Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    	Hey, what compose character do you use to place the dots
    	around 'hundred' and 'years'?

� = <compose> .^

/john

    See Note 185.16.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Might someone speak to Note 1187.0?

Shalom,
Richard

    It is obviously a remnant of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology that was part
    of the oral tradition available the "J" tradition.
    
    As you know Richard, rational people who study the Bible know that
    there are conflicting sources woven together into the story line.  Some
    of those tidbits come from the earliest traditions. 
    
    There is little in Genesis through Deuteronomy that can be believed as
    historic fact.

    Richard,
    
    No, that is inaccurate.  Faith and rationality rarely mix.  Faith in
    religious issues usually means believing in something where common
    sense tells you otherwise.
    
    Genesis 6 brings about the time period of Noah.  One explanation is
    that once the flood occured, the firmament dissapated and the ultra
    violet rays from the sun caused humankind to age at a quicker pace. 
    This may or may not be the case, we will have to find out when we get
    there.  It would seem to flow considering the age of Noah was about 600
    years before he died.  Generations to follow died at a far earlier age.
    Rationality on many occasions in scripture takes a back seat.  Jesus
    himself said that an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign.
    
    -Jack

ZZ    And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with
ZZ    man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an
ZZ    �hundred� and twenty �years.�
    
    Now that I think of it, I don't believe this verse has anything to do
    with how old we are.  I believe God was stating that judgement was
    imminent in 120 years and that it took Noah this long to build the ark.
    
    -Jack

	Then the Lord said, "I will not allow people to live forever; they
are mortal.  From now on they will live no longer than 120 years."

    By the way, There were two men who formed the Graft/Wellhausen
    hypothesis.  This states five men were responsible for the writing of
    the Pentatuch. One man wrote all passages about Jehovah, hence the J
    tradition. Another wrote on the priestly passages, hence the P
    tradition.  There is absolutely no rational basis for this hypothesis
    and Jesus Christ attributed the writings of the Pentatuch to Moses.
    
    Richard, I agree with what you wrote.  The Judgement theory apparently
    doesn't apply.  The average age in Genesis 5 attributes the lifespan to
    907.5 years, and in Psalm 90:10 it goes down to 70 years.  I believe
    this correlates to sin.
    
    -Jack

    
    > ...and in Psalm 90:10 it goes down to 70 years.  I believe this
    > correlates to sin.

    And Jesus died at, what, 33. What does that say about life span
    correlating to sinfulness? 

    Here's an idea: what if the bible isn't meant to be taken literally?
    :^) Nah, there's got to be a more intricate explanation. :^)

    Eric

    I was actually referring to dying of old age Eric!  And since Jesus
    was sinless, then all the more he should have lived forever.  Remember
    that he actually did conquer death and still lives today.
    
 ZZ    Here's an idea: what if the bible isn't meant to be taken literally?
    
    Yes, a valid point, but too broad brushed.  There are certain parts
    that are allegorical and other parts that are literal.  For example, I
    believe the judgements of Revelation to be literal.  I have no reason
    to think otherwise since the judgements on Egypt, which parellel the
    trumpet judgements were historical.  Was the Garden of Eden literal?  
    Not sure, but I do believe Adam existed.  Paul the apostle believed it,
    Jesus believed it, and there is a family lineage from Jesus to Adam in
    the gospels.  
    
    -Jack

1187.9

>    There is absolutely no rational basis for this hypothesis
>    and Jesus Christ attributed the writings of the Pentatuch to Moses.

I realize you'd prefer that I didn't, but I find it quite rational.
The fact that it is rational, that it makes sense from an objective
standpoint, is the one element the Documentary Theory has in its favor.

It may very well be that Jesus believed that Moses single-handedly wrote
the entire Torah.  I really can't say.

>    Richard, I agree with what you wrote.  The Judgement theory apparently
>    doesn't apply.  The average age in Genesis 5 attributes the lifespan to
>    907.5 years, and in Psalm 90:10 it goes down to 70 years.  I believe
>    this correlates to sin.

Heh?  You lost me.  What was it that I wrote?

Do you believe the more sinful one is, the more likely one will die (of natural
causes) at an early age?  That those whose sins are forgiven are more likely
to die at a ripe old age?

Richard

 My study shows that what Jack said in .7 is correct.





 Jim

    
    But God made this pronouncement *before* he realized "how great was
    man's wickedness," before he pronounced his regret of his six day
    creation binge (Gen 6:7), well days five and six anyway. It seems to me
    that God was ticked that the "sons of heaven" were messing around with
    the human women-folk, so He decided to put a crimp in their style by
    maxing out the life expectancy of humans.
    
    	Eric

    Richard:
    
    Good question about sin and old age.  Afraid I don't have an answer on
    that one.  
    
    -Jack

    In a book that claims the entire universe was created in 6 days, how
    much credance can you give references to time?  I mean in a system where 
    6 days (genesis time) maps to 15,000,000,000 years (science time), a max 
    longevity of 120 years maps to ~ 109,500,000,000,000 years.
    
    -dave
    
    

    Dave:
    
    This of course is assuming Carbon 14 to be an accurate method of dating 
    minerals, which it has proven not to be.  We know that Darwins chain of
    the evolution of humankind is of course bunk so we can't go with that
    idea.  
    
    -Jack

    I wouldn't call Darwin bunk.  Isaac Newton's ideas weren't totally
    on target either.  But would you discredit him and all his notions
    as "bunk"?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re .17
    
    >> This of course is assuming Carbon 14 to be an accurate method...
    
    Well, actually C14 dating is very inaccurate when trying to date stuff
    older than (I believe) a few hundred thousand years (maybe less), let 
    alone billions).  The 15 billion year estimate comes from other 
    observations and assumptions made in the area of astronomy and physics.
    It has to do with how quickly everything in the universe appears to be 
    moving away from everything else and extrapolating the observations
    backwards to a time when everything was together at one point (the
    point of the Big Bang).  They (the astronomers/physicists) sometimes 
    waiver a bit on the 15 billion year estimate when something new pops up, 
    but even the lowest estimates are at least 10 billion years.  
    
    At the suggestion of Micheal Crews, I'm reading a book called "Genesis
    and the Big Bang".  It's one man's attempt to "bridge" the gap between
    biblical science and modern science (if you will).  He (a guy named
    Schroeder I believe) addresses the 6-day vs 15 billion year discrepency 
    specifically.  He uses time distortion and relitivity to claim that
    it's possible to "view" the creation of the universe in 6-days given 
    a specific vantage point "relative" to the universe.  In other words, 
    any time (6 days, 6 years, 6 minutes, 6 seconds, 6 trillion years)
    might all be "correct" depending on the observer's frame of reference.
    Of course if this is true, then ALL biblical time references have to be 
    taken as being potentially anything at all without first knowing the 
    reference point the observer (God) had when authoring the bible. If you
    assume that the frame of reference used for the 6-day time observation
    was the same used when making the 120 year longevity time delta, you
    get the wild number I cited earlier. 
    
    There are (IMO) other HUGE gaps in his argument which I take issue
    with.  For example, the Big Bang theorizes that all of space itself
    had zero dimension at the point of the Bang, then expanded out from
    there. There would be no reference frame in space outside the universe
    for God to reside in when making his relativistic observation of
    6-days.  His argument is (to say the very least) a huge stretch.
    
    -dave

Dave,

If I remember rightly the Hewbrew word for day is "yom".
Which can mean a 24 hour period but it can also mean other 
things for example "a long time; the time covering an 
extraordinary event". This is certainly, the case in Genesis 
2:4 were the term "day" covers the whole of creation event
of the heavens and earth. In genesis chapter 1, each day 
covers a separate facet (or stage) of the creation account 
which could have lasted over thousands of years. There is 
also no reason to think that some of these creation days 
may have over lapped each other.

The English word day, is also not tied to the meaning of a 
24 hour period. For example, it can mean an "age" such as 
"in Shakespeare's day".

I have never understood the insistance by some to state that
each event took a 24 hour period. Though God is the Almighty
and could do things in the blinking of an eye, on the sixth
day too much happens at the human level for the strict 24 hour
understanding to have any credibility (compare Genesis 1:26-
31 and Genesis 2:7-9;15-25). And a study of the Bible shows
that the seventh creation day still continues down into our 
day, there will come a time when Jehovah God will bless it 
and say that it's good, no doubt Revelation 21:3-5 points to 
such a time.

Phil.

    Phil:
    
    One might state that God made the 24 hour distinction when he called
    the greater light day and the lesser light night.  Hence you have the
    24 hour timeframe.
    
 ZZZ   -< In the day God created the heavens and the earth >-
    
    Right.  No indefinite article in the Hebrew language.  So why do you
    put an indefinite article in John 1:1?  You can answer in the JW topic.
    Thanks Phil.
    
    -Jack
    

    IMO trying to interpret "6 days" to become something much much more is
    an interesting excersize in "squeezing" meaning out of ancient Hebrew
    vocabulary and "twisting" scientific theories to fit observed
    evidence.  But why not take the same approach we take when confronted
    with non-christian ancient writtings with nonsensical claims.  Why not 
    simply state that it's incorrect or inaccurate and that if it's accepted 
    at all, it should be taken in a symbolic way as in... "6-days just provides 
    temporal structure in which the creation events can be sequenced"
    without taking "6-days" so literally?
    
    -dave  

    	Perhaps we could divide the scientific estimates of the creation
    	of the universe up to the time of the emergence of man and divide
    	that by 6.  This would be the estimated length of a day from God's
    	perspective.  Once man appeared on the scene the biblical length
    	of a day was changed to man's perspective.
    
    	So if we divide the creation time by 6 and 'call it a day' for
    	God, then we can extrapolate that length of time by multiplying
    	by 43800 (365*120) to figure out how long eternity is.

    
    "And the evening and the morning was the first day".  It distinguishes
    day and night.
    
    It says that man was MADE in the image of God on the sixth day;
    however, IT DOES NOT say that man was formed from the dust of the earth
    on the sixth day.  
    
    Man being made in the image of God does not necessarily mean he was
    speaking of Adam.  Since Adam was formed separate from being made in
    God's image.  The seven day creation could have been the conception of 
    all creation in the mind of God and not the actual appearance.  The
    first verse, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth",
    the beginning could have been the beginning of all eternity...which of
    course there actually was no beginning since God always was.
    
    -Jack 

re .24

Jack,

;    Man being made in the image of God does not necessarily mean he was
;    speaking of Adam.  Since Adam was formed separate from being made in
;    God's image.

Genesis 1:27 says that he *created* man in his image, the rest of us 
came about through procreation of the original couple for this reason we
have inherited sin and that image has been tarnished. So he was speaking
of Adam (compare Luke 3:38).

Phil.

 ZZ   Genesis 1:27 says that he *created* man in his image, the rest of us 
 ZZ   came about through procreation of the original couple for this reason
 ZZ   we have inherited sin and that image has been tarnished.
    
    Then by this logic, it wouldn't include Eve since she was formed at a
    later time.
    
    Man made in the image of God and man formed from the dust of the earth
    are two distinct events.  I have heard the theory that "In the
    Beginning" refers to the beginning of eternity.  In other words, God
    conceptualized all things since eternity past.  
    
    -Jack

re .26

;    Then by this logic, it wouldn't include Eve since she was formed at a
;    later time.

From whom was Eve formed? and further when did this event take place ?
(Genesis 1:26-28) eg Whom was given the command to be fruitful on the
sixth day? 

;    Man made in the image of God and man formed from the dust of the earth
;    are two distinct events.

Guess we will have to disagree, by your understanding when was Adam formed
from the dust if not the sixth day?.

Phil.

    Actually Phil, I don't agree or disagree.  The creation is a big
    mystery to me and I'm just suggesting some possible ideas for
    discussion purposes.
    
ZZ    From whom was Eve formed? and further when did this event take place ?
ZZ    (Genesis 1:26-28) eg Whom was given the command to be fruitful on the
ZZ    sixth day?
    
    According to Genesis, Adam was formed after the seventh day.  On the
    sixth day, both male and female were created simultaneously as
    spiritual beings but Adam was formed after the seventh day and Eve was
    after that.  Now exactly when the seventh day took place and when man
    was formed is the big piece missing in the puzzle.  If we had this
    piece, it would answer many questions.
    
    -Jack

    
>    Then by this logic, it wouldn't include Eve since she was formed at a
>    later time.

In the P text, both were created at the same time.  In the J text, the
woman was created later.

Richard

re .28

Jack,

Read Genesis 2 verses 4-25 and you will see that Adam was not created 
after the seventh day. Especially verses 4,5 19-20. Verse 4 tells
you that this is the history of the creation event.

Time to go home for me here in the UK, hope you all have a good weekend.
If I remember I'll look up the Hewbrew scripture that shows the seventh
day is still in existence in Pauls' day.


Phil. 

    re: .126
    
    Another possibility I've heard, is that "In the beginning" refers to
    the creation of "time" as we know it. 
    
    -steve

    According to baseball zealots, it is a mistranslation and should
    actually read:  "In the big inning,..."
    
    
    
    
    ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Re .31
    
    >>the creation of "time" 
    
    But what does that mean?  The word "create" has no meaning outside of
    time... as in something 'was not', then it 'was' later in time.  How
    can time itself be "created" outside the context of time?  
    
      - Does God operate inside time?
      - Did time exist "before" God or "without" God?
      - Is he a slave to time as we are?
      - How could God "create" time (or anything else for that matter)
        "outside" of time?
      - Are the notions of cause/effect only valid inside time?  
      - If cause/effect are invalid outside the realm of time then why does
        the universe need a cause (a creator)?
    
    Dilemas like this make me wonder if the universe was "created" at all! 
    We are so firmly entrenched in the notion of existing "in time" that
    it's extremely difficult to concieve of existing outside of it.  Some 
    even have God himself (herself ???) operating inside time as being a 
    "creator".  Is that valid?
    
    -dave

    
    > According to baseball zealots, it is a mistranslation and should
    > actually read:  "In the big inning,..."

    And on the seventh day God rested... so *that's* where the seventh
    inning stretch comes from! :^)

Of course God created time!

He created all things, seen and unseen.

/john

    RE .37
    
    >> Of course God created time!
    
    But you're missing the point.  The act of creating must, by definition,
    take place IN time.  How could time itself possibly have been "created"
    outside the context of time?  This is going to sound silly, but "there
    was no time BEFORE time was CREATED".  There was no time when God could
    have performed the act of creating time.
    
    This is not just an excersize in semantics or playing with definitions.  
    It questions the notion that cause/effect is an absolute and the notion 
    that everything NEEDS to have been created. 
    
    -dave
    

Dave,

Have you read Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time"?  He talks
about the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time.  It's hard
for us to imagine the universe having a finite size (what happens if you
go "outside" the universe?) or time having a beginning (what happened
"before" the beginning of time?) but the modern scientific understanding
of the universe is that space is finite and time had a beginning.

The question arises: Why did time have a beginning?  Why does the universe
exist at all?  The theistic answer is that the universe exists because of
God, i.e. that God created (creates?) the universe.  This creation was
(is?) an event that happened (happens?) outside of our conception of time
- there was no time "before" God created the universe, because without a
universe there is no such thing as time as we know it.

The agnostic answer is: I don't know.

				-- Bob

    Dave:
    
    I am reminded of this episode from the old Star Treks where Kirk, Spock
    and McCoy went to a planet of Pacifists.  Very kind gentile people but
    absolutely abhorred violence.  Well of course the Klingons and the
    McCoys are having this intergalactic war and to make a long story
    short, it turned out these pacifist beings at the end identified
    themselves as beings that were trillions of years ahead of humans on
    the "Evolutionary scale". (I'm getting to my point here but I'm on a
    roll! :) )  One of the interesting things of this episode was that the
    pacifist beings...their appearance, their form, the buildings...all
    merely an illusion simply put there as a frame of reference for the
    inferior Captain Kirk.  Okay I'm done.  Sorry if you hated Star Trek.
    
    As human beings, we have been blessed with many things; however, one of
    the things we haven't been given is the ability to go beyond our frame
    of reference, i.e. how could God have had no beginning for example?  I
    cannot fathom this concept because my frame of reference tells me that
    all things had an origin; however, we know by faith that God has always
    been.  I believe God created the concept of time for us.  Time is not
    an element outside the parameters of Gods ability or sovereignty.  If
    you really think about it, God promises us we will reign forever with
    Him.  Since forever is forever, time is a non issue!
    
    -Jack

    re: .33
    
>    The word "create" has no meaning outside of
>    time... as in something 'was not', then it 'was' later in time.  How
>    can time itself be "created" outside the context of time?  
 
    As humans who have no other frame of reference but 'time', we think
    very linear- beginning and ending, all references of a certain point in
    'time'. 
    
    Time itself is irrelevent to God.  The Bible says he always was and
    always will be.  There was no "beginning" to God, nor will there be an
    "ending".  God never 'came into being', as He has always been.
    
    This is a confusing concept that goes beyond our comprehension as
    linear thinkers, as it is outside of any frame of reference that we
    have.
    
    For instance, try to imagine 'infinity'.  Numerically, 'infinity' has
    no beginning nor ending.  Imagine going out into space and just
    continuing forever...space without end.  We can't really grasp this
    totally.
    
    Time is a temporary creation, put in place for our benefit.  "In the
    beginning" could very well refer to the start of 'time' as we know it. 
    This would not, however, be an accurate frame of reference to God, as
    God has no beginning.  Therefore, it must refer to the beginning of
    our physical universe- and the concept of time.
      
      - Does God operate inside time?
    
    He certainly can, though He is not limited by it.
    
      - Did time exist "before" God or "without" God?
    
    There is no "before God", nor is there any "without God".  God always
    was, and always will be.
    
      - Is he a slave to time as we are?
    
    No.
    
      - How could God "create" time (or anything else for that matter)
        "outside" of time?
    
    We are too limited by our own concept of known time to adequately 
    understand the answer to this.  This question, however, seems to be
    trying to put God into a box based on human understanding.  He is not
    restricted by our lack of understanding, nor by the concepts he created
    for our frame of reference.
    
      - Are the notions of cause/effect only valid inside time?
    
    Logically, it would seem so.  But we really have inadequate insight
    regarding what 'outside of time' really means.
      
      - If cause/effect are invalid outside the realm of time then why does
        the universe need a cause (a creator)?
   
    Time came into existence, as did this universe.  I know of no one who
    believes that this universe was always here (scientists), nor is there
    any evidence that supports this idea.  Therefore, since time and space
    did come into being at some point (the beginning of time as we know
    it), then something would have to have caused it to come into being. 
    The intellectual battle raging on is how and why.  It comes down to
    either a chance event (but where did matter come from), or God's
    creation.
    
    From my viewpoint- even outside my religious convictions- is that a
    Creator is the only logical conclusion, given all the evidence of
    design and the amazing complexities of life- particularly human life.
     
>    Dilemas like this make me wonder if the universe was "created" at all!
    
    And what is the alternative?  All the amazing complexities and awesome
    designs of the universe and life itself (and let's not forget the
    Biological Law: "life only comes from life") was all a chance event? 
    Design supports the idea of a designer.  The more complex the design,
    the more intelligent the designer must be.
    
    Think on it this way.  Given all the right conditions and all the right
    elements and lots of time, do you think that nature would create a
    computer?  No, if you found a computer laying around in a desert
    somewhere laying in the middle of mineral deposits, you would think
    someone left it there- you would NOT think that it evolved by chance.
    
    How much more complex is even the simplest forms of life?  But for some
    reason, we are eager to believe that life just sprang into existence on
    its own accord- given an unimaginably long period of time.  
     
>    We are so firmly entrenched in the notion of existing "in time" that
>    it's extremely difficult to concieve of existing outside of it.  
    
    This is true.
    
>    Some even have God himself (herself ???) operating inside time as being a 
>    "creator".  Is that valid?
    
    As I said earlier, God can operate inside time, but He is not limited
    by it.
    
    
    -steve

RE: In the beginning ...

I should think this refered to the beginning of what we are being told
about - that is the initial creation of the universe - the heavens and
the earth.  

RE: eternity

>    	So if we divide the creation time by 6 and 'call it a day' for
>    	God, then we can extrapolate that length of time by multiplying
>    	by 43800 (365*120) to figure out how long eternity is.

Is this tongue in cheek? I thought the definition of eternity was "the
totality of time without beginning or end".  Of course, it can't really 
be the totality of time without beginning or end, because time seems to 
have at least a beginning. But as existence without time is beyond our 
frame of reference, perhaps there is no other way to define it. In any 
case, I don't think we can measure eternity because the only way we know 
to measure the length of something is by its beginning and end.

RE: creation sequence - when ish (man) and isha (woman) were created

I think of Genesis 1 as a synopsis, an overall picture of what occured.
Genesis 2 is a more detailed look at the creation of humanity on the sixth
day. I am glad the story is told in this way because it shows that God's
intention was that humanity be both male and female. The woman was not an
after thought, but was part of the initial design. Together, as male and
female, humanity bears the image of God. Giving authority or dominion
over the earth and its creatures by God to humanity is shown to be to
the male/female union, not just the male being. So is the command to 
procreate. It is the responsibility of the male and female together. One 
does not have transcendence over the other in this. Woman was drawn out of
adam's body in creation, but now it is the woman's body from whom any child, 
male or female is born. Some have speculated that the original adam was 
male and female together, and was seperated by God into individual beings.
I don't know, its impossible for us to know.

Leslie

Re .37

>>Have you read Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time"?

Yes.  But you've got to remember that he and others are beginning to dabble
outside the realm of physical science.  I tend to consider their statements in
these matters as if they were being spoken by philosophers, not scientists.

>>It's hard for us to imagine the universe having a finite size...

In curved space, you can have a universe of finite space with no "edge" or
boundary, thereby avoiding the problem of what lies "outside".  How can that
be?  Consider living in a 2-D world where only North/South/East/West directions
exist.  You'd be completely unaware of any "up/down" direction.  Then you
ponder the idea of your 2-D world being finite in size (area) but have no 
edge.  If all that exists is 2 dimensions, there could be no such scenario. 
But if you curved the 2-D world... wrapped it around a ball like the surface of
the earth is wrapped around the earth, then the surface area would be finite
but there would be no edges to your 2-D world.  Perhaps there's a 4th spacial
dimension in which our 3-D world is curved into, leaving us with a 3-D universe
of finite size (volume) with no edges.  Einstein proposed the idea of a 4th
spacial dimension when he proposed his general theory of relativity.


>>what happened "before" the beginning of time?

The question doesn't make sense (in the context of linear time).  There could 
not have been any time before time.  And the notion of "the beginning of time" 
is a bit of an oxymoron.  If, on the other hand, time itself was something that
moves forward then backward then forward again... in a cyclical fashion, then
there would be no need for a "beginning" of time.  It would always have
existed. This implies lack of a creator for time, or at least puts time and God
on equal standing.

>>The question arises: Why did time have a beginning?

"Why" implies a search for either a cause or effect.  "Why is it cold" is a
question searching for a cause.  "Why are we sending troops to Bosnia" is a 
question searching for the desired future effect.  Does the question "WHY" 
have meaning outside of cause/effect?  outside of time? 

>>This creation was
>>(is?) an event that happened (happens?) outside of our conception of time

Then perhaps the use of the word "creation" is improper.  "Creating" a painting 
would be nothing at all similar to "creating" the universe.  You're talking
about redefing the word "time".

>>there was no time "before" God created the universe, because without a
universe there is no such thing as time as we know it.

Agreed.  But if there was no such thing as time "when" the universe was
created, then it (the universe) could be thought of as "pre-existing".  No 
need for a creator.  In a realm where there is no cause/effect, the effect
(universe) has no cause (God).

>>The agnostic answer is: I don't know.

It's the only truthful answer if all you rely on is the physical evidence at
hand.  A theist can claim to "know" but that's based on faith and the context
of the word "know" differs based on your assumptions.



Re .38

They were called the Organians (if I recall correctly).  I *love* Star Trtek 
and that was one of my favorite episodes.  I liked it because it humbled 
humanity, set us down "in our place" as it were.

Maybe you're right Jack.  Maybe our universe as we percieve it is a facade,
"created" for our benefit by God.  I do not believe that your proposal can be
disproven.  However, the flip side is that it cannot be proven either.  If you
accept the Bible as truth, and the bible says that the universe is a facade,
then you accept it as fact (contingent upon the veracity of the bible).  Maybe
you're right.  I don't know what else to say except that I believe the
"search" for the truth,  regardless of how hopeless the task may be, is what's
important.  So I keep searching.  



Re .39


>    As humans who have no other frame of reference but 'time', we think
>    very linear- beginning and ending, all references of a certain point in
>    'time'.

Absolutely.  That's our reflexive approach to understanding our observations.
It's a prejudice reinforced by a lifetime's worth of practical experience.  
But it need not be the "absolute" truth.  When you consider things like the 
"creation of time", this linear thinking falls apart.

>There was no "beginning" to God, nor will there be an
>    "ending".  God never 'came into being'

You know, I can accept that in a sense.  It's basically saying that God exists
outside the confines of time.  That's fine.  But the universe istelf would have
to be sitting there right along side of God, existing outside time while
containing time as one of it's attributes.  I mean, there could have been no
"time" when that was not so, right?  If the universe = (space + time +
matter + energy + ...) and the universe is on equal standing with God, then
what is the sum of God + Universe?  Eastern theologians (if you want to call
them that) call the sum the universe... or God.   In other words they dissolve 
the barrier between God and Universe and lump everything that exists all
together.  Call "that" thing whatever you like.  Maybe "existence" is
appropriate.  The Zen word for it is "Atma".

>For instance, try to imagine 'infinity'.

One cannot "picture" infinities (spacial, temporal) using familiar reference 
frames or models.  But the notion can and has been used, at least by thinkers.
Like the value of pi.

>Time is a temporary creation
Hmmmm......

>We are too limited by our own concept of known time to adequately
>    understand the answer to this.  This question, however, seems to be
>    trying to put God into a box based on human understanding.

Well, many believe that God created the universe "in time" and don't consider 
the origin of time itself.  Those people are having God work within our
understanding of time (in the box).  My question was (in a sense) putting God 
in the box, requiring him to operate within time as we understand it because 
doing that is at the heart of the word "creator".  If "God as Creator" is the
proposition, then you have to defend the proposition in the context of the word
"create"... inside time.  Either that or redefine time itself (and  all it's
offspring like cause, effect, create, destroy, etc...).  


>Time came into existence
Hmmm... is that like saying time was created?


>I know of no one who                                        
>    believes that this universe was always here (scientists)
The Big-Bang... Big-Crunch... Big-Bang "infinite" series is one popular
hypothesis which claims the universe always existed.  If there's such a thing
as "negative time", then the universe would stretch out in time, unwind back to 
zero time, etc... .

>From my viewpoint- even outside my religious convictions- is that a
>    Creator is the only logical conclusion, given all the evidence of
>    design and the amazing complexities of life- particularly human life.

Yes, but is that simple falling prey to "it must be therefor it is" reasoning?
You went on to cite the amazing complexities of the universe, life being amoung
them.  And I'll be the first to say that I don't have the answers either.  But
maybe that's where it should stand... admitting that one doesn't know. 
Assuming that there is an answer may be premature and formulating that answer
in terms which make sense to humans may be entirely false.  Some questiona may
not have answeres. Consider the search for a primary why....

 "Daddy, why is the sun so bright?"
 "Because there's a lot of radiation being ejected from it's surface."
 "Why?"
 "Because there's this thing called nuclear fusion going on."
 "Why?"
 "Because there's a lot of hydrogen in there under tremendous pressure"
 "Why?"
 "Because the sparse hydrogen clings together to get denser and denser and
  gravity works on it to fuse it together"
 "Why?"
 etc...
 
There is no ultimate answer to the questions about the sun because the child
can always ask "why".  Smilarly, there may be no answer to these questions 
about the universe.  Maybe, like many buddhists do, one should not bother to
consider the questions because it's pointless.  Maybe.

-dave