that cannot be a certain way and that being's omnipotence. An all-powerful God can be incapable of being illogical or immoral, because logic and morality are a part of his very essence. Unlike the laws of physics, logic and morality are eternal because God is eternal.



The Bible describes God as the ultimate source of morality, i.e. option 1. He is the objective standard of what can be called moral or immoral, and evil is simply the absence of good (not the opposite of good). This option IMO is as objective as you can get. It is the reason why God cannot choose to be immoral (or illogical), because then he would be choosing to be something other than God. Even the incarnate Christ could not choose to be less than fully divine.

TonyPrep wrote:


How could it not be of relevance to us who our Creator is and if/how we can establish an eternal relationship with him? The truth should always be relevant, and especially metaphysical truths.

It's not impossible to comprehend Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which tells us its impossible for humans to comprehend the exact nature of any given particle. Same logic applies to God.

New post:

Picturing Humanity’s Redemption
Posted on November 2, 2012 by Brother of Sorrow



The Judeo-Christian theme of redemption has been one of the most powerful and influential throughout the history of human civilization, especially over the last millennium. It has impacted everything from society’s art, music, literature and cinema to its executive and judicial processes. When we look at the Pietà sculpture of Michelangelo, we are looking at redemption. When we read Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, we are reading about redemption. When we listen to Handel’s “Messiah“, we are listening to redemption. And when we experience a judicial bankruptcy proceeding, we are experiencing the process of redemption in action.

This latter aspect of redemptive themes is especially relevant to our world today, in which individuals, families, businesses, cities and entire nations are buried under mountains of debt. Our global society has come to typify the idea of humans in need of forgiveness and redemption, as billions of people find themselves with mortgages, student loans, business loans, credit card bills, public taxes, etc. that they cannot possibly satisfy without any external aid. The entire Euro area is a stunning example of nations that can no longer service their debts without massive support from other nations and their taxpayers.

When we look at this monetary predicament in isolation, it’s difficult to imagine any satisfactory resolution for humanity. The whole thing will require great material sacrifices on the part of many people who have grown emotionally attached to their current standards of living. We must remember, though, that our ultimate solace lies in our spiritual redemption through the nearly unimaginable sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on our behalf. That is the power of the Gospel message which became operational throughout all of human history by virtue of Jesus’ work on the Cross and remains extremely relevant to this day.

Indeed, it is the Old Testament which originally provides us with stories about the critical intersection between monetary debts and redemption, as a means of picturing the infinitely more valuable intersection of our spiritual debts and Christ’s redemption. The word “redeem” or “redemption” is used 17 times in Leviticus 25 alone, which describes God’s command to Moses and the Israelites for a year of Jubilee. Of particular interest is Leviticus 25:23-28, which tells us that the Israelites must provide a mechanism through which poor and indebted people can reacquire their land. We are told this redemption can occur through the future prosperity of the person who sold, a near relative of that person a default expulsion of property sales in the fiftieth year of Jubilee.

(full post at link)

ashvin wrote:
Except that each person's idea, of what is moral, may be, and is, different. Morality works perfectly well without a concept of God, since it makes sense to generally get on with other people.

ashvin wrote:

Well, this is redefining my point so that it can be answered from a faith view. It is simply your assumption that there is a possibility of establishing an eternal relationship with him, probably because some old writings (brought together in the 3rd or 4th century) have been understood to give that meaning. Leaving aside a book that wasn't available to most generations of humans on this planet, the fact of a God would be interesting but there is no evidence (and, indeed, doesn't seem to make much sense) that this creator being would prefer his creations to act one way rather than another or that those creatures should, or can, worship, love the being that created them for his own purposes.

ashvin wrote:

But God is everything, otherwise there would be something that is outside of God and, therefore, some space (for want of a better word) that encompasses both God and those other things. God would then become just one aspect of something bigger. If we can see that something is logical or illogical, how did we obtain that knowledge? Is illogic something that exists or is it imaginary? If it exists, then God created it (within himself, since there is, supposedly, nothing else) and so is perfectly capable of exhibiting illogic. However, as I said, the definition of logic or illogic is meaningless when applied to God - with God, there is no way to judge something logical or illogical, since judging requires some alternatives and something external to the thing being judged.

When thinking about every aspect of what the Christian god is supposed to be, none of it really makes any sense. Religious beliefs that include a creator, interventionist, god make much better sense if that god is just one being in a greater sphere.

So in logical terms, we've established that if [God=God],
then [0≠0] and [∞≠∞]
Now, if [universe=universe] as a function of God,
then [0≠0] or [∞≠∞].

If God and the universe cannot logically exist as two separate identities in the same cardinal infinity, we might then peruse the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; if [God=God], then [1=3]

1) There is God [hypothetically, as a logical function of Himself];
2) There is God's creation as a function of God [creativity is logical];
3) There is the dynamic force between God and His creations, mediating three functions [the Holy Gravity]

1)Morality is a function of God.
2)God is a function of morality.
3)Both at once, in equal proportion.

Its preferable to assert that [the idea of] God is a function of [the idea of] morality before asserting that [the idea of] morality is a function of [the idea of] God.

Its preferable that God is a function of morality before
that morality is a function of God
[the geometry of hierarchy is a function of Gravity].

Ill elucidate when I figure out what it means.