If God looked upon the Earth on the 6th day and said it was very good...

[henrah]

...who was he saying it to? And who was there to witness him finishing it and resting on the 7th? Did he tell Adam and Eve? Did they have the materials to document this?

Just some random questions. Answer them if you please
Henrah

[opus10no2]

The plot is rather far-fetched, 'tis not to be taken seriously.

Organised religion is a human cultural construct, Theism is to a degree a natural human inclination of thought to many.

[ahinton]

Once again, our "pianistimo" is slow off the mark; maybe she's on vacation.

In the interim - i.e. until she returns to answer the above - this seems like an opportune moment to recall a remark made to me by an Italian friend, who told me that "on the seventh day, God made Italy; He needed the first six days to practise".

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

"on the seventh day, God made Italy; He needed the first six days to practise".

Best,

Alistair

He probably made Sheffield on the 1st day then.

Come on Pianistimo, enlighten us with your great wisdom.

Thal

[mad_max2024]

...who was he saying it to? And who was there to witness him finishing it and resting on the 7th?

Maybe he had a cat...

[ahinton]

He probably made Sheffield on the 1st day then.

Thal

I didn't realise that He had made Sheffield at all...

That said, I'm very puzzled by the idea of anyone "making" the earth over a period of seveal days. How was this done in reality? To discover this, we will have to read His word as found in the Good Book.

"And the Lord God said "In the name of Myself, I decided that this bit of dark matter would do for a core.

Now, verily I say unto you, I chucked a massive magnet into its centre and a load of concrete and stuff all around it and then poured zillions of litres of water around that in the hope that it'll somehow stick.

It came to pass that the waters did indeed adhere, so I then contrived a few controlled explosions to give contours to it all and called the results "land" and "sea".

I thought that his was not a bad start, so I said unto myself "here's some amoebae I made earlier", whereupon I did cast them into the waters and, hey presto (well, no, more like hey lentissimo, actually, but who's to argue?), life on earth!

Verily I then said unto Myself (for there was still no one else listening at the time) "Ha! - nothing like the satisfaction of a job well done! And all in six days! Boy, I need a rest!"

And so it came to pass that I crashed out for a full twenty-four hours of Mine own creation.

I then said unto Myself "But the show ain't over yet - oh, no!"

So I waited for a few million years until humanity's gotten itself well established and then twisted its mind into thinking that it needs to predict the arrival of some kind of Messiah - then, lo and behold, I instillèd into that mind the notion of Jesus Christ and - once He had been born, lived, died on the cross and risen again as effectively as a Pennsylvanian clambake - I decided that the rest will be history, apart from a need to start a PR company in Philadelphia in the latter part of the 20th century AD, which I think I have done quite well, though I sez so as shouldn't". (Alexander of Scotia, Chapter 10, Verse 1).

OK, then, Susan - time for you to correct any misunderstandings and/or misinterpratations in the above and to give your take on the subject unto the twelve disciple-moderators and the seventy times seven (and all the rest) members of the Church of Piano on the Street which is Straight - something which I now verily challenge you to do in less than twenty thousand words...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

...who was he saying it to? And who was there to witness him finishing it and resting on the 7th?

Stockhausen, probably...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

So I waited for a few million years until humanity's gotten itself well established and then twisted its mind into thinking that it needs to predict the arrival of some kind of Messiah - then, lo and behold, I instillèd into that mind the notion of Jesus Christ and - once He had been born, lived, died on the cross and risen again as effectively as a Pennsylvanian clambake - I decided that the rest will be history, apart from a need to start a PR company in Philadelphia in the latter part of the 20th century AD, which I think I have done quite well, though I sez so as shouldn't". (Alexander of Scotia, Chapter 10, Verse 1).

Very good and no less absurd than the original which some people still believe.

The only point which i must contend is the use of "million years".

Every educated person knows that the Earth is but a few thousand years old.

Thal

[ahinton]

Very good and no less absurd than the original which some people still believe.

The only point which i must contend is the use of "million years".

Every educated person knows that the Earth is but a few thousand years old.

Thal

Thank you for the compliment, Thal - but my best excuse for the point that you contend is that I simply didn't have the opportunity to study at such august academic institutions as Penn State, or Duquesne, Or Univ of Pitts, so my edjerkashun is inevitably komprumyzed as a risult...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

It is taken from Egyptian mythology where they also had the idea of creation through speech.

So basically saying 'it was good' was part of the process of creation to these people.


At least that's an explanation I once heard.

[pianowelsh]

You may finf the reason that the Christian element of the forum are slow to respond is the amount of pressure they have had reccently to shut up and not comment on religious topics! However I have no problem having my head bitten off if thats what you want to do?!  I suspect henrah that this was a genuine question and it is indeed an interesting one.  The first part of your question 'who was God speaking to?' has 2 traditional views from a Christian perspective.  We know that God is Father, Son(Jesus) and Holy Spirit.  We see the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters at the begining of genesis. We presume the voice we hear at first is that of the Father and that the dialogue entered into is with the son (preincarnate Jesus).........you did ask!  The other common view which could be simultaneousy true is that God as the king of all kings is describing himself in the third person as indeed most monarchs do to this day as a mark of respect and being set apart from everone else. As King he would have every right to do so But I have to say that elsewhere in scripture it seems to indicate that Christ was involved in the creation process and I believe that this is one way in which he was.
The other parts of the trinity would witness his resting the 7th day as would all his angels.. not forgetting of ourse adam and eve who were given life the day before.  Adam and eve knew he was the creator God, that wasnt even a question for them. They walked with God (possibly preincarnate Christ) in the cool of the day.. they knew God intimately.  As for the recording of all these events..scholars acredit this to Moses and dating from the period when God was dealing with Moses post the burnig bush experience.. I you want exact dates youd need to ask someone more scholarly than myself...Moses had a lot of dealings with God.  Im not so sure He would have needed it recorded for the first generations - I imagine the world being relatively intimate at the time that everyone knew who God was and what he'd done... although we see that most had rejected this knowledge by the time of the flood in Noah's era...However there were those like Joseph at the end of Genesis who were in no doubt as to the wonders God performed.

[prometheus]

The people that wrote genesis didn't know the paradoxal concept of the trinity.

[pianistimo]

hey - is this pennsylvania bashing AND bible bashing.  whew.  i just got done defending my pianistic speed and now to return to this.  btw, jake, i can do better after a week.  that was 20 minutes of practice.  i'll re-record the paganini next thurs or friday.  with more variations, i might add.  and, no digital enhancing.

ok.  as i see it - fundamentally henrah has changed the wording.  he didn't SAY it - he 'beheld it'  (and before that - He 'saw' that it was good).  when He said 'let US make man in our image...' it meant there literally was an US.  God the Father - and the Word - which later became Jesus Christ.  so, if there were two of them - they probably agreed that it not only looked good - but functioned.  it would be terrible if a creation didn't function.  after all that planning.  I don't think the planning stage was as short as the creation stage.  He had to have a list first of what to say.  then, He says the Word and it IS.

i would be very interested how long God took to plan the earth/heavens/creation - as he mentions 'the Word of the Lord abides forever' - and that He is the Alpha and Omega - but also that He always existed.  that would mean the planning stages of anything we see could be much more than a week.  I mean - God is God.  what does He do with His time?  How would we know - unless we saw a creation that was quite planned and stable - unlike the ideas of evolution where it 'all comes into being BY chaos'  instead of coming OUT of chaos into ORDER.

[thalbergmad]

i would be very interested how long God took to plan the earth/heavens/creation

Why don't you ask him.

You seem to be in regular contact.

Thal

[ahinton]

You may finf the reason that the Christian element of the forum are slow to respond is the amount of pressure they have had reccently to shut up and not comment on religious topics! However I have no problem having my head bitten off if thats what you want to do?!

I cannot speak for anyone else, but les me assure you without further ado that I have not the slightest desire to bite off anyone's head - or any other part of their anatomy! Furthermore, it would in any case be quite impossible  to respond to this without "commenting on religious topics" in one way or another, since the thread title by definition presumes and demands precisely that - so I have no problem with this here; the fact that i may not share what you write in the sense of agreeing with it does not mean that you shouldn't write what you think - after all, that is surely what is expected from anyone who chooses to respond.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

I beg to differ prometheus.  Moses knew The power of God the Father, he saw the person of preincarnate Christ and he knew the leading of the Holy Spirit and the signs and wonders that accompany it.  Your view of God is WAY too small.

[ahinton]

hey - is this pennsylvania bashing AND bible bashing.

What, from moi?! I really thought that you recognised the exercise of a sense of humour when confronting it - and indeed you usually do - so why not this time?! There is, in any case, a village called Pennsylvania just about 10km north of where I am writing this now, so I am surely not about to do any serious "Pennsylvania bashing" on a public forum as a close neighbour of some local Pennsylvanians! I have, incidentally, two Bibles here, each nicely leather bound; I would no more "bash" them or treat them in any other way ill befitting such a book than I would try to tell you that your name isn't Susan.

So don't get so pianistimotional about it, Susan, me chère!...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Im very glad to hear it alistair! stop molesting pianistimo with all the ma chere buisiness - ewh!

[pianistimo]

at my age - any sign of friendliness can be mistaken.  pianowelsh is right. save yourself while you can.  (although i though ma cheri meant 'my friend' or 'my love' - meant in a friendly way)

seriously, i am quite happy with my hsuband and take alistairs comments as friendly chat and nothing more.  if i had the leisure or opportunity - i might come up with a suitable response.  something that i wouldn't get in trouble over with my hubby.

i truly appreciate alistair's invincible way of humoring us - even if he doesn't always agree. and, his wide understanding of repertoire and musicians.  i think i would be more threatened if a neighbor four houses up suddenly wanted the $350.  he's been asking for - because he's in a triathalon for lukemia victims and wants to know exactly how  much we'll be donating.  i don't have the heart to tell him i've only got $25 dollars at max - and was thinking about the last line - in which you fill in anything $10 or under. 

just so alistair doesn't take this the wrong way - if he were to do somekind of fundraising - with his inimitable wit and charm - i'd probably give him the $350 within a minute (forfitting the pleasures of any sort of extraneous grocery items - and eating beans for a month).

[prometheus]

I beg to differ prometheus.  Moses knew The power of God the Father, he saw the person of preincarnate Christ and he knew the leading of the Holy Spirit and the signs and wonders that accompany it.  Your view of God is WAY too small.

You claim that the Jewish religion used to have a trinity but stepped away from it at some point?

Clearly what Jewish people believe today is similar to what the authors of OT, including the stories of Moses, wrote.

The trinity is a Christian idea and never existed before 50 AD.

The spirit hovering over the waters is not considered to be the 'holy spirit' by Jewish people. They generally see the holy spirit as a purely Christian concept, which it is.

[pianistimo]

there's many names for God.  But, all the same - noone can explain the mystery fully.  How he can be Father/Son - and have the essence or fullness of the Spirit abiding in him and powerfully moving and lifegiving.  Who can explain this to us - but He Himself when He comes.

The Holy Spirit had to exist before Christ gave it to us (as it came from the Father - and the  Father shares all things with the Son - according to John 16:15) - because it is the essence of God.  they were unified when Christ was ressurrected - in sending the Holy Spirit to us.  it was an examply of unity of thought - that God the Father would wait for the Son to be at His right hand - before sending the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.  how would they send it - if they previously did not have it?  of course, the Holy Spirit existed in the OT times (and before God made the world).  the Holy Spirit is the mind and workings of God.

John 16:8 'and when he/it comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgement...'  i take it - the Holy Spirit convinces us of what is truth (good and right).

[prometheus]

there's many names for God.  But, all the same - noone can explain the mystery fully. 

Isn't it because the early Jewish people were Polytheists and their stories have been adopted into the Abrahamic monotheistic religions?

[ahinton]

Im very glad to hear it alistair! stop molesting pianistimo with all the ma chere buisiness - ewh!

I have never "molested" "pianistimo" with anything! If I want to address her in that manner, I shall continue to do so, unless she specifically asks me not to, on the basis that it may cause an offence that I most certainly do not intend.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Ridiculous. The trinity has existed before the foundations of the world prometheus. People of all tribes and tongues find it hard to understand and im not suggesting for a moment that Moses kew the 'trinity' as a concept in the way we would perhaps define it. The Holy Spirit didnt suddenly come into existence at pentecost with the early hurch you know.  Its in the very beginning of the bible. The way in which it opperated was however significantly different before then. Pre christ it was given only when needed and to specific people for specific times..examples abound if you know oOT literature.  It didnt remain with them. When Jesus was here there was a different role for the comforter as is is often refered to. After the ascension/pentecost the spirit was 'given' to the Church in a new and different way - as a comforter. Because Jesus went the spirit came..but this time it indwells the believer and doesnt leave. it is described as a seal on the believer in other places.   As to whether Jewish people believe in the holy spirit  - some do some dont.  Makes no difference really - its in the text. I bet if you asked them if they believed in the spirit of God that brought their forefathers out of Egypt and lead them to the promised land they would agree with you.  Same spirit - different terminology (slightly).

[pianistimo]

i think the early jewish people had no clue, really, excepting what moses taught them.  moses was very specific (you shall have no other gods before ME).  when He says ME - he means God the FATHER, imo.  i think the jewish (and israel as a whole) were called to know God.  all the others were called later - at the time of Christ - to be 'grafted' in.  israel is no longer a 'nation' only - but a concept.  an eternal identity of chosen and faithful people who come out of 'egypt' and sin - and replace it with holiness of God's own sacrificed son - Jesus Christ.

i think He required animal sacrifice in the OT - so the jews were not required at that time to understand what we do today about God being a joint working of the mystery of salvation (Father/Son) - and they were only required to know and keep the law of God given them by moses.  i think, also, that God allowed Jesus Christ to manifest the back of himself to Moses (as noone has seen the face of God) - to prove that the great I AM is not a spirit being that is untouchable and unreachable - but that God the Father cannot look at sin - therefore His son doesn't either.

God the Father gave the law.  the thundering was God himself!  And, yet, the Word of Jesus speaks softly in the new testament - telling us that the law of the heart is what is key.  not just prescribed law. 

revelations is truly a revelation of the concept of God, too, because the millenium is a time when Jesus Christ rules for  1000 years.  and, then AFTer that when everything is subsumed into spirit - we will see God the Father - as He IS - spirit.  goodness.  light.  the heavenly jerusalem is something we can't see with physical eyes.  we are born physical - but it doesn't appear what we shall be.  we will have a different kind of vision - as i read it.

ps i found one reference specifically to 'the spirit' in numbers 11:16-17 where moses is commanded to bring the 70 elders in - to help him - and the spirit which moses was given is also passed to these elders!

[ahinton]

at my age - any sign of friendliness can be mistaken.  pianowelsh is right. save yourself while you can.  (although i though ma cheri meant 'my friend' or 'my love' - meant in a friendly way)

Never mind your age - which I do not in any case know and which is also none of my business! - "pianowelsh" seems not to be right in that there appears to have been a lack of undersanding an appreciation for my reasons for addressing you thus (I have indeed responded to this directly); "ma chère" means "my dear" - so what's wrong with that?! And you know, surely, that I'm way past "saving" in the sense that you mean it here (although please also note the other meaning of the word to which I refer at the end of this post).

seriously, i am quite happy with my hsuband and take alistairs comments as friendly chat and nothing more.  if i had the leisure or opportunity - i might come up with a suitable response.  something that i wouldn't get in trouble over with my hubby.

It's entirely up to you, of course, but don't let me stop you if you wish to!...

just so alistair doesn't take this the wrong way - if he were to do somekind of fundraising - with his inimitable wit and charm - i'd probably give him the $350 within a minute (forfitting the pleasures of any sort of extraneous grocery items - and eating beans for a month).

I hope that I've not "taken" anything "the wrong way" here - but it so happens that I am indeed doing some fundraising right now, for the purpose of assisting the financing of another recital by Jonathan Powell in London on 22 June next (if you can come to which let me assure you that the venue, St John's Smith Square, is even easier to find than The Warehouse - and you do decide to make the trip for it, you could even look forward to a Revelation at St John's!); far be it from me to clainm that I am doing this (or indeed anything else) with the wit and charm that you so wittily and charmingly (not to say generously) ascribe to me (if only!), but please understand that I am not expecting you to PayPal me that $350 just because I happen to have told you that I'm doing exactly what you mention (for you should in any case save it for the plane fare, etc. - and, more immediately, for all those grocery items that customarily find their way into the pianistimic shopping trolley - beans are great, but not on their own for a whole month - that's nutritionally dangerous!)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Ok- I accept that pianistimo is safe from your amorous advances and free to continue the topic whatever pet name you choose to give her throughout the remainder of this discourse. Believe it or not the oneliner post in question was my failed attempt to lighten the mood slightly!!!

[pianistimo]

and what sort of revelations at st. john's should i expect?  (you're not going to whisper in my ear are you?)  well, i certainly hope that i can manage to survive until june and possibly have some kind of funding (perhaps i should start my own fund raiser right now) to come and hear that jonathan powell concert and contribute in some way.  whew.  eye surgery. braces.  yadda yadda.  oh. i forgot taxes.  must wait until taxes to do anything drastic.  i am scotch/irish after all.  we don't part with money easily.  we have to know we are getting a bargain.  how about - i send you the $350.  you mail me jonathan powell.  we'll consider it even.  although - i think i'd prefer you just mail yourself - as i don't even know what jonathan powell is about.

ps this is in no way implying the worth of jonathan powell or yourself.  i was just thinking - what a treat to hear him live in my own home for one day.  then, of course, he'd be free to wander around philly and take in the sights.  but, london - being a much more posh place.  hmm.  will i be able to afford to sit down anywheres?  i will bring walking shoes.

[ahinton]

Ok- I accept that pianistimo is safe from your amorous advances

Er - now what do you mean by that? There are basically two possibilities - that she is safe from them either because there are no such "advances" as such or because there's an awful lot of water between Bath and the Pennsylvania in which she resides (albeit not enough to cover the world's highest mountains - but then that's digressing backwards into a past thread)

and free to continue the topic whatever pet name you choose to give her throughout the remainder of this discourse.

"Ma chère" is a term of friendliness and/or affection, not a "name", "pet" or otherwise...

Believe it or not the oneliner post in question was my failed attempt to lighten the mood slightly!!!

I'll believe it; why would I not?! Maybe what you missed here is that the "mood" was already by no means as heavy as you appear to have assumed...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

and what sort of revelations at st. john's should i expect?  (you're not going to whisper in my ear are you?)

What you should expect is that Jonathan Powell will play into it - you ear, that is - or rather both of them (if you see what I mean).

well, i certainly hope that i can manage to survive until june

I'm quite sure that I and everyone else here hopes that you will "survive" far longer than that!...

and possibly have some kind of funding (perhaps i should start my own fund raiser right now) to come and hear that jonathan powell concert and contribute in some way.  whew.  eye surgery. braces.  yadda yadda.  oh. i forgot taxes.

Best thing to do with taxes. Forgetting them's better than paying them. I find that paying taxes is almost always a very bad way to invest money that you don't always have in the first place...

how about - i send you the $350.  you mail me jonathan powell.  we'll consider it even.

That's exceedingly sweet and generous of you, ma chère (am I still allowed to call you that? - or will it cause someone to breathe down my neck in Welsh?), but the $350 belongs to you, whereas Jonathan Powell does not belong to me, so that just wouldn't work.

  although - i think i'd prefer you just mail yourself

I've never done such a thing before; how would one go about it? Surely one essential prerequisiste would be a destination mailing address? (which I do not have)...

- as i don't even know what jonathan powell is about.

Pace my earlier Vaughan Williams reference in that other thread a few minutes ago, what Jonathan is "about" is - er, no, I cant divulge that, because that's no more anyone else's business than your age is my business! (as I already wrote)...

but, london - being a much more posh place.  hmm.  will i be able to afford to sit down anywheres?  i will bring walking shoes.

You can bring those pole-dancing shoes if you like (or if you must) - but, just to remind you, the venue isn't "anywheres" (why is "anywhere" always plural in American English?) but St. John's, Smith Square.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

my apologies alistair if i caused you any offence none was meant. I have to say that I consider the authority of Gods word and our relationship to it very serious...so yes to me these topics are heavy - but necessary.

[ahinton]

my apologies alistair if i caused you any offence none was meant. I have to say that I consider the authority of Gods word and our relationship to it very serious...so yes to me these topics are heavy - but necessary.

No need for apologies and no offence taken! I know how seriously you take these matters and that you wrote nothing with any intention of causing offence - and that's surely fine, because they ARE serious matters; I just happen not to see eye to eye with you on some of it, that's all.

That said, "if God looked upon the Earth" and saw some of the discussion under this thread, one might shudder to imagine what He'd think - He might just muse to Himself that He wished that He'd never created the English language! (and as for Scottish composers, well...)

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Indeed a testiment to the fallen condition of mankind. We were of course discussing a time pre sin! Imagine that - there was a time before sin entered the world. God in genesis promised that there would also be an end to sin. We can see that as a theme taken throughout the bible of course dramatically in the cruicifixion where Jesus bore sin in his body for us - making payment for it, so that we would as we believe on him be clothed in the righteousness of Christ and be acceptible before God. Thats how as I mentioned earlier alistair the Church can be 'the bride' prepareing for the wedding because Christ has made us right with God so we can see him face to face when he comes again. In the day when he comes He will make all things new and it will indeed be VERY GOOD. No more sickness no more death, NO more sin. But that is for those who put their trust in him now. When the judgement day comes its too late to jump ship - there is no faith involved in looking into the face of God then. Just a hard reality.  The bible talks of the righteous scarcely being saved in that day (because we depend on Christ) how much more futile if you stand before God in your own righteousness.

[opus10no2]

Sophia Bush monumentally erected me on the 8th day.

She saw it, and she said it was Good  .

[ahinton]

Indeed a testiment to the fallen condition of mankind. We were of course discussing a time pre sin! Imagine that - there was a time before sin entered the world. God in genesis promised that there would also be an end to sin. We can see that as a theme taken throughout the bible of course dramatically in the cruicifixion where Jesus bore sin in his body for us - making payment for it, so that we would as we believe on him be clothed in the righteousness of Christ and be acceptible before God. Thats how as I mentioned earlier alistair the Church can be 'the bride' prepareing for the wedding because Christ has made us right with God so we can see him face to face when he comes again. In the day when he comes He will make all things new and it will indeed be VERY GOOD. No more sickness no more death, NO more sin. But that is for those who put their trust in him now. When the judgement day comes its too late to jump ship - there is no faith involved in looking into the face of God then. Just a hard reality.  The bible talks of the righteous scarcely being saved in that day (because we depend on Christ) how much more futile if you stand before God in your own righteousness.

Some "sins" are universally recognised as such, whereas others are relative. That said, whilst I've heard before the kinds of argument that you present here, I simply have to declare that this all sounds like the politics of fear to me. What of the person who has had no time to "put trust" in anyone or anything before "judgement day"? No one - not even you - pretends to know precisely when that day is supposed to come but, if ever it were to do so at any time, its arrival would coincide with the existence of millions of babes in arms who will have had no opportunity to think of putting trust in anyone. And what about two-year-olds who may be able to recognise and relate to a few very basic aspects of the notion of trust but who are not even old enough to respond to parental indoctrination in such matters?

No, it just won't do; this kind of writing is typical, it seems to me, of fundamentalist Christian fear-mongering that is sadly by no means an isolated instance of this kind of thing - and I can only imagine that it might sounds even worse in Welsh! Seriously, though - what price Christian compassion here, one may wonder?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sophia Bush monumentally erected me on the 8th day.

She saw it, and she said it was Good  .

I have no idea who Sophia Bush may be and could care still less (though I may nevertheless entertain the hope that she is not a close relative of George Walter of that ilk), but if that process took her 8 days, I'm really most surprised that she said it was "Good"; indeed, I would have thought that she'd have started early on to "look upon the Earth" - or anything else, for that matter - out of sheer boredom. One cannot help but wonder if the end result was of the order of 10cms by 2 cms...

Best,

Alistair

[opus10no2]

Come on , Alistair, you know she could do better than that, even with you  sweety

[henrah]

Wow, this really sparked off! Frankly I can't be arsed reading through the argument(s) so I'll leave you with this:

Who wrote the first part of the Bible that documents God creating the Earth in 6days? And when did they write it? Or did it just appear there from an unknown source/origin/time? If the very latter, it's making me think more and more that it's a work of fiction, and in fact the best selling novel in the world.

[thalbergmad]

it's making me think more and more that it's a work of fiction, and in fact the best selling novel in the world.

Of course it is and nobody knows who wrote it and when.

Thal

[ahinton]

Come on , Alistair, you know she could do better than that, even with you  sweety

Do you know this person or are you referring merely to photographs of her? Anyway, I wasn't talking about me; I was talking about you and, even then, only in terms of what you had written yourself...

Best,

Alistair

[opus10no2]

I just appreciate her acting talent.

You needed not to infer that I have an inadequet member.

[pianistimo]

how did SHE get into this?  yes.  she is good looking.  and no - we don't think you have an inadequate member.  although it did make me wonder 'why the eighth day?' and not the 'seventh?'  i mean - here they are resting and enjoying everything - especially since God said in gen. 1:28 that He 'blessed them; and said to them ; be fruitufl and multiply...'

i think the catholic church got it wrong.  excuse me if i am the one that is wrong ...but i think it was the seventh day that adam had a bite of the shirley maclaine apple.  i use shirley maclaine as an example that alistair would understand - because she pole-danced around the tree whilst eating the apple. 

now, if God said 'be fruitful and multiply' and still considered that 'good' - it was only the apple that was bad.

and ps i think moses wrote the first five books of the bible. the petatauch.  oops. pentatauch.

[ahinton]

I just appreciate her acting talent.

You needed not to infer that I have an inadequet member.

I have never heard of Sophia Bush until now and I have inferred neither that you have or that you are an "inadequate" (please note selling) member; my reference to "10" and "2" here related specifically to your chosen forum ID and, if you find the allusion to these two figures as in some way signifying some kind of membership inadequacy when expressed in centimetres, well - that's entirely up (or perhaps, in this context, down) to you. I presume, however, that your original reference was to your looking at photographs of Ms Bush rather than actually meeting her in the flesh; you neither confirm nor deny this, so the question may remain open but the implication remains.

What it, she, or your membership (adequate or otherwise) in any department, has to do with the thread topic remains wholly unclear, however...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

how did SHE get into this?

via "op 10 no 2", as surely you could not avoid noticing...

it did make me wonder 'why the eighth day?' and not the 'seventh?'  i mean - here they are resting and enjoying everything - especially since God said in gen. 1:28 that He 'blessed them; and said to them ; be fruitufl and multiply...'

I'm by no means convinced that, irrespective of the number of days involved in erecting the monument to which "op 10 no 2" drew our attention, the notion of being fruitful(sp.) and multiplying is relevant here; after all, such erections, however monumental they may be claimed to be, are not necessarily the prelude to the fruitfulness and multiplication of which ou write...

i think the catholic church got it wrong.  excuse me if i am the one that is wrong ...but i think it was the seventh day that adam had a bite of the shirley maclaine apple.  i use shirley maclaine as an example that alistair would understand - because she pole-danced around the tree whilst eating the apple. 

Are you not muddying the waters still farther by adding in Shirley Maclaine to Sophia Bush here? What is the contextual connection here between either of them and the Roman Catholic Church? You imply an overestimation of my knowledge of and interst in pole-dancing, but in any case what I have to tell you is that I really do not like apples, so my appreciation of the significance of anyone pole-dancing around a tree while eating one of these things is severely limited, I'm afraid...

now, if God said 'be fruitful and multiply' and still considered that 'good' - it was only the apple that was bad.

To me, most apples are (can't even stand the smell of them, actually!), but that's only a personal issue...

and ps i think moses wrote the first five books of the bible. the petatauch.  oops. pentatauch.

"Oops" again, I fear - "pentateuch"...

Best,

Alistair

[opus10no2]

She's checkin out your buttocks, Alistair, she says they B dam FYN.

[ahinton]

She's checkin out your buttocks, Alistair, she says they B dam FYN.

Told you that herself, did she? Time for abit of growing up here, methinks (not that I'm thereby implying that any such thing would actually be possible from you, but one may suppose that there's no immediate harm in a little gentle optimism now and then, however misplaced it may nevertheless turn out to be)...

Yawn...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Ridiculous. The trinity has existed before the foundations of the world prometheus.

That is possible, of course.

Nevertheless it is clear that the concept did not exist at all in the OT and only very ambiguously in the NT, and was not clearly stated until around 400 AD. 

Actually the formation of this concept appears to be driven by Constantine's demand for an unambiguous answer to the question of whether Jesus was really divine.  After much debate, the existing church hierarchy finally said yes.  But then they had to contend with whether they were still monotheist - Thou shalt have no other Gods before me!  Two don't work, but three is fuzzy enough to maybe still claim only having One. 

So no, there's no Trinity in the bible.  It doesn't rule out the possibility that Trinity exists, and Christianity only slowly evolved to a better understanding of True Nature.

By the way, that was also the point at which the filioque clause became the last straw for the Eastern Orthodix and caused the first great schism.   

[timothy42b]

Who wrote the first part of the Bible that documents God creating the Earth in 6days? And when did they write it? Or did it just appear there from an unknown source/origin/time?

Four people wrote it:  the E source, the J source, the D source, and the P source.
The E source consistently refers to God as plural throughout the OT.  The J source on the other hand does not. 

[pianowelsh]

The trinity - father son and hol;y spirit is in the bible - duh! Its just not called the trinity (that is a specialist theological short hand for the coexistent eternal relationship of the Father sona nd the Holy Spirit), which is consistent throughout scripture. 

Henrah - I answered you questions ages ago (its in the bundle of stuff you didnt bother to read) but pianistimo is right - Moses is the accepted authour of the book of Genesis.

Sins that are universall and ones that are not?!? God doesnt have this concept of sin when you read his word. All sin is sin - sin is punishable by death - it separates us from God.  Thats why Jesus had to come and die in our place to take away our sin. without his sacrifice we could never be right before God.  Jesus couldnt have been more compassionate.

As for the do children go to hell argument - its an old old one! God is all knowing and he is Love itself. He is also all compassionate. If a young chlid of 4 can be reduced to tears in a childrens talk and not be passified because they are saying I have to know Jesus. Then they can also reject the message. If they really are unable to make any responses at all then will they be judged for that God doesnt say in his word  but he did say let all the little children come to me.  We all have to come will simple faith to him - becoming a christian is not complexed - its not working out why God allows this and not this and what did God mean here and what did he really say about this.. Its recognising your need before him and placing your trust in him... Children do that much more easily - just watch when someone comes round to your house - the kids will quite happily sit on folks knee and tell them all about themselves and just put trust in them..a simple unquestioning trust.  People often try to complicate salvation...its really not much atall todo with what we do or say.  Its just recognising who Jesus is what he has done and trusting him for our future, because we are not able to come before God in our own strength.

By the way - I dont speak welsh!! although preaching does sound beautifull in welsh..undoubtedly one of the worlds prettiest languages.

[ahinton]

Sins that are universall and ones that are not?!? God doesnt have this concept of sin when you read his word. All sin is sin - sin is punishable by death - it separates us from God.

This is clearly directed at what I wrote. What I meant by it is that what actually is - and/or is regarded as - "sin" will in many cases vary (and has always varied) from place to place and from time to time, depending on the circumstances. The only way to overcome that in order to achieve what you are writing about here is for there to be some kind of world government that sets out, publishes and distributes to everyone on earth the Complete List of Sin in the form of written statute in all the qworld's hundreds of languages and thousands of dialects in order that no doubt can possibly remain in anyone's mind as to what does and does not constitute "sin". I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as "sin"; what I do say, however, is that simply tryng to compile an all-pervasive, fully comprehensive list of "sins" is not only impossible (even if there were someone to do it) but also hopelessly impractical in terms of any possible hope of universal application to the whole of human society. The differences in wealth and wealth distribution, availability of potable water and nourishing foodstuffs and the like in different parts of the world are enough in themselves to give different areas of human society whle rafts of different priorities in all aspects of life, including the interpretation of "sin". You, on the other hand, are trying to convince us that the concept of "sin" is - and indeed should be - unutterably simplistic, inflexible, infallible and everlastingly unchangeable, taking no account of any changes in human society anywhere; this is simply not credible, even for Christians across the world. Here's just a little example; is composing a Requiem Mass sinful if the composer is a fervent unbeliever like Delius? (who was not only a committed atheist but, unlike some atheists, actually opposed to religion in general and the Christian one in particular, even berating his friend Elgar for having written "those oratorios"). There are people who will tell you that using fossil fuels, wasting water and other things such as economic advantage-taking are "sinful"; if you conflate all the various activities that various people might seek to categorise as "sinful", eveyone on earth would be marked as a sinner and, if such definitional parameters were to be universally accepted, the "kingdom of God" would be empty with no subjects in it.

Thats why Jesus had to come and die in our place to take away our sin. without his sacrifice we could never be right before God.  Jesus couldnt have been more compassionate.

Er - let me try to get this straight; Jesus came "to die in our place"? - you mean die in place of each one of us? - i.e. none of the rest of us would therefore have to die? And even if so, how would this "take away" the "sins" that we have all committed? However it may do so, it cannot simply wipe the slate of "sin" clean and make it all look as though none of the said "sins" had ever been committed - or, if it could, that would surely in some sense be fraudulent, would it not?

I have never doubted the compassion of Jesus Christ, so please do not interpret what I have writen on this subject as in any sense seeking to impugn it.

As for the do children go to hell argument - its an old old one!

As I put it, it was not an "argument" at all but a question - and one on which you have expended a lot of words below without answering...

God is all knowing and he is Love itself. He is also all compassionate. If a young chlid of 4 can be reduced to tears in a childrens talk and not be passified because they are saying I have to know Jesus. Then they can also reject the message. If they really are unable to make any responses at all then will they be judged for that God doesnt say in his word  but he did say let all the little children come to me.  We all have to come will simple faith to him - becoming a christian is not complexed - its not working out why God allows this and not this and what did God mean here and what did he really say about this.. Its recognising your need before him and placing your trust in him... Children do that much more easily - just watch when someone comes round to your house - the kids will quite happily sit on folks knee and tell them all about themselves and just put trust in them..a simple unquestioning trust.  People often try to complicate salvation...its really not much atall todo with what we do or say.  Its just recognising who Jesus is what he has done and trusting him for our future, because we are not able to come before God in our own strength.

Now, let's cut to the middle of this one and try to examine your answer about the little children. Some of what you say here is correct, or at least partially so, but it neatly avoids the aprticular question that I asked, which was specifically about how any very young child can "turn to God" at a stage when he/she has yet to develop sufficient consciousness and powers of recognition and reasoning even to try to grasp the most basic aspects of such a concept - in other words, "babes in arms" (as I put it) and very young children - say only a few months old. It's all very well citing this "suffer the little children to come unto ME" stuff, but very small children are simply incapable of making decisions and doing any such thing of their own volition, yet you would have us believe that all those, regardless of age or ability, who do not "turn to God" will be rejected. Christ himself was compassionate; anyone who genuinely believs and accepts this kind of thing is surely not. If this is an example of the "milk of human kindness", then it seems to me to be a case of God creaming off the good Christians from the top and chucking the rest away down the drain. I wouldn't even want to be associated with a God like that, frankly.

By the way - I dont speak welsh!! although preaching does sound beautifull in welsh..undoubtedly one of the worlds prettiest languages.

I'm not sure that I have much more understand of certain types of preaching in English than I do in Welsh (which, like yourself, I do not speak).

Best,

Alistair