art, manifest, and other words

This is a list of short definitions of large concepts I have. Many are strictly Christian, some are more conceptual. I have not tried to arrange them categorically or alphabetically.

() Manifest - a manifestation is the natural outcome, evidence, or symptom of some higher level or more basic cause or truth. For instance, the fact that I believe humans are made in the image of God manifests itself in may actions that respect human life. In another sense, the fact that God made humans in his own image manifests itself in the fact that we shouldn't kill them. The beauty of the world is a manifestation of the fact that God, who is beautiful, made it, and is a manifestation of his creative power as he purposefully put his identity into it.

() Art - art means that from the fullness of God, from complete contentment, God has liberty and eventually we will have liberty to create and explore with imagination all the infinite things that could be which are contained within Gods nature (which is more vast than all of existence). God, in his infinite completeness, exercised art in the creation of humans and the world. We exercise art by investigating his beauty in reading/thinking about things in the bible, literally making art in the normal sense, imagining what nature could be like, etc. Art is to be distinct from adventure, which is exploring that which already is.

() Adventure - adventure is similar to art except that is it the exploration of that which is already, the more foundational and less iterative/peripheral properties of God or the pleasurable experience of new created things which God gives us to enjoy. In art, we as sons/daughters and imitators of God are doing the creating. In adventure God is the primary agent. I consider it likely that the two will be indistinguishable in heaven and possibly should be now. It remains to be seen though.

() Beauty - beauty is essentially the peripheral/created content which we find/enjoy through adventure and create through art. Considering that women are primarily described as beautiful and are the crown of creation, I may wish to expand the definition to include the beauty that we become through sanctification.

() Peace - peace is that state of mind that comes when we know all is well as God is with us. His interests of glorifying himself and giving us good things/sanctifying us fortunately run parallel and so we have nothing to fear. It comes from trusting God and knowing that he's all-powerful.

() Joy - joy is the more positive, energetic side of peace (not categorically underneath peace, necessarily). Since God did not spare his own son, will he not give us all good things? He has given us eternal life, life to the full, and this is the best thing for us. Rejoice always. Again I say rejoice!

() Driver - a driver is a motivation to do something or a forcible reason for a truth. The command of God to love God and love people is a driver for the vast majority of the Christian life. Christs death on the cross, our sinful state, and an assumed wish to be aligned with He who painted the universe is a driver for accepting Christ and obeying him. A pass/fail course requirement to write a certain paper is a driver to write it.

() Dimensional theory or dimensional multiplication - see "big theory trinity::tsm" for the birth of this. It is a rather large concept. Essentially properties of objects and truth which are independent of each other but essentially the same category can be seen as dimensions at right angles to each other. God the father is on the x axis, the son on the y, and the HS on the z. The result is a three dimensional object rather than our tiny, limited, human conception of God.
Another examples is making speeches. If you explain something three different ways, you will both catch more of the audience, which has different learning styles (independent but same category), and paint a much fuller view of what you are trying to communicate.
Two people of different skills are not just 3 units of engineering and 3 units of human relations (=6), they are 9 units of reliable solutions to fit real, current human problems.
To ask, in a conversation, questions that are at right angles to the current line of thought (not disconnected, same category remember), like how many?, composed of what?, where?, affects whom?, how long to plan?, why should we care?, who said so?, what are we trying to accomplish?, will all create a much more robust conversation.

() Iteration - an iteration is a repetition with variation. It is to run through all the various parts of a given idea, possibly to carry it to its logical conclusion, possibly to cover all the subject matter areas it affects. It can also have the more mathematical connotation of testing each possibility to see if it's the correct one. Words also used are iterative and iterating.

() God-stuff/lifebreath - this is the material which is food the to the human soul, the relationship with God, truths about God that get you throug the day. This is what ought to saturate our conversations, ones with fellow Christians especially, our thoughts, church services, devotional time, prayer, etc. Perhaps this is best called grace. It is the material that produces peace and joy and the material which art and adventure explore.

() Drop - a drop is the immediate and somewhat meaningful sound result of an action or truth that sometimes prescribes action. When I walk out the door of a building I drop into move-quickly mode. If we make this additional commitment to our client it will drop us into work-quickly mode (the commitment may or may not be a good idea). It is significant to note that if we remove the assumption of the accuracy of the bible, as we should when dealing with those who do not believe it, we are dropped into extra-biblical, archeological, secular syllogisms to argue the truth of the bible or the existence of God. This should encourage the study and respect for things other than bible verses in the living church.

() Kingdom - the kingdom of God is the battle for and eventual conquest of the earth by Jesus and the dominion of God. The church and every Christian, the war of ideas and missionaries, and the personal fight for sanctification and friendships are part of this battle. Towards the end of the world I'm seeing in Revelations that the proposects will look pretty grim and then...fire will come down from heaven and consume the enemy. Once sentence. End of story. Pretty awesome if you ask me. Sounds like a movie - but like real or something.

() Love - love is a word with so many definitions I'm reluctant to define it, but I'm enjoying writing this post and I'm running out of words to define. Love is doing what is best for someone else, probably including personal sacrifice for that person in some degree. This includes both short and long term benefit so there are foreseeable situations where you will have a hard time or cannot avoid irritating someone as you do good for them. I mean, in a very basic sense no one likes being told they're wrong, but if it means not driving off a cliff they'll appreciate it later. As doing the best thing for someone, love in its true sense is extremely focused on God and will always point towards God with enthusiasm. God is the most capable and most motivating being to do good things for anyone, so as you love someone you can probably get over your own ego and direct them towards someone who can really do work instead of trying to help on your own, unless you don't go to God for your own needs either.

() Power- power is functionally defined as the ability to manipulate the world. This may mean actual strength or intelligence but also the ability to negotiate, pull in connections, lie, steal, and whatever else it takes to get something done. Hitler practically doubled the size of Germany before the allies stepped in simply by making and breaking promises and using the fear/hesitancy/false hope/reluctance of those nations to engage in a second world war.

() Sin - sin is any action or thought or desire that is not in accordance with the god-stuff truth. If becoming close to God is your only hope of not suffering for eternity it is probably a bad idea to kill someone. Just saying. You have control over your own desires - believe it or not (it's not easy but it can be done) - chose to desire things of God. Sin can also include things that normally look good like philanthropy because they are done out of a motivation that does not include God. Probably to succumb to political correctness, because you're bored and tend to go high on the hierarchy of needs, to ease your conscience, or earn your way to heaven. In this sense  very nearly every action of nonbelievers is sin, regardless of what it may be.

() Gift - gift is not well defined. It is free with no string attached. Gift delivered by love. Let us not concern ourselves with whether you deserve it, we won't even say that you don't (though you probably don't), it's just a gift after all. JC was a gift to us from God. It is to be distinct from grace and go-stuff in the sense that it establishes something long term. Grace just feeds you throughout the day, a gift establishes peace (depending on its quality).

() Feed/drink - to feed is to consume god-stuff. JC is the bread of life. It's collorary is drink - because JC is living water. The first sustains you and grows you, long term carbohydrates and calcium to build you bones. The latter is more short term (3 days as opposed to 40, if any of you are familiar with the statistics) and makes you alive. Lubrication, eyes open. I might associate drink more with HS.

all right I think I'll stop there.

Resurrection chronology and cohesion

If you ever wanted a detailed look at the exact sequence of events surrounding the resurrection or were wondering about contradictions that may exist between the different gospels...well keep reading. Even if you're not curious, just read the 'together' composite account. It's just nice. This is something I wrote up for my small group bible study.

Resurrection Chronology/Agreement

Nathan Tonkinson 3/28/13

Repeated detailed runs over the 4 gospels, a few BlueLetterBible commentaries, a little Greek, and other sources

1) Below are abbreviated versions of the gospel resurrection accounts

2) Then one possible composite account (I imagine that there are several valid possible chronologies to the four stories given in the gospels). I tried to put as much of the detail from all four stories as I could up to the second return from the tomb. After that I'm no so concerned.

3) A list of potential conflicts between the accounts and a short list of comments

Matthew: (Matt 27:47-28:20)

·                     Joseph [of Arimathea] wraps and puts Jesus in his own new tomb which he cut out of rock and rolls the stone closed. Mary Magdalene and Mary [of James and Joses] witness this. /Jesus’s siblings were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, so this Mary is not Mary mother of Jesus/

·                     Priests, fearing disciples stealing the body, ask Pilate to make the tomb secure. He answers “Take a guard [or you have a guard]. Go and make it secure.” /It’s debatable based on this which kind of guard it is./

·                     Dawn of the day of the first week Mary Magdalene and Mary [of James and Joses]. Violent earthquake. Angel of LORD looks like lighting and snow rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards are afraid and fall like dead men. Angel says to women JC has gone. Come see where he lay, then go tell the disciples.

·                     Marys run off and JC meets them presumably before they tell because he asks them to tell disciples to go to Galilee (same as angel).

·                     Guards tell priests “what happened” (whatever that may be) and priests bribe and tell them to say “disciples stole body and night while we slept”.

·                     Disciples go to galilee to mtn where JC told them to go. [But Matt does not mention JC speaking to them, so it implies other conversations?]

Mark: (Mark 15:42-16:20)

·                     Joseph [of Arimathea] wraps and puts Jesus in his own tomb, which is cut out of rock, and rolls the stone closed. Mary Magdalene and Mary [of James and Joses] witness this.

·                     Sabbath is over – Mary M., Mary of James and Salome bring spices. Just after sunrise they are expecting that the stone be still over the tomb. Enter tomb and see angel sitting on right side. He says JC is not here, he will meet you in Galilee. They tell no one.

·                     JC appears to Mary M. and she tells disciples who were mourning and they don’t believe it.

·                     Brief description of road to Emmaus.

·                     Appears to 11 as they eat.

·                     He gives speech about snakes which is slightly similar to great commission.

·                     He is taken up into heaven.

Luke: (Luke 23:50-24:53)

·                     Joseph of Arimathea takes, wraps, and buries JC body in new tomb cut out of rock.

·                     Early in morning first day of week the women take spices and find stone rolled away. They enter and do not see body. Two angels appear besides them and talk about his resurrection prediction. Then they go back and tell the 11. These woman are Mary M., Joanna, Mary of James, and others.

·                     Peter runs and sees tomb empty.

·                     Road to Emmaus and they tell the disciples. As they tell story JC appears and he eats fish.

·                     JC leads them out to Bethany, blesses them, and is taken up into heaven.

John (John 19:38-21:25)

·                     Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus wrap body according to burial customs. They bury Jesus in a garden near his crucifixion in a new tomb.

·                     While it’s still dark first day of week Mary M. sees that the stone is rolled away and runs to tell Peter and one whom he loved [John]. John outruns Peter but eventually both go in, see empty linen, and believe but not understand.

·                     Mary stands outside tomb weeping then sees two angels, one at head of body and one at foot. Then she turns around and sees JC who she thinks is the gardener but then recognizes. He says he hasn’t gone to the father yet /get new body or ascension?/

·                     Evening of the first day of the week with disciples (probably minus Thomas due to next verses) in locked room JC stands among them. He gives them holy spirit.

·                     Thomas doubts and a week later with doors locked JC appears again and deals with Thomas.

·                     JC did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples but not recorded.

·                     Sometime later miraculous catch of fish / reinstatement of Peter.

·                     Many other things but could not be recorded.

                      

TOGETHER: This is a possible chronology which I have checked repeatedly against the four gospel accounts and their details with help from a few commentaries and chronologies. I have not checked later New Testament accounts, extra-biblical resources, or done detailed language study. Chronologies exist that are different from this one.

() On evening of preparation day Joseph, from Judean town of Arimathea rich man disciple member of the Council good and upright who had not consented to their decision and action, and Nicodemus (Nick is probably at the asking but certainly at the preparation and burial) ask Pilate for JC body. Pilate is surprised he’s dead already and asks a centurion about it. But then he lets Joseph with Nick take down the body, wrap it in clean linen, load it with 75lbs of myrrh and aloes, and put body in Joseph’s own tomb, which is near the crucifixion site in a garden and newly cut out of rock in which no one had been laid, and roll the big very large stone closed. Mary M and Mary JJ witness this.

() The next day (the one after preparation day) the priests, fearing disciples may steal the body to say he rose on the third day, ask Pilate to make the tomb secure until the third day. Pilate answers ‘Take a guard [or “you have a guard”]. Go and make it secure.’ So they do and use a seal.

After the Sabbath is over first day of the week early in morning while it’s still dark the women (Mary M, Mary JJ, Salome, Joanna, and possible others) begin journey to take spices to JC.

() Presumably before the women arrive at the tomb, probably during their journey. Violent earthquake. An angel of LORD looking like lighting and snow rolled back the stone and sat on it. The guards are afraid and fall like dead men.

() Now after sunrise the women wonder who will roll the stone away, arrive and find it moved. They enter and do not see body. Two angels appear beside them, either one of them sits on the right side or there is a third angel, and say he has risen, talk about his resurrection prediction, and tell them to tell the disciples to meet JC in Galilee. They (Mary M, Joanna, Mary JJ, and other) tell no one meaning they don’t tell the public and/or don’t interpret/change the message but tell the 11. After Mary M reports, Peter and John run to the tomb, Peter arriving first, look in and see the empty linen with separate cloth folded up – John believes. Mary and at least one other woman presumably follow the two or something because Peter and John leave the tomb and she is weeping outside. She sees two angels clothed in white sitting where his head and feed were.  She talks to them and still thinks someone stole the body. Then she turns around and sees JC but thinks that he’s a gardener, but then he speaks to her and multiple people clasp his feet and worship him. She, possibly along with the other women, go tell the 11 or more disciples who were mourning that he’s alive. They don’t believe it.

() The first day of the week the evening of the resurrection the Road to Emmaus happens followed by his first appearance doors locked when Thomas is not with them. He shows them his hands, they are overjoyed, he talks about sending them and gives the HS. He eats fish.

() The next week JC appears again doors locked to the 11 with Thomas. He might do many other signs among them at this meeting or later or at undefined points in the story. This may be the time of his snake speech at the end of Mark.

() Sometime later the miraculous catch of fish / reinstatement of Peter happens. Persons involved include Jesus, Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, John, and two other disciples.

() Great commission on the mountain in Galilee. Some still doubt JC.

() He leads them to Bethany, blesses them, and is taken up into heaven.

() Many other things could not be recorded.

PROBLEMS:

1) In order of the gospels, the time that the women bring the spices is dawn, early morning just after sunrise, early morning, and while it is still dark. It’s possible to see that they contradict each other. At the same time, it’s conceivable that the sun could have just barely risen and it’s still dark due to shadow. Most likely the accounts differ because it took time to walk. Matthew has just after sunrise at a time that seems close to their arrival and suggests that the resurrection (at least the earthquake and stone rolling) happen during their walk.

2) In Mark it says at the end (verse 8) that the women told no one. So how did anyone find out? In the previous verse the angel tells them to go tell the disciples, so this means that they either didn't talk among themselves or didn't announce it to the general public, just the disciples.

3) The women report to the disciples twice. The second time they are still mourning (Mark). Have they not reacted properly to the resurrection of JC? No, they (at least Mary M) thought someone else took the body (John 20:2, 13)

4) In Matthew it says the angel rolled away the stone and then sat on it. (However there is no mention of his position between sitting on the stone and talking to the women, over which the guards freak out and the women finish walking to the tomb, otherwise they would have seen the commotion.) In Mark they find the angel sitting inside and in Luke two angels suddenly appear standing. The NIV study notes say that perhaps the position of the angel(s) changed during the conversation. In this case they appeared standing but sat later.  I'm not sure if I buy that, but it's the only thing I have so far. The only thing I know of importance from the language study that 'standing by' in Luke has a sudden, confronting connotation and along with the world for 'behold' supports the NIV suddenly translation. [I got this from the Biblos.com Strongs concordance of the word.] However the stand verb is pretty strongly just an 'near at hand' like at your elbow kind of feel rather than specifying a specific position. Two angels appearing in a tomb that supposed to be occupied is pretty confronting no matter what position they're in. If anyone else has interpretations or more solid logic to prove that this is a contradiction let me know.

5) In different accounts there are different women and number of angels. No account contradicts the other so technically they’re still true. However it’s a little odd that they’d omit things angels. My best guess is that they had specific messages and focus areas, and had so much material they could not possibly fit it all. John says twice that Jesus did many other miraculous signs, so many that the world could not contain the books that would be written. So if you must omit quite a few amazing things, it is not surprising if a few angels didn't make the cut.

6) For my chronology, the disciples don’t believe he’s risen even after John and Peter go and come back. However, since John and Peter didn't see JC, they probably assumed someone stole the body. So just Mary saying may not convince them. This also supports the idea that the Matthew appearance of JC to the women with worship occurs on the second trip back (this trip).

NOTES:

1) Confusion may also arise from the physical construction of the tomb. Perhaps the door stone was somewhat deep into a cave, so one can be said to ‘go inside’ without actually going in. Something like that.

2) It’s debatable based on this which kind of guard it is. Asking Pilate, the seal, and that the priests provided safety for the guards from the governor (most assume Pilate). However, that Pilate ordered the priests to take a guard or ‘you have a guard’ and that the guards reported to the priests (except that they could be afraid of Pilate) support a Temple Guard.

3) Mary mother of James and Joses is NOT the mother of Jesus because he didn't have a brother Joses that we know of. His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. (Matt 13:55-56)

God laid the foundation

Psalm 102:25-27
"In the Beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
   and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain;
   they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
   and they will be discarded.
But you remain the same
   and your years will never end."

This is a development and rejection of some previous ideas in the following two posts: god is fundamental origin of universe, and universe container definition of good

So, first I thought that God was the biggest thing inside the universe. Nope. That would mean that the universe was bigger than him, which means we should worship the universe, not him. He's bigger.

Second, I though he was the fundamental origin and foundation of the universe, what defined it's right and wrong, the origin on the graph. But no, that would limit God to the universe, and he's infinite.

The current model is that he laid the foundation of the earth. He is the sculptor, more powerful, loving, and creative than the earth he made. The universe, the earth, and man is simply a concentrated but only selected portion of his creativity. (Well, man is special, but besides that.) This poses God as greater than his creation, not limited to the bounds of the known universe. Just describing him as the foundation of the world defines his purpose based on the world, no the world based on him. Likewise God isn't primarily the creator of the world, he is the Creator. Period. Divine artist of infinite wisdom, righteousness, and artistic delight. Masterpiece maker. I might find it fun to call him the Masterpiecewright, as a shipwright builds ships, so he builds masterpieces.
Anyway, do not despair but overflow with peace my friends that God is so much more than this world. In fact, it is probably best not to really compare him to the world at all. He laid our foundation. Perhaps when we are with him we shall get to sit on his shoulder as he crafts many more things, painting universes with his breath, filling plants with bounteous life by the shape of his words.

This is the end of the post as I write it. I simply find it fitting to end and quote the first 3 stanzas of Job 38. It has 10 altogether. I encourage you to read it all from the hyperlink.

38 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 "Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burs forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther
here is where your proud waves halt'?"

Is Believing in God Irrational? - Ch7 Hell

This post is inspired by Amy Orr-Ewing's book "Is Believing in God Irrational?" Chapter 7. Most of it is her ideas, some are mine. Please see all the chapters in the post "Is Believing in God Irrational?" for the full picture.

"If God is so loving and relational, why would he go ahead and create [humans] if he knew people would end up in Hell?"
The question of why God can't just forgive us all and send us all to heaven is dealt with partially in my post 'A full view of free will', and briefly in section (4) of 4 atheist talks. Honestly though I maybe should give it another go considering it seems to be Dawkins main argument against Christianity.

1) Pascals wager
Pascals wager is an argument formulated by the mathematician Pascal that is often erroneously used to support believing in God. It presents a decision matrix of belief/disbelief in God correlated with whether or not he really exists. Pascal points out that to believe is safer than to not believe. In the case of believing, not much bad happens to you either way, whether God is true or not. In the case that you don't believe, you're fine if He doesn't exist, but you're in trouble if he does. Therefore, it is safer to believe in God (that's how most people phrase the argument).
a) This is NOT an argument to believe in God. I expect no one to simply see this argument and decide to believe in God. As J.P Moreland said in a book of his I'm reading, if I offered you a million dollars to believe that a pink elephant was sitting next to you, you could not do so no matter how hard you wanted to. (This depends on your definition of belief and your ability to purposely corrupt your mind). The same can be said for Allah, and I'm not believing in him. What it does show is that you can't really leave this issue alone. If God doesn't exist - fine whatever. But you'd really better make sure he doesn't or else you may pay for it dearly, for all eternity. Not to mention you'll miss out on the biggest, longest, most fun party in history.
b) You may think you'll experience more suffering in this life if you choose God, and this might be true. I'm not claiming anything will be great. But Christianity claims to solve pretty much all of life's problems, make you content in all circumstances, always rejoicing but mourning with those who mourn, etc. It's not a gavel slamming works-based rule-based religion.

2) Some humans will believe in God and some won't. Some will go to hell and some to heaven. So the question is would it have been better to not create humans? Amy adresses this by saying that it's impossible to compare not existing to existing. She quotes C.S. Lewis saying that you can't ask whether it would be better 'for me' to not exist, because there is no me.
a) In the grand scheme of things the overall goal is to give God glory. That will happen no matter where people go.
b) God loves all people and wants them to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). However, if he were to orchestrate it such that everyone got saved, some people would cease to exist on the same level. Sin is of the heart, it is a decision. If God were to control you down to that level, you would no longer be making decisions of your own. Imagine that all your thoughts, desires, and decisions were not your own. What would be left? You can't sit outside your body and look at the things God is making you do and say "Aw! Not fair!" because you yourself will be making the decisions - just controlled by God.
So what should God do - kill you by controlling you or give you a chance to come freely?

3) Orr-Ewing poses love as the motivation for justice - that when you see people you care about wronged you want to see the wrongdoer punished. Therefore, love for people is the motivation for hell.
a) I'm not so sure I agree with this. First of all it is mainly based on feelings, which ought to not have much weight. I can feel a lot of wrong things but it doesn't mean I should make conclusions about them.
b) Second, the only way I can see that love motivates justice right now is that punishing someone ultimately helps them and directs everyone involved towards God by setting the example. The book of Hosea describes how God lets bad things happen to his bride Israel so that she will come back to him.
c) Hell and other punishment is not exactly positive action. Not following God results in death, just by the way the world is made. A society that has no moral code has no intrinsic crime prevention and suffers greatly. Hell is often describes as merely separation from God. This is extremely painful because you are separated from all that is good, all comfort, everything you are designed to want and feel, and instead you feel it's absence - pain, suffering, thirst, dysfunction, slavery, etc. I'm not sure I agree completely that Hell is only a separation from God, but it works for now.

4) To end, Amy quotes C.S. Lewis:
"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: 'What are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven [they will not accept it]. To leave them along? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does." C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain p. 130.

more on time/age of universe

I recently came across a slightly different phrasing of the time argument (the universe cannot be infinitely old because infinity is not a natural number and cannot exist in the real world, so the universe had a beginning -God made it) in the book Love your God with all your Mind by J.P. Moreland. This post restates and builds slightly on his ideas. For a previous version of this argument see TSM.

I will present a description of infinity, a pair of dichotomies (either something is or isn't) to show that the universe has a beginning, clear up some counterarguments, and then observe that God follows his own rules in this way (probably).

1) Infinity: Infinity is not a real number in mathematics. It's why we created limits to deal with it. ∞ + ∞ = ∞ but take ∞ from both sides and ∞ = 0 which is false. Infinity does not obey normal mathematical laws. If you started from zero and began counting up in integers 1, 2, 3... and so on you would never reach infinity. If you counted for an infinitely long period of time you would, but you can't count for that long. Infinitely far into the future will never get here.
I realized just before writing this post that the confusion surrounding infinity in this topic is somewhat of a testimony to it's nature - it doesn't obey natural laws so it's hard to grasp.

2) The universe either had a beginning or it didn't. There is no escape from this question, no other options. We either affirm or deny a statement, an existence.
If the universe had a beginning, we must ask how it began. That I will leave for another time - but I claim a beginning of the universe begs a Beginner. If it does not have a beginning, then I must ask: have events happened an infinite amount of time in the past? I think a beginningless universe forces events of this nature. Moreland asks us to imagine falling in a bottomless pit - literally a pit without a bottom. As you go down, you go into the past. I should imagine this could be called infinite - you'll get sucked down faster and faster for all eternity and never get infinitely down. Yet somehow there's still deeper parts of the hole. Leastways there must be deeper events that have happened before all real numbers, because for any huge negative time number x, we still have not reached the beginning of time (because it doesn't exist) and so events have happened in time prior to x. Essentially, we can't get far enough away - there's always stuff farther - yet somehow that stuff still exists. If we travel backward into infinity, we will never get there. And if we can't get there from here, the universe could never have reached here from there. If we count backwards from now to negative infinity, we'll never get there. We can't. So you can't count forward from negative infinity to now. The fact that we exist now gives evidence that the universe began at some point.

a) Some may say "but back then the universe existed, and the same logic would be false". But what do you mean "back then"? When the universe began? It never began. You can't get somewhere that doesn't exist. As I said, screwy things happen when you deal with infinity because it does not follow natural mathematical laws.

b) Confusion and arguments may arise from trying to distinguish between number types. I will define several types that may or may not be different from each other: arbitrarily large negative numbers, numbers that are defined as more negative than any other, numbers or a quantity that is defined as without limit, infinity itself, and anything you may consider larger than infinity by trying to apply mathematical laws to it.
i) Arbitrarily large negative numbers can be represented by x. These occur in mathematical proofs and we are familiar with them. They also follow mathematical laws. The limit of x as x approaches infinity is infinity. If we choose to use x, it direct us towards using infinity.
ii) A number that is more negative than all other numbers is self-contradictory and cannot exist because it cannot be more negative than itself - a number. This is either infinity, which is not a real number, or a false construct and nonentity.
iii) A number or quantity without limit is hard to define - by definition because it has no limit. Conceptions of this number may fluctuate between that seen in ii) as a number that no matter how far you go is always more negative, and infinity itself. It could also take on a more emotional/loose definition as a sufficient quantity - not in the sense that it is sufficient for any given condition - that is more like ii) - but sufficient in a human, moral, yearning sense. It is sufficient to satisfy our curiosity, doubts, cynicism, expectations, etc. This then may be the positive aspect of infinity - that God is sufficient to meet all your needs and can never be exhausted.
iv) An infinitely negative number (or positive) is not a real number (p.s. I am using 'real' in the mathematical sense as containing all integers, rational and irrational numbers, excluding imaginary numbers which are useful false constructs to deal with higher dimensions). It does not follow common mathematical laws.

c) From these definitions we can see that the end result is still infinity, however funky of terminology we use to describe it. And again, infinity is not a real number, and time infinitely far away cannot exist.

3) In my presentations of TSM before, I have looked at two options - that the world is finite in time length or infinite - leaving the option for either open, though either demands a God. (Finite means a beginning and someone who is outside of time to begin it. Infinite breaks mathematical laws and needs something infinite to sustain it.) However, I think I rescind the reasonable possibility of an infinite universe. I don't claim to know anything for absolute certain, God could sustain an infinite universe, but I don't think he would for one reason. He created the world with order, with wisdom he laid the foundations of the earth (Prov 3:19). I don't think he would break a mathematical rule for a sustained period. A quote from the Chronicles of Narnia: The Dawn Treader comes to mind. In a scene with many useful insights, Lucy is reading from the magicians book on the island of Coriakin and the monopds. When she reads a spell to make things visible, Aslan the lion (represents Jesus) appears behind her. She is surprised that he obeyed the spell and became visible. Aslan responds by saying "Don'y you think I would follow my own rules?" This makes sense to me. If God made the universe in such a way that infinity was illogical, he wouldn't make an infinite universe.
a) God still does miracles, violating natural law (possibly). This is to show that he is not constrained by his own rules (if in fact we say he made a rule that he must follow natural law).
b) Maybe infinity is real and exists in the universe, and it exists as another testament to Gods nature. Sometime we may discover more about infinity (or maybe not because it's so infinite) and in the process we will learn more about him.

humanism self-defeat

I have finally got around to reading a book a friend of mine gave me titled "A History of God". I highly doubt that the author believes in the unchangeable God, at least not exclusively. It remains to be seen exactly what she believes, but nevertheless the first few pages sparked an idea.

She writes "Other rabbis, priests, and Sufis would have taken me to task for assuming that God was - in any sense - a reality 'out there'; they would have warned me not to expect to experience him as an objective fact that could be discovered by the ordinary process of rational thought. They would have told me that in an important sense God was a product of the creative imagination, like the poetry and music that I found so inspiring. A few highly respected monotheists would have told me quietly and firmly that God did not really exist - and yet that 'he' was the most important reality in the world."

This reminds me a little of Humanism (though in fact the author describes Humanism as a religion without God). If God is not 'out there', then it must be 'in here', in the self. So if God is inside, then you worship yourself. (P.S. the term Humanism may refer to many different things. Here I describe it loosely as seeing humans as the most important thing in the universe, as something to be enjoyed, celebrated, etc as an end in itself. This might be described as Cosmic Humanism).

Now, here we run into a number of notes. I will simply try to list them and see if it makes sense:

1) Focus/worship of the self is not innately a bad thing. If you are worthy of worship, then sure it makes sense. Gods main purpose is to glorify himself. Mans purpose also is to glorify God. (John 17 is a good place to see this. Also see Westminster Shorter Catechism)

2a) However, if you need to be reminded to pay attention to yourself (observe that not all humans are Humanists) then you must be imperfect, and therefore you are focusing on an imperfect thing.
b) I suppose you could say that nothing is perfect and humans are the next best thing, but I think that's a little disappointing (besides being false).
c) Follow up questions might be: Then are some humans better than others? Should we find the best one and worship him/her? If we can improve ourselves (This can be done easily and almost continuously as I should imagine someone with incrementally more knowledge - which can be gained easily - would be considered improved from his/her identical counterpart), then which time versions of ourselves or others do we focus on and how? What bar shall we set? Or will we be always satisfied with the best thing we can find?
Also see the futility arguments linked under 4a.

3a) Some Humanists seem to glorify a more ethereal sense of humanity that is more separate from the self or even humanity as a whole. Ironically Karen Armstrong the author of "A History of God", is among these,  writing "This [worshiping Gods] was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces; these early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seem always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world." Wonder and mystery cannot be had of the self-something you already know.
b) Someone could counter that we humans do not know ourselves completely, so  it is quite possible to wonder and be mystified at something that comes from the self. I should like them to read Descartes Meditation V especially the part about wax. Not that I think he disproves them, but that the notion of not knowing oneself completely might negate his proof of things existing other than himself and his proof of God.
c) This concept of not knowing oneself completely is quite interesting to me. There is back and forth to it not being possible [-)] and being possible [+)].
-) I feel this discovery of self might be a misinterpretation of the experiences an individual has when subjected to/in contact with other things. Music and poetry do not necessarily reveal greater parts of the self, you may enjoy them simply because they are congruent with yourself, that you have been made in such a way that you enjoy them. They are after all, in a raw sense, something someone else invented. Even the sound coming from a violin is a physical property/function of the violin, not of the player.
+) On the other hand, we often speak of not knowing ourselves. This is the primary work of psychologists - to show us ourselves by leading us on with questions. What a lucrative business they would have among Humanists if this line of reasoning was followed! They would be well-paid Humanist pastors.
-) However, we humans are capable of communicating ideas larger than ourselves. I do not have to be every player in an orchestra in order to describe to you in some detail what the music sounds like. Talking to psychologists could be dealing with things outside of ourselves.
+) Again on the other hand, we deal largely with things quite inside ourselves when we speak to psychologists.
-) There may be a difference between having something in yourself or knowing it and being able to understand it or communicate it.
+) Regardless of reality, the perception of psychology patients is that they experience new things (sort of).
-) However, this all goes down when we realize these things inside ourselves with psychologists are rarely inspiring in any fashion. Stereotypically we think of them as suppressed painful memories from childhood or from a counseling standpoint, just issues you have with other people. The resolution of these stresses should not lead us to worship in any way. They are only satisfying or insightful in that they bring reality into a state which we enjoy better.
+) Now the only area of originality I see for Humanists (please offer others to me if you can think of them) is in what we call the Humanities: art, movies, music, plays, etc.
-) But this again is not really new material. My humanities class primarily focused on common Archetypes or stories that are retold again and again throughout history. Therefore I should imagine, as I said at first, that this is merely a misinterpretation of good feelings one gets when listening to music or experiencing something else. This might be a legitimate form of worship of the self (or something like that), but it is not discovering anything new within ourselves.
d) Case closed (unless someone has a response, I'd love to hear it), there is nothing new to learn about oneself except perhaps to learn what one enjoys.

4) Humanism may also be interpreted as focusing on humanity as a whole. No one individual is quite so special as to worship him/her, but the collective experience of humanity as it searches to find meaning in this world is so inspiring.
a) I'm not sure how this is different from individual humans. Humanity can also improve and even degrade to some extent. See my post futility of the finite and futility of the finite #2 for the unfortunate limits of finite humanity in a possibly infinite world. The bible on futility is primarily concentrated in Ecclesiastes
b) Humanity is also not perfect. Some even blame social systems for the problem of evil.

5) Whatever the case, the main argument is this: you either worship yourself, which is logically recursive, or end up worshiping something other than yourself, which means you now have to evaluate it compared to other gods. If we ought to worship ourselves then contained within us should be the framework for reality, which includes worshiping ourselves. If we contain the principle for worshiping ourselves, we should not have to convince ourselves or anyone and everyone would be a humanist and no one would discuss the matter, it'd just be a natural part of assumed culture. This assumes that objects of worship ought to contain the framework for making sense of the world. If not see 2b and c and the futility arguments linked under 4a.

futility of the finite #2 - progress, are you satisfied?

Please see futility of the finite #1 for background. An ill-developed post was made on this topic earlier as well called "bigger fish"

In my previous post I explained how all achievements and progress are futile in a spatially or materially infinite world. (Many or probably most today hold to a finite world but that has other problems without God). However, some people point to progress as the true goal. If we are always improving, we're ok. Keep making people happier endlessly, that's good enough isn't it?

No, it isn't.

Further problems arise for finite humanity in a possibly infinite world when we consider progress. Actually, the concept of progress introduces bigger problems than otherwise.

1) Always something better
2) The chase, satisfaction
a) God is truth
b) God is ultimate pleasure
3) An infinite world make progress unintelligent

1) If we are always getting better, then there is no set goal and there is always something better. If you truly hold to this, it will make you dissatisfied with whatever you are given, because you can always have more/better. I can imagine systems like Alduous Huxley's Brave New World where if this fact is glossed over and drowned in distractions and pleasure, the society can remain stable for a long period of time before it realizes it still doesn't have enough. However, we ought to hold to philosophical honesty and not temporary solutions.

2) Now some enjoy the chase. Milos Zeman, president of the Czech Republic once related that he is a seeker and will always be a seeker. Friends of mine in Czech interpret this as saying he simply enjoys seeking and does not want to have to find a solution - such a thing would require him to commit  and that makes him uncomfortable. (I was not able to find this quote online but heard it from 20yr missionaries in Prague as well as locals).
Other people are satisfied with other things. Are you satisfied? Do you think you've found what you're looking for? Do you want to finally find something? I have met people who are satisfied with whatever pleasure they can get and are not disturbed by the fact that they are not finding greater pleasure which is possible. I know someone who wants to find the 'good life' and is satisfied with the knowledge that he probably will not find it perfectly - ever. Other people are Humanist, Atheist, other religions, etc etc and are satisfied. If you're one of them, I can only say a few things to you - greater things and truth.

a) First and foremost above all things in the critique of other worldviews/religions it must be said that we believe Christ is real, God is real, etc. God actually created the world. There is no other power on his level by any conception. He created us to follow and enjoy him - voluntarily at sentient, consenting entities. We chose not to, so instead of letting the unforgivable insult go he took it on himself and died for us so that we could still live with him. We just have to accept that.
Now...we believe that's all true. Really true. Many of us are ready to discuss this as much as possible until we come to an understanding of some sort. We'd love to know if we're wrong, and we love you enough to not want you to die in hell if we're right. This is our (my) manifesto. I do believe I have virtually a priori undeniable evidence of Gods existence in a variety of ways, so that makes me a little more passionate, but that's a little beyond the point.
Whatever you may be satisfied with, I still think it's not right. It's your choice what to believe, what to do with your life, who to talk or listen to, etc. But I love you and want you to know the truth - the absolute truth that does not change from person to person. I want you to meet God.

b) Secondly, since we were created to glorify and enjoy God, I think our greatest pleasure comes from being with him. I don't know what you have now - I'm convinced I have something better. Wanna see? Let's have coffee together sometime and talk about it.
Now it's not a cakewalk, there is a lot of pain involved. In a certain way more pain than most other beliefs  but in others so much less or practically none. If you believe that you will go to heaven when you die and your time in heaven will outlast your time on earth a hundred times to infinity, experiencing the greatest pleasures possible to any man - it gives you a different perspective on earth. It's like we're on a business trip overseas where we've already won the lottery and everything we do here earns us additional big bucks back home. We WILL go back sometime, but we'd like to store up treasure for ourselves back there first. Either way, we've won the lottery.
So yeah. Whatever you're smoking, I've got something better. It'll make you high as the moon, has positive side effects instead of negative, will increase strength with time, and will help you sort your life out, not mess it up. It's extremely addictive, but that's because it's so good. It gives you more clarity of mind and self control as you go along. The only pain comes when you feel sickness leaving your body and people throwing garbage at you because they can't believe how happy you are and are jealous.

3) To get back onto progress, in a materially and spatially infinite world, progress is also somewhat futile due to other civilizations. Eventually other civilizations will take us over (just as we will take over others), and they will be more advanced than us. They will give us so much, it will make all our progress null and void. As such, making progress would be basically unintelligent. It would give us short term benefits, and I suppose if you've got nothing better to do, go ahead. But really? Whatever, it's up to you.
P.S. I search for progress because God gave us the earth to take care of, and I'm learning how to from him. I will never stop learning, even in heaven. And because I'll already be completely satisfied with God, I don't really care about the next best thing necessarily. It is also a tool to reach other people and make evangelism easier. We must be in the world but not of it.

4) Some people might also model the world cyclically. Either this civilization of humans will eventually collapse and kill itself with nukes, or monkeys will take over (or some other species), or the universe will reverse and collapse on us, or whatever. In that event no matter what we do we will always be reset to zero. Also a bummer. What do you do then? Try to prevent the universe from collapsing? That would make a great movie. Assume we've discovered immortality so you can time-lapse a lot with the same actors, or be bold and make an actually good movie like the old ones and use a bunch of cheaper actors with a good plot.
Anyway. More reasons progress is futile without God. You should check him out.

Darkness, void, and formless

Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

Some claim that Genesis 1:2 shows God forming a pre-existing formless mass. Essentially, that God did not create the earth from nothing but formed it from stuff that was already there. Naturally, I had to do some research about it. I took each word and found it's other uses in the bible, Hebrew roots, and stuff like that. I'm not sure if I have a conclusive answer, but this is what I found. Pay special attention to the first word (deep), and the words darkness, void, and formless. I think they form the core of the idea.

The order of the words in Hebrew runs thus: "the deep, the surface, over, darkness, void, formless, was, the earth, waters, surface, over, was moving, of God, the spirit."

() The deep: tehom
Basically the core of the earth, not necessarily in a completely physical sense, but connotating water, formlessness, the foundations of the earth, etc. Psalms and Job sometimes say they're buried under it.
Connected words: deep, sea, abyss; confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, vain, waste (as in a wasteland)

() Surface: panim or paneh
A relatively small, ambiguous word. Often translated face (geometrically or as a verb). Most of the time it's lost in English translation and the closest word is 'beyond' - kind of strange.

() Over: al
Just a preposition. About as important and ambiguous as the English word.

() Darkness: choshek
Has a number of different uses. Primarily physical darkness, but it is also used for a variety of negative concepts like distress, sorrow, blindness, terror, pain, mourning, ignorance, sin, etc. It reminds me that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 4:5)

() Void: bohu
Emptiness, void, wasteland, indistinguishable ruin, vacuity. It's pretty close to our clear physical meaning of absolute void, nothingness, absence, but not quite. I think the difference is primarily due to culture. Back then a word for absolute void might not have been so easy. They may have had a word to indicate that something was missing, but I don't think it applies here. See Jeremiah 4:23-26, the word is used in v23 along with formless tohu.

() Formless: tohu
Formless, confusion, unreality, empty, chaos, futile, meaningless, meaningless arguments. The feeling I'm getting here is unordered chaos, useless, unguided crap. It's used occasionally for fools seeking after false Gods in vain.

() Was: hayah
A being verb. It's like 'becoming' or 'to come to pass' though, which is kind of odd to me. So...the earth became void and such? Was it something beforehand? Perhaps I am in error here. I don't know.

() Earth: erets
Earth, land. Can refer to the whole earth or a specific plot of land. E.g. the land of Israel has rest from war.

() Waters: hammayim (or just mayim)
Just physical normal water in most cases. However, the same word (mayim) is used of living water that flows out from the new temple in the end times in Zachariah 14:8, symbolic of Gods peace/knowledge/shalom, and water in the new testament often symbolized the Holy Spirit or baptism. So it's possible the water here would at least remind readers of the holy spirit.

() Surface: panim or paneh
Same as the first one.


Conclusion:
I guess you could interpret it in a number of ways if you tried. What is the correct way? I don't know. In the whole sentence you have the 'deep' and 'earth', which both seem to be pretty earthy, pre-created things (maybe). But the three main descriptors kind of go the other direction.

The first is darkness, like the absence of God. The most important thing is that the earth (or the void that was before the earth) didn't have God. It was evil (in the sense that 'nothing' can be evil).
The second is pretty clearly absolute void. This gives the most evidence that God did in fact make the world from nothing (besides the fact that the ten days afterward he makes a ton of stuff too. If he can speak light into existence, he could easily have spoke the earth into existence).
The third just means without order. It doesn't have a purpose, it's not guided. If darkness points out the negative effects of the absence of God, this one points out the absence of the good stuff of God. God is orderly, strong, makes sense, etc. This is just saying order is missing.

Now to model the whole sentence. I think this sentence stands alone because the first "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is kind of a summary, and the next verse "And God said 'let there be light'" begins the story.
Word-wise it begins with the deep (the foundation of the earth) and then uses the words dark, void, and formless. Then it says earth waters and goes to Gods spirit moving. I might pair these off. First the deep earth is dark and without God, then he starts moving over it.
I am slightly disconcerted by the order of most translations. NASB  "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."  See, they split up the word 'deep' and give the last two adjectives to it (formless and void earth), then take the first one and give it to the deep (darkness over the surface of the deep). I guess this doesn't violate the model I proposed, but it just seems odd to me.

A commentary by J. Vernon McGee poses some ideas I agree with and some I don't.
He thinks some disaster happened between verses 1 and 2, that the earth God messed up by the fall of Satan. I guess this could have happened, but it's so vague I'd rather not even try.
'Moved' in v2 he says is like 'brooded'. So essentially God is thinking and intentionally focusing on the earth.
He pointed out the possible connection between 'waters' and the Holy Spirit and other concepts.

Application:
Before God came, the world was miserably evil/devoid of him, nonexistent, and without meaning/order. But the spirit of God started moving over the waters.


Does this mean the world existed with God and then he formed it? I'm disinclined to think so based on the void word. (Plus God is eternal and all, the alpha and omega, and all things were created through Christ (John 1:3) all things ought to include the earth). However, you do research on your own and figure it out.

similarities from other religions

I believe that Christians have a tendency to view other religions as opposed to Christianity. This is completely true. In Matthew 12:30 Jesus said "Whoever is not with me is against me." However, this is not to say that we should shun and ignore the content of other religions. For Ecclesiastes 3:11 "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Whether or not men accept Christ as the one who rose from the dead, they seek after the relationship, the security, and the hope that the gospel brings, and this manifests itself in the content of other religions. God has imprinted his image on the bodies, minds, and spirits of all men and they reflect this by coming up with false religions that resemble Christianity in some respects. This post is a discussion of some of those points. I take time to describe them because they are useful. Because you can use them to start conversations and relate to people from other religions.

1) Hinduism
Hinduism has been around forever and primarily resides in India. For the common people, it is a worship of a handful of the many local and three main gods Shiva, . There are over 300 million total gods in Hinduism, most of them being local to specific villages or cities with a few being more generally worshiped. This area has little to do with Christianity as I have seen so far.

However, the less practiced ultimate goal of all Hindus piques my interest. All of the 300 million gods, as well as every person, animal, and physical object are manifestations of the single 'god' Brahma. He is not properly a god as monotheists think, but rather more of a semi-sentient force in the universe. The goal of Hindus is to realize they they are only pieces of God, 'atman' as they call it. Once they realize this (if they are of the Brahman class) they will attain 'maksha', be absorbed into Brahma, and cease to perceive the world, going into Nirvana.

Now the similarities is are these
a) First that God created the world and it is upheld by his power. (Hebrews 1:3) So all matter and laws of nature are a living extension of him, much like all most things are extensions of Brahma.
b) Second, the many gods of Hinduism are like the many names of God. Although most Hindus don't think of it, all their smaller gods are merely specific manifestations of Brahma. In the same way, God does many things and is called by many names - Jehovah Jireh the God who provides, Son of Man, Son of God, Jehovah Sabaoth the Lord of Hosts.
c) Third, to Hindus, people are specifically 'atman' pieces of God and their life goal is to be reunited with Brahma. Christians believe something similar, but on a more intense level. We are not just made in his image (Genesis 1:27), we are sons and daughters of God to inherit the kingdom as the siblings and bride of Christ. Additionally Christians life goal is more than uniting with God, it is a relationship with God, to be conformed into his image, to marry his son.
d) The bible reaches a level near blasphemy (but not) as it refers to how we are to imitate and become like God. We are to be transformed into the image of Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:18) and, speaking of the Old Testament judges and kings, Psalm 82:6, he calls them quote on quote "Gods" and quote "Sons of the most high." In this sense we are even more than atman, we are little Gods. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but in the original sense of the term, 'Christians', or 'little Christs'.

2) Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhism, specifically)
Buddhism comes from Hinduism. Siddhartha Gautama was a rich Hindu guy cloistered from the pain of the common people. Then one day he went out and saw all the suffering, was shocked, and went on a quest to figure out how to end suffering. His conclusion was explained to me by a Mahayana Buddhist at a Zen Center. Suffering is caused by wanting something that doesn't happen (as opposed to pain which is simply physical). Therefore, we can eliminate suffering by wanting nothing. The goal of Buddhism is to realize that that the world is empty and to not desire it. To solve the terrible affliction of poverty and pain, the Buddha proposed to detach oneself from wanting to avoid them. (p.s. Buddhists are still big alms givers and have a large ministry to help the poor.)

Christianity is similar to this, but at in a more hopeful way. The world is not nothing on it's own, it is merely nothing in comparison to the one who made it. We can be independent of pain and free of suffering because we already have what we want most, and it cannot be taken away from us. God alone is our greatest treasure, and he already died in order to come live in our hearts.

3) Native American beliefs
The similarities of Native American philosophies are like the Hindu ones. There is a Great Spirit who is over everything and their smaller spirits live in most natural plants and animals and such. (I understand this is a huge generalization and different tribes vary vastly from each other). This is more in line with what I call Manifest theory - that the universe is largely a reflection of Gods characteristics. Romans 1:19b-20 "...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." See also Psalm 19:1-4. God shows himself through nature, so it is not surprising that many worship nature instead of him. In much the same way some men worship their wives with unhealthy attachment or worship knowledge, a good gift given to us but not a substitute for the one who knows all, the Truth and the Word - Jesus.

4) Islam
Many people have already made extensive comparisons between Christianity and Islam and I claim to do nothing special here. Both are monotheistic, believing in one very strong and holy God who desires and requires (in different senses) strong devotion all people of earth. On the one hand the ties are so strong I'd rather not go into detail, on the other hand there are some fundamental differences that change everything. Many Muslims know a reasonable amount about Jesus and can discuss the Incarnation, the Law, the prophets, etc. I know little about their moral code except for the five pillars and that much is based off of Jesus' teaching (e.g. the golden rule).
Some differences which you may want to explore with a Muslim are these:
() How personal/relational is Allah? Is he a person? Do you have a need for relationship?
() What must you do in Islam to get to heaven? How sure are you? My Muslim friends tell me that they are trying to live as good a life as possible, and they think they will...probably get to heaven (Jannah) but they can't be certain. It depends on the will of Allah. From this I guess it might be good to ask whether Allah wants him/her to go to Jannah.
() Also in this regard, some Christians (I among them) claim that Islam and pretty much every other religion features man trying to reach God, while Christianity features God coming down to us (the incarnation of Jesus). I'll warn you though, the topic of the incarnation seemed quite silly to the Muslims I discussed it with and you might end up in a semi-awkward conversation.

So yes, God has set eternity in the heart of man. Man needs God. I pray that every person lets Him come in.

being like Christ - sacrifice and incarnation

As some of you may know, I recently took a month-long missions trip to Europe. This is the first post since then. I apologize sincerely for not updating you on this, for many strong ideas came to me in the process.

One that came to me early on was a deeper understanding of sacrifice and incarnation. I traveled with three other team members, all of whom deal far more with the personal/relational aspect of the world and think using feelings. If you are not familiar with the Meyers Briggs personality test, suffice it to say that one of the things it measures is thinking versus feelings. Feelers deal with, value, and make decisions based on humans. Thinkers are more material, logical, cold, linear. I'm an 88% thinker. This means that 15/16ths of me has nothing to do with the human world. You can understand, as a result it was hard to relate to or minister to three people who primarily care about relationships. It was also difficult to appreciate their struggles, decisions, or values. I could have sat distant from them, letting them do their own thing. But by the grace of God and by things he had been showing me for the past several weeks, it occurred to me that Christ was in much the same position. See, God is not at all like us humans. He doesn't have to concern himself with our affairs. He would be quite just in ignoring us. But he didn't do that, he took on flesh and came down to our level, sacrificing his time, energy, identity, and life for us. He became something he wasn't and concerned himself with things not of his nature - lies, confusion, temptation, and imperfection.

In the same way, I had to learn to operate in something I wasn't - more of a feeling mode. I had to intentionally step into the world of my teammates in order to understand, appreciate, and help them. Just as Jesus was man since the beginning of the world, so I have always had at least a small capacity to feel, however, it's a dimension of myself that I do not exercise frequently. Jesus is slightly different, for he is totally God and totally man always at the same time, but the application is pretty solid.
So yeah. Really sacrifice and live for and in other people.

Philippians 2:5-8
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!"