Is there a God or not? We are left with just two choices, a creative force or magic!

As for Christianity existing without a God?

How would that play? Everything the Church claims is founded on principles handed to it they say, by the living hand of the son of God!

As for other religions? Some act as if we are all co creators or tiny sparks of massively divided divine?

And would then allow us, if acting as a single mind, for a single purpose!?

To effect real change/create miraculous outcomes? And requires temporary abandonment of the personal ego!

And perhaps what your Lord mean't when he allegedly said, when two or more gather in my name, I am also there?

The limit of personal perception starts and ends with the individual and or whether or not they're prepared to quite deliberately shut down the monkey chatter that is the human condition!

Learn instead to meditate and just listen with a completely open mind? Always providing you're prepared for higher wisdom insights, generated from within. Sometimes in complete conflict with what you may well have been "conditioned" to believe!

God is absolute pure logic! Otherwise nothing that was created would have been created!

If all the universe was once compressed into a pinhead of massively condensed matter? And exploded into being as the universe in the theoretical big bang?

Where in heavens name did that first pinhead come from and what caused it to "explode?" And why, if there's so much of a single scaric of truth in that theory?

Why isn't an expanding universe, slowing down as opposed to accelerating

Magic and abracadabra? Or an intellect too large to comprehend by tiny humans, coupled to truly awesome power?

Which given we. Probably makes us all, as children of the universe, of some importance in the divine scheme of things?

My advice, don't worry about anything you don't have absolute control over!

And that is limited solely to your own thought processes alone. Along with the attitudes they then create, along with love or hate!
Choose wisely.
Alan B.

What Paul Kelly does, in effect, is present atheism with a God of invention, as a justification for non belief.

If you Peter, are to preach to atheists on OLO, your only approach is to preach good v evil.
It's then the need for the Christians “ Christ” makes sense. Christ = forgiveness for evil first and foremost. You alluded to it here, in your mention of carnal desires of the flesh. This is the sin.
The God of the Christian, demands a perfect world. God is a perfectionist. A belief in the power of Christ to perform that miracle, is Gods offering of perfection, enabling an eternity in heaven to the believer.
Narrow is the road of the perfectionist, and broad is the road to destruction.

The first book of the Bible, Genesis leads the message of the fall of man. It's a moral collapse caused by interbreeding with the fallen angels from heaven. This event indicates all was not necessarily happy in heaven either. Then the great flood to exterminate evil from the face of the earth. The Genesis six experiment.

But the invasion of the Archon was not halted by the flood, as we know. This is the basis of the Christian message. Not arguing with pompous idiots in Murdocks Australian.
Save yourself a grand a year, don't buy it. Best advice!

God or Gods are the construct of man, primarily in the main conceived to lay blame by the likes of infallible man and in the second to seek hope and forgiveness for infallible man whom has done wrong in their own eyes.

God in this construct is by its human invention a false notion, a sign of weakness for those who believe or follow this 'God'.

Get over it and move on. God is about as relevant today as a broken twin tub washing machine, useful in its day but no use in a contemporary society where any rational being can see its use by date and irrelevance.

Geoff

Let the dead bury the dead. I like that!

the psalmist had it worked out long ago. Only a fool says to himself there is no God. Never a truer word recorded.

I think I'll start a religion and God will be my centre piece
In this religion all is possible with a money back guarantee.
All previous denominations are eligible and can be incorporated in your new spiritual path
You want to take your dog, cat, bird whatever pet to heaven with you?...done!
You want God to allow you to sit closer to the podium?...done
Just send your donations to help the poor, the malnourished, the down trodden, the terminally ill and whatever misfortune has befallen to the address below and we'll send you a gold leaf certificate attesting to your membership of this church.
The more money you send the happier you'll be in knowing that God is pleased with you and your devotion to his presence.
Now ...don't you feel better already?....knowing that your path to heavenly joy has been carved in stone for you?

Don't forget to send your donation
Sorry we don't take bitcoin

If it were possible (it isn't) to prove that God exists, then worship of God would be cheap, logical, pragmatic and trivial, then religion would merely come down to a form of commerce.

True religion comes when you understand that God may not or even does not exist, yet you pray:

"Dear Lord, I don't care whether you exist or not, I love you regardless! Let others believe that my logic is faulty, or maybe it even is, let me be abused for that, let me be men's laughing stock, mocked, misunderstood, despised, rejected, even locked up in a mental institution, but I will still unceasingly love and worship you till my last breath - please give me the strength to love you forever, Amen".

Now this is impressive, this is the right spirit!

You've written some very good points Peter. Expecially about discussing Christianity without having anything Christian in it. (Such as no mention of Jesus). I'd like to say keep it up, and I hope you do. However there is one thing I'd like to offer.

Consider the parable of the 4 soils. In it though there are several discriptions of people's response to the seed (the message of the Kingdom of Heaven), the seed was still given to all. I think this might be where we as Christian lack sometimes. We try to prepare the message to our audience, by first proving that God exists and that the message is worth while. Sometimes that's as far as we get because of people voicing their doubts and critisms. Maybe we should just spread the word, and let the seed grow by God's power and doing.

To have a more public influence host more bible studies, or have public lessons on bible verses like on this website. The seeds will be scattered, and those who disagree will undoubtely show up. But who knows. The effort might be worth it even if unseen. Spreading the word as we know it from the source, might produce a crop in others to Hear God's written word, and be saved because of it.

Good luck and keep it up. Please also understand though that other Christians are doing this as well. Encourage them in their efforts. Though I very much like many of your points, it's can't be excaped that the point is to address other Christian writers and show how they are wrong. If you must correct someone so be it. But if they say nothing that disagrees with the bible, then encourage them in their efforts.

Again good luck and keep it up.

Not now soon.
Thanks I will.
Pete

Odin is going to smite all you heathens.

Oh, runner. How you so often forget Matthew 5:21!

"... but whosoever shall say, "Thou fool", shall be in danger of hell fire."

Dear Peter,
Thanks for calling my attention to the most interesting article “Is God dead? The West has much to lose in banishing Christianity” by Greg Sheridan.

Sadly, in the first half of your article you also provided a good atheist argument against his one sentence, namely that “Our intuition of God is admissible evidence, it is part of the reason we believe”, although Sheridan's article is certainly not about evidence.

More explicitly,
- nowhere does he claim that God’s existence can be proved,
- evidence is mentioned only as quoted above, which is not the same as claiming to have “evidence that such a Being exists”,
- Jesus is explicitly mentioned there twice and the New Testament many times.

We have been over this disagreement (whether or not God of the philosophers corresponds to God of the Bible) between us two many times. So let me just emphasise it by adding:

When I agree with Sheridan’s

“As we cut ourselves off ever more comprehensively from the roots of our civilisation, our civilisation will be damaged”,

I think that BOTH the Bible and the intellectual richness of centuries of Christian philosophy (and science) belong to these roots.

AJ

love the way you quote a source that you obviously depise so much. One minute you are denying Christ and HIs teachings and the next minute you are using it as an authority. Which is it to be?

Everything that you need to thoroughly deconstruct and outshine all of the usual christian mumbo-jumbo can be found on this website:

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/christian.html

It is also interesting to note that the mumblings of both Aristotle and Aquinas (who borrowed from Aristotle) are very popular/influential among right-wing "catholics" in the USA

I am not "appalled that the Christian faith has been marginalised in our schools and universities..."

Don't pray in our schools and we won't think in your churches.

//and we won't think in your churches.//

Sadly it's a bit too late for some of us. Bit of a mistake to let kids read Norse and Classical mythology and take them to Mass, they'll do the thinking for themselves... pesky little devils.

[Don't pray in our schools and we won't think in your churches.]

Very divisive thoughts HereNow. Are saying that Christians should not pray, even though it is part of Jesus's teachings to pray continually? Or are you saying that Christian children and college aged should stay out of the educational system? (Not go to school or to college).

As a rebuttal. Pray always, and education is for everyone.

No, he's saying educators shouldn't be shoving your religion down kids throats.

Unless you'd be happy for non-Christians to rock up at one of your religious services and start evangelising for their god... keep it to yourselves and away from our kids. And keep your priests as far away as possible, because they frequently have a predilection for raping children.

George,
We seem to be at cross purposes in that we are not discussing the same article. My article is based on Sheridan's " Idea of God is perfectly logical" no the article that you referred to which I admired.
Pete

runner,

Whether I believe the Bible, or accept it as authoritative, is irrelevant. The fact that you do is all that is needed for my point to have had meaning.

[No, he's saying educators shouldn't be shoving your religion down kids throats.]

Perhaps schools have changed since I was a kid, but if I remember right, teachers never shoved any beliefs down students throats. The closest they got to that is a few days planned around diversity and learning about different cultures. Even that wasn't about Christianity. Your being paranoid Toni.

[Unless you'd be happy for non-Christians to rock up at one of your religious services and start evangelising for their god... keep it to yourselves and away from our kids.]

That would be disruptive, but if it brings the people to church regularly I'd put up with it for their benifit. As long as they didn't get violent, I think it would be a good oppurtunity to try and teach them.

You make it sound like church is child abuse. It isn't.

I am confused about what 'Christian values' that Sheridan et al. are promoting?

Some weeks ago on ABC's The Drum, Sheridan was attacking an ethical conservative Christian leader in Angela Merkel blaming AfD success upon her decision regarding Syrian etc. refugees the other year (which pales in comparison to the post WWII and later movements); without passing comment upon the ethics of the AfD?

What would he say to Pope Francis who has supported Syrian refugees, or would he behave like Bannon?

This smells like the neo nativism of conservative Christianity as outlined by Chris Hedges, theologian and journalist, complaining of the politicisation and lack of ethics in too much non mainstream Christianity owing more to 1930s Germany:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/69095.American_Fascists

Of course one is not implying that Sheridan was saying what he thought his employer would like to hear?

No fan of 'Krudd', but he is one MP who could parse through this re. his citing of Boenhoffer, present day Christianity in the US and ethics?

//Perhaps schools have changed since I was a kid//

Yeah, not all schools are the same as the one you went to. In fact, the only school that's the same as the one you went to is the one you went to.

//teachers never shoved any beliefs down students throats//

That depends on the school: in some of them, it is the teacher's job. At my first primary school it was the teacher's job; at the second, they drafted in volunteers from the local Baptist church and took an hour off active instruction to do some marking. At my high school, they just gave us a free period one afternoon a week (a much better system: those who wished to their free period for religious study could do so, and the rest of us could do better things with our time).

However, the high school did regularly give time at assemblies to Christian - and only Christian - evangelists. And when one my brother's friends a few years above me made himself a placard reading 'All hail Satan 666' (or words to that effect) and held it aloft at one of these assemblies, he got in trouble off the teachers. Now surely he had just as much right to evangelise in favour of Satan as the Christians did for Christ? And yet the teachers only sought to silence him.

//Your being paranoid Toni.//

Yes, of course. Because everybody attended the same school as you and has had the same life experience as you.

//That would be disruptive, but if it brings the people to church regularly I'd put up with it for their benifit.//

Oh good. Where do you go to church?

Sells,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I could not find any article called “Idea of God is perfectly logical” or some other mixing logic with faith. You apparently had in mind his “The God question: listen to your inner voice” that also appeared on the 28th October.

This article is more relevant to our disagreement on whether or not God of the philosophers corresponds to God of the Bible, no point in going into that again. However, if you admire this article then you will probably agree with his quoted above sentence about cutting us off from the roots of our civilisation. So I can only repeat that not only the Bible but also various Christian approaches to philosophy, in particular various understandings of the terms reason, rational (that Sheridan attempts to defend) belong to these roots. Otherwise one is in danger of being grouped with those deniers of our civilisation's roots - like one of the posters here - who call “mumblings” not only the philosophy of Aquinas but also that of Aristotle.

To Toni.

It sounds like your school experience was very different then mine was. The only time I can remember Christianity being expressed by staff was during the holidays around Christmas. Like other holidays such as valentines or Halloween Christmas cards or decorations were made in kids crafts in the younger grades that matched the holiday near.

Can't say much else about your school. I didn't go there. I suspect your brother wasn't evangelizing, but instead was protesting. There's a difference. On tries to win people, the other tries to make a point, or I. Some cases just try to piss people off. There are Christian protesters that call themselves evangelizing Christians too. I would still note the difference though.

As for my church. I have to admit. I'm not actually from Australia. But if you ever want to come, I'd be happy to have you there. If I could and work schedule permitted, I'd meet you at the airport. My church is called Westminister Presbyterian Church. I don't know if you'd stay for more then one service, but if you did, I'd say that's a hopeful sign. Or if you were kicked out. I don't know, maybe go with you to a few different churches in town. Give you the chance to voice your protest, but at the same time give you the oppurtinity to be in church and hear it's message.

// I have to admit. I'm not actually from Australia.//

Ah. Right. Gotcha.

Yet another interfering Septic. Piss off, yank.

Sorry, allow to me to retract and revise that last thought. It was unnecessarily rude.

What I meant to say was: if you're not from Australia, and you don't have experience of our education system, do you really feel that it is your place to comment on our education system? Which you don't know anything about?

Look, I get that the Christian message is universal and crosses all cultural boundaries... but educational policies are specific to separate states in the Australian Commonwealth, and if you don't know what you're talking about maybe it would be best just to mind your business.

//My church is called Westminister Presbyterian Church.//

Especially since I googled your church...

We're dealing with Young Earth Creationists. They're also against the ordination of women.

Really, it would be best if you minded your own business and stayed away from Australian children. We've had quite enough of your type here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo

George,
I think we are on the same page. I am beginning to understand that Aquinas and Augustine to what they wanted from Aristotle and Plato and that was not a bad thing.
Pete

Toni.

[if you don't know what you're talking about maybe it would be best just to mind your business.]

Fair point. I'm sorry. Your schools your knowledge base.

//Fair point. I'm sorry.//

No worries, mate.

Now, I believe the topic of discussion was the logicality or otherwise of God. Which I'm quite happy to discuss from my pantheist persepective. But I'm also quite curious about your denomination (beyond the obvious question of 'why Young Earth Creationism? I mean really, why? I don't get it').

My googling indicates that the WPC makes it home in Pennsylvania. And the only other thing I know about Pennsylvania is that that is where you find the Amish community, plus a lot of other similar faith communities that aren't technically Amish. Is your denomination an Anabaptist offshoot, or are you more mainstream protestant?

[But I'm also quite curious about your denomination]

Google got it right that I'm a yank. But wrong state. Here's the church's website. www.westpresftc.com

I don't think of myself too much in terms of denomination. I really do like the community in the church, the focus on service that the chuch has, and the sermons. However, I don't count myself as anything outside of Christian.

I've been around a few denominations and my brother in law is a pastor. What I've learned from the denominations is that the basics of being a Christian seem to be the same in the different denominations I've been to. (Nondemonitional, Methodist, Lutherian, Presbyterian). What I've learned from my brother in law is that pastors look after their church community, but they don't always agree with them. (Or visa-versa). But the politics and some beliefs aren't why we get together in church. It's the core beliefs and both worship and fellowship that matter. Teaching from the aspects that bring us closer to God, help us to be better people, or in some churches to teach verse by verse in the bible, while others focus on having the Holy Spirit in our lives.

None of those that I have encountered are enough to say why this is wrong and unchristian in the same way that I can towards other religions that are either wrong or are a rejection of Jesus in one way or another.

I do put quite a bit of faith in the bible as my foundation. So even if my church doesn't believe in a young earth worldview (I don't know if they do or don't), I put it under heavy consideration. I know of a few women pastors that are Presbyterian, and I put that under God's terroritory not mine. There was at least one woman prophet in the old Testiment, so I'm not sold on it being wrong for women to lead in worship.

Hope that helps. I'm interested in your views of God though too. If you don't want to answer that though. That's fine. I won't press it.

//Google got it right that I'm a yank. But wrong state.//

Colorado, eh? I'm afraid just about everything I know about Colorado comes from watching South Park, and I'm not sure that's the most reliable source.

//What I've learned from the denominations is that the basics of being a Christian seem to be the same in the different denominations I've been to.//

It rather depends on which denominations you're comparing. Not too much difference between Catholics and Anglicans from what I've seen, but there is a vast gulf between them and some of the wackier Christian denominations like Pentecostals.

//I do put quite a bit of faith in the bible as my foundation. So even if my church doesn't believe in a young earth worldview (I don't know if they do or don't), I put it under heavy consideration.//

Your Bible is a religious document, not a science textbook.

It may interest you to know that there isn't really any Biblical support for YEC: Genesis never mentions a specific creation date.

That was a later invention by an Irish Archbishop by the name of James Ussher, who in 1658 meticulously added up the ages of the people in the Bible (even the clearly dubious ones like Methuselah's 969 years) to come up with the remarkably precise figure of October 23, 4004 BC. At about 7 o'clock in the morning, MT. No, I am not making this up.

It all makes about as much sense as believing the Earth is flat: nonsense on stilts. I suggest you look into Old Earth Creationism, which still maintains that your God created the Earth and the universe in accordance with the Bible, but which doesn't involve the patently ridiculous idea that the whole shebang is only 6000 years old.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

//I'm interested in your views of God though too.//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

To Toni.

[I'm afraid just about everything I know about Colorado comes from watching South Park, and I'm not sure that's the most reliable source.]

It's not reliable but South Park is a real town in Colorado. The simularities between the show and the town are lost to me though. I haven't been to South Park.

For a basic understanding. Colorado is a fairly large state with regard to land mass, and though there are larger cities in it, much of Colorado is spacious and good for enjoying the outdoors. (Don't have to travel far to go camping). There's a mountian range that goes through Colorado that gives it a good number of ski and snowboard parks around the mountian range, as well as cozy towns nestled in the mountians to attract tourist for their natural beauty. Away from the mountain range though, and away from the bigger cities like Denver and Colorado Springs (which house a good number of skyscraper like buildings), a good chunk of Colorado is flat and dry. My home town is a college town and a medium sized city.

Colorado also recently legalized pot. Both medical and recreational use. Changing the dynamics of it a bit to attract those who want to buy or sell pot and unfortunately with more people moving, making the housing market unaffordable.

That's not much to go on but it's a brief picture of my home,

(Continued)

[Not too much difference between Catholics and Anglicans from what I've seen, but there is a vast gulf between them and some of the wackier Christian denominations like Pentecostals.]

I haven't been to a Pentecostal service but someday I mean to. The differences between the denominations many of the times seem to be about how the church is orginized and the culture of the church, more so then the beliefs and theology. At least when it comes to core elements of belief like Jesus's life, teachings, and salvation; God's love and and other qualities, as well as His history with Israel. And the aspect of the Holy Spirit.

Most denominations that I've seen still believe in all of these but with most of them a good amount of focus is theology and understanding, whereas Pentecostal seems to (from what I've heard) focus on having the Holy Spirit and having a spiritual relationship with God. The critism I hear is some Pentecostal churches are growing a fake kind of showiness to them, but even still the element of being close by the Holy Spirit, not just through study and prayer has an interest I hope to look into more some day. The "wackier denomination" holds a lot more trust in spiritual experiences.

(Continued)

[Your Bible is a religious document, not a science textbook.

It may interest you to know that there isn't really any Biblical support for YEC: Genesis never mentions a specific creation date. ]

Though I agree that the bible isn't a science book, it's purpose is more a focus on finding God, knowing what He wants, and learning from the history of Israel, from the prophets, and from Jesus's ministry. However the bible is still authoritive. The difference between the bible and creationism science is that the bible doesn't try to explain how the world works. Creationist science does and I think that is where they error.

When the bible says something though I would put it under a lot of consideration. Including the genology that paints mankind's history as a lot shorter on earth. Having a younger Earth isn't the hardest concept to swallow though. Nor that God created it all. There are a decent number of explainations to these ideas to counter the ideas that the earth is older (or at least man's history in it is younger) and counter that the earth was formed out of a great amount of cosmic luck. The harder element to swallow is the ORDER of which the earth was formed, not the age. If you can trust God and trust the bible, so far this requires a greater amount of faith because so far there are no matching explainations for them. I still trust the bible as authoritive even without an explaination. Not a science book, but an authority regardless.

(Continued)

Regarding the references to pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Thanks for the reference, but they tell me there are a variety of beliefs in pantheism. Including a view that God is mostly nature (much like nature worshiping religions), or that God is mostly known through human experience and culture (more like the ideology that individualism is important or conversely similar to the idea of a collective conscience in mankind). There are other issues I read besides my own fingering of the concept that God is the universe.

Your beliefs though are what I'm asking about. You've noted a few. That you love God, but God doesn't love you, or can't love you. As well as the defining element in the term pantheism that God is everything. I assume a few things from these statements that would separate your pantheistic view from other pantheistic views. Such as God isn't sentient, but is just a force, or that God is too big to notice each of us. But I don't know if it is a nature focus or a culture focus. When you say you love God, but don't show a love for people this raises a red flag to me of what it means to love God.

Again if this is asking for too much, I'll let it pass. Our beliefs are a personal thing, which we sometimes protect from outside criticisms and mockery of others. I get that. Looking back at the conversations between you me and AJ Phillips, I really do get that. It's your call.

//Colorado is a fairly large state with regard to land mass, and though there are larger cities in it, much of Colorado is spacious and good for enjoying the outdoors. (Don't have to travel far to go camping).//

Sounds a lot like Australia.

//There's a mountian range that goes through Colorado that gives it a good number of ski and snowboard parks around the mountian range//

Except for the mountains and the snow.

//making the housing market unaffordable.//

Sounds even more like Australia.

//I haven't been to a Pentecostal service but someday I mean to.//

I have. Once, out of curiosity. And it will only be the once.

It was scary, so I terminated that line of research post haste... rocking back and forth, muttering in gibberish, suffering fits... it's the same sort of behaviour that makes junkies creepy. I felt like I'd accidentally walked into a cult meeting... their theology may or may not be broadly similar, but their method of worship is so confronting that I could never accept it.

//The critism I hear is some Pentecostal churches are growing a fake kind of showiness to them//

Growing? I think you use the wrong tense there, mate. The phrase should be 'have grown'.

But they're not alone... I was raised Catholic, and typically those guys do love a bit of fake showiness. But not always... I've heard Mass said by a Catholic priest with no vestments, no church building, the only physical trappings being two twigs square-lashed to form a rudimentary cross and the communion wafers.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

And the rest is just vanity (i.e. the sin of pride).

//However the bible is still authoritive.//

Really? On everything?

Nah, you've lost me there.

//When the bible says something though I would put it under a lot of consideration. Including the genology that paints mankind's history as a lot shorter on earth.//

I hope you give equal consideration to all the other evidence beyond the Bible which indicates otherwise.

//Having a younger Earth isn't the hardest concept to swallow though.//

But a 6,000 year old universe opens up a bigger can of worms than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.

How can we see so many stars? Light travels at the speed of light, hence the name. If the light has only had 6,000 years to reach us, then we can only see stars that are a maximum of 6,000 light years away. But if all the stars we can see had to be packed into a 6,000ly radius sphere, we'd have to seriously re-work the laws of gravity. And if we did that, then apples wouldn't fall off trees in the manner in which they are routinely observed to do by simple apple farmers who don't give a toss about physics.

As above, so below.

Sir Isaac Newton, devout Christian and third greatest physicist ever, understood that. It was an essential part of his theological beliefs that God's Law was universal... the law that governed the apple falling from the tree applied to all of creation. A devout Christian and a great scientist all the way… and he's not alone.

In fact, if I had to do a quick who's who of important scientists who were devout Christians… turns out to be most of them. But they didn't get that way by deciding that everything you ever need to know is conveniently written in their Bible. They took a view that if the Scriptures were a creation of God, to be read, understood and appreciated by men of faith, so too was the world and universe around them: to their way of thinking, the greater their depth of understanding of the world, the closer they came to God.

I'll quote from one of my favourite philosophers, Baruch Spinoza:

“Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved. ”

Do you really think God gave us such a wondrous creation, and such marvellous brains to wonder about it with, in order that we might sit and stare at in astonishment like fools? That almost seems sacrilegious to me.

//Nor that God created it all.//

Nah, that's fine. The guy that invented the idea of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest by name of Georges Lemaitre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

I think he was quite happy with the idea of God as the creator.

//There are a decent number of explainations to these ideas to counter the ideas that the earth is older//

All right, let's hear 'em then.

//(or at least man's history in it is younger)//

And them.

//The harder element to swallow is the ORDER of which the earth was formed, not the age.//

The order? What, like dinosaurs before chickens?

I don't see the theological issue here: the Lord works in mysterious ways. If He wants to 'waste' a few millenia of His eternity redesigning T-rex into KFC for the nutritional convenience of his chosen creation, then Praise the Lord!

//I still trust the bible as authoritive even without an explaination.//

Why?

//Thanks for the reference, but they tell me there are a variety of beliefs in pantheism.//

Yes, of course.

//Including a view that God is mostly nature (much like nature worshiping religions)//

No, It is all Nature. Entirely unlike nature worshipping religions, which are usually just congregations of sad old hippies who've adopted some form of neopaganism. Nature and nature are not necessarily the same thing.

//Your beliefs though are what I'm asking about.//

I find this an adequate summation:

"In the impersonal form, pantheism is taken as meaning that the universe itself fits the description of what God should be perfectly, so rather than inventing a character, it is best to refer to the universe as God. This belief distances itself from the world of dogmatic religion, but allows pantheists to use the vivid language of spirituality to express experiences of wonder, awe, and connectedness in the face of Nature."

Not_Now.Soon,

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a young Earth. I know what evidence you're going to cite to Toni Lavis, as I was well versed in it all myself when I was a Christian. However, all the so-called evidence ignores the inconvenient facts which debunk them.

Take the one about the Moon's recession from Earth, for example: it ignores the fact that the Moon's recession is speeding up due to the decrease in tidal friction which has resulted from the break up of Gondwana. Or the one about the human population, which assumes that the rate of population growth has always remained static.

All creationist claims are debunked at http://www.talkorigins.org.

An extensive list of the most common creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.

I'd look your evidence up there before citing it.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/triple-crown-marcellus-ii.htm
If you need to be convinced that God does not exist you should read and digest this book "The Triple Crown" by Valerie Pirie. It goes to show what a shonky lot aspired to the papal throne. A real God would have had nothing to do with any of them.

David

I see from other threads you're back with us, Not_Now.Soon. So it just thought I'd give the thread a bump.

To Toni Lavis.

Thanks for letting me know your experience of the Pentecostal church. I'll keep that in mind. As for Catholic Churches, I don't have any intention of going to them right now. Not because of theology or disagreeing with them, but just the rituals they are known for, I don't think I'd understand the mass/sermon or what not, because of too much liturgies you and Latin.

I do consider the points I get from other people and other sources. But yes as far as the bible is concerned I trust it as more an authority then other sources of information. That said I should say I trust the bible books as they are without adding any more books to them. I count your previous book in question in the same line as the Book of Mormon. books claiming to be from God, but nothing more then claims.

As for the young earth theories, there is one theory that holds the earth is older but human history is still around 6000 years. That theory takes the 6 days God created the earth, and counts each "day" as longer then a 24 hour period.

(Continued)

The order though that so far doesn't have any explaination that matches up with science is how the Earth was made. Specifically that light was the first thing made but not the sun. The sun was made after it seems earth was.

The other explainations I've come across regarding an explaination, many of them are actually about refuting conclusions of our current scientific understanding. Not in the field to know which tools of dating are accurate or not, so honestly I don't pay that much attention to the counter explainations. The problem I see it as is that many are trying to justify God's words instead of just taking them as they are. Scientists (or experts in one field or another) say one thing then tweek it 3 years later or completely change it 10 years down the road.

Two explainations I've heard though aren't about how old the earth is though, but that it actually developed into a complex and diverse world of life at all. Instead of coming to nothing by the logic of the rule of entropy, or the chaos theory. Those two theories are good in my opinion, because they challenge the current scientific mindset of how the earth (and life on it) occured.

//I don't think I'd understand the mass/sermon or what not, because of too much liturgies you and Latin.//

Latin? Jesus, you really don't know much about Catholicism, do you? The Latin Mass - known as the Tridentine Rite - has not been in common usage since the 1960's after it was declared an 'extraordinary' form of Mass and the Second Vatican Council decreed that "normally the epistle and gospel from the Mass of the day shall be read in the vernacular", i.e. in the language spoken by the parishioners.

//But yes as far as the bible is concerned I trust it as more an authority then other sources of information.//

No you don't. The Bible supports a geocentric model of the solar system, but I'm sure you know better than that... why? Because everybody knows the Earth goes around the Sun, no matter what the Bible says.

//That said I should say I trust the bible books as they are without adding any more books to them.//

Yeah, why bother reading more than one book?

//I count your previous book in question in the same line as the Book of Mormon.//

The 'Book of Nature' isn't a literal book, it's an idea.

"Early theologians believed the Book of Nature was a source of God's revelation to mankind: when read alongside sacred scripture, the "book" of nature and the study of God's creations would lead to a knowledge of God himself. The concept corresponds to the early Greek philosophical belief that man, as part of a coherent universe, is capable of understanding the design of the natural world through reason."

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

//there is one theory that holds the earth is older but human history is still around 6000 years.//

You know, I'm not actually sure when history is considered to have started: you can't have history without writing. Everything before that is prehistory... and it goes back a lot further than 6000 years.

//Specifically that light was the first thing made but not the sun.//

Yes, there were visible wavelength photons before there were galaxies... and well before our galaxy:

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

//The sun was made after it seems earth was.//

Nope, that's rubbish:

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

//Scientists (or experts in one field or another) say one thing then tweek it 3 years later or completely change it 10 years down the road.//

Yes, that's because science is all about trying to find the answers... not assuming you already have all the answers, so hey, why bother trying to discover anything new.

Rigid dogmatism is not a good thing.

//Instead of coming to nothing by the logic of the rule of entropy//

Just so you know, the only tattoo I have is a physics equation. Specifically, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: do not try to tell me how entropy works when you clearly don't have a clue, because I will take you to the frigging cleaners, sunshine.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system. The Earth is obviously not an isolated system; we're being constantly bombarded with energy from the great fusion reactor in the sky. If a system has an input of energy from an external source, entropy can be decreased in that system.

Consider perpetual motion machines (PMM's). Genuine PMM's are impossible; they are forbidden by the second law. No machine can indefinitely perform work without a source of energy. Mind you, that hasn't stopped cranks and charlatans from trying to build them.

My favourite story involving PMM's, cranks and charlatans is the amusing tale of Charles Redheffer, who in 1812 in Philadelphia, claimed to have developed a perpetual motion machine that could power other machines. He was exposed by the engineer Robert Fulton (designer of the first submarine), who removed some panels to reveal a belt drive going through a wall, on the other side of which sat an old man turning a crank to power the device... i.e. an external source of energy.

The Sun is the Earth's old dude with a crank handle. And yes, eventually it will run out of puff. In about 5 billion years. So don't cancel the milk or anything.

//Those two theories are good in my opinion, because they challenge the current scientific mindset of how the earth (and life on it) occured.//

They really don't. You've just failed to understand them properly, and how science works. They are part of the current scientific mindset of how the Earth (and life on it) occurred. The current theories we have to describe our universe are built on the foundations of older theories like thermodynamics.

And a theory's value is not determined by how closely it matches up with some story in a book, but how accurately it describes the world, i.e. how well it is supported by experiment.

Not_Now.Soon,

All creationist arguments appealing to the second law of thermodynamics are debunked at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF.

To Toni.

[Nope, that's rubbish]

That's exactly what I mean. There's no known explaination to fit that narrative. At least not any that I've known. However, I'm not trying to make scientific discoveries or form explanations from the bible in order to trust it. I don't need to justify it, I already trust it. Because I trust God and trust the bible to be from Him. Take a moment to consider that. I know that line of reasoning would blow up in your face but just consider it.

When you trust someone, do you keep an eye on them, waiting for them to mess up so you can then remove that trust? That doesn't sound like trust to me. It sounds like an unhealthy relationship. When you develope a trust in someone, for whatever scope that trust exists in, do you continually need them to prove themselves before continuing to trust them? A machanic knows cars better then I do, and his digonisis (if I trust him) is worth listening to without a constant feed on proving he is still a machanic. Same with a doctor, a parent, a teacher, or anyone you find trust in for a specific field of understanding or responsibility.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the law of thermodynamics. I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. If a system begins in nothingness, it doesn't end in complexity and life. Having the sun as a battery to lessen the rule doesn't fix the issue. The issue is why isn't earth as barren as Mars?

A second issue of this is the massive complexity of everything. Of anything. Study the human anatomy and all the parts of it. Thinking that single cells decided to work together or just developed the ability to work together with one conscienceness, doesn't jive with the rule of entropy. Simply stated, evolution and entropy shouldn't both exist the way they do if both rules are equal.

The third issue is around using evolution in the scope of the beginnings of the world. If that theory exists at the beginning then not just complexity is an issue but so is diversity. Giving birth to different species becomes an issue. Not mutations within a species, but changing from one species to millions of species.

Those are holes in the current explanations of Earth's beginnings. Not a big deal, regardless if we understand how we got here or not, we're still here. Keep plugging away on our understanding, and living life.