Life

In the beginning–in the beginning of what? Of being? No; of life. In the beginning beings were already there, but life was not. The beginning was the beginning of life. The first sign of life was when God showed up on the scene. God was the first sign of life, the first life, but what is the way to life, the only way of life, that God shows us?

Just as death is given away by the no-response of the one we call out to, life is the response. The difference between the living and the dead is the living respond. What do I mean by this? A couple examples…

The Good Samaritan: the first two pass by the ruined man while the Samaritan responds. The first two are dead while the Samaritan lives.

The Resurrection of Lazarus: when Jesus arrives Lazarus was already dead–just like the Levite and priest, Lazarus turns a blind eye to those who call out to him. His resurrection transpires in the moment when Jesus calls him out of the cave and he responds by coming. Life is responding. Lazarus’ resurrection is not a transition from physical death to life, but from heartless being to being the answer to people’s prayers.

This is life. This is the life God shows us. It is a responsible life.

So the beginning of life is the beginning of existence, as there was nobody to perceive anything existing before life began? God was the first living thing? Does that mean His omnipotence stems from being the first living thing to perceive? If I interpreted that right, it’s a strange notion.

When people feel aware of the futility of prayer, they just don’t realize that their existence is the only thing they need… yet people are, in a sense, dead if they aren’t altruistic?

I apologize, I don’t see where you are coming from at all.

Being precedes life.

God does not create from nothing.

God is not omnipotent (as the previous notion led us to believe).

The dead are the ones who are dead to the prayers of others.

The living are the ones who answer prayers.

God was the first one to answer the prayer of being, so yes God was the first living thing. At least Biblically speaking. (Historically I could not tell you who lived first.)

Perception has nothing to do with it.

“In the beginning beings were already there, but life was not. The beginning was the beginning of life.” Ergo, in the beginning of life, life was not there?

When God doesn’t respond, we die, and when God responds, that is life? God responds because he is alive? So, couldn’t one take your rather metaphysical example of ‘life’ and ‘death’ as being the act to respond, and say that any response, whether heartless or indifferent would be ‘life?’

Was the will to ‘live’ a prayer from some conscious things that were in a state of being, but not yet life? What does God create from then? And did He come into existence spontaneously out of the prayer for life?

Is one dead if they don’t know that someone is praying, and can’t answer because they don’t hear the question? Would a doctor who performs an abortion to save the mother be answering the prayers of the mother and becoming ‘alive,’ or would he be neglecting the unspoken, innate prayer of the unborn child that wants to live in the conventional definition and is therefore becoming ‘dead?’

Great questions reistschule.

The beginning spoken of in Genesis 1 is the beginning of life, not being. Common sense is that it was the beginning of being, so that just prior to this beginning there was nothing, and creation was a miraculous movement from nothing to something. In truth this beginning is not the beginning of being, but rather being preceded this beginning. The Bible does not answer the question of the beginning of being. Rather it speaks of the beginning of life. Where life is being that responds. The living, and God is God of the living, are the beings that respond.

So God, to answer another one of your questions, was the first being to respond (at least in the story: I’m not talking history). Other beings followed suit, becoming images of God. To me God is a character type that we can adopt. It involves a loving, responsive, helpful way of life.

This leads to your next question: Do we die when God doesn’t respond? The problem is, God doesn’t not respond. God responds. This is God’s character. But again, God is just a character in a story. In real life it’s never God that responds but beings who are images of God. But in a sense yes, we do die if God isn’t there (if we aren’t responded to)… Sometimes we need help, like all the people who come to Jesus seeking salvation. However there are other means of saving our bodily life. There is always exploitation…

Which leads to yet another question: Wouldn’t any response, even a heartless one, be called life? No. But this is because to me “response” is taken in a strong sense. It’s not a simple reaction, but an answering. Like any response it requires a call that it can answer, but it’s answer doesn’t just give a reply, but rather gives what was asked for. If a blind man calls out for sight, a response isn’t just hearing the call and turning away. A response is giving the man sight. Does that make sense? I mean response in a strong sense, so in this sense a heartless response cannot be called life…

Was the will to live a prayer from something in the state of being, but not yet life? No. The will to live is not a prayer, but a resolution, a decision one makes when they hear a call for help (or a prayer). Beings pray because they are always facing destruction. God is the one who answers prayers. So yes, life does require something in the state of being (it is being that comes to life), but whether or not it is living when it hears the call is a maybe.

What does God create from then? Being. God creates like any artist: with the materials at hand. Isn’t this a better answer than “from nothing”?

Did He come into existence spontaneously out of the prayer for life? I don’t mind the word spontaneous… I would say it was more a resolution though. God is a being who is resolved to help others unconditionally. God hears a prayer, and God resolves to answer it. Is that spontaneous?

Is one dead if they don’t know that someone is praying, and can’t answer because they don’t hear the question? No. Jesus didn’t save the whole world. He saved those who came to him, or who he happened upon on his way. The idea is not to save everyone, but to save those you meet if you can.

Would a doctor who performs an abortion be living or dead? You know, sometimes life just sucks. In this case, I assume the mother will die if she carries the child… If that’s the case, both mother and child would die if nothing was done and so the doctor, I think, can perform the operation in good conscience.

What of normal abortion? To me it’s the mother who has to make the decision. She is the one who should love unconditionally and be happy to sacrifice whatever is needed to the child. This may sound like a gross analogy, but I see the fetus as a tenant of the mother’s womb. Like any landlord, the womb is her property, and it is up to her whether she wants to evict the fetus. The problem is: the eviction is only “ethical” if the landlord does no harm to the tenant in the process. Given current practice, this is impossible.

The only good case, again, is if the mother kept the child. Given she doesn’t, is the doctor irresponsible to do the procedure? I want to say yes, I really do, but there is another issue of the woman doing it herself, which leads to the case above where both mother and child die and the doctor is right to perform the abortion. Because self-aborting is a reality, I think we need to make available the best services to women in such a predicament.

I don’t really have a ‘come-back,’ but I wanted to let you know that I read your post. Originally I was just asking to confirm or figure out where you were coming from, not to debate. Hopefully that falls within the scope of the forum - to just ask questions about the beliefs of others.