|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You have said elsewhere you have no problem with the virgin birth or the resurrection. Why then do you need a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?
I firmly believe in the virgin birth and resurrection, and find that statement worrying.
What matters, surely, is what's true, not what sort of explanation we think we need? You seem very close to saying that if someone believes in God (or at least, in a supernatural, active, miracle-capable God), they don't need to bother about science or understanding, but can, and should, be content to say "God did it" as an explanation for anything science can't currently explain.
That attitude is obviously a dangerous one to hold from the scientific perspective - I think it's also dangerous from a faith perspective. Firstly because it makes scientific ignorance a ground of faith, a ground which will, inevitably, be eroded, and secondly becuase it locates the activity of God solely in the 'supernatural' realm. I believe in miracles - but if there is a God, the naturalistic stuff is his work as well, just in a less spectacular mode.
If God made life through a scientifically discoverable process, that is wonderful, and would be interesting. He could have made life spontaneously and fully-formed by an undeniably supernatural miracle, of course, but I don't need him to have done so to be a believer.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Perhaps this might be helpful
theflatearthsociety.org
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The whole shebang (life, evolution, universe and everything) must never provide evidence for the existence of God* or there is no freedom to believe or not believe. Proof means there is not faith.
It's got nowt ter do wi' faith, whatever that is.
God has no choice as to how He creates materially.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God has no choice as to how He creates materially.
Eh?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What are the constraints imposed on God in regard to how He creates? How do you reach the conclusion that He is constrained to the extent that He has no choice about how He creates?
In other words, "Eh?"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What are the constraints imposed on God in regard to how He creates? How do you reach the conclusion that He is constrained to the extent that He has no choice about how He creates?
In other words, "Eh?"
God cannot act outside his own nature. Basically, he is free to act in things that don't matter, but constrained by his own nature in things that do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What are the constraints imposed on God in regard to how He creates? How do you reach the conclusion that He is constrained to the extent that He has no choice about how He creates?
In other words, "Eh?"
Martin will no doubt speak for himself but I expect he will say that God is totally constrained and not at all, the former by his imposition of free will on us and the latter by our inability to grasp it
The Bible, suggests that God has completed the creation and is now upholding all things by the word of his power. We are promised that he will create again , a new heaven and a new earth are indicated in Scripture.
With regard to constraints of action on himself, they are moral. His own character is truth so that should he say something, he must abide by it to be true to his integrity. Consequently, scripture and of course the devil can predict his actions so we have the determined effort of Satan to wipe out the Jewish race as the second coming of Jesus requires their existence.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You have said elsewhere you have no problem with the virgin birth or the resurrection. Why then do you need a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life?
I firmly believe in the virgin birth and resurrection, and find that statement worrying.
He could have made life spontaneously and fully-formed by an undeniably supernatural miracle, of course, but I don't need him to have done so to be a believer.
To be a believer, you need to know that Jesus died for your sins, all the rest is window dressing.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Simple Alan. Quantum mechanics. If one is in the material creation business (for a start: what are the physics of Heaven?) one HAS to comply with, work with the inescapable, absolute logic which predicates the laws of physics. One can overrule them with miracles of course, perhaps in the creation of life, definitely in the incarnation (and Mother Mary's witness is good enough for me).
One can imagine, for the sake of a narrative, a story, that God envisaged the end - transcendent creation - and worked backward to the dimensionless constants necessary to achieve that in one Divine Planck tick at most or whatever process was necessary in infinite mind (question= answer).
I can't see how there was ANY meaningful choice in that. Neither is there any choice in Him not being interventionist beyond the barest possible minimum. In and around the incarnation. No claim works transferrably or is necessary outside that as you know.
The only question is, why ... IF, after eternity, did God change?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, did He have to create the laws of physics as we know them? Could he have made a universe with different laws? And, even within the laws of the universe we have, is there not scope for infinite variation? Why create the universe so that at this moment in time the craters on the Moon look like a face, or arrange to have Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka positioned in a straight line like the belt of a mighty warrior? He could have easily created so things were any number of ways different. Even without doing something 'miraculous'.
His nature may have constrained the parameters of His creation. That isn't the same as having no choice.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The laws of physics are bigger than God. Like kindness.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To be a believer, you need to know that Jesus died for your sins, all the rest is window dressing.
If you truly believe this, then why do you argue against science so often?
A Christian who embraces this philosophy can happily and sincerely embrace physics and geology and paleontology with no disconnect.
It is the fact that some do not which causes conflict.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The laws of physics are bigger than God. Like kindness.
I would certainly put that the other way round. God is bigger than the laws of physics. The laws of physics are part of the physical universe, part of the creation of God. The potter is bigger than the pot.
As for kindness, that is what God is. Like love. What we experience and know of kindness and love is a pale reflection of the reality of the kindness and love that God is. God is so much more love and kindness than we experience or even dream of.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Jamat
I know we call the bible the Word of God but he didn't write it or dictate it.
Whatever interpretation we put on it - and whatever interpretations have been handed down to us - are just more people (men usually) giving their take on the writing of other men.
To imply, however obliquely, that the most recent persecutions of the jews are all part of 'God's plan' is appalling and grotesque.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How would He go about knowing the spin of an electron? Or creating - thinking - stuff that isn't indeterminate? That isn't free. Does He have a choice not to be kind?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L3c8ch9'organist:
Jamat
I know we call the bible the Word of God but he didn't write it or dictate it.
Whatever interpretation we put on it - and whatever interpretations have been handed down to us - are just more people (men usually) giving their take on the writing of other men.
To imply, however obliquely, that the most recent persecutions of the jews are all part of 'God's plan' is appalling and grotesque.
I didn't say that it was God's plan, I said it was Satan's.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To be a believer, you need to know that Jesus died for your sins, all the rest is window dressing.
If you truly believe this, then why do you argue against science so often?
A Christian who embraces this philosophy can happily and sincerely embrace physics and geology and paleontology with no disconnect.
It is the fact that some do not which causes conflict.
Somehow,this implies arguing against Science is arguing against truth. But Science is a moving target. I have no problems with it when it doesn't claim to be a religious truth story, in fact, like us all, I embrace its benefits.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Somehow,this implies arguing against Science is arguing against truth. But Science is a moving target. I have no problems with it when it doesn't claim to be a religious truth story, in fact, like us all, I embrace its benefits.
Science doesn't argue anything, science is a process. More often people ascribe religion to process better described by science. Hence we get statements like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sin corrupts health, weakens the gene pool,causes aging.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Somehow,this implies arguing against Science is arguing against truth. But Science is a moving target. I have no problems with it when it doesn't claim to be a religious truth story, in fact, like us all, I embrace its benefits.
Science doesn't argue anything, science is a process. More often people ascribe religion to process better described by science. Hence we get statements like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sin corrupts health, weakens the gene pool,causes aging.
That's fine Buddy; feel free to ignore anything I say.
Assume that there is no fully comprehensible explanation for aging and that the ancients lived hundreds of years. Imagine also a reason this did not continue. Imagine that The effects of sin gradually played out through the generations and that in addition,God saw that longevity resulted merely In greater evil. Imagine he put a stop to this by limiting lifespans and imagine also that sin affected human health. Sin,after all Biblically is not an action only,it is also the condition that motivates the evil action. Imagine that through violence,disease and the continuous dilution of our well being, our lives are not what they once were. Imagine,but since you know best,feel free to ignore.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And again Alan, how can God make black white? Or vary 'c'. Or Newton's 3rd law? How can He change the laws of logic which underpin reality? I realise that reality includes the wonderful strangeness that is quantum entanglement, demonstrating that paired electrons have an instantaneous delocalised relationship regardless of how separated they are (for the benefit of others). Is that a law God created? Predicating those that follow? Is wave-particle duality arbitrary? Indeterminism? General relativity? Surely only the anthropic dimensionless constants at the very most can be varied?
As for kindness, God is perfectly kind, yes, and whatever we think of as kind, however kind we are, He could possibly point to a way in which we could be kinder. But kindness cannot be arbitrary. And even God's is highly constrained. We have to invoke it, declare it even though we do not ever directly encounter it.
Again, He OBVIOUSLY has no choice in physics or ethics. To invoke otherwise isn't even theoretical. He CAN supervene, but, again, obviously, keeps that to an absolute minimum because it would make things worse.
So again again, has He ALWAYS incarnated and is He currently infinitely parallely incarnate and ever will be?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And again Alan, how can God make black white? Or vary 'c'. Or Newton's 3rd law? How can He change the laws of logic which underpin reality?
But, why should the laws of logic underlying this reality be the same for all possible realities? "Black" and "white" are words used to describe particular combinations of photons (in the case of black, the absence of photons in the visible range), so one can't logically be the other. But, if our retina responded to photons of different energies then our experience of "black" and "white" would be very different - if we could see IR (as many animals can) then what we see as "black" may be brighter than "white". Why has God created such that our eyes don't respond to IR and see black and white differently?
'c' is a combination of other physical constants. Within this reality it is fixed. However, we can imagine other realities where the physical constants, including 'c', are different from our reality without changing other laws at all. Why did God create this reality, why not one of the others we can imagine (plus the countless more that our brains can't imagine)? OK, most of those other realities are unable to support life as we know it. But, why should God have created life as we know it, Jim?
Did God have a choice to create? Could He have decided to not bother and just lived in His eternal "place" in His own perfection?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Jamat,
There are two basic assumptions in this: the bible is literal or the bible is not.
Assuming that the bible is literal then requires a lot of justification , backwards calculation, dancing around uncomfortable passages and bizarre constructions.
Assuming the bible is not requires reading for context, but it can provide a much more consistent viewpoint.
ETA: Read religious text for your spiritual guidance and science texts for understanding the physical nature of our universe.
[ 30. November 2014, 16:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And again Alan, how can God make black white? Or vary 'c'. Or Newton's 3rd law? How can He change the laws of logic which underpin reality?
But, why should the laws of logic underlying this reality be the same for all possible realities? "Black" and "white" are words used to describe particular combinations of photons (in the case of black, the absence of photons in the visible range), so one can't logically be the other. But, if our retina responded to photons of different energies then our experience of "black" and "white" would be very different - if we could see IR (as many animals can) then what we see as "black" may be brighter than "white". Why has God created such that our eyes don't respond to IR and see black and white differently?
VERY nice point. Exposing my ... black and white tendencies. You are being poetic in your last sentence I trust!
quote:
'c' is a combination of other physical constants. Within this reality it is fixed. However, we can imagine other realities where the physical constants, including 'c', are different from our reality without changing other laws at all. Why did God create this reality, why not one of the others we can imagine (plus the countless more that our brains can't imagine)? OK, most of those other realities are unable to support life as we know it. But, why should God have created life as we know it, Jim?
As above. Both of my responses! I believe I pre-empted that: acknowledging that there are immutable laws and probably twiddlable dimensionless constants but with an incredibly narrow 'anthropic' range if any. Nonetheless I'll see your Bones and raise it with THE Scotty: "Ye cannae change the laws o' physics". You, Alan, have articulated Christian materialism consistently as I recall and latterly I'm tilting that way even to a default position. My side bet on divine intervention is becoming a longer and longer shot. All I'm left with is the big three (Eden is myth) and science could easily demolish the central pivot - life - this century.
Sooooo, if life and therefore mind are emergent, God created NEITHER directly. He let matter do it. And it does it paradoxically. Unbelievably rarely everywhere else yet as soon as it rained here for a start. Sapience is similar. You need four billion years to make homeothermic, bipedal, handy, binocular, aesthetic, head at a right angle ... monkeys. Only. Not squid as well. Strong determinism means life and sapience everywhere for me.
quote:
Did God have a choice to create? Could He have decided to not bother and just lived in His eternal "place" in His own perfection?
Aye. Or as I alluded to, DESPITE the orthodoxy of the uniqueness of the hypostatic union, if that's actually not so, He has ALWAYS created, ALWAYS incarnated and is doing so right now in some slightly off parallel universe. Which IS a heterodoxy too far, but it wouldn't surprise me if He were. God/b smack me, but not surprise.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat,
There are two basic assumptions in this: the bible is literal or the bible is not.
Assuming that the bible is literal then requires a lot of justification , backwards calculation, dancing around uncomfortable passages and bizarre constructions.
Assuming the bible is not requires reading for context, but it can provide a much more consistent viewpoint.
ETA: Read religious text for your spiritual guidance and science texts for understanding the physical nature of our universe.
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent? I'm sure he is riveted. Let me know what he says about that.
Martin, for heaven's sake stop pretending you can know anything by celebrating uncertainty. It is tiresome.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent?
I think the point is that an interpretation of Scripture that is rigidly literalistic is inconsistent.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are two basic assumptions in this: the bible is literal or the bible is not.
Depends on what you mean by "literal". A lot of self-proclaimed literalists who insist upon a literal six day creation sometime between six to ten thousand years ago because it's consistent with Genesis would balk at accepting the Bible's flat earth cosmology, mentioned obliquely in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament. The basic structure seems to be a flat Earth under a bowl-like domed sky. The stars are holes in the sky and the sun an moon move around on the inside of the bowl/sky. This world supposedly floated on water and had water on the other side of the dome as well. These are the "springs of the great deep" and "floodgates of the heavens" (if you like the NIV, or the "the fountains of the great deep" and "the windows of heaven" if you're a King James sort of literalist). For some reason accepting the Bible as "literal" never seems to include accepting a literal window (or floodgate) in the heavens.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent? I'm sure he is riveted. Let me know what he says about that.
1. I literally Laughed Out Loud. Please refer to my board name for the first clue about my level of concern.*
2. Alan got it quite succinctly. Crœsos illustrates but one of the many problems associated.
*I do not mock or disrespect the Christian religion in general, though. Just those that are inconsistent with Jesus' message and those which inhibit proper discussions of real, observable life.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I LOVE uncertainty i.e. reality all the way down. It's so liberating. I'm surprised you don't love turtles the same way.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem with turtles is there's always a Mack.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent?
I think the point is that an interpretation of Scripture that is rigidly literalistic is inconsistent.
So you keep saying, Alan, using the word 'interpretation' as some sort of excuse for ignoring what it does say and placing your materialistic philosophy above it.
Croesus, Pray tell me where there is any definitive flat earth in scripture?
Isaiah speaks of the circle of the earth that is translatable as sphere/globe and the jury is out on canopies. The fact is that God conceivably could have had one even though it is no longer extant.
Foundations and windows? Rather obvious metaphors and metaphors are merely ways of indicating practical realities. A 'foundation' suggests stability ie the Earth is set in its place which is totally true in that it maintains its position in relation to the other heavenly bodies.
See:
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 22. - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth; rather, above the vault of the earth; above the vault of sky which seems to arch over the earth. As grasshoppers; i.e. minute, scarcely visible (comp. Numbers 13:33). That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain. So in Psalm 104:2, only that here the "curtain" is represented as one of thin gauze. The idea is common to Isaiah with Job (Job 9:8), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 51:15), and Zechariah (Zechariah 12:1), and is a favourite one in these later chapters (comp. Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13). As a tent (comp. Psalm 19:4, where God is said to have set in the heavens a "tabernacle" - 'ohel, the word used here - for the sun).
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,.... Or, "the globe (z)" of it; for the earth is spherical or globular: not a flat plain, but round, hung as a ball in the air; here Jehovah sits as the Lord and Sovereign; being the Maker of it, he is above it, orders and directs its motion, and governs all things in it: Kimchi rightly observes, that the heavens are the circle of the earth, which is the centre of them, and around which they are; and so it signifies, that the Lord sits or dwells in the heavens, from whence he beholds the children of men:
And:
Yes, Martin, I know you do but one day when you die..what then? I would be very afraid facing that last journey with a basket of uncertainties on my arm.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent? I'm sure he is riveted. Let me know what he says about that.
1. I literally Laughed Out Loud. Please refer to my board name for the first clue about my level of concern.*
2. Alan got it quite succinctly. Crœsos illustrates but one of the many problems associated.
*I do not mock or disrespect the Christian religion in general, though. Just those that are inconsistent with Jesus' message and those which inhibit proper discussions of real, observable life.
I am delighted to amuse you. As I said above feel free to ignore since your iron cast certainties are so impregnable that further dialogue is probably meaningless.
[ 01. December 2014, 22:53: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent?
I think the point is that an interpretation of Scripture that is rigidly literalistic is inconsistent.
So you keep saying, Alan, using the word 'interpretation' as some sort of excuse for ignoring what it does say and placing your materialistic philosophy above it.
Well, you claim I'm placing a "materialistic philosophy" above Scripture. I dispute your claim I have a materialistic philosophy, but I'm not going to argue semantics here (we'll probably not be too far off if you describe my belief structure, it'll just be a disagreement about the name we give that).
What I am going to dispute is that my philosophy sits above Scripture. I hope they coexist, and that my philosophy is derived from and consistent with Scripture.
Now, what shall we call the philosophy that you have that you bring to Scripture? For a start I take it that you bring some form of "plain meaning" philosophy, that what Scripture seems to say plainly is a solid foundation on which to build an understanding of less-clear passages. It's an approach to Scripture I have a lot of sympathy for, it has a lot of strengths. But, where does that philosophy come from? Where in Scripture does it plainly say that all Scripture should be read as plain and obvious without the need for interpretation?
I also know that you're willing to accept that Scripture employs such linguistic devices as metaphor. How do you decide what is and isn't metaphor? Would you, for example, read the opening chapters of Genesis as being largely metaphorical? If so, why? if not, why?
quote:
Yes, Martin, I know you do but one day when you die..what then? I would be very afraid facing that last journey with a basket of uncertainties on my arm.
You know what, I'd be far happier on that day with a basket of uncertainties than a basket of false certainties.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Afraid of what? Ptolemy?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Well, you claim I'm placing a "materialistic philosophy" above Scripture. I dispute your claim I have a materialistic philosophy, but I'm not going to argue semantics here (we'll probably not be too far off if you describe my belief structure, it'll just be a disagreement about the name we give that).
What I am going to dispute is that my philosophy sits above Scripture. I hope they coexist, and that my philosophy is derived from and consistent with Scripture.
Now, what shall we call the philosophy that you have that you bring to Scripture? For a start I take it that you bring some form of "plain meaning" philosophy, that what Scripture seems to say plainly is a solid foundation on which to build an understanding of less-clear passages. It's an approach to Scripture I have a lot of sympathy for, it has a lot of strengths. But, where does that philosophy come from? Where in Scripture does it plainly say that all Scripture should be read as plain and obvious without the need for interpretation?
I also know that you're willing to accept that Scripture employs such linguistic devices as metaphor. How do you decide what is and isn't metaphor? Would you, for example, read the opening chapters of Genesis as being largely metaphorical? If so, why? if not, why?
Hi Alan We have really covered all this before I think. I appreciate your considered approach. It seems to me that you are a bit like Hugh Ross. who talks about 2 books and one he calls the book of nature. He would also see himself as faithful to the Bible but also faithful to God's creation in nature. You would also, I think, like most here, see the Bible as written by men and therefore error and contradiction prone?
I do not see this and where there are issues, would look to resolution of these. For instance, 2 lepers or one in Jericho? Well, maybe there were 2 but one gospel writer did not see fit to mention the second. Synoptics need to be read for harmony as this is the definition of what they are. Luke does not mention the wise men or magi but Matthew does. The two genealogies in Matt and Luke are different but purpose specific, Matthew seeks to see Jesus as the Royal one, King of the Jews Luke sees him as the Son of man. In short, Scripture sketches a broad canvas but not a conflicting one. It tells us what we need not what we want to know.
I do not think I know or can deduce from Genesis how the creation happened but I do believe in Adam as the fall is needed for the gospel preached by Paul which states that in Adam all died and in Christ all were made alive. You can't have a second Adam without the first.
I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device and do not see them as anything other than clear ways to communicate truth. I do not have a 'philosophy' of scripture as such but I use it both as a devotional instrument and also as an overall story of history thus far. In that sense I see it as contextualising our humanity, so, evil in the world that was a stumbling block to Einstein and is to many others is really no mystery given the Satanic control of this age and the sin we are all tainted with.
I do not subscribe to triumphalism as the Puritans did as any time the church has entered politics or sought to impose a theocracy we have had a terrible mess.
I do not see the 'traditions of the fathers' as authoritative as the apostolic authority preceded them and the apostolic teachings are in scripture. Augustine, for instance introduced Platonic thinking into the church and Ronan Catholicism in which I was raised actually blinds by suggesting God is present in sacraments and that the Pope rather than the Holy Spirit is God's vicar on Earth.
Finally and vitally, I believe I know the Lord which is not to say that I have any special revelation but that in my experience and it is just that, the Holy Spirit works to promote relationship with God through the Bible and so I resist emphatically, any attack on it. I have walked with the Lord 40 years now and realise that few have my mileage or can relate to it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat,
There are two basic assumptions in this: the bible is literal or the bible is not.
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent? I'm sure he is riveted. Let me know what he says about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device and do not see them as anything other than clear ways to communicate truth.
Sorry, but no. If you're going to give a smart ass reply insisting God's on your side because someone else suggests that the Bible might not be literal, you obviously have a huge problem with metaphor. I'm guessing your meaning is "I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device provided everyone else agrees with me on which parts of the Bible are metaphorical", but that's only a guess. Clarification?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat,
There are two basic assumptions in this: the bible is literal or the bible is not.
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent? I'm sure he is riveted. Let me know what he says about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device and do not see them as anything other than clear ways to communicate truth.
Sorry, but no. If you're going to give a smart ass reply insisting God's on your side because someone else suggests that the Bible might not be literal, you obviously have a huge problem with metaphor. I'm guessing your meaning is "I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device provided everyone else agrees with me on which parts of the Bible are metaphorical", but that's only a guess. Clarification?
Just a question? Do you actually have a clear view of metaphor? I know what I think it is. It is the use of a comparative to emphasise a literal point. Perhaps you are confusing it with myth? An eg in scripture of metaphor might be God stretching out the heavens like a curtain as in the commentary above. The fact scripture emphasises is that God did stretch them out, the image is the expansion as we understand a curtain expanding. IOW there is a literal meaning but the image is used to help visualise it by a comparison we can all understand. Perhaps you can give some sort of clarity as to where you think your 'Sorry, but no' applies? I am glad you are sorry by the way.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A metaphor is not a the use of a comparative to emphasis a literal point.
A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies similar characteristics of one unrelated thing to another. It is a way of communicating concepts, not necessarily literal facts.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What uncertainties? Of the age of the universe? The myths of the Bible? I'm certainly uncertain as to whether life and mind can emerge. I'm certainly not uncertain that we see God in Jesus and I'm certainly certain that we don't see Him in Samuel.
And like you I haven't the faintest idea what the resurrection will be like.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jamat,
There are two basic assumptions in this: the bible is literal or the bible is not.
You dare to tell God his revelation is inconsistent? I'm sure he is riveted. Let me know what he says about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device and do not see them as anything other than clear ways to communicate truth.
Sorry, but no. If you're going to give a smart ass reply insisting God's on your side because someone else suggests that the Bible might not be literal, you obviously have a huge problem with metaphor. I'm guessing your meaning is "I have no problems with metaphor or any other literary device provided everyone else agrees with me on which parts of the Bible are metaphorical", but that's only a guess. Clarification?
Just a question? Do you actually have a clear view of metaphor? I know what I think it is. It is the use of a comparative to emphasise a literal point. Perhaps you are confusing it with myth? An eg in scripture of metaphor might be God stretching out the heavens like a curtain as in the commentary above. The fact scripture emphasises is that God did stretch them out, the image is the expansion as we understand a curtain expanding. IOW there is a literal meaning but the image is used to help visualise it by a comparison we can all understand. Perhaps you can give some sort of clarity as to where you think your 'Sorry, but no' applies? I am glad you are sorry by the way.
That's not a metaphor, Jamat. It's a simile.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Seuss was a heretic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A metaphor is not a the use of a comparative to emphasis a literal point.
A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies similar characteristics of one unrelated thing to another. It is a way of communicating concepts, not necessarily literal facts.
Same thing..the point is that it is away of communicating and Karl, simile is a subset of metaphor. The metaphor here could actually be seen in the word stretch which also makes that a pun. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What uncertainties? Of the age of the universe? The myths of the Bible? I'm certainly uncertain as to whether life and mind can emerge. I'm certainly not uncertain that we see God in Jesus and I'm certainly certain that we don't see Him in Samuel.
And like you I haven't the faintest idea what the resurrection will be like.
Samuel is born supernaturally of in circumstances of spiritual crisis. Mary in Luke actually echoes much of Hannah's prayer.He is dedicated to The Lord and becomes God's sole voice for his generation with a mission to restore the corrupt religious ethos of the nation. Samuel also,in a sense rises to testify after his death so I think I can see Christological typology in there.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And in his commanding the slaughter of every Amalekite man, woman and child.
You see that in Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in his commanding the slaughter of every Amalekite man, woman and child.
You see that in Jesus.
So this is the real issue? a genocidal God?
Consider reasons why might God have done this and does he have a right to?
Well he does; he is God. end of story. Do you have the right to poison a wasps' nest in your garden?
Leaving that aside, consider the history of these Amalekites and that they particularly were used by Satan to disrupt he Exodus and consequently through Moses, God pronounced a judgement on them. He would have war on Amelek through all generations. So we have in Samuel's decree the exercise of a judicial judgement by God against Amelek.
See also:
Name of a nomadic nation south of Palestine. That the Amalekites were not Arabs, but of a stock related to the Edomites (consequently also to the Hebrews), can be concluded from the genealogy in Gen. xxxvi. 12 and in I Chron. i. 36. Amalek is a son of Esau's first-born son Eliphaz and of the concubine Timna, the daughter of Seir, the Horite, and sister of Lotan (Gen. xxxvi. 12; compare Timnah as name of an Edomite chief or clan, verse 40). On the other hand, Gen. xiv. 7 speaks of Amalekites, in southern Palestine, in the time of Abraham. That they were of obscure origin is also indicated in Num. xxiv. 20, where the Amalekites are called "the first of the nations." The Amalekites were the first to come in contact with the Israelites (Ex. xvii. 8), vainly opposing their march at Rephidim, not far from Sinai (compare Deut. xxv. 17, "smiting the hindmost, all that were feeble behind," and I Sam. xv. 2
I guess this is where we must see it differently Martin, you from your view of 'God would not do this so this is not God,' and me from my view of 'He did it as a necessity to save Israel from corruption and fulfil his purpose of bringing a positive resolution to history'.
Interesting that it was an Amelekite who helped David rescue his captive families a bit later on. Given this I think I would see the Amelekite nation as under judgement. They were descendants of Esau and in Romans it is quoted, 'Esau I hated' much loved of Calvinists.
I think the answer to their dilemma is that it was, contextually, Esau as a 'nation' that God elected to judge. Remember it was Esau who despised his inheritance but individuals are not IMV predetermined to destruction.
In the end though accusing God of genocide does not get one very far. The fist shaking response to judgement or misfortune is a dead end path in the search for God IME. We simply must commit to his integrity if we want to find his reality.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in his commanding the slaughter of every Amalekite man, woman and child.
You see that in Jesus.
So this is the real issue? a genocidal God?
Consider reasons why might God have done this and does he have a right to?
Well he does; he is God. end of story. Do you have the right to poison a wasps' nest in your garden?
Leaving that aside, consider the history of these Amalekites and that they particularly were used by Satan to disrupt he Exodus and consequently through Moses, God pronounced a judgement on them. He would have war on Amelek through all generations. So we have in Samuel's decree the exercise of a judicial judgement by God against Amelek.
So your God believes in brutally slaughtering babes in arms because of who their ancestors were?
Fuck that shit. Fuck it to hell and beyond. Because one thing I will not do is pretend to swallow that sort of evil to get on the right side of your genocidal murderous God.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
simile is a subset of metaphor.
No, it's not.
You can usually restate a simile without the simile or comparison and still be meaningful. With a metaphor, it's not always straightforward to restate literally.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So how are we then to love our enemy Jamat Karl? As inimical as his God.
Whom I have shared.
“I do believe, induced by potent circumstances, that thou art mine enemy” Catherine of Aragon to Wolsey in Shakespeare's Henry VIII
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess this is where we must see it differently Martin, you from your view of 'God would not do this so this is not God,' and me from my view of 'He did it as a necessity to save Israel from corruption and fulfil his purpose of bringing a positive resolution to history'.
all-powerful, all-loving God was forced to kill.
quote:
In the end though accusing God of genocide does not get one very far. The fist shaking response to judgement or misfortune is a dead end path in the search for God IME. We simply must commit to his integrity if we want to find his reality.
I don't think those arguing with you are uncommitted to God's integrity. They don't see a genocidal maniac as maintaining integrity with the message of Jesus.
[ 03. December 2014, 10:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So this is the real issue? a genocidal God?
Consider reasons why might God have done this and does he have a right to?
Well he does; he is God. end of story. Do you have the right to poison a wasps' nest in your garden? ...
If, as you say, God is God, then because God is a creator, can destroy Her creations if they fail to please Her, correct? Well, I didn't create the wasps. I'm a non-God in a non-Eden. So the question is irrelevant.
Really, though, I'm always amazed at how important it is, apparently, that God be a total badass - so powerful and mighty and wise that even when He does horrible things, they're automatically right. Which reminds me of this (paraphrased from foggy memory) exchange from Candide (the opera):
quote:
Maximilian: Why must humans rape, murder, destroy? Are we not made in God's image?
Dr. Pangloss: Perhaps this is his image.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
