What light through yonder window breaks?

On the first day God separated the light to rule the day & the lesser light to rule the night, also the stars. Gen 1:16. And yet the sun, moon and stars aren’t set into the formation until the fourth day.


26 Responses to “What light through yonder window breaks?”

  1. Actually, this is somewhat consistent with current cosmology. The Big Bang (“let there be light”; “in the Beginning was the Word . . .”) spewed light into the unmanifest space of nonbeing or whatever was there before, and as the light moved away from that singularity, it slowed, cooled, and took the multitudinous forms of matter and energy.
    The “days” of creation are eras, not literal days. It says in there a couple times that “a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day . . .”; this signifies the Creator’s existence outside of time as we know it. I was using this argument against my teachers at Harding Academy (a ‘non-denominational’ Christian academy in Searcy, Ark.) back in fifth grade when the teacher tried to tell us that evolution was not compatible with the story of Creation. (I was sent to the office with great ire and impatience.) The ‘days’ of creation have no relevance in our concept of time. Until possibly the fifth day. Our day is relevant to one rotation of the planet. Of course, once the earth itself was formed, it may have taken a billion years for it to create that first revolution via magnetic fields and gravitation, etc. It is irrelevant, though, to a being immense, powerful, glorious, and conscious enough to create an entire cosmos in one word – a universe that continues to expand exponentially.
    But let’s keep in mind that the Bible was penned by human beings inspired by God (assuming it is actually inspired). As such, it is not the end-all, be-all of Holy Scripture. Scripture is meant to inform and lead people to Him so that they can commune with Him and learn His will for them personally.
    Wow. Sorry about the novel. LOL.
    Blessings! Have a super day!

  2. doubtingthomas426 Says:

    First, bitterhermit, the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. It is very disputed and the theory is constantly being expanded as we learn more about our universe. I cannot accept it as an explanation, especially for THE BIBLE. And the whole day is an era revision is an old and tired one. Please site chapter and verse (AND VERSION) where it states that a day in Genesis represents a thousand years.

    I also have a problem with Christians who accept that the world is billions of years old but deny evolution.

    The bible was penned by humans, inspired BY THEIR OWN FEARS AND EGOS. Not God.

  3. You mean cite? As in citation? I’m taking it from memory. It has been quite a while since I read that . . . David says it in Psalm 90:4 and it is repeated in Peter’s second epistle 3:8 in the NIV.
    I don’t really see any rational way to admit one body of evidence and not come to the conclusion of both hypotheses: evolution and an earth billions of years old. And yet, I am not convinced at all that these have any contraindication of Creation.
    As far as authorships of any ‘scripture’, I suspend judgement and retain my faith that at some point within or after this present manifestation I will be enlightened as to the Truth.
    Meantime, I have a lot of fun speculating and discussing it.
    It’s sometimes a challenge to find hardcore faithful Christians who aren’t afraid to use their imaginations to seriously consider the questions and contradictions. That’s a real shame. To me, it shows more faith in a decieving Satan than it does in an enlightening God. How absurd is that?!
    Be well!

  4. doubtingthomas426 Says:

    UGH! Site – Cite! This is my most common spelling error. I’m ALWAYS making this mistake. I really need to figure out a way to break the habit. It’s very embarrassing.

    Thanks for your comments, bitterhermit, you are a refreshing voice as, like you mention, most believers aren’t even willing to contemplate the conclusions you’ve drawn. We may not agree on everything but I appreciate your viewpoint. However, I believe the Psalms 90:4 verse is referencing God’s existence BEFORE the earth was created. And I should have remembered the 2 Peter 3:8 reference as it is addressing Christian’s impatience in waiting for Christ’s return and how foolish it is to believe the whole ‘any day now’ mantra. And, not to be petty, but this passage IS dismissed by most atheists as Peter’s attempt at blatant revisionist history.

    And I’m always bewildered by those who believe the tales told in the pages of the bible are 100% fact, when clearly they aren’t, AND worse, those who agree that, because the bible was written by man, that there are indeed many inaccuracies AND YET have no difficulty worshiping a god who, even though all powerful, would allow the holy text that represents he and his religion to be filled with so many untruths. I’m not accusing you of being either of these examples, by the way.

    Anyway, let’s hear it for the open minded Christian! A stagnant religion/belief is a dangerous one.

  5. I’m an editor by day, so don’t sweat the mistake. I have similar problems with homophones – almost a sort of homophonophobia . . .
    I never had trouble with Peter or the gospels. There was a period of time that I thought Paul was the original antichrist. It seemed at the time that he was the one guilty of perverting Gospel Christianity into a new Holy Roman Empire. I just didn’t think at the time that his strictures were compatible with the gospel accounts of Jesus’ teachings. It’s about time I went back and looked at it from a critic’s point of view.
    As my name is David, and I write poetry, I have a special affinity for the Psalms. Also Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
    As for Peter and being open-minded:
    5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
    From the first chapter of II Peter. I’m sure there are a great many stone-throwers out there ready to hail me as antichrist for the view, but knowledge without context is as useless as faith without works. If we cannot know these matters of faith in relation to the world in which we live, how are we to truly know the value and compassion revealed in the gospel?
    As for the Bible and authorship . . . Jesus himself, and the Apostles, seemed eager to champion not the letter of the covenant, but the spirit of it. As such, I hold much more to the spirit of it than the letter of it. We have the choice of faith or disbelief. Just as we have the choice of conscious living or habitual plodding.
    Blessings and Peace!

  6. Bitter hermit, So far I have agreed with you on most of your points but here I see one thing that I simply can not let go unchecked. You state
    “The “days” of creation are eras, not literal days. It says in there a couple times that “a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day . . .”; this signifies the Creator’s existence outside of time as we know it.”

    Now let me say a few words on this misconception of the bible. The word used for day in the Genesis account of creation is the same as everywhere else, I cant remmember the exact word but I’ll get back to you with it shortly. Now this word is used a large number of times in the rest of the bible and every place it means a litteral 24 hour day. Why then would it be change for this one section of the bible? the whole “A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day” does describe X being outside of time but it doesn’t work to say that The “days” in genesis were thousands of years. !)avid

  7. I’m very interested in seeing that.
    But there could not have been a day before the sun and moon were established to mark the time. A day relative to what? Before the Earth was set in its current orbit, day and night were very much different from what they are now. Even if you measured them out in 24 hour increments, they would be vastly different in correlation to the earth’s motion around the sun. “Day” had no meaning whatsoever at the time before the solar system was settled into its current alignment of orbits.
    As I understand it, though, the Hebrew conception of time is spherical more than it is linear. So it is certainly possible that I’ve erred somewhere in my referential speculations. I’d love more information on that. Thanks David.

  8. The word was “yom”.
    I fail to see why the sun and the moon are necessary for the cycle of days? Time on earth is not required to have the sun and moon to exist we simply use them to measure the flow of the time. Why would an all powerful creator need the sun and the moon to regulate a day on earth? He created and control’s time and space so why would he need to have a sun and moon set up in an elliptical orbits in our solar system for there to be a regulated day/night cycle?. !)avid

  9. You’re right. Time does not require the movement of heavenly orbits. However, the measure of time as we know it is measured by those orbits.
    If God created time, then it doesn’t restrict him. Therefore, there was no measure of ‘day’ until he defined it by those orbits.
    Science has already dealt with absolute time and absolute space. These are not relevant terms. Time is relative. It is also measured in means that the one measuring can understand. There is no reason I can find to believe that the seven days were days as we know them. In fact, the whole concept of using the Bible to gauge time seems to me quite dense. It is shaped in Hebraic poetic form. Hebraic poetry used a great deal of figurative language. It seems utter folly to take it as literal. It seems to me that this matter is also covered in Jesus’ testimony about quibbling over the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of it. Which brings up the consistency problem I noticed in Revelations last week . . . but that’s another discussion.
    It also seems quite obvious, from scripture more than science, that God’s time is not synchronized with Earthly time. You’re right to say that he needs no references. But WE need references. God wasn’t creating the creation story in a vacuum. He had to put it to the writers in a way that made sense to them. Otherwise it would have been worthless, as we cannot act on that of which we have no understanding. He told us the story in a way that we can understand. That’s how all fables and myths work, as well as religious doctrine. People won’t indoctrinate themselves into something they can’t understand at least enough to believe in . . . unless you put a knife to their throats, but then, fear is something we can all understand and act upon. Even faith takes understanding on some level; and, conversely, understanding takes an element of faith. It all ties together. That’s the beautiful symmetry of creation.

  10. I will ask you this one quite basic question just for the heck of it. Why would our all powerful God need to use billions of years to get the earth the way it is? !)avid

  11. David: why would an almighty God be in hurry? I don’t suppose or suspect He *needed* to take any time at all to create it if He is indeed omnipotent. And, as I said before, I believe that our Creator has a far different sense, and nature, of time. I believe that to him a billion of our years are about as significant a span of time as a day.
    Why would it take Him seven days? Why go in the order of evolution? Why make the creation in the first place? Why make it in such a way that it wears out and corrupts? Why create man? Why create biological beings with the need to reproduce at all? And why create the hierarchy – the food chain? Why create different sexes and ‘unclean’ reproductive models? Why give man not only the power to destroy the earth, but also the means and the choice of whether to do so or not?
    David, are you one who believes the earth to be only six thousand years old? I am very curious how that was worked out. It frankly confounds me. Especially from a biblical point of view.
    Peace 🙂
    Skinner [the suddenly cynical]

  12. I tend to think of myself along the lines of a “theistic evolutionist”. I’m no expert in these things, but microbes are considered to be on the “evolutionary fast track” and when I consider the emergence of MRSA, E.coli, and the resurgence of TB and other diseases we once thought “cured”. All this has been linked to misuse/overuse of antibiotics and to me it seems to prove the principle that species adapt to their environments and then pass on those traits to the next gen. Also, I like a quote I heard attributed to Galileo: “The purpose of scripture is to tell us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens should go”.

    There are also a couple of things about the creation story that tickle my brain. Look at Gen 1:2 “And the earth was WITHOUT FORM and VOID and DARKNESS was upon the face of the deep. . . (emphases mine)

    A quick look at a lexicon

    WITHOUT FORM (to’-hoo) From an unused root meaning to lie waste; desolation (of surface) that is desert; figuratively a worthless thing, confusion empty place, nothing nought vanity waste

    VOID (bo’-hoo) (meaning to be empty) a vacuity that is (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: emptiness, void

    DARKNESS (kho-shek’) the dark; hence(literally) darkness, figuratively misery destruction death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness

    Any way–if you follow my train of thought, I see this initial creation as the prehistoric dawn of time (billions of years etc)

    In verse 3, God said “Let there be light”, At first I thought light might indicate order, but it doesn’t say that. Also, the Bible lays out a lot of “bare facts” without a lot of embellishment and it makes chronology that normally took weeks (or years) seem to happen in an instant. (Think of how Christmas plays ALWAYS put wisemen at the stable when they actually didn’t find Jesus until he was about 2 years old.

    Any way just the ramblings of some guy (me) sorry for the dissertation

  13. Mike: Thanks for the comment. Very interesting. I especially like the Galileo quote!
    I find it interesting that these ‘kings’ from the East are not qualified as being anything but wise. They were following a sign they found in charting astrology.
    So . . . did they go to hell as mystics/heretics? Or did Jesus find them there and save them during his apotheosis?
    POOT! I’m starting to sound like Thomas.
    Thomas: Have you read much John Donne? One of the best English poets to ever breathe Earth’s miraculous atmosphere. He was also a monk later in life. He addresses a great many of these questions, both in his sonnets and in his prose works. Wonderful writing, whether you care for his point of view or not. Fantastic mind! He’s one of my role models.

  14. Skinner,

    You ask why a timeless and eternal God, went in the order of a MAN MADE THEORY that is less than a CENTURY old? Is it just me or is there a flaw here? I find it highly more likely that evolutionists looked at the Biblical account and said “hey lets make the chain look like it is in the bible to throw off those crazy creationists”.

    Why make it in a way that corrupts? That my friend is not the fault of God, that is the cause of sin on the earth.

    Why create man? So that he would have someone with whom to have a relationship with and to have someone to worship him.

    Why the need to reproduce? Because without the need to reproduce there would be no new souls to be brought into heaven.

    Why the food chain? Yet another cause of the sin in the garden sin brought death into the world and with death comes the food chain.

    I’m not really sure what you meant by the last couple of questions so if you could clarify a bit I would be grateful, and no I don’t believe that I’m the only one who believes that the earth is about 6k years old I am merely one that is speaking out on this site. !)avid

  15. doubtingthomas426 Says:

    Yes, MysticWino (Skinner), whiteman0o0 is a self proclaimed Young Earther. He is also the guy who thinks the continents split just a few thousand years ago and that the Grand Canyon was formed just a few thousand years ago. He is also the guy who believes God sends babies who die to hell or heaven based on what they would have done in their lives HAD THEY NOT DIED. He is also the guy who believes those suffering from drug/alcohol addiction or who are mentally disturbed (perhaps as result of childhood sexual abuse) are still in complete control of their actions and have perfect free will. Apparently nothing has an influence on our behavior EXCEPT free will. The logic of Young Earthers never fails to astound me.


  16. Try actually studying the things you’re discussing. The theory of evolution was developed by a scientist who was also a devout christian – oh, I mean Catholic. Of course he knew and was influenced by the creation story outlined in Genesis. But he used science to try to fill in the details. He was trying to describe the creation with science, and would be most unhappy that others found his theory as contentious against creationism.
    So science is the tool of the devil? He’s more powerful on Earth than is God?
    If God sends infants and lunatics and victims to hell for not fixing themselves, I have no use for Him. I’ll be much happier to share my compassion with those in hell than I could ever be in heaven dancing around the throne of a Cosmic Despot. God and I have this understanding between us.
    I admire your faith, whiteman; however, keep in mind that anything mankind has done was both enabled and allowed by the God in whom you believe, according to your belief.
    I pray you find enlightenment.
    PS: try a good dictionary if my words are not currently in your lexicon. I’m not purposefully obscuring anything with the words I choose, I’m simply using my vocabulary to word it as precisely as I can.

  17. Skinner,

    I’m not entirely sure if you were making that last little post script as an insult to my vocabulary or intelligence, however I would like to make a few points.

    1.I have indeed studied the things that I debate, I spend quite a few hours studying them.

    2. I know that Darwin was a catholic, and I miss how that changes the fallacy of his theory.

    3. Science is not the tool of the devil. I’m not entirely sure where you got that from anything I have said, but whatever.

    4.Hmm so If God is just you have no use for him? If God expects us to actually trust and believe in him to be rewarded you have no use for him? If God requires what he actually says he does in the bible then you have no use for him? Well Skinner YOU might have no use for him but, my God makes far better sense to me than the one you describe.

    I accept your prayers stoically but I’m not entirely sure if I want the type of enlightenment you have apparently found. !)avid


    Quick insert here, The drug addict and such thing, yeah allow me to explain my thought process here.

    A serial killer is brought up in a broken family, his father abuses him every day when he comes home from school, and the priest at his church molests him every Sunday when he comes to church. After 18 years of this he decides he has had enough grabs a gun and goes to the mall and kills 85 people. Who’s fault is that? Is it the fathers for abusing the child? Is it the priest for molesting the child? Or is it the CHILDS for grabbing the gun and deciding to go kill 85 innocent people?

  18. Skinner,

    You’re most likely already aware that these wise men/kings were originally Magi, although the term translates “Oriental scientist” I have trouble with that because I don’t see first century Hebrew using the word “scientist” But, I’m guessing they were of at least minor nobility because the average person would have had to work for a living and anyone who had time to stay up late studying stars must have had someon to do the day to day “grunt work” for them.Also, we’ve always assumed that there were three just because they brought 3 gifts (gold, frankincense, myrrh)But there may have only been 2 or as many as a dozen or moreAs far as if they went to heaven/hell. My guess is heaven. They knew there was something special about the child. Depending on how old they were and how long they lived, they could have followed his life and death (thus begs the question, did they write anything) for more of my thoughts on this, if you haven’t already, see my comment on “Christians, An Atheist is Seeking Answers. . .”
    And oh, the Galileo quote. Got it from the Discovery Channel I’ve never believed that science and faith had to be totally incompatible. But the church did have to eat their hats on the whole heliocentricism thing which is why I tend to be a little more open about evolution.

  19. Mike: I share your view that science and religion need not be antithetical. Or even the Bible and science. Though I recognize that there are many on either side who try to make it so.
    Physically, I’m not certain that there is a center of the universe; what can be the center of infinity? On the other hand, I do believe that human beings are each the center of their own spiritual universes; God being the rest of it (other human beings in this view are paradoxically the same as any other given human being).
    Whiteman: I intend no insult whatsoever. I’m pedantic. I realize this. As such, I have a vocabulary superior to ninety-eight percent of those monolinguists who speak American; of the elite two percent, I’m likely one of the most ignorant. I’ve spent thirty years learning and collecting a respectable vocabulary – mostly by reading very challenging materials with a dictionary at hand. It was meant as friendly advice. No more. No less. I’m never more than three steps from a dictionary any time I’m online. So, be at peace, please . . . for your own good.
    What is ‘just’ about damning infants and children and those with no capacity to understand right and wrong? I believe in a merciful God, not a tyrant who claims justice as His own and browbeats humanity into His ideal of justice. That portrayal of god is childish, dangerous, and frankly the best argument for atheism as it portrays god as a creation of Theocracy, as a strawman authority figure whose law and justice are absolute. God’s own behavior in the Bible belies both justice and absolute authority and/or absolute law. The Bible, as I read it, is as much the story of God’s evolution as it is the evolution of the Hebrews and later the Greco-Roman world. Also, it is frankly too exclusive, and too ambiguous, to cling to reasonably as the one and only Truth. I do not perceive this as a flaw in the Bible or the God therein represented, but as a flaw in human understanding and polarization of us/them, god/devil, wrong/right. Even the Bible itself shows broader range than a great many people who wave it about and try to either literalize it or take it in the bits they want to abuse others and themselves with blood-stained doctrines of extremism, fear-mongering, guilt-mongering, and the like. The Good News is a doctrine of mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and a reminder of divine inheritance.
    As far as your question: I believe that the father and the priest are more responsible, more culpable, for the shootings than is the child. Moreover, society itself, the law, the gun dealer, and the school officials where the kid went to school are to some degree responsible for their lack of intervention. I would not be opposed to seeing the father and the priest both publicly executed for their part. The shooter most likely turned the gun on himself or was killed in the act, which is both just and unjust (in my opinion, of course).
    Peace be upon you.

  20. PS Whiteman: I pray you find your own enlightenment. Not mine. Not my type. Certainly not my experiences. I hope you find a much kinder path than I’ve trod. I’m not in the business of cursing folks – cussing them at times, but not cursing them. I thank you for accepting them. Not sure what you mean by ‘stoically’, but it’s far kinder than many reactions I’ve seen, heard, and recieved on this point. Kudos for your civility.
    Skinner 😉 the ever-curious and formerly bitter Hermit

  21. Skinner,

    I have noticed something about the way that you portray God. You have taken him and taken your ideals and put them through the Marxist Dialectic, then come out with your own God.

    I have seen this very very many times and in most of the “xians” that I tend to chat with. I hope you can see the flaw in the reasoning of taking a pure, holy, just, God and bringing him down to the level of what WE believe should be done by him?

    Now about the determinism thing that we have gotten on in the past couple posts. The boy, the Priest and the Father. You say that the boy is not at fault for killing the people but that the fault lies more in the father and the Priest.

    I have a few things that I would like to point out about about this view. Determinism would imply that choices are made by your surroundings, personality, events leading to it, etc… So I would like to ask you something. A person goes to court for murder, the judge is on his podium and is waiting to hand down the sentence. Would this sentence be objective? Or would it simply be a compounding of events in the judges life leading to this point?
    Who is to blame for 9/11? Or the shootings at Virginia Tech? Who is qualified to hand down a punishment for any crime? If all our decisions are made by our chemical makeup how can we have any objective truth with which to make our decisions?

  22. Whiteman:
    Read my previous post more closely, please. I did not say, and did not imply, that the killer was innocent. He pulled the trigger; he is guilty. I don’t deal in “fault”; dealing with fault and guilt and blame is a hindrence to responsible living and good trouble-shooting. The boy had a choice; he made the wrong one. I merely state that the father and the priest are guilty of causing the child to have the kind of murderous rage that would drive him to such heinous action.
    And please don’t throw determinism at me. It is a copout in my opinion. I believe in responsibility and free choice. I should think by this point that my stance on free will is manifestly obvious.
    What is the use of blame? What problem does it solve? In the end, the shooter was primarily responsible. But killers are not born to be killers; external influences as well as internal influences, aka Nature AND Nurture, have significant impact. Bad role models play a part. Betrayal of trust, either by abusiveness (as the father and priest in your previous scenario) or persuasion to extremity (as in the case of creating martyrs for holy wars). Also, family and society has as much impact on mental illness as the moon has on the ocean. Yes, many people are born with genetic factors that make them acutely open to bipolar and schizophrenia; however, there is an enormous amount of data that suggests destructive family dynamics in early life significantly increase not only the likelihood of symptoms, but the severity of said symptoms. So, in the case of the bipolar person who takes a couple guns into a college auditorium, the problem is far greater than one kid gone bad. Yes, that individual is culpable for his actions. On the other hand, he is not the entire problem. The rest of the problem is pretty well spread to society itself, terrible legislation, insane societal schemes for dealing with mental illness (or, rather, NOT dealing with them), and likely a number of seriously damaged personal relationships.
    Also, I believe that punishment is horseshit. Punitive regulation is as much responsible for a number of social evils as is the nature of humanity in general. Lawful execution is not, to my thinking, punishment. Give me the choice of death or life in a cage, and I won’t think twice about my choice. Kill me. Please.
    I have no idea where you pulled Marx from, but I have never read a lick of Marx. Plato and Socrates, yes. Numerous others. But no Marx. And not much Neitzche. A little Hume, a bit of Kant. Some Aquinas. My view of justice is subjective. I know that. But my view of God is not as you state it; it is derived from my reading of the Bible. God does a great deal of nasty stuff in there, but He also acts out of compassion in many circumstances. And the Gospel is the good news of grace and salvation, not the death sentence to the world that so many Bible thumpers try to make it out to be. I am NOT saying by this that I believe my vision of God to be the only truth or even an entire truth. God is as God is; I doubt I have the capacity for full understanding. I do believe that there are a great many people who are confused about the nature of God, as well as the nature of the Bible and especially the Gospel.
    Goto go . . .

  23. Whiteman0o0,

    Whiteman0o0 said to Skinner (MysticWino) – “I have noticed something about the way that you portray God. You have taken him and taken your ideals and put them through the Marxist Dialectic, then come out with your own God. I have seen this very very many times and in most of the “xians” that I tend to chat with. I hope you can see the flaw in the reasoning of taking a pure, holy, just, God and bringing him down to the level of what WE believe should be done by him?”

    Whiteman0o0, you’re right on in that Christians are certainly guilty of using their own ideals and bias to shape God into their own personal concept but I don’t understand why you believe that you are exempt to this behavior. Surely you agree that your self professed ‘young earth’ beliefs aren’t shared by all or even most other Christians but you, nevertheless, have faith that YOUR particular beliefs are valid. How many other Christians would review your reasons for believing what you do and find them faulty? The fact is, all god believers worship a god who is affected by their own personal bias and desires. Some Christians view their God as more of a saint than a tyrant and others are comforted by believing quite the opposite. Your concept of God belongs as much to you as MysticWino’s belongs to him.

    And MysticWino (Skinner) was not arguing for determinism but that there are other factors that have an influence in our lives, even such a strong influence as to overwhelm a person’s free will; a drug addict or alcoholic, someone who suffered mental, physical and/or sexual abuse, a rape victim, a soldier suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, etc. This is not technically Determinism. Now YOU arguing that a baby who dies of SIDS is sent to hell by YOUR concept of the Christian God because the baby is being judged on what it would have done IF it had not died, well what is that exactly? PREdeterminism? And, whiteman0o0. aren’t you suggesting that YOUR concept of God is judging ALL of us on what we would do AFTER we die? Or is it only babies that get judged so unfairly? Do we all have these alternative timelines that stretch on after we die that YOUR God can judge us on? I’ve asked you this before but didn’t receive an answer. I’m very curious to know your opinion.


  24. Skinner/Thomas,

    I would like to go ahead and apologize for a few things in the past couple of posts. I have had very little sleep lately due to a very annoying stomach bug that has hung around for far longer than I would like. But regardless I did misunderstand something that Skinner said and thought that he was taking a side of determinism, I apologize for that misconception and any others that were made in my responses. As for the rest of it I will get back to it if/when I begin to feel better. !)avid

  25. Well, David the White, thank you for your apology. It’s not necessary on my account. But much appreciated anyway. Hope you get to feeling better.

    Thomas: you’re right about the point I was trying to make. I’m a survivor of childhood abuse. Many of my family are quite obviously insane, whether diagnosed or not. I’ve dealt with numerous persons with mental illness, as well as having been to more shrinks than anyone should ever need. Not so long ago, I had very severe rage problems. I totally understand how a nine-year-old can pick up a gun and shoot people until his gun goes empty – because I’ve been on that precipice and didn’t jump. Consequently, this has a great deal with why I DO believe in God. If it had not been for what seemed to me at the time to be divine intervention, I would have murdered my step-father before I was twelve. LOL. Fool taught me how to shoot! And always kept his guns in easy reach for himself. He’s recovered and has apologized; I forgive him [another note here on forgiveness: it’s like any other commitment in that you have to decide to continue along that path every time something comes up to challenge it]. I forgive my mother for it because I’m convinced that she is quite insane instead of deliberately evil. Do I think they’re going to Hell because of their abuse of us, their children? Yes and no. I believe that they’ve suffered through hell over the last thirty years already. As for a final judgement and all that . . . I’m just not convinced. I see the apocalypse as a metaphor for a continual cycle of life and death, health and illness, and recycling. Each of us is judged every time we think or do anything at all; however, I believe that God’s law is like physics and has consequences proportional to the energy of the actions. I think He relieves certain situations and influences people toward certain paths, but otherwise allows things to run as He set them up in the beginning. And I am quite convinced that creation is not yet finished. The universe is still expanding because God, et al, is still working.
    Wow. Didn’t know I was thinking that.
    Have a super weekend!

  26. Wow! I guess no one had a response to that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: