I received an invitation to join here

[EarlyActs]

If you meant the celestial structures, wouldn’t that be celestial mechanics?

If you meant individual planet structure, wouldn’t that be physics?

 

[EarlyActs]

what do you think about those last two questions?

 

[John Bauer]

what do you think about those last two questions?

I do not think anything about them. They are asked devoid of any context, so I have no idea what they are asking.

 

[Carbon]

Don't hang around me too much, then, because I'll just end up making it easier for you to go all the way.

Ok, let's see what ya got.

 

[makesends]

Welcome

My problem with the theory is that it is without purpose or meaning, God is almighty and could create the universe and man in any state why a process of eons, maybe you could help me understand? Thanks

I don't mean any disrespect, because it is a pervasive mindset with all humans, but the notion that it would be 'extra' for God to do both rather than just the one, is not (in my opinion) accurate. Also, while I do agree that God's way is the most efficient way to accomplish what he had in mind from the outset, I believe it is the ONLY way, as 'other possibilities' are only in our minds. What God does is all that happens, no matter what means he uses to do it.

But this notion is very human —one often wonders 'why God went to the trouble to do x...'. "Why did God put Job through all that; why should he prove anything to Satan?", to which I answer, "among other reasons, so we would have this discussion!"

God is the 'inventor' of time. He can form it and manipulate it any way he chooses, without deceit or paradox, from his perspective. But in fact, there have been for some time now, indications from the scientific community (cosmologist, physicists) that indeed both are possible. He may do both in order to deceive the blind and to make those upon whom he chose to show mercy amazed at his wisdom and power.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't mean any disrespect, because it is a pervasive mindset with all humans, but the notion that it would be 'extra' for God to do both rather than just the one, is not (in my opinion) accurate. Also, while I do agree that God's way is the most efficient way to accomplish what he had in mind from the outset, I believe it is the ONLY way, as 'other possibilities' are only in our minds. What God does is all that happens, no matter what means he uses to do it.

But this notion is very human —one often wonders 'why God went to the trouble to do x...'. "Why did God put Job through all that; why should he prove anything to Satan?", to which I answer, "among other reasons, so we would have this discussion!"

God is the 'inventor' of time. He can form it and manipulate it any way he chooses, without deceit or paradox, from his perspective. But in fact, there have been for some time now, indications from the scientific community (cosmologist, physicists) that indeed both are possible. He may do both in order to deceive the blind and to make those upon whom he chose to show mercy amazed at his wisdom and power.

For me, it is akin to wondering, "God is almighty and could create a human in any state, so why a process of nine months? Maybe you could help me understand."

 

[makesends]

For me, it is akin to wondering, "God is almighty and could create a human in any state, so why a process of nine months? Maybe you could help me understand."

I see what God spoke into being—the Bride of Christ—as a completed fact as soon as he spoke. Furthermore, I expect that from his POV (which the only truth) it is not a complicated thing, though she is perfect for Christ, and from our POV made of many members, each precisely as he intended from the outset. The members are not just individuals that somehow turn out to be pretty special. They are exactly what he spoke into being. While we may speculate that he could have done things differently, I believe that even if one detail had been different, she would not be the same as what he had in mind. THIS is the only way exactly THAT could have happened. The 9 months' gestation, the way of the birth, the personality that develops in part as a result, has everything to do with what/who she is.

Another thing that I believe also applies (if I am right). I think that every created thing in some way represents a larger reality in God's Heaven. Nothing was created in vain, nothing goes to waste, in that way. The 9 months may have some spot on @Arial's "tapestry" that is admired in Heaven.

What I try to describe in that first paragraph, I can see no way it is not true. What I try to describe in the second, is admittedly speculation, but I have plenty of reason to think it is so, though, granted, very truncated as to particularities.

While I understand why I do it, to try to understand the deeper things of God, as though I am worthy to go there, I think it is full of hubris to suppose that "could have" is something God considers, beyond "should have".

 

[EarlyActs]

I do not think anything about them. They are asked devoid of any context, so I have no idea what they are asking.

Of course there is a context. What a ridiculous thing to say! There was a flow of conversation going of many posts. That's the context. I think the problem is you are operating on a faulty ontology or way of deriving it, when the text, not me, has actual material things to say, if we would accept that. And it has an actual testable custody.

Otherwise it just becomes a text of competing supplied imaginative meanings, which does no one any good. The 'shekinah' view is just as valid as actual starlight and celestial mechanical knowledge.