Sovereignty - God rules over all. Ps. 103:19; Ro. 8:28

Righteousness - God is perfect. His plan is perfect. Ro. 1:17

Justice - God is fair. He cannot be unfair. Is. 30:18

Love - God's love is perfect and unconditional. 1 Jo. 4:8,16

Eternal Life - God has always been and always will be. Jo. 11:25

Omniscience - God knows everything - past, present and future. Ps. 139:1-4; Jo. 1:47,48

Omnipresence - God is always there - everywhere. Ps. 139:7-12

Omnipotence - God has the power to do anything. Lu. 1:37

Immutability - God never changes - ever. Heb. 13:8

Veracity - God is absolute Truth ( Is. 65:16 ) and through His Truth we can be related to these ten attributes, in this life and for eternity. Jo. 3:16, 18; Jo. 14:6

Stop and Remember Jesus; Love, then Every Obstacle will become an Opportunity for you to drive On In Victory!

Ro. 5:8 - But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Jo. 1:12 - But as many received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.

Jo. 16:33 - These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), July 15, 2000

Answers

great-post!GOD -is in control!!we can hang onto his-promises!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 15, 2000.

I don't get it. God created us yet we are imperfect, yea we are sinners. We are BAAAAAAD. But He made us that way. He never took us aside as chillen and explained to us the rules. Somehow we are supposed to figure out on our own that this same God loves us.

Why did he communicate this love by assuming human form and suffering human pain. An omnipotent God ought to communicate better than that. Why doesn't He just create us perfect right from the start? Or why doesn't He at least drop by more than once every 2000 years? (and counting)? What's the deal God?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 15, 2000.

The essence of "god": Hallucinations; mass delusions; refusal to accept responsibility for one's own life; genetic predispostion to boot-licking (whether it's "Big Brother" in the sky or a secular "leader")...

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 16, 2000.

A and Nemesis:

No, you don't understand how this works. I can easily answer all your objections by simply pointing out that "THE LORD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS". I hope that explains everything to your satisfaction.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 16, 2000.

When faced with contradiction or overwhelming fact, the ultimate cop- out phrase is used: "The lord works in mysterious ways". LOL.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 16, 2000.

My personal favorite are the creationists who insist that the world is so complex it requires a creator, while at the same time insisting that said creator doesn't need one.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouat.net), July 16, 2000.

Sorry Tarzan, but you haven't said a thing. Now if you have some explanations on the origin of everything, please share for extra credit.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 16, 2000.

Here's what I said the last time you asked me this question:

"I think it doesn't matter whether or not the universe has a creator. If the universe does have a creator, that doesn't prove that said creator is Jehovah, Odin, Rama, Astarte, or Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Just because the universe might have a creator doesn't mean that said creator is known currently on earth, conscious of our existance, benevolent, or even currently in existance itself.

However, saying that the universe is too complex to lack a creator begs the question of who, or what, created that creator. Surely a being complex enough to create the universe would, itself, need a creator, who in turn would also need a creator. St. Augustine called this problem "infinite regression", and said that it was dangerous heresy to even ponder it. So, get down on your knees and pray for forgiveness,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 16, 2000.

Tarzan,

You expect me to remember old posts? I'll leave that for cpr. As far as I am concerned, you still haven't advanced an alternative to Creation. What sayest thou? Did we "evolve" out of Nothing? How?

Of course this is unanswerable. So is the infinitely regressed Creator. So is the ancient Greek concept of a world standing on the backs of various creatures. So what's the big deal about admitting that we don't know?

Barney is an interesting example. He is not a Creator. He is a Creation. Something that came from nothing. Poof, imagine that?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 16, 2000.

'As I listen to people talk about God's "mysterious ways," I get this image of some huge infant in the sky who has gotten hold of a magic wand and is haphazardly tapping individuals, planes, storm clouds, baseball teams or whatever else catches its fancy. No wonder so many religions are filled with fear.'

--Hugh Prather

-- Debra (...@....), July 16, 2000.

Lars-

You missed the point entirely in both my posts. I am not talking about creation or evolution, but internal consistancy. To advance the theory of special creation while denying infitie regression is internally inconsistant.

"You expect me to remember old posts?"

No, and I never asked you to. Please don't put words in my mouth.

"As far as I am concerned, you still haven't advanced an alternative to Creation. What sayest thou? Did we "evolve" out of Nothing? How?"

There are several alternatives to the Christian creation story, evolution being the best documented and most viable at the moment. Of course, evolution doesn't explain the origin. Just because we don't have a scientifically viable explanation today doesn't mean your supernatural ghost story is the answer. 600 years ago we lacked a scientifically viable explanation for why people didn't fall off the earth, but that didn't make the world flat.

"So is the infinitely regressed Creator. So is the ancient Greek concept of a world standing on the backs of various creatures. So what's the big deal about admitting that we don't know?"

Science has no problem admitting when we don't know something. Hell, science is based upon that and then going out in search of the answers. Religion, on the other hand, makes up an answer at the moment and then fights against any alternatives as heresy. When was the last time a group of scientists burned a minister at the stake?

"Barney is an interesting example. He is not a Creator. He is a Creation."

INFIDEL!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 16, 2000.

"When was the last time a group of scientists burned a minister at the stake?"

THAT was funny.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000.

Tarz--

We are having a failure to communicate. I would be more than happy to see a scientific explanation for every single thing. When I was younger, I actually believed that this would occur. I no longer do. Arrogantly, I admit to being humble. All is a mystery. I chose to call our existence a Creation because I don't know what else to call it. In my lexicon, Creation is not a supernatural ghost story, it is a metaphor for Mystery. If you ever get the details nailed down, please let us know.

When was the last time scientists burned ministers at the stake? Literally, never. I don't think true empirical scientists even existed in the days of stake burning. But figuratively, ministers are beaten up by the Priests of Science on a regular basis. And, if we ask when was the last time ministers (and scientists) were murdered by politicians, it is probably happening somewhere as we type.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 16, 2000.

Anthor thread on religion with many humorous responses. I wish to make a point - If we postulate that there is a God with supreme knowledge and power, far beyond humans, then it follows that we humans just *might* not be capable of understanding everything about said God, and it is *plausible* therefore, that said God may indeed be mysterious to us.

Bottom line - Future Shock, unless there is no God, or unelss you are said God, your logic is puny and your laughter a mere act of folly.

I find many intelligent people here at TB2000U, but when it comes to me either accepting or denying God based on opinions, musings, and intelligence of others, I shall pass. God exists, or He doesn't. Debating the point is a loosing battle, your thoughts and knowledge or lack thereof, are quite irrelevant and not likely to poof God away or make Him appear.

-- FactFinder (FactFinde@bzn.com), July 16, 2000.

FF--

I totally agree. But don't you see the game here? True, the many threads such as this won't change any minds and won't lead to an epistemological breakthru. But they are fun and stimulating. They are a game of semi-intellectual pingpong.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 16, 2000.

Science has no problem admitting when we don't know something. Hell, science is based upon that and then going out in search of the answers.

or put another way...INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over thinking the result will be different.

Thanks for again debunking yourself Tarzan. Truth is such a timesaver.

-- Thread Terminator (over@this.time), July 16, 2000.

"I would be more than happy to see a scientific explanation for every single thing."

Give it time. We are expanding our knowledge every day.

"All is a mystery."

And it will always remain so if you simply sit on your butt and don't bother looking for answers.

"I chose to call our existence a Creation because I don't know what else to call it."

Being at a loss for words is a poor excuse to go for the easy answer. I'm glad that Pasteur didn't take that tactic when he was searching for a reason why cow pox victims didn't get chicken pox.

"When was the last time scientists burned ministers at the stake? Literally, never. I don't think true empirical scientists even existed in the days of stake burning."

Tell it to Giordino Bruno. He was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that our solar system wasn't the only one. While you're at it, go tell Galileo. On pain of torture, in 1633, he was forced to recant his Copernican viewpoint and spent the rest of his life in prison.

"But figuratively, ministers are beaten up by the Priests of Science on a regular basis."

When? Please cite examples. As far as I can see, religion has much more interest in science than vice versa.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 17, 2000.

Science seeks the answer to how. Religion seeks the answer to why. I see no conflict there.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 17, 2000.

A response to Tarzan's own great and kind god, "science", can be found at: Science and Humanity - Revisited

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 18, 2000.

Buddy:

Science seeks the answer to how. Religion seeks the answer to why. I see no conflict there.

This isn't actually true. The conservative religous groups are pushing hard to establish how. We are beginning to see some scientists trying to explain why. This makes a conflict. Of course the religous conservatives don't have a very good track record [see church response to the heliocentric theory]. So far the scientists have no track record on the why part.

Of course the scientists must win or we will all perish. We have not done a very good job at maintaining our environment. We continue to exist because technology permits us to exist in the environment that we have created. If we technologists lose, then the religous conservatives will be doing a lot of burials and preaching to an empty building. We have gone too far down that long slippery slope. Good thoug

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), July 18, 2000.

I don't get it. God created us yet we are imperfect, yea we are sinners. We are BAAAAAAD.

Speak for yourself, I'm perfect as I recognise my imperfections.

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), July 19, 2000.

Factfinder-

As an atheist, I have no gods.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 19, 2000.

Tarzan, you said,

As an atheist, I have no gods.

You might want to change that to "As an atheist, I ***believe in*** no gods.", that is of course, unless you can PROVE that God doesn't exist.

BTW, you may be in for a rude awakening some day,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 19, 2000.