geisha779

http://brownbible.com/about-us/ The link doesn't work well, but if you click on anything on the site. . . . it comes up We are dedicated to the research and teaching of God's wonderful Word. What makes us different? Read a few articles and find out. You won't find any unfounded tradition here, just straight Bible. I trust that the fundamental principles laid out in our "How to Research the Bible" section will be helpful. We have been so blessed and helped in our lives because we have learned how the Bible interprets itself. We know that the Scripture interprets itself in the verse, or in the context, or where it has been used before and lots more.

Hindu women have temporary intricate henna tattoos applied to their hands(palms included) for their weddings and special occasions. . . . Really beautiful artwork. . . . called Mehendi

No Waysider. . . . it is a statement which simply takes into account the God revealed within the Judeo/Christian scripture. Scripture which clearly states that we are not to have other Gods before Him. Not that there are not other Gods. . .in fact, doesn't this seem to affirm that? Knowing this would be a response I was so careful in my wording. . . . what did I write? "It all only really matters if one day we are called to account before the God revealed in the Christian scriptures" That is where it will matter what we believe about Him. . . . and the sacrifice of His Son. He doesn't make or allow another provision. It is expressly prohibited. The one He made is enough for the whole world. He is a God who does speak about being evident within a jar of fireflies. . . . The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. I too believe God is clearly evident within creation. But, He is not His creation and according to scripture we are not saved by recognizing His glory in it. That just makes us without excuse. Idolatry is an offense against the glory of God, because it seeks glory somewhere other than in God, even within His creation. But, think about how much greater the creator must be. . . if the creation thrills . . . how much more will He? That is why I said it only matters if we stand before the God revealed in the Christian scripture. ---------------------------------------------------------------- If I am called to account before Allah. . . my faith in the scriptures will hold me in good stead as a "People of the Book" and for when I stand before the scales. . . . . . because I try to love my neighbor as myself. . . and do good unto all men. If I am reincarnated. . . I get to do it all over again until I reach the depth of enlightenment needed to reach Nirvana. . . or for looking into a jar of fireflies. Maybe I will simply be reabsorbed into the One. . . . or simply cease to exist. Where is it going to make the difference? Christian God of scripture.

Probably why I drew a distinction. :) Although, a strong argument from scripture can be made to the contrary. It all comes down to the reality of God. I suspect for most of us. . . .our individual realities will amount to at best, 80 or 90 years (stay healthy) and the rest left up to the ultimate reality or the lack of one. Time passes quickly. There are exceptions, but then again. . . . once someone "adopts" an individual reality. . . it ceases to be. To me, there is a case to be made that apathy is just a passive form of opposition. . . . . which is why I believe the scriptures say we are without excuse. It all only really matters if one day we are called to account before the God revealed in the Christian scriptures. . . . not believing. . . . with not change that reality if it is to be.

I don't know if you are familiar with Anthony Flew? Another massive intellect . .. and yes, scary type. He too is so interesting to read. . . .although different from Collins. . . . . as Anthony Flew is a philosopher. He was the Richard Dawkins of his day. . . . an Oxford Don and devout atheist who would regularly debate with CS Lewis while participating in Lewis' Socratic Club. His father was a minister. I only mention this because I find it so fascinating that many of the people we read who come out in such stark opposition to the God revealed in scripture have a background of some sort in Christianity. Nietzsche for example, his father and grandfather were both ministers. On this thread, Karen Armstrong was a nun and Bart Ehrman was raised in an evangelical home. As an aside, Nietzsche died quoting scripture. Flew is now a theist. . . . the radical nature of his conversion from atheism to theism is really lost without some understanding of his former position and how wedded he was to it. He is not a Christian. . .. yet. If you have not heard of him. . .I thought you might enjoy checking him out. It was DNA and the structure of a single cell that got him questioning his former position. I do not believe you can discount the philosophical related to the questions concerning scripture. They go hand in hand with any reasoned and rounded approach to scripture and its reliability. Huge topic.. . . .some great minds to read for sport!! :)

Well, why is that? Because the reasoned response to a text which deals with the transcendent nature of a creator God is to deny miracles? Isn't it reasonable to consider at the very least, that if God has chosen a particular place and time to reveal Himself to mankind, that period in history could have witnessed miracles not seen today? Would that make it reasonable to begin with the supposition that miracles should be dismissed based on present day understanding? On what basis do you begin with the supposition that miracles should actually be taken with a grain of salt? It would have to be the position that there is no God. . . . is that a reasonable conclusion to make in dealing with a text that has declared His existence? http://www.leaderu.c...s/miracles.html "The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective." In Gospel Perspectives VI, pp. 9-40. "In this way, the lack of an analogy to present experience says nothing for or against the historicity of an event. Troeltsch's formulation of the principle of analogy attempts to squeeze the past into the mold of the present without providing any warrant for doing so. As Richard Niebuhr has protested, Troeltsch's principle really destroys genuine historical reasoning, since the historian must be open to the uniqueness of the events of the past and cannot exclude a priori the possibility of events like the resurrection simply because they do not conform to his present experience.But Pannenberg's formulation of the principle preserves the analogous nature of the past to the present or to the known, thus making the investigation of history possible, without thereby sacrificing the integrity of the past or distorting it. This means that there seems to be no in principle philosophical objection to establishing the occurrence of a miracle by means of historical research. According to Pannenberg, a theological interpretation of history will be tested positively by 'its ability to take into account all known historical details' and negatively by 'the proof that without its specific assertions the accessible information would not be at all or would be only incompletely explicable"

I like that.

I refuse to believe you are being purposefully obtuse. . . and I know you are intelligent. . . so, I am going to assume I have poor communication skills. But, if you don't see the correlation between VP and the detailed description of a false teacher in scripture . . . I got nothing. That experience with TWI affirms scripture's words and the validity of warning to the church that there are men who rise up . . . come out from among it. . . and lead people astray. If it was merely an exercise in communal living with a "religious" twist. . . . than no harm . . . no foul. Personally, I believe it is far more sinister and dark than simply that. . . evil in fact. TWI is evil . . .now run by two women who lust for each other and hide it pretending to be something else in order to continue living a lavish lifestyle and fleece the flock. . . I believe VPW was an evil man who used people just like the scriptures describe and is exactly who Jesus, Peter, John, Jude, and Paul warned us about. I believed he preyed upon the weak and innocent. . .. I believe his eyes were full of adultery, lust, he was drunken, perverse, proud, irreverent, selfish, and destructive. I believe he lead people away from Jesus Christ. Actually, I believe he lead people to oppose Jesus Christ and into a false sense of salvation. I don't know what cult you were in that just had a "religious twist". . . . I was in the one that stood in defiant opposition to all things Godly, good and holy. Clear enough? I don't really know how I, or scripture, could make it any clearer. Scripture gives us a detailed warning about people just like VP, who do the exact same things VP did. The time we spent in TWI bear these things out. You have the advantage of first-hand knowledge with a false teacher which affirm those words. And just to add: These accusations against Paul. . . . happened in the 1st century . . . same ones. . .. he didn't have a direct relation to Jesus. . . they said he learned from the 12 in Jerusalem . . . although it was 3 years before he consulted them. 2 Corinthians and Galatians are a defense of his Apostleship against these same charges. You can read what he said and how he defended himself. It is really interesting. He didn't attack them personally, although they got ugly with him. . .. he went after their teaching. They were putting people in bondage again. They were already observing feasts and being circumcised. . . . they were headed to full observance of the law . . . . which Jesus came to free them from. It is all in there.

You know. . . there is not much I can say to that. . . I am gobsmacked. The advantage you have to see the relevance of Paul's words is staggering. There validity can be borne out by your own experience sitting under the "teacher". You lived it. I have no possible idea how to respond to your comment.

And how did your encounter with Jesus come about? Seriously, don't you do some kind of worship thing with a church? You must worship the Lord if you participate or plan music for worship service? It can't just all be an exercise in futility? ______________________ One would think that out of all the people on this planet. . . . ex-way would be the last people to say something like (supposed) false teachers. . .we know they preached another gospel(Paul) . . . . we know they denied Jesus Christ had come in the flesh(John). . . . we know their characteristics(Peter). . . We know they came into the church with stealth(Jude)We know they come as wolves in sheep's clothing(Jesus) We know they make merchandise of people, have eyes full of adultery, and like to argue over words. . . . we know they speak perverse things. . . . . we know they don't spare the flock, and we know the way of truth will be maligned because of them.(Yeah, I wanna still carry THAT banner) We know they live lives of sensuality. We know they are motivated by greed. We know they turn the grace of God into a license to sin. And from some church fathers we know some of their names. . . .their canon. . . . what they taught . . . and where their churches were. We don't even need to bother with all that . . . just read these frickin forums!!! And someone thought Paul had authority because he founded most of the churches. He was a missionary who carried the light to the gentiles. If you want to get technical about it he actually fulfilled the second part of Jesus ministry. . . .and we do still have a church to this day. Wow.

Well, it wasn't really offered for debate. . . it was a declarative statement concerning how "inspiration" was an explanation for me concerning the continuity of the bible. So, no worries :) . . . I wasn't really speaking for anyone else. . . . it is okay to make declarative statements concerning my own reasoning. . . right? Although, now I am really amused. Continuity is a reason why the NT books were chosen. . . . why we even have a canon. . . a man made later canon . . which is apparently why some do not believe the validity of the bible. It is the definitive revelation of Jesus Christ with Apostolic validity and authority for the Church concerning faith and life. That is the purpose of the bible. It would make better sense to argue it is a contrived continuity. I can't help it if a Messiah is the subject matter of scripture . . . of the bible. . . the OT foretelling . . . the NT affirming Jesus as the Messiah . . . and of course the whole point of the Christian faith. I didn't write scripture. . .or put it together in a book. I simply believe it. A cursory reading reveals consistent subject matter. But, I wasn't trying to speak on behalf of anyone else. ____________________________________________________________ WordWolf's amazingly astute comments in the doctrinal forum really struck me yesterday. He was not speaking to this topic, but, for me, they resonated here. "The books of the book (the codex, really) span thousands of years. Just because they're not written in the CURRENT style is no reason, in and of itself, to throw up one's hands and say "it's illogical, it's anti-science, it's anti-reason." Of course, if one has ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND to dismiss the Bible, it doesn't matter WHAT the contents say, the only thing one will see is pretexts to ignore it, and a reasoned discussion is already precluded. "

I have had the same questions SS. The "What did God expect?" questions. Maybe, God expected them to be thankful for His ample provision and to obey Him . . . their creator God. Seems plausible He could expect faith in His word and the expression of His goodness. Wouldn't you? What did they know? They knew God provided them dominion and bounty. They knew He said eat freely of any of the trees . . . whatever you want. . . but, this one tree you will not eat of because if you do. . . you will SURELY die. They knew His instruction. They knew His generosity. They knew His fellowship and kindness. They knew their purpose. It was Satan who tempted, not God. It was Satan who was crafty and sewed the seed of doubt in what Eve knew about God. Her perception became an exaggerated one of God's severity in the prohibition of one thing. It went from freely eat any. . . to . . . Yeah we can eat. It went from this one tree you cannot eat from. . . to . . .Yeah, we can't even touch it lest we die. God didn't say lest you die. . . He said, you will surely die, and He never said they could not touch it. She lost sight of God's goodness and His judgment. What I find interesting is no one repented. They hid. Job speaks of Adam's transgression. . . How he responded. .. Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom. . . . yet, God still provided them a covering and He has generously provided, at great cost, a better way.

No I wasn't kidding. We know that it is true . . . . when it comes to pass in the course of human history.

Well, I do think you can come to a decision weighing the evidence, like CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, or the most interesting Anthony Flew . . . a hardcore atheist and a brilliant mind. These guys have really interesting stories. Ravi Zacharias too. Ultimately it is a decision. How we examine the evidence and relate to it varies. How we process information really matters. How is it circular logic? Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ as he claims, making a declarative statement within scripture. There is a church now. There was a church in the 1st century. We have these letters written by Paul to the early churches. In one of the letters Paul makes a definitive statement. . . . scripture is. . . yada yada. I have access to all kinds of things called scripture. I can read the bible, the Koran. . . anything I want . . . look at human history, relate to God's movement within it. . . see God within the creation. . . and I can evaluate that statement and decide whether I believe it or don't believe it. I am not compelled to believe it just because it is IN the bible. If I believed it because it IS scripture. . . . you might have a case. . . . but, if I believe it to be a true declarative statement by evaluating it.. . . . no. Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Well, that makes fulfilled prophecy more clear. . . . and how we got a story full of continuity and congruence over 3 continents, 3 languages, 1500 years, 66 books, and 40 authors from all walks of life telling one story about one particular man to come . . . having arrived. . . did what He did and left. .. promising to return. That explanation . . . the inspired thingy rings a bell with me. But, you have to assume people simply believe it because it is scripture. How do you know this? Oh, oops. . . well, perhaps many of us did that in TWI. . . well, okay that is a given. But, we were in a cult.

I will go you one better Waysider, the scriptures do not prove the existence of God. . . . they don't even defend it. . . they simply declare it. Declarative statements. . . you never use them in contrast to a question or a command? A statement that something is. . . just that. . . what it is. You don't have to accept the answers in scripture as true, but they are provided for you. Whether you are responsible to the God declared in scripture for your acceptance is a question we all answer for ourselves. That might even be the whole point to the exercise of life. Scripture declares it is. . . . . it declares the reasons for this life. People don't accept the answers because they compel belief and they do not violate one's free-will decision. The message speaks to the heart. Oddly, the message does call people to decision by its declarative nature. Jesus did not go around begging people to believe in God. . . He declared Him. However, this thread is eerily reminiscent of how we approached scripture in TWI. Always with something to prove.

Jesus Himself read from the scrolls. He affirmed them and their authority. . . even saying at one point they were being fulfilled right there before their eyes. The Apostles held the same reverence that Jesus did . . . for the written word. It was no light issue. These men, with the exception of John, died for the purpose of being a witness to these things. That makes them worth more than a cursory logic when denying them . . . IMO. If the originals were not perfect . . . then no real error has crept in. There was nothing true or right to corrupt in the first place. No perfect originals. . . . no error. Case closed. OR Something original is going to be perfect for what it is. . . . being the first thing done from which copies are made. But, what do we mean by perfect? From where I sit. . . language and man's ability to communicate through language is not perfect. Look at these forums. . . and most of us have an education which would rival that of a fisherman. So, perfect grammar, perfect precise and exact wording, perfect hidden meaning? No. That is a form of gnostic perception of scripture and in part why Gnostics are so drawn to Paul's epistles. It is what we in TWI were searching for from the scriptures. Men wrote these books and letters. Why do the scriptures have authority OVER THE CHURCH? Because they are God breathed? I guess so. . .but what does that even mean? What does inspired by God even mean? We are not speaking about the Koran. But, if you listen to TWI one would think we were. It is the Koran that Muslim's claim is the EXACT representation of God. Scripture. . . according to Paul is inspired by God. Written by men. About something for a purpose. It is meant to be the revelation and definitive witness to Jesus Christ as Lord. The rule of faith and of life. Or is it because some guys got together and decided it had authority? Letters circulated from the get go and it was common practice for some of them to be read in the different churches. That instruction is still with us today. 1st Thess. 5:27 Not all the letters had the same authority. Some were Apostolic in nature. The Apostles were known as they also circulated. Copies circulated among the churches from early on. They were authoritative depending on who wrote them about what. . . . false letters circulated too. Paul addresses this in his letter to the Thessalonians. Prior to AD 100 Paul's letters had already been collected and published. The Pauline Corpus. Paul's word was affirmed by Peter. If he was a con man, Peter would not have affirmed Paul's word. The gospels were also collected and circulated. Outside their immediate area they were compared and contrasted. . . the result was that people started picking the gospel they liked the most. I believe Acts and 1 Peter and one of the Johns along with Revelation was also added early on. Different things were added in different places but, some not in our canon today. They did not have the Apostolic validity but, were still good writings. We can still read them. The Didache for example. I love reading that. Coming from what we did, TWI, I would think it would be MORE clear to us than almost anyone else about the need that the church had to establish the validity of the Apostolic writings. . . . given the rise of pick and choose a book Gnostics with their varied theologies which stood diametrically opposed to the church. And why didn't we revere the gospels as we did the Pauline epistles in TWI. Why were they down played and nearly dismissed the same way they were by some groups early on? Although the 21 book canon by 200AD or the canon we have today was debated and books challenged. . . that should give us more confidence. . . not less. . . that we have a good bible. That it was accepted for the most part as having authority over the church is phenomenal. It was not a contrived result. It has been honored ever since. . . despite divisions. Oral tradition, tested witnesses, daily faith. . . . life/death. . . .people STILL dying for this truth . . . heady factors IMO. You can't get ten of us on here to agree to the same thing for more than 5 minutes. Never mind adhere to it for 20 minutes. So far, the bible has buried all its pall bearers. I think the scriptures mention something about that too. But, the authority of scripture itself was not what the canon was seeking to prove was it? The understanding of sacred scripture was already a heritage.. Our attitude toward scripture. . . . . as Christians, comes from Jesus attitude. He identified Himself with that authority. He confirmed this to His disciples. . . no? He claimed to be the Messiah. . . the fulfillment of scripture. If the words given to Moses were revered. . . kept. . . handed down. . . preserved. . . . how much more important would it be that those of the fulfillment of these prophecies be recorded? Still, scripture is suppose to be inspired by God, so it is God's ballgame I guess. The people who debated and worked the canon didn't authorize the writing of scripture. . . the OT prophet's didn't raise themselves up for lives of misery. The Apostles who were martyred . . . probably not their life long ambition. There is a spiritual element. Probably best not to discount that when evaluating the scriptures. They testify of this. . . so consider it at least. God selects the time, the people, and the human element if the scriptures are to be believed. The providence of God. I love that term.

Which I believe you have mentioned before . .. no? So, I simply corrected my wording and answered your question. Should not be a problem. I thought it was clear enough in the context, but maybe not. I am sorry that is all you took or wanted to discuss from my lengthy post. Your other thread actually inspired me to read Inerrancy by Norm Geisler. I have had it hanging around for awhile. It is a good book and addresses many of your questions. You might enjoy it. Don't step out . . . I will. . . this is your kind of topic . . . Enjoy!!

I guess the claims(plural) depend on where you are reading really? No? Perhaps I should have written "within" itself again? Poor choice of a word at 4:15 AM? Funny, I remember certain phrases I would watch for others to use while in TWI. My opportunity to get in there and "correct" according to TWI theology. It was so superficial. It didn't really matter what else they were saying. . . . I just waited for the gotcha phrase. I never engaged people in genuine conversation. . . . I always had those few formulaic questions ready and waiting. Endless arguments over words. But, then again, I was rather "fundamentalist" in my approach, had my own agenda, and was trained in a cult. That being said . . . . . the claims it makes within itself . . . vary. Some things claim to be an orderly account. . . . narrative. . . some are written in specific genres . . . like histories or the apocalyptic genre of the day . . . . . some are didactic. Some claims are to being letters written to specific churches . . . they proclaim purposes. . . given to correct certain problems that crept into the church by men just like VP with their own agenda and gospel. If we are looking for verses . . . happy to have that doctrinal discussion . . . maybe. . . in the appropriate forum. You are absolutely correct when you say those letters are not written to you. They were written for people who already believed in the Lord by hearing the gospel message. Faith comes by hearing the message .. . . the text . . . having it speak to your heart as true. . . . Many, never even saw it in written form. The letters are not really evangelical tools. In TWI we believed in the book to nearly the exclusion of all else including the message. If one's faith in the book is rocked .. . the rest collapses. . . . makes perfect sense.

I am not sure I am understanding the whole premise here. I live with a freakishly talented musician. He has literally taught himself to play any instrument he has ever picked up . . . . starting with the touch-tone phone at the age of 4. One day he sat down and wrote the most beautiful piece of music I have heard in a long time. It took him a few hours to write it, record all the parts, and mix them together for a stunning result. Fascinated, I asked him how he did this . . . He simply said he was inspired. It was still him writing the notes and it was his talent. .. . but, the inspiration for that music came from somewhere. Probably a poor analogy, but we do have some kind of understanding about what it means to be inspired by something. It is not an unheard of concept. It should almost be more clear to those with artistic leaning. Musicians, artists, creative people. Although, inspiration is not limited. Scripture writing, being an inspired act, should not be a confusing idea? One may choose to not believe that declaration of inspiration within these ancient documents, (more than one set of scripture declares this) but the notion that . . . yes, it was Paul's words, doesn't serve to disprove the idea of them being inspired by God. Holy men. . . a specific kind of person . . . spoke their own words. . . in their own style. . . in their own language . . . with their own understanding . . . inspired, or moved by the Holy Spirit. I guess it helps to understand the concept of holiness and how the Holy Spirit moves within the life of a Christian. If that is not something one does understand. . . it is fairly easy to ask a Christian to explain it. . . or even allow the scriptures themselves to enlighten us to the concept. They do that when we are not trying to tell them what they are saying, but let them tell us. I think we missed that in TWI. Another bad analogy. . . Dear Abby can write a piece of advice addressing a particular problem or issue. Does that mean the advice is only relevant to the person to whom it is particularly addressed? Can others accept the advice and use it in their own situation? What Paul wrote to particular church, facing specific issues, can be relevant to churches today. We can take those corrected doctrines and apply them within our own church and life. Especially if we believe the words written by Paul, his own words. . . are inspired by the Holy Spirit. To me, what is more illuminating is that these same issues still arise in churches. The whole concept of written language as a form of communication. . . . it is a very human thing. Christians believe God to be very engaged in the events of human history. That is the whole premise of Christian scripture. Before the advent of television, radio, internet and email. . . . which we as a culture can relate to . . . letter writing was an art form . . . a duty. . . how we related to others important information. Books, not an antiquated or confusing concept. Taking relevant information presented at one time in letter form . . . . concerning a particular subject and putting it together in a book with other information about the same subject matter is not so far fetched. The canon had a purpose and these doctrines and concepts were already understood. The understanding of an Apostle's purpose and calling were known. One doesn't have to accept the premise, but it doesn't mean there wasn't specific guidelines or reasons for what was accepted. The knowledge of false apostles and false letters being circulated is addressed in scripture. Thessalonians speaks to false letters . . . . other scripture addresses false teachers. . . .other scripture. . . . false doctrine. A right and wrong way to understand certain things within the faith. What is so odd about that? This specific collection makes claims about itself. It is great to evaluate its history. . . . but, limiting oneself to a particular method is like using just part of a recipe. At some point, we need to evaluate the text itself for its claims. It addresses the genesis of life, the human condition, and a specific historic figure who made claims relevant to all of mankind. That is what we have . . . no matter who said it. . . wrote it down. . . copied it. . . or put it in book form. The Shakespeare on your shelf may have a few words wrong . . . a few passages tweaked, but the story line we can have some confidence in. . . .

Definitely! The quintessential "idiot".

Well, why would one use the "aforementioned criteria" to draw a conclusion? That ship has sailed. I am confused? Is VP's standard for inerrancy what we use to evaluate Paul as a con man? We are confronted with a collection of ancient documents. . . the most well preserved of ancient documents BTW. We use certain criteria to evaluate their validity . . . including, but not limited to what they say about themselves. We give them the benefit of doubt. That is not just given to scripture, but we do look to see what all ancient documents say about themselves. We also know a great deal about the practice of letter writing during his time and beyond. These things were not just put in a letters, these guys went around and preached at these churches. These things were known and believed on . . . . . .and by many who knew Jesus. I am missing something here. . . . where does this hypothesis about Paul come from? What is the basis for the possible conclusion? "I would that ye all spake with tongues"? VP said that meant every Christian. . . so, Paul was a con man? VP was an a$.. The same "Rap sheet" we have on Paul which we conclude goes to his credibility is found in the same document which we learn of his conversion. So we accept one and not the other? Setting the supernatural aside. . . . say Paul's rap sheet is true. He had some influence. . . . he spoke. . . people jumped. If his rap sheet is true, we can assume his pedigree is true. . . So, this con man gives up this kind of affluence and authority within his beloved faith. . . to be imprisoned, beaten, nearly stoned, and ultimately martyred because he gained . . . . what? He was a very lousy con man. . . . He could have had a motor coach had he remained a Pharisee. Instead, he was on trial before the Sanhedrin. His head probably ended up on a chopping block. The joke was on him if he was lying. Just to add: Most gnostics adhere to the Pauline epistles to the exclusion of most everything else. Marcion for example. There might be a bigger picture here. The nature of what we were part of in TWI.

So, any bets on what happens with Johnny Damon? He has overpriced himself(his agent has). . . . he can't throw and his fielding has gone downhill. . . but, he can still hit . . . . although, not a typical DH. . .. more a lead off guy. My guess is he will have to be converted to another position and go to some team that needs a 1st basemen?? The Yankees don't need him . . . they have younger, cheaper, and better stockpiles of out fielders. He is going to have to go to a non-contender and play for 1/2 his salary. . . . unless something changes. Someone gets injured? He should have stayed with the Sox.

Scripture does speak about other created beings. . . . heavenly hosts. . . . but, like CS Lewis, I wouldn't be surprised by anything else out there. . . . you do know scripture speaks about a new earth or one not cursed by sin? Part of the hope. :) http://www.gotquesti...vens-earth.html God offers eternity to delight in Him. Sorry to Roy. . . . I don't want to takeover his thread either. . . . I have a way of doing that!

Well there, now you are asking the really fun questions! :) Is God really dependent on His creation . . . . any of His creation to actualize His love? That would make the creation just as important as God. . . . wouldn't it? He would be incomplete without it. God is anything but incomplete. God is eternal. Good is not just the absence of evil. . . that is a finite definition, but evil is not eternal . . . is it? That goodness of God is also related within Himself and not dependent on creation to be actualized. It is not dependent on evil to exist. I Am that I Am. . . . .many of the attributes of God have relatedness. . . . God delights within Himself and loves within Himself. He has created us out of that overflowing abundance of love to partake in it. To worship and be fulfilled in delighting in God. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness. God gives all things, but needs nothing from us. . . .He offers us the greatest gift. . . Himself From John Piper. . . Desiring God. "Since the Son is the image of God and the reflection of God and the stamp of God and the form of God, equal with God, and indeed IS God, therefore God's delight in the Son is delight in himself. Therefore the original, the primal, the deepest, the foundational joy of God is the joy he has in his own perfections as he sees them reflected in his Son. He loves the Son and delights in the Son and takes pleasure in the Son because the Son is God himself. At first this sounds like vanity, and has the feel of conceitedness and smugness and selfishness about it, because that is what it would mean if any of us found our first and deepest joy by looking at ourselves in the mirror. We would be vain and conceited and smug and selfish. But why? Because we were created for something infinitely better and nobler and greater and deeper than self-contemplation. What? The contemplation and enjoyment of God! Anything less than this would be idolatry. God is the most glorious of all beings. Not to love him and delight in him is a great insult to his worth. But the same is true for God. How shall God not insult what is infinitely beautiful and glorious? How shall God not commit idolatry? There is only one possible answer: God must love and delight in his own beauty and perfection above all things. For us to do this in front of the mirror is the essence of vanity; for God to do it in front of his Son is the essence of righteousness. Isn't the essence of righteousness to be moved by perfect delight in what is perfectly glorious? And isn't the opposite of righteousness when we set our highest affections on the things of little or no worth? And so the righteousness of God is the infinite zeal and joy and pleasure that he has in his own worth and glory. And if he were to ever act contrary to this eternal passion for his own perfections, he would be unrighteous; he would be an idolater. Herein lies the greatest obstacle to our salvation: for how shall such a righteous God ever set his affection on sinners like us? But herein lies also the very foundation of our salvation, for it is precisely the infinite regard that the Father has for the Son which makes it possible for me, a wicked sinner, to be loved and accepted in the Son, because in his death he restored all the insult and injury that I had done to the Father's glory through my sin. . . . . . . . . God is the most excellent and worthy of all beings. Why? Because he has loved his Son, the image of his own glory, with infinite and perfect energy from all eternity. How glorious and happy have been the Father and the Son and the Spirit of love flowing between them from all eternity!"