A Letter to Bob

Bob, you are right. Simply looking at the beginning of everything we cannot draw a God-conclusion or a non-God-conclusion. However, before I go further let me point something out.

We are in a game of chess that can never really end with one of us taking the king, neither can we put each other in checkmate. Don’t get me wrong, there has been some damage done. Here and there a pawn or bishop has been taken. And your last argument may seem like a pretty good ending argument. But, there is still more ground to cover. We can just end it here, and agree to disagree, or keep going. So, if you would like to go further, here is my next move:

The next logical place to go in this argument is whether or not truth exists, and whether or not we can know it. To say that it does not exist presents a logical fallacy. For the statement itself is presented as a truth. Either the statement, “There is no truth.”, is truth itself making the statement silly, or it is false making truth itself a reality. And what are we trying to do here if not live the truth we see and hope it matches with reality. Now, if we are agreed that truth exists, we must also be agreed on its nature. That nature is exclusivity. A rock cannot be a duck. A tree cannot sing the blues. A black car is black and not gray. We call these things truth, for they remain the same to all who perceive them.

Now, there can’t be a God and not a God at the same time. One statement is true and one statement is false. But, can we know the truth? If we can find truth in our day, we must look for clues that point to that truth. As I said before, it is not the job of science to either point to the existence of God, or the existence of evolution. It is our bias that we are stating if we say that it does. We attain our bias through choice. So, before we even see the evidence, our perception is already guided in a direction of our own choosing. It would then follow that what we perceive and how we do it is very important.

Some people look at the world and see order. Others see chance. Although it is your right to hold either perception, one of them is wrong and one is right. I can do nothing about someone else’s perception, but I can make mine as reasonable as possible. I think you already know my position. I see order, and therefore perceive that this order points to a Creator. I’m sure you can pick up the argument from here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A Changing God

I do not necessarily believe the following:

When did God decide that he would send His Son to die for our sins? The Bible says he was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19-20) It would seem that God decided this before man took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But maybe not. Which world was God talking about? Some people claim there are two worlds mentioned in the Bible, an old world and a new world. 2 Peter 2:5 mentions an old world. This old world was the world before the flood. The new world was the world after the flood. Psalm 24:1-2 says this new world was established on the floods.

So here’s how his works:

  1. God had one plan for creation from the beginning.
  2. Adam sinned.
  3. Man became depraved.
  4. God saw his plan was not working anymore.
  5. God sent the flood to destroy everything making a new world.
  6. God started over with a new plan. (Jesus dying for our sins)

However, the earth may have been established on the floods from the beginning of creation as suggested by this video that discusses the hydroplate theory:

So… what’s the point of believing there are two worlds?

Maybe God didn’t know that man was going to sin. And God didn’t necessarily put the tree of knowledge of good and evil there to give man a choice. I’m sure that was part of it, but God may have intended for man to eventually eat of the fruit once he had matured. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not inherently wrong. The tree didn’t bring death. Man’s actions did. Death came by sin. This may be illustrated by the following story of a little girl riding in a car with her father. She asks, “What is sex daddy?” Her father said nothing but continued the journey and eventually parked the car. He got out and asked his daughter to carry his briefcase. She pulled the briefcase out of the car and it fell heavily to the ground. She tried to pick it up but could not do so. As he watched this struggle her father replied, “Some things are too much for you to handle at this age. Just like this briefcase some subjects you will not be able to carry correctly till you mature.”

So, God may have intended for us to eat of the tree of knowledge at a certain time in the future.

Conversely, the tree of life was supposed to make man live forever. Both trees were in the midst of the garden. The principle follows that when I would do good, evil is present with me. If Adam was to choose the tree of life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was there as well. This leads me to believe that Adam had not eaten of the tree of life because man obviously does not live forever. Gen 3:22 further relates that man should not be allowed to eat of the tree of life because then he would live forever in sin. The power of life was apparently more potent than death. However, the ban might have eventually been lifted on the tree of knowledge once man had matured.

I said all this to say that God may have waited to see what man would do before he decided to send his son to die for us. But does this mean he didn’t know what man was going to do? This thought seems to violate a natural attribute of God: Omniscience (all-knowing). So… God doesn’t know the future? What am I saying?

God gave man freewill, the ability to choose. Man is the wild card of creation choosing this or that at whim. However, God does know your thoughts before you think them as evidenced in Psalms 139. Could not God have known what Adam was going to think and know he was going to sin? But if this is true, then God provided the tree planning that man would sin and accordingly, Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the “old world.”

What if it is true that God had one plan for the old world and a replacement plan for the new world. Does God change like that? Does he know the future or choose not to know? The Bible has a few stories where God changes his mind.

  1. God was going to destroy the Israelites and Moses stopped him. (Exodus 32:9-14)
  2. God was going to destroy the city of Nineveh but changed his mind after they repented. (The Book of Jonah)
  3. God divorced Israel and said he would take them back if they repented. Jeremiah 3:8-11
  4. God changes people from the outside in (Old Testament), God changes people from the inside out (New Testament)

It would seem that God’s mind can be changed by the will of man. Let me stress before we go any further that God’s character doesn’t change but his actions can be changed. I don’t know how that works if God knows the future though. It may be that this is just the way that God likes to do things: i. e. Wait and see what man is going to do.

So here are my questions to the reader:

  1. Did God change plans?
  2. If God changed plans, what was his first plan?
  3. Are there really two worlds?
  4. What do you think about the Hydroplate Theory?
  5. Does this really affect our lives?