Christianity is commonsense

[harvey1]

I'm not an expert on other religions, so I won't compare Christianity to other religions, but I will say that Christianity makes a great deal of sense. Here are some sensical notions that I think make it a 'no-brainer' to be a Christian:

1. Logos: God is infinite and undescribable, but the Logos (or Logic) of God is the means by which God creates and transforms the world. Who can argue with Logic as the means by which creation takes place? What? Are we supposed to believe that illogic is the means by which creation takes place? C'mon.

2. Trinity: God is symmetry. That is, symmetry is 'be', 'becoming', 'that which becomes'. This is the name of God in Christianity (i.e., Yahweh), which means the three states of existence - or the basis of all symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.

3. Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.

Thus, Christianity is commonsense.

[Amphigorey]

The problem I have with non-trinitarian views is that it is unscriptural.

Exactly what I've read Unitarians say about the Trinity.

... but the Trinity provides a much better understanding of Christianity in that in order for God to be within someone in the form of the Spirit, it must be God's being inside the Christian, not just the 'power of God'.

that's interesting. I wonder how far you believe God's presence or being extends. For example, "God's being inside the Christian" only applies to Christians, right? Or would you claim that God is inside everyone regardless of their beliefs? Likewise is God only inside people or is he actually part of other physical elements - other animals, for example?

[harvey1]

... but the Trinity provides a much better understanding of Christianity in that in order for God to be within someone in the form of the Spirit, it must be God's being inside the Christian, not just the 'power of God'.

that's interesting. I wonder how far you believe God's presence or being extends. For example, "God's being inside the Christian" only applies to Christians, right? Or would you claim that God is inside everyone regardless of their beliefs? Likewise is God only inside people or is he actually part of other physical elements - other animals, for example?

There are levels of God's manifestation in the world. At the lowest level of manifestation of God's spirit, the world is in a chaotic state (Gen.1:2), with the Spirit of God hovering (or fluttering) over the (quantum?) chaos. For example, God brings order to the world, which means that he sends forth his spirit (or 'breath') in the very act of creation:

"You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth." (Psalm 104:30)

God blows his breath (spirit) into clay to create life from non-life:

"And the LORD God formed [from clay] taken from [constituents] of the ground, and breathed into [its features] the breath of life; and [from clay] became living [things]".

The Spirit of God can just provide knowledge on a secular basis:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship." (Exo.31:1-5)

The Spirit of God also brings spiritual knowledge:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. " (I Cor. 2:11)

It comes in varying degrees:

"Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert"

So, the answer to your question, at least my opinion anyway, is that God's spirit is intermixed with creation and that God's spirit is distributed in creation in varying amounts and degrees. For the quantum foam it might be an sustaining agent that keeps the laws of physics operational. For the evolution of life, it might be the initiating agent that brings life out of organic clay (for example, see: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10 ... life.reut/ ). And, so on.

The creation is still ultimately separate from God (Truth) since some separate phenomenal condition must exist to the world (i.e., the lack of a phenomenal condition is still a phenomenal condition). According to Genesis, this condition is chaos. The Spirit of God exists in the chaos, and brings about order by instantiating order (e.g., separating the foam of chaos into fermions and bosons, expanding the universe, initiating light, etc).

So, God is part of creation, but creation is not God. Panentheism is more accurate than pantheism (see http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.html ).

[Amphigorey]

So, God is part of creation, but creation is not God. Panentheism is more accurate than pantheism

Panentheism! I haven't seen that mentioned on this board. I get a bit warm and fuzzy about Pantheism myself at times. But my thoughts don't assume a deity. Life can be seen as sacred, but that doesn't assume design/designer, personal intervention, prayer, etc.

[harvey1]

So, God is part of creation, but creation is not God. Panentheism is more accurate than pantheism

Panentheism! I haven't seen that mentioned on this board. I get a bit warm and fuzzy about Pantheism myself at times. But my thoughts don't assume a deity. Life can be seen as sacred, but that doesn't assume design/designer, personal intervention, prayer, etc.

How can you have a timeline creation without a cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[otseng]

Panentheism! I haven't seen that mentioned on this board.

I've never seen it mentioned before here either.

Just a FYI, I have a blog entry entitled (Religious) Belief isms for those interested in a quick definition of of panentheism and many other -isms.

[Amphigorey]

How can you have a timeline creation without a cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Or a cause of the cause for that matter, which is a standard conundrum.

Big Bangs, being the secular consensus explanation for what little evidence we have, I fancy the Infinitely Pulsating Big Bang idea. Or since one tenet of science is that whatever is happening here happens everywhere, I fancy that we are subject to the merely Localized Pulsating Big Bang in a Mega Universe of many asynchronous Big Bangs. After all, our abilities to peer "outside" are as of yet still limited.

This does assume that Space/Time is always with us. I think it is fair to say that Space/Time may be so vast as to make our concepts of "Beginning" and "End" seem irrelevant. Like arguments in an equation that tend to zero. I'm sure that our conception of this issue is colored by our own very finite nature. What more egocentric statement can you make than to assume because I have a beginning and end, therefore Everything else must as well?

Thanks for being a Panentheist, harvey1. I would like to think that if there were a Deity, it should be a true equal opportunist and imbue all things everywhere equally.

[harvey1]

How can you have a timeline creation without a cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Or a cause of the cause for that matter, which is a standard conundrum. Big Bangs, being the secular consensus explanation for what little evidence we have, I fancy the Infinitely Pulsating Big Bang idea. Or since one tenet of science is that whatever is happening here happens everywhere, I fancy that we are subject to the merely Localized Pulsating Big Bang in a Mega Universe of many asynchronous Big Bangs. After all, our abilities to peer "outside" are as of yet still limited. This does assume that Space/Time is always with us. I think it is fair to say that Space/Time may be so vast as to make our concepts of "Beginning" and "End" seem irrelevant.

This is what I meant by common sense. The solution that Christianity provides to this issue doesn't require flights of fancy away from the principle of causation. As I said, the universe evolves according to the logical-causative principle (the Logos), hence the issue of what caused this is not a valid question since even to ask the question assumes some kind of logico-causative principle at the root of the universe.

On the other hand, all this talk about some causeless pulsating universes that always existed, or causeless metauniverse that always existed, etc, is contradictory to every principle of science. That is, science is based on laws or cause-and-effect, neither of which are applicable in these suggestions. That's not the worst of it, though. If the universe is without cause, then by extension, every action and every event that occurs in the world is without cause. However, I am typing my response because you typed your words. Are we saying that this appearance of cause is not a genuine cause? Ultimately, I hope you can see the kind of folly that you are suggesting by going with a causeless timeline universe.

Like arguments in an equation that tend to zero. I'm sure that our conception of this issue is colored by our own very finite nature. What more egocentric statement can you make than to assume because I have a beginning and end, therefore Everything else must as well?

Ah, yes, the we-are-ignorant-therefore-we-must-be-wrong argument. Yes, our ignorance is always a problem when it comes to having knowledge about things we cannot know, but if it is a matter of not knowing, then why not take the full step of Pyrrhonic skepticism? Just say that we have no knowledge of the world (even epistemological knowledge is not possible, really), in which case all knowledge should be rejected. Obviously that position is ridiculous, so the we-are-ignorant-therefore-we-must-be-wrong argument is not a valid argument.

[canadianhorsefan]

If it's commonsense, how come many people aren't Christians?

[harvey1]

If it's commonsense, how come many people aren't Christians?

That's easy. If tomorrow there were a mathematical formula that proved God existed beyond a shadow of a doubt, most atheists would just say "that still doesn't prove a thing". So, there you have it. When it comes to religious issues, people will pursue those things that matter to them. If they have beliefs that flow from common sense, they will think to themselves how rational they are. If they have beliefs that flow from a lack of common sense, they will brush it away and still believe what they want to believe. Quoting Mark Twain again "common sense ain't so common".

[concerro]

If it's commonsense, how come many people aren't Christians?

That's easy. If tomorrow there were a mathematical formula that proved God existed beyond a shadow of a doubt, most atheists would just say "that still doesn't prove a thing". So, there you have it. When it comes to religious issues, people will pursue those things that matter to them. If they have beliefs that flow from common sense, they will think to themselves how rational they are. If they have beliefs that flow from a lack of common sense, they will brush it away and still believe what they want to believe. Quoting Mark Twain again "common sense ain't so common".

That would depend on the complexity of the formula. It might prove God existed but it might also be so complex that few could understand it. I am sure that if it were as easy as 2+2=4 that most would convert immediately. You assumed that most atheist would just ignore the existence of God even with proof, but once proof is given there would be no reason to doubt anymore.
common sense is actually common, regardles of what mark twain said. if it were not people would have to do a lot of unnecessay explaining to get people to accomplish simple task. I am sure that explaining simple things does happen sometimes but it is not ordinary to have to explain things all the time. doing so would make the world a much more difficult place

for example if you want someone to take medicine they just do it you dont have to say:

1. take five steps forward
2. turn left
3. take 3 steps forward
4. lift your left arm until it is at least in line with the bottom of the handle of the cabinet
5. the cabinet is the brown item holding device that is over your head
6. the handle is the odd shaped curved item that extends out from the cabinet
7.extend your arms until you can touch the handle, using your fingers grasp/hold onto the handle and move your arm to the left so the cabinet opens.
8. once it is open you should see a clear cylinder shaped item with a red liquid inside.
9. release your grip on the handle and hold onto the cylinder shaped item and set it on a hard surface.
10. the top of the cylinder will be white. this white part is known as a lid and can be removed by pushing down and turning in the direction of the arrows.

It would be pointless for me to write out every possible step to taking medicine just like it would be for me to have to explain how to get out of a car(earlier post). These things are common sense. The beleif in the existence of a being who has yet to offer definite proof and is taking up 5 pages by debating and is using words that I have never heard of before just to prove that its existence is common sense, is far beyond common sense. Nothing that I know that is common sense requires that much explanation. Even if you are in someone else's house that medicine situation would not require that much explaining.