God
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
BillO:
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
BillO "However, I've never heard, for example's sake, a devout RC say something like "You know, Those Muslims don't worship God like I do, but I can see how their faith is just as valid and true for them as mine is for me."
Never heard an RC say that? Did you ask?
That's just silly. Of course their religion is as valid for them as it is for me. Now you've heard it. Cross it off your bucket list.
Never heard an RC say that? Did you ask?
That's just silly. Of course their religion is as valid for them as it is for me. Now you've heard it. Cross it off your bucket list.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Yesterday at 03:50 PMBillO "However, I've never heard, for example's sake, a devout RC say something like "You know, Those Muslims don't worship God like I do, but I can see how their faith is just as valid and true for them as mine is for me."
Never heard an RC say that? Did you ask?
That's just silly. Of course their religion is as valid for them as it is for me. Now you've heard it. Cross it off your bucket list.
Dave, I have asked.
It's great to hear you're position. Very refreshing and it gives me hope for you religious folk. If more were like you, things would be better. Consider it crossed off.
You're quite the card. Nonetheless, you do seem to be a tad more tolerant, on the religious side, than many I've met.
Never heard an RC say that? Did you ask?
That's just silly. Of course their religion is as valid for them as it is for me. Now you've heard it. Cross it off your bucket list.
Dave, I have asked.
It's great to hear you're position. Very refreshing and it gives me hope for you religious folk. If more were like you, things would be better. Consider it crossed off.
You're quite the card. Nonetheless, you do seem to be a tad more tolerant, on the religious side, than many I've met.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 03:33 PMBillO:
Does that mean God's real name was Emanuel? I've heard that, but did not think it was Emanuel Maxwell!!
Does that mean God's real name was Emanuel? I've heard that, but did not think it was Emanuel Maxwell!!
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:06 PM
Does that mean God's real name was Emanuel? I've heard that, but did not think it was Emanuel Maxwell!!
I'm not sure about Emanuel Maxwell, but I do know about James Clerk Maxwell, the famous 19th century Scottish mathematician and physicist who was also a devout evangelical Presbyterian.
Here a few links: a bio, a short piece about his religious views and a link of quotes both by him and about him-- the latter gives some idea of how esteemed he was. Einstein said that his work on relativity would have been impossible without Maxwell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/james_clerk_maxwell
http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/James_Clerk_Maxwell.html
https://todayinsci.com/M/Maxwell_James/MaxwellJames-Quotations.htm
Does that mean God's real name was Emanuel? I've heard that, but did not think it was Emanuel Maxwell!!
I'm not sure about Emanuel Maxwell, but I do know about James Clerk Maxwell, the famous 19th century Scottish mathematician and physicist who was also a devout evangelical Presbyterian.
Here a few links: a bio, a short piece about his religious views and a link of quotes both by him and about him-- the latter gives some idea of how esteemed he was. Einstein said that his work on relativity would have been impossible without Maxwell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/james_clerk_maxwell
http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/James_Clerk_Maxwell.html
https://todayinsci.com/M/Maxwell_James/MaxwellJames-Quotations.htm
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:06 PM
Does that mean God's real name was Emanuel? I've heard that, but did not think it was Emanuel Maxwell!!
God's real name is Yahweh, sometimes translated as Jehovah (the Hebrew characters can be read either way). Or Adonai. Or El Shem.
Maybe all those names are because he's in the Witness Protection Program?
Does that mean God's real name was Emanuel? I've heard that, but did not think it was Emanuel Maxwell!!
God's real name is Yahweh, sometimes translated as Jehovah (the Hebrew characters can be read either way). Or Adonai. Or El Shem.
Maybe all those names are because he's in the Witness Protection Program?
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 07:27 PMGod's real name is Yahweh, sometimes translated as Jehovah (the Hebrew characters can be read either way). Or Adonai. Or El Shem.
Maybe all those names are because he's in the Witness Protection Program?
Different character traits shown, so no need for the Witness Protection Program.
Yahweh-- related to the verb of being-- hence Exodus 3: 14-- I AM has sent you. It has been seen to show that Yahwek is self-existent and is the sacred covenant name.
Adonai-- Hebrew word for Lord or Master.
El Shem-- not exactly sure what you mean here because Shem is the Heb word for name. Sometimes God is simply referred to as Ha Shem-- i.e The Name, euphemism for Yahweh, which was seen as too sacred to say. Perhaps you were intending El Shaddai, loosely translated as something like Lord of Hosts or Lord Almighty or Lord of the Armies, emphasizing the sovereign power of God.
Just thought, I'd fill in some details.
Maybe all those names are because he's in the Witness Protection Program?
Different character traits shown, so no need for the Witness Protection Program.
Yahweh-- related to the verb of being-- hence Exodus 3: 14-- I AM has sent you. It has been seen to show that Yahwek is self-existent and is the sacred covenant name.
Adonai-- Hebrew word for Lord or Master.
El Shem-- not exactly sure what you mean here because Shem is the Heb word for name. Sometimes God is simply referred to as Ha Shem-- i.e The Name, euphemism for Yahweh, which was seen as too sacred to say. Perhaps you were intending El Shaddai, loosely translated as something like Lord of Hosts or Lord Almighty or Lord of the Armies, emphasizing the sovereign power of God.
Just thought, I'd fill in some details.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
So if you say, "God damn it!" that's not really "taking the Lord's name in vain" because "God" is not a name, it's a job description.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Yesterday at 09:26 PMSo if you say, "God damn it!" that's not really "taking the Lord's name in vain" because "God" is not a name, it's a job description.
In the biblical Hebraic way of thinking, it actually is a name. Sorry to take away your loophole.
In biblical thinking any flippant use of the name of God is taking it in vain, so the omnipresent, "Oh My God" is usually a very flippant use of God's name as well.
Reminds me of my Dutch immigrant great grandmother who had an atheist neighbor who was constantly calling down curses on everyone and everything. She finally asked him once in her quaint Dutch brogue: "if you do not believe he exists, why do you call on him all of the time?"
In the biblical Hebraic way of thinking, it actually is a name. Sorry to take away your loophole.
In biblical thinking any flippant use of the name of God is taking it in vain, so the omnipresent, "Oh My God" is usually a very flippant use of God's name as well.
Reminds me of my Dutch immigrant great grandmother who had an atheist neighbor who was constantly calling down curses on everyone and everything. She finally asked him once in her quaint Dutch brogue: "if you do not believe he exists, why do you call on him all of the time?"
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 02:46 PMYou are right, of course, they just think Christians are mistaken about Jesus and the trinity. God remains the same.
For most Christians (at least conservative ones (Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist ...)) Jesus and the trinity are not optional. God without them is not the same.
Quote This is going to be another perspective discussion. Let's leave it for another time. I'm good with dropping the 'blind' for this discussion.
Yep, and good idea.
QuoteI'd like your response to my question about math being created by God. I think the post is not too far back.
Maths is fun but not critical to my theology so I haven't really thought about it. I think that the creation is understandable and consistent because God created it that way and runs it that way because he's consistent and understandable and not chaotic and unknowable. I think that's why maths and science works. I imagine that if the world was created by the one of the more chaotic or purposeless pantheons then maths and science wouldn't work (and wouldn't have been developed). The world would have been chaotic because they were too drunk to do it consistently or they keep changing things on to suit their current whim.
And the question of whether maths exists apart from the things it describes is interesting isn't it. Maybe maths created the world. Maybe the universe came into being because it was required by an equation. What do you think about that?
For most Christians (at least conservative ones (Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist ...)) Jesus and the trinity are not optional. God without them is not the same.
Quote This is going to be another perspective discussion. Let's leave it for another time. I'm good with dropping the 'blind' for this discussion.
Yep, and good idea.
QuoteI'd like your response to my question about math being created by God. I think the post is not too far back.
Maths is fun but not critical to my theology so I haven't really thought about it. I think that the creation is understandable and consistent because God created it that way and runs it that way because he's consistent and understandable and not chaotic and unknowable. I think that's why maths and science works. I imagine that if the world was created by the one of the more chaotic or purposeless pantheons then maths and science wouldn't work (and wouldn't have been developed). The world would have been chaotic because they were too drunk to do it consistently or they keep changing things on to suit their current whim.
And the question of whether maths exists apart from the things it describes is interesting isn't it. Maybe maths created the world. Maybe the universe came into being because it was required by an equation. What do you think about that?
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: drizabone on Jun 27, 2017, 11:24PMAnd the question of whether maths exists apart from the things it describes is interesting isn't it. Maybe maths created the world. Maybe the universe came into being because it was required by an equation. What do you think about that?
I think math exists within the in such a way that it defines how the interactions within the universe play out. Its the rule/guide book for/to what happens.
The reason I bring it up is that the concept of the Trinity kind of buggers math up at it's most fundamental level. Such that one of them has to be very wrong.
Trinity
G=F
G=S
G=H
But: H<>S<>F
Math:
G=F
G=S
G=H
Therefore: H=S=F and cannot be otherwise.
I think math exists within the in such a way that it defines how the interactions within the universe play out. Its the rule/guide book for/to what happens.
The reason I bring it up is that the concept of the Trinity kind of buggers math up at it's most fundamental level. Such that one of them has to be very wrong.
Trinity
G=F
G=S
G=H
But: H<>S<>F
Math:
G=F
G=S
G=H
Therefore: H=S=F and cannot be otherwise.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 04:35 AMI think math exists within the in such a way that it defines how the interactions within the universe play out. Its the rule/guide book for/to what happens.
The reason I bring it up is that the concept of the Trinity kind of buggers math up at it's most fundamental level. Such that one of them has to be very wrong.
Trinity
G=F
G=S
G=H
But: H<>S<>F
Math:
G=F
G=S
G=H
Therefore: H=S=F and cannot be otherwise.
that's only if all the relations are talking about the same thing.
the classical definition of the trinity is that there are 3 persons in God and that they all are equal in essence.
Persons and Essence have technical definitions.
Person is about identity I think. They each have their own individuality and identity.
Essence is that they are one being.
But yeah its not easy to understand. But then neither is wave/particle duality, string theory or entanglement.
And I acknowledge that bible maths is wacky. eg 1 sheep > 99 sheep
The reason I bring it up is that the concept of the Trinity kind of buggers math up at it's most fundamental level. Such that one of them has to be very wrong.
Trinity
G=F
G=S
G=H
But: H<>S<>F
Math:
G=F
G=S
G=H
Therefore: H=S=F and cannot be otherwise.
that's only if all the relations are talking about the same thing.
the classical definition of the trinity is that there are 3 persons in God and that they all are equal in essence.
Persons and Essence have technical definitions.
Person is about identity I think. They each have their own individuality and identity.
Essence is that they are one being.
But yeah its not easy to understand. But then neither is wave/particle duality, string theory or entanglement.
And I acknowledge that bible maths is wacky. eg 1 sheep > 99 sheep
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jun 27, 2017, 06:52AMSo... traditional gravity is well understood per einstein's work and those before him. We can calculate the force, determine when it happens, how it happens, have it pretty well figured out. However, when dealing on the quantum level with gravity, it isn't fully consistent between the two.
So does that mean that gravity doesn't exist and we should throw it out, or just that we don't fully understand?
Byron et al want to say that if we can't understand something, we can't count on it, or claim that it's there.Thewhowhatnow?
I argue no such thing. Here's the accurized version:
If we have no actual evidence of something we can't claim that it's there even if we feel very strongly that it is.
Until you can write a comparable first paragraph above about God rather than gravity, you don't have a valid comparison here.
And you should let me make my own arguments.
Quote from: B0B on Jun 27, 2017, 06:52AMThat there seem to be contradictions in the concept of God, therefor it shows how God doesn't really exist. But they don't say that for other areas... those areas, science areas, well... we just haven't gotten there yet. We haven't figured it out yet. Calling one just part of the way there, and the other invalid, mostly just serves to show the preference of the person proclaiming the call. Seeing what you want to, rather than applying your own logic consistently.Not quite.
With contradictions like the way light behaves, for example, just as with the difference between gravity and God, this is a Thing due to the evidence. Again, when you can write a comparable comment about how experiments produce evidence of God's apparent contradictions like you can explaining why light behaves as waves under some conditions and as particles under others, then you'll have a valid comparison. But the more you bring these false comparisons the more obvious it makes this rather glaring missing detail in your rhetoric.
Quote from: B0B on Jun 27, 2017, 06:52AMThe nature of God as we understand it is ultimately that God is a god and we are people, and the very nature of that is a gulf too great to comprehend. When Job questions God why God makes him suffer, God's response is basically... how can you possibly understand His motives?
So, yes, there are characteristics that we can ascribe, but the full comprehension just isn't there. And there will be inconsistencies, or seem that way... not because of what it, but because our understanding is limited. Runs into a major wall in this area. How does a fish understand a solar system? How does a fly understand the seasons?Yeah ... see, write a comment about quantum leaping that makes its case by arguing the gulf is too great to comprehend, so you'll just have to take out word on it and see if that might pass peer review.
A good rule of thumb is to determine if any given rhetoric about a given entity or alleged phenomenon might pass muster. If not, when you understand why (actually--not just what uncritically seems like a satisfying answer) you'll also understand why you don't really know whatever it is you're arguing about the given entity or phenomenon.
So does that mean that gravity doesn't exist and we should throw it out, or just that we don't fully understand?
Byron et al want to say that if we can't understand something, we can't count on it, or claim that it's there.Thewhowhatnow?
I argue no such thing. Here's the accurized version:
If we have no actual evidence of something we can't claim that it's there even if we feel very strongly that it is.
Until you can write a comparable first paragraph above about God rather than gravity, you don't have a valid comparison here.
And you should let me make my own arguments.
Quote from: B0B on Jun 27, 2017, 06:52AMThat there seem to be contradictions in the concept of God, therefor it shows how God doesn't really exist. But they don't say that for other areas... those areas, science areas, well... we just haven't gotten there yet. We haven't figured it out yet. Calling one just part of the way there, and the other invalid, mostly just serves to show the preference of the person proclaiming the call. Seeing what you want to, rather than applying your own logic consistently.Not quite.
With contradictions like the way light behaves, for example, just as with the difference between gravity and God, this is a Thing due to the evidence. Again, when you can write a comparable comment about how experiments produce evidence of God's apparent contradictions like you can explaining why light behaves as waves under some conditions and as particles under others, then you'll have a valid comparison. But the more you bring these false comparisons the more obvious it makes this rather glaring missing detail in your rhetoric.
Quote from: B0B on Jun 27, 2017, 06:52AMThe nature of God as we understand it is ultimately that God is a god and we are people, and the very nature of that is a gulf too great to comprehend. When Job questions God why God makes him suffer, God's response is basically... how can you possibly understand His motives?
So, yes, there are characteristics that we can ascribe, but the full comprehension just isn't there. And there will be inconsistencies, or seem that way... not because of what it, but because our understanding is limited. Runs into a major wall in this area. How does a fish understand a solar system? How does a fly understand the seasons?Yeah ... see, write a comment about quantum leaping that makes its case by arguing the gulf is too great to comprehend, so you'll just have to take out word on it and see if that might pass peer review.
A good rule of thumb is to determine if any given rhetoric about a given entity or alleged phenomenon might pass muster. If not, when you understand why (actually--not just what uncritically seems like a satisfying answer) you'll also understand why you don't really know whatever it is you're arguing about the given entity or phenomenon.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMI argue no such thing. Here's the accurized version:
If we have no actual evidence of something we can't claim that it's there even if we feel very strongly that it is.Except evidence exists.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMAnd you should let me make my own arguments.
Nah, either way your arguments fall flat and empty.
If we have no actual evidence of something we can't claim that it's there even if we feel very strongly that it is.Except evidence exists.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMAnd you should let me make my own arguments.
Nah, either way your arguments fall flat and empty.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 27, 2017, 05:58PMI'm not sure about Emanuel Maxwell, but I do know about James Clerk Maxwell, the famous 19th century Scottish mathematician and physicist who was also a devout evangelical Presbyterian.
John, I was trying to make a joke.
John, I was trying to make a joke.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:41 AMJohn, I was trying to make a joke.
Note to BillO: Didn't we discuss this once before?
Note to BillO: Didn't we discuss this once before?
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:41 AMJohn, I was trying to make a joke.
Yes, I saw that, but the mention of math made me think of J C Maxwell, a hero of a physics professor who has a member of one of the churches I was pastor of.
Yes, I saw that, but the mention of math made me think of J C Maxwell, a hero of a physics professor who has a member of one of the churches I was pastor of.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jun 27, 2017, 03:50PMBillO "However, I've never heard, for example's sake, a devout RC say something like "You know, Those Muslims don't worship God like I do, but I can see how their faith is just as valid and true for them as mine is for me."
Never heard an RC say that? Did you ask?
That's just silly. Of course their religion is as valid for them as it is for me. Now you've heard it. Cross it off your bucket list.
That is another point where Christians are not monolithic, I think.
The RC position dating back to 1969 (IIRC) does agree with the validity of other religions, IIRC, and allows for salvation by other than the RC church. (theoretically it is still Jesus who saves the Muslims, whether they know it or not)
Protestant positions are probably more aligned with the idea that only Jesus saves, everybody else goes to hell forever.
The more interesting question is to what extent the Quran or other sacred documents should be considered scripture. There's quite a bit of variation in that idea, and it's been discussed quite a bit in recent years. My church includes scripture readings in the regular worship from books that John for example does not consider scripture, but most would not go so far as to read the Quran. Hans Kung is an older writer that's talked about this.
My position: if God is still alive, there's no logical defendable reason to close the canon. That presents some obvious problems of course, but nobody guaranteed us the world would be easy.
Never heard an RC say that? Did you ask?
That's just silly. Of course their religion is as valid for them as it is for me. Now you've heard it. Cross it off your bucket list.
That is another point where Christians are not monolithic, I think.
The RC position dating back to 1969 (IIRC) does agree with the validity of other religions, IIRC, and allows for salvation by other than the RC church. (theoretically it is still Jesus who saves the Muslims, whether they know it or not)
Protestant positions are probably more aligned with the idea that only Jesus saves, everybody else goes to hell forever.
The more interesting question is to what extent the Quran or other sacred documents should be considered scripture. There's quite a bit of variation in that idea, and it's been discussed quite a bit in recent years. My church includes scripture readings in the regular worship from books that John for example does not consider scripture, but most would not go so far as to read the Quran. Hans Kung is an older writer that's talked about this.
My position: if God is still alive, there's no logical defendable reason to close the canon. That presents some obvious problems of course, but nobody guaranteed us the world would be easy.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 06:04 AMThat is another point where Christians are not monolithic, I think.
The RC position dating back to 1969 (IIRC) does agree with the validity of other religions, IIRC, and allows for salvation by other than the RC church. (theoretically it is still Jesus who saves the Muslims, whether they know it or not)
Protestant positions are probably more aligned with the idea that only Jesus saves, everybody else goes to hell forever.
The more interesting question is to what extent the Quran or other sacred documents should be considered scripture. There's quite a bit of variation in that idea, and it's been discussed quite a bit in recent years. My church includes scripture readings in the regular worship from books that John for example does not consider scripture, but most would not go so far as to read the Quran. Hans Kung is an older writer that's talked about this.
My position: if God is still alive, there's no logical defendable reason to close the canon. That presents some obvious problems of course, but nobody guaranteed us the world would be easy.
All sorts of issues here. First of all the definition of the word "valid" is being used differently by some here, I think. Valid as true for the believer, valid for everyone? Not sure that everyone is using it in the same way.
Yes, the "anonymous Christian" viewpoint has gained a lot of traction in the RC and perhaps some other churches, but it does raise interesting questions about whether such a view sees the other religion as valid. It seems to me to be saying you have a wrong map, but because you sincerely believe it's the right one you'll get to your destination even if you're heading in the wrong direction or something like that. Ultimately, I don't think it treats the believer in other religions with much respect for their beliefs other than that they are sincere in their errors and sincerity trumps all.
The closed canon issue, I believe, opens up some cans of worms of all sorts, but that's for another disucssion.l
The RC position dating back to 1969 (IIRC) does agree with the validity of other religions, IIRC, and allows for salvation by other than the RC church. (theoretically it is still Jesus who saves the Muslims, whether they know it or not)
Protestant positions are probably more aligned with the idea that only Jesus saves, everybody else goes to hell forever.
The more interesting question is to what extent the Quran or other sacred documents should be considered scripture. There's quite a bit of variation in that idea, and it's been discussed quite a bit in recent years. My church includes scripture readings in the regular worship from books that John for example does not consider scripture, but most would not go so far as to read the Quran. Hans Kung is an older writer that's talked about this.
My position: if God is still alive, there's no logical defendable reason to close the canon. That presents some obvious problems of course, but nobody guaranteed us the world would be easy.
All sorts of issues here. First of all the definition of the word "valid" is being used differently by some here, I think. Valid as true for the believer, valid for everyone? Not sure that everyone is using it in the same way.
Yes, the "anonymous Christian" viewpoint has gained a lot of traction in the RC and perhaps some other churches, but it does raise interesting questions about whether such a view sees the other religion as valid. It seems to me to be saying you have a wrong map, but because you sincerely believe it's the right one you'll get to your destination even if you're heading in the wrong direction or something like that. Ultimately, I don't think it treats the believer in other religions with much respect for their beliefs other than that they are sincere in their errors and sincerity trumps all.
The closed canon issue, I believe, opens up some cans of worms of all sorts, but that's for another disucssion.l
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 06:19 AMIt seems to me to be saying you have a wrong map, but because you sincerely believe it's the right one you'll get to your destination even if you're heading in the wrong direction or something like that. Ultimately, I don't think it treats the believer in other religions with much respect for their beliefs other than that they are sincere in their errors and sincerity trumps all.
I'm not sure that's disrespectful. At least it's a step back from "do it our way or you're going to hell." It's more like "our way is best, but your way will work too."
Islam has specifically addressed this. They believe all men are inherently drawn towards God, and unless they resist, those approaches are valid. Of course Islam is the superior approach, but the others all work for any sincere person.
Valid can be defined lots of ways. One is "results in salvation." (obviously a Christian centric definition - not all religions believe in hell or that mankind needs any salvation) Another is "accurate in every respect." very few would be arrogant enough to claim that.
I'm not sure that's disrespectful. At least it's a step back from "do it our way or you're going to hell." It's more like "our way is best, but your way will work too."
Islam has specifically addressed this. They believe all men are inherently drawn towards God, and unless they resist, those approaches are valid. Of course Islam is the superior approach, but the others all work for any sincere person.
Valid can be defined lots of ways. One is "results in salvation." (obviously a Christian centric definition - not all religions believe in hell or that mankind needs any salvation) Another is "accurate in every respect." very few would be arrogant enough to claim that.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 05:56 AMYes, I saw that, but the mention of math made me think of J C Maxwell, a hero of a physics professor who has a member of one of the churches I was pastor of.
You may not realize the extent of it though.
I'm aware of JC Maxwell. It was his equations that Bruce posted. Emmanuel I believe has the Hebrew meaning of "God is with us" So I put the two together and dropped an 'm' to get Emanuel Maxwell .... who .. Ta-dahhh! Was also a physicist!!!
Never mind. It doesn't seem clever once it's spelled out.
You may not realize the extent of it though.
I'm aware of JC Maxwell. It was his equations that Bruce posted. Emmanuel I believe has the Hebrew meaning of "God is with us" So I put the two together and dropped an 'm' to get Emanuel Maxwell .... who .. Ta-dahhh! Was also a physicist!!!
Never mind. It doesn't seem clever once it's spelled out.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 06:57 AMYou may not realize the extent of it though.
I'm aware of JC Maxwell. It was his equations that Bruce posted. Emmanuel I believe has the Hebrew meaning of "God is with us" So I put the two together and dropped an 'm' to get Emanuel Maxwell .... who .. Ta-dahhh! Was also a physicist!!!
Never mind. It doesn't seem clever once it's spelled out.
No, it's actually quite good. Since I'm a mathematical dope, I didn't get it.
I'm aware of JC Maxwell. It was his equations that Bruce posted. Emmanuel I believe has the Hebrew meaning of "God is with us" So I put the two together and dropped an 'm' to get Emanuel Maxwell .... who .. Ta-dahhh! Was also a physicist!!!
Never mind. It doesn't seem clever once it's spelled out.
No, it's actually quite good. Since I'm a mathematical dope, I didn't get it.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Remember, Maxwell didn't invent the phenomena. He discovered a mathematical means to describe it.
Somebody figured out how to create light. We know of a few measly alternatives, but they aren't of the same magnitude.
Same goes for all other science. We discover the nature of the Universe. But we didn't make it.
Somebody figured out how to create light. We know of a few measly alternatives, but they aren't of the same magnitude.
Same goes for all other science. We discover the nature of the Universe. But we didn't make it.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 07:47 AMRemember, Maxwell didn't invent the phenomena. He discovered a mathematical means to describe it.
Somebody figured out how to create light. We know of a few measly alternatives, but they aren't of the same magnitude.
Same goes for all other science. We discover the nature of the Universe. But we didn't make it.
Couldn't agree more.
Somebody figured out how to create light. We know of a few measly alternatives, but they aren't of the same magnitude.
Same goes for all other science. We discover the nature of the Universe. But we didn't make it.
Couldn't agree more.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:37 AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMQuote from: B0B on Jun 27, 2017, 06:52AMSo... traditional gravity is well understood per einstein's work and those before him. We can calculate the force, determine when it happens, how it happens, have it pretty well figured out. However, when dealing on the quantum level with gravity, it isn't fully consistent between the two.
So does that mean that gravity doesn't exist and we should throw it out, or just that we don't fully understand?
Byron et al want to say that if we can't understand something, we can't count on it, or claim that it's there.Thewhowhatnow?
I argue no such thing. Here's the accurized version:
If we have no actual evidence of something we can't claim that it's there even if we feel very strongly that it is.
Until you can write a comparable first paragraph above about God rather than gravity, you don't have a valid comparison here.Except evidence exists.You're gonna need to show your work.
I'm not going to presume to make your arguments for you.
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:37 AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMAnd you should let me make my own arguments.Nah, either way your arguments fall flat and empty.If a simple, straightforward suggestion doesn't work, then reason and honesty should still prevail upon you to refrain from using obvious straw men, because it's both avoiding the actual issue raised, and misrepresenting the one who raised it.
So does that mean that gravity doesn't exist and we should throw it out, or just that we don't fully understand?
Byron et al want to say that if we can't understand something, we can't count on it, or claim that it's there.Thewhowhatnow?
I argue no such thing. Here's the accurized version:
If we have no actual evidence of something we can't claim that it's there even if we feel very strongly that it is.
Until you can write a comparable first paragraph above about God rather than gravity, you don't have a valid comparison here.Except evidence exists.You're gonna need to show your work.
I'm not going to presume to make your arguments for you.
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 05:37 AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:30 AMAnd you should let me make my own arguments.Nah, either way your arguments fall flat and empty.If a simple, straightforward suggestion doesn't work, then reason and honesty should still prevail upon you to refrain from using obvious straw men, because it's both avoiding the actual issue raised, and misrepresenting the one who raised it.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 08:04 AMYou're gonna need to show your work. What? That evidence exists?
You do realize that scripture is also one of the longest ongoing historical documentations of a human civilization, which has been verified and validated by archaeological, geological, and other forms of research as those are able, and is remarkably consistent between today and versions found from long long ago.
Historical documentation is just one piece of evidence.
To say there no evidence is blatantly ignoring reality for what you want to see instead.
You do realize that scripture is also one of the longest ongoing historical documentations of a human civilization, which has been verified and validated by archaeological, geological, and other forms of research as those are able, and is remarkably consistent between today and versions found from long long ago.
Historical documentation is just one piece of evidence.
To say there no evidence is blatantly ignoring reality for what you want to see instead.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
However, scripture is only evidence for the existence of a Deity if it is impossible for a document to survive without divine intervention.
Similarly, evolution would be evidence for the existence of a Deity if you proved two conditions: that life had evolved from a common ancestor to the current state, AND that it is impossible for that to occur without divine intervention.
Similarly, evolution would be evidence for the existence of a Deity if you proved two conditions: that life had evolved from a common ancestor to the current state, AND that it is impossible for that to occur without divine intervention.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 08:45 AMHowever, scripture is only evidence for the existence of a Deity if it is impossible for a document to survive without divine intervention.
Or because it documented teachings and interactions with a deity with even more focus than it documented the historical features...
Or because it documented teachings and interactions with a deity with even more focus than it documented the historical features...
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 09:35 AMOr because it documented teachings and interactions with a deity with even more focus than it documented the historical features...
But, how would you know?
Archaeology shows it got a huge number of the historical details wrong. (there was no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan as per Joshua, cities not existing in the time period, confused genealogies, walled cities that weren't, etc.)
How then can you claim the accounts of speaking with Yahweh are reliable? Or the miracles? (stopping the sun and moon for a day, talking donkeys, angels impregnating human women, but only the "comely" ones, etc.)
But, how would you know?
Archaeology shows it got a huge number of the historical details wrong. (there was no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan as per Joshua, cities not existing in the time period, confused genealogies, walled cities that weren't, etc.)
How then can you claim the accounts of speaking with Yahweh are reliable? Or the miracles? (stopping the sun and moon for a day, talking donkeys, angels impregnating human women, but only the "comely" ones, etc.)
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 09:35 AMOr because it documented teachings and interactions with a deity with even more focus than it documented the historical features...
The problem with the Bible in this respect is that there are many things "documented" in it that completely unverifiable and that do not show up in historic records of surrounding events.
The problem with the Bible in this respect is that there are many things "documented" in it that completely unverifiable and that do not show up in historic records of surrounding events.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 10:24 AMBut, how would you know?
Archaeology shows it got a huge number of the historical details wrong. (there was no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan as per Joshua, cities not existing in the time period, confused genealogies, walled cities that weren't, etc.)
How then can you claim the accounts of speaking with Yahweh are reliable? Or the miracles? (stopping the sun and moon for a day, talking donkeys, angels impregnating human women, but only the "comely" ones, etc.)
Hold on Tim. Your claim is as one-sided as a simplistic claim that "archeology completely proves the Bible."
No doubt there are many disputed archeological claims, but your "huge number" is rather over the top. Only some of the so-called archelogical minimalists would even come close to that and most would not use that term. And among serious archeologists there are many that are maximalists and argue for a considerable congruity between the biblical text and archeology. Even the topics you mentioned above are not without debate.
Your 2nd list really doesn't touch on whether those things are accurate or not, but rather whether they are possible or not, which is, again, an epistemological, not a historical question.
As far as humans being impregnated by angels, I'm assuming you're referring to Genesis 6 and the interpretation you are setting forth has be no means been universal. Here is a modern conservative scholar who does believe that it is the correct one who has written a rather extensive history of the early interpretation of that text in order to try to rehabilitate it because he rightly senses that it is a minority among conservative scholars today. I disagree with him, but his historical work demonstrates the debated nature of that text. Even if he is correct that it is the oldest interpretation, it clearly has been debated for various reasons.
Here's the link:
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/newman-gen6-gtj-1984.pdf
Here's also a link to some of how you can reference the debates between the minimalists and the maximalists:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/scholars-study/the-great-minimalist-debate/
Archaeology shows it got a huge number of the historical details wrong. (there was no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan as per Joshua, cities not existing in the time period, confused genealogies, walled cities that weren't, etc.)
How then can you claim the accounts of speaking with Yahweh are reliable? Or the miracles? (stopping the sun and moon for a day, talking donkeys, angels impregnating human women, but only the "comely" ones, etc.)
Hold on Tim. Your claim is as one-sided as a simplistic claim that "archeology completely proves the Bible."
No doubt there are many disputed archeological claims, but your "huge number" is rather over the top. Only some of the so-called archelogical minimalists would even come close to that and most would not use that term. And among serious archeologists there are many that are maximalists and argue for a considerable congruity between the biblical text and archeology. Even the topics you mentioned above are not without debate.
Your 2nd list really doesn't touch on whether those things are accurate or not, but rather whether they are possible or not, which is, again, an epistemological, not a historical question.
As far as humans being impregnated by angels, I'm assuming you're referring to Genesis 6 and the interpretation you are setting forth has be no means been universal. Here is a modern conservative scholar who does believe that it is the correct one who has written a rather extensive history of the early interpretation of that text in order to try to rehabilitate it because he rightly senses that it is a minority among conservative scholars today. I disagree with him, but his historical work demonstrates the debated nature of that text. Even if he is correct that it is the oldest interpretation, it clearly has been debated for various reasons.
Here's the link:
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/newman-gen6-gtj-1984.pdf
Here's also a link to some of how you can reference the debates between the minimalists and the maximalists:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/scholars-study/the-great-minimalist-debate/
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 10:28 AMThe problem with the Bible in this respect is that there are many things "documented" in it that completely unverifiable and that do not show up in historic records of surrounding events.
Only if you give it no credence itself. There are quite a number of things that do back up scripture.
If there is one place that is reinforced by say an archaeological dig, and so you accept that might have happened, but you give no weight to anything that does not have a corresponding external bit backing it up... than you are effectively discounting the historical record of scripture as nothing. It itself has been backed up in quite a number of places, which help show the validity of that record itself.
If you can't or won't see that... that speaks much more to dismissing evidence due to associations you may not like and speaks more to your own preferences, and your willingness to discard information you do not like, than it speaks about the source itself.
Only if you give it no credence itself. There are quite a number of things that do back up scripture.
If there is one place that is reinforced by say an archaeological dig, and so you accept that might have happened, but you give no weight to anything that does not have a corresponding external bit backing it up... than you are effectively discounting the historical record of scripture as nothing. It itself has been backed up in quite a number of places, which help show the validity of that record itself.
If you can't or won't see that... that speaks much more to dismissing evidence due to associations you may not like and speaks more to your own preferences, and your willingness to discard information you do not like, than it speaks about the source itself.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
The Bible has been transcribed many times over the centuries and it's like the game of "Telephone". Things get changed in the retelling.
The Old Testament dates back to the Babylonian Exile of approximately 500 BCE. The New Testament dates back to around 100 AD. Neither is concurrent with the time being chronicled.
Also, the technological state of the time was not as advanced as today and some things that were observed as "miracles" may have explanations that we understand today.
I find it interesting when archaeological finds confirm some of the events of the Bible, but I refuse to consider it a work of history. It is more an allegorical recollection.
The Old Testament dates back to the Babylonian Exile of approximately 500 BCE. The New Testament dates back to around 100 AD. Neither is concurrent with the time being chronicled.
Also, the technological state of the time was not as advanced as today and some things that were observed as "miracles" may have explanations that we understand today.
I find it interesting when archaeological finds confirm some of the events of the Bible, but I refuse to consider it a work of history. It is more an allegorical recollection.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
If you want detailed accuracy in a text, go with Tom Clancy.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 10:57 AMThe Bible has been transcribed many times over the centuries and it's like the game of "Telephone". Things get changed in the retelling.
The Old Testament dates back to the Babylonian Exile of approximately 500 BCE. The New Testament dates back to around 100 AD. Neither is concurrent with the time being chronicled.
Also, the technological state of the time was not as advanced as today and some things that were observed as "miracles" may have explanations that we understand today.
I find it interesting when archaeological finds confirm some of the events of the Bible, but I refuse to consider it a work of history. It is more an allegorical recollection.
Unfortunately, Bruce, you really don't understand the transmission of the Biblical texts very well. The interpretations of the texts have long histories of variations, but the text itself has a quite remarkable cohesiveness in the both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Discussions about earlier textual trransmissions are mostly just speculations and the cohesiveness of the texts from the 2-3 centuries BCE with much later texts would warrant us, in my opinion, not to jump to conclusions about earlier centuries that we don't know as much about.
For example when the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed whole texts of the prophet Isaiah were found in which they resembled the texts of manuscripts from 1,000 years later with about 95+% similarities and the differences are mostly quite minor. That doesn't resemble a game of telephone.
For the NT texts we have so many manuscripts and so many of the texts are quoted in ancient Christian writings that it is not difficult to put together a text that we can be sure is quite close to what the early Christians would have used.
I can give resources on this if some would like to know more.
The Old Testament dates back to the Babylonian Exile of approximately 500 BCE. The New Testament dates back to around 100 AD. Neither is concurrent with the time being chronicled.
Also, the technological state of the time was not as advanced as today and some things that were observed as "miracles" may have explanations that we understand today.
I find it interesting when archaeological finds confirm some of the events of the Bible, but I refuse to consider it a work of history. It is more an allegorical recollection.
Unfortunately, Bruce, you really don't understand the transmission of the Biblical texts very well. The interpretations of the texts have long histories of variations, but the text itself has a quite remarkable cohesiveness in the both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Discussions about earlier textual trransmissions are mostly just speculations and the cohesiveness of the texts from the 2-3 centuries BCE with much later texts would warrant us, in my opinion, not to jump to conclusions about earlier centuries that we don't know as much about.
For example when the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed whole texts of the prophet Isaiah were found in which they resembled the texts of manuscripts from 1,000 years later with about 95+% similarities and the differences are mostly quite minor. That doesn't resemble a game of telephone.
For the NT texts we have so many manuscripts and so many of the texts are quoted in ancient Christian writings that it is not difficult to put together a text that we can be sure is quite close to what the early Christians would have used.
I can give resources on this if some would like to know more.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 11:00 AMIf you want detailed accuracy in a text, go with Tom Clancy.
Exactly... the "evidence" minded have no issue throwing out evidence they don't like, or picking and choosing what qualifies as evidence based on person whim.
Really undermines the credibility of those who say that evidence and the scientific approach are all that matters.
Exactly... the "evidence" minded have no issue throwing out evidence they don't like, or picking and choosing what qualifies as evidence based on person whim.
Really undermines the credibility of those who say that evidence and the scientific approach are all that matters.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 11:07 AMQuote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 11:00 AMIf you want detailed accuracy in a text, go with Tom Clancy.Exactly... the "evidence" minded have no issue throwing out evidence they don't like, or picking and choosing what qualifies as evidence based on person whim.
Really undermines the credibility of those who say that evidence and the scientific approach are all that matters.
I'll give time for someone else to explain the full relevance of my comment.
Seems these discussions go better with a few patrons when I'm not so involved.
--
Besides, our router at home just bit the dust yesterday--looking into new service too.
Really undermines the credibility of those who say that evidence and the scientific approach are all that matters.
I'll give time for someone else to explain the full relevance of my comment.
Seems these discussions go better with a few patrons when I'm not so involved.
--
Besides, our router at home just bit the dust yesterday--looking into new service too.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Yesterday at 10:57 AMAlso, the technological state of the time was not as advanced as today and some things that were observed as "miracles" may have explanations that we understand today.
I was running errands this past weekend, when I heard a snippet of a story on npr. It was one of those story hour bits, don't recall the program, but essentially this woman was recounting living in her house, and feeling like the house was haunted or possessed by a demon. That she continually felt a heavy weight on her chest and heavy breathing, dizzy like the world was spinning, felt physically sick like she had the flu, etc. She started freaking out, thinking she was crazy.
Then she went searching and found a forum for ghost hunters... only, she apparently found ones that like to disprove ghosts. She challenged them, and posted what was going on. Prove me wrong!
Had she heard of carbon monoxide poisoning?
She looked it up, then called the gas company. They came out with the note of great thing she called when she did or she may not have survived the night.
She felt something, experience something, that she couldn't quite nail down or point to this or that... but it was still very much there. So much, it would have killed her if continued.
Now, on an individual level, guesses like that what is wrong, are often off. But in the case of region... that feeling and response to the unseen isn't an individual level. It is felt by people across the world, across the millenia, and as interlaid with human history as humans are, and keeps pointing back to a similar focus.
BillO would point out the hundreds of religions and their variety (even in the similar ones) and how even religious people discount those not their. But at the same time... it is so predominant... so many different people, living in different times, reaching out for very similar things... That itself is a very strong indication that there is very much something there.
I was running errands this past weekend, when I heard a snippet of a story on npr. It was one of those story hour bits, don't recall the program, but essentially this woman was recounting living in her house, and feeling like the house was haunted or possessed by a demon. That she continually felt a heavy weight on her chest and heavy breathing, dizzy like the world was spinning, felt physically sick like she had the flu, etc. She started freaking out, thinking she was crazy.
Then she went searching and found a forum for ghost hunters... only, she apparently found ones that like to disprove ghosts. She challenged them, and posted what was going on. Prove me wrong!
Had she heard of carbon monoxide poisoning?
She looked it up, then called the gas company. They came out with the note of great thing she called when she did or she may not have survived the night.
She felt something, experience something, that she couldn't quite nail down or point to this or that... but it was still very much there. So much, it would have killed her if continued.
Now, on an individual level, guesses like that what is wrong, are often off. But in the case of region... that feeling and response to the unseen isn't an individual level. It is felt by people across the world, across the millenia, and as interlaid with human history as humans are, and keeps pointing back to a similar focus.
BillO would point out the hundreds of religions and their variety (even in the similar ones) and how even religious people discount those not their. But at the same time... it is so predominant... so many different people, living in different times, reaching out for very similar things... That itself is a very strong indication that there is very much something there.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 11:22 AMI'll give time for someone else to explain the full relevance of my comment. Thought you wanted to talk for yourself? Now you don't have the ability to express yourself and hope someone can fill in, in your stead.
Interesting.
All of the hubris, none of the eloquence.
Interesting.
All of the hubris, none of the eloquence.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 10:51 AM
If you can't or won't see that... that speaks much more to dismissing evidence due to associations you may not like and speaks more to your own preferences, and your willingness to discard information you do not like, than it speaks about the source itself.
This can happen, our prejudices can get in the way.
However, the basic problem is this: confirmatory evidence is not as important as contradictory. There is always going to be evidence to support what we want to believe, because of how universal these things are. Look at St Paul commenting that Jesus met prophecy because he was "born of a woman." Well, true, he was, but then that applies to the vast majority of humanity. Sure, there was a city named Jericho, so the bible is accurate. Except, it didn't have walls, and it's in the wrong time period for the text. So is that support, or not?
Contradictory information adds far more to our knowledge. And you do have to ignore a large amount of this.
If you can't or won't see that... that speaks much more to dismissing evidence due to associations you may not like and speaks more to your own preferences, and your willingness to discard information you do not like, than it speaks about the source itself.
This can happen, our prejudices can get in the way.
However, the basic problem is this: confirmatory evidence is not as important as contradictory. There is always going to be evidence to support what we want to believe, because of how universal these things are. Look at St Paul commenting that Jesus met prophecy because he was "born of a woman." Well, true, he was, but then that applies to the vast majority of humanity. Sure, there was a city named Jericho, so the bible is accurate. Except, it didn't have walls, and it's in the wrong time period for the text. So is that support, or not?
Contradictory information adds far more to our knowledge. And you do have to ignore a large amount of this.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 28, 2017, 10:43AM
Your 2nd list really doesn't touch on whether those things are accurate or not, but rather whether they are possible or not, which is, again, an epistemological, not a historical question.
I don't see your point here.
Of course they're not possible, that's not the point. They are stated as historical fact, just like the more common everyday events. Liberal Christians tend to dismiss these as mythology; evangelicals if they know about them (most don't) believe them absolutely.
Either you accept the extraordinary as true without additional evidence, because it is contained in the body of Divinely Inspired text side by side with more mundane possibilities (cooking meals, winning battles, having babies, etc.)
Or you reject the silly parts, but have no basis for differentiating them from the others you claim to be accurate.
Your 2nd list really doesn't touch on whether those things are accurate or not, but rather whether they are possible or not, which is, again, an epistemological, not a historical question.
I don't see your point here.
Of course they're not possible, that's not the point. They are stated as historical fact, just like the more common everyday events. Liberal Christians tend to dismiss these as mythology; evangelicals if they know about them (most don't) believe them absolutely.
Either you accept the extraordinary as true without additional evidence, because it is contained in the body of Divinely Inspired text side by side with more mundane possibilities (cooking meals, winning battles, having babies, etc.)
Or you reject the silly parts, but have no basis for differentiating them from the others you claim to be accurate.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:33PMI don't see your point here.
Of course they're not possible, that's not the point. They are stated as historical fact, just like the more common everyday events. Liberal Christians tend to dismiss these as mythology; evangelicals if they know about them (most don't) believe them absolutely.
Either you accept the extraordinary as true without additional evidence, because it is contained in the body of Divinely Inspired text side by side with more mundane possibilities (cooking meals, winning battles, having babies, etc.)
Or you reject the silly parts, but have no basis for differentiating them from the others you claim to be accurate.
My point is just what you made. Your rejection is epistemological not historical because you have decided before hand that the miraculous is impossible. That's an epistemological claim and should be recognized as such. Whether miracles happen or not historically can't start with the assumption that they are impossible if one truly wants to claim that he/she is open-minded as to whether they exist or not.
Of course they're not possible, that's not the point. They are stated as historical fact, just like the more common everyday events. Liberal Christians tend to dismiss these as mythology; evangelicals if they know about them (most don't) believe them absolutely.
Either you accept the extraordinary as true without additional evidence, because it is contained in the body of Divinely Inspired text side by side with more mundane possibilities (cooking meals, winning battles, having babies, etc.)
Or you reject the silly parts, but have no basis for differentiating them from the others you claim to be accurate.
My point is just what you made. Your rejection is epistemological not historical because you have decided before hand that the miraculous is impossible. That's an epistemological claim and should be recognized as such. Whether miracles happen or not historically can't start with the assumption that they are impossible if one truly wants to claim that he/she is open-minded as to whether they exist or not.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 28, 2017, 10:43AMAs far as humans being impregnated by angels, I'm assuming you're referring to Genesis 6 and the interpretation you are setting forth has be no means been universal. Here is a modern conservative scholar who does believe that it is the correct one who has written a rather extensive history of the early interpretation of that text in order to try to rehabilitate it because he rightly senses that it is a minority among conservative scholars today. I disagree with him, but his historical work demonstrates the debated nature of that text. Even if he is correct that it is the oldest interpretation, it clearly has been debated for various reasons.
Here's the link:
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/newman-gen6-gtj-1984.pdf
That's actually a very interesting link.
I think it misses two ideas.
One is that until very recently, a world inhabited by all sorts of spirit and/or supernatural creatures was generally accepted. This would have posed no problem for a medieval peasant, for example, nor for an American pre-1900 (and, sigh, even today for a smaller number). The idea of these creatures having sex with humans was part and parcel of the folklore. That continues today with the alien abduction movement - almost all of the stories include sexual experimentation.
The other is that the author's viewpoint is firmly embedded in a literal Genesis, with a single Adam and Eve birthing humanity, carnivores that never ate meat nor died, food crops created in final form without evolving, etc. This worldview is so pervasive that he didn't realize how much it shaped his narrative. This worldview is a distinct minority in Christian doctrine today, existing only in the most conservative evangelical seminaries.
Here's the link:
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/newman-gen6-gtj-1984.pdf
That's actually a very interesting link.
I think it misses two ideas.
One is that until very recently, a world inhabited by all sorts of spirit and/or supernatural creatures was generally accepted. This would have posed no problem for a medieval peasant, for example, nor for an American pre-1900 (and, sigh, even today for a smaller number). The idea of these creatures having sex with humans was part and parcel of the folklore. That continues today with the alien abduction movement - almost all of the stories include sexual experimentation.
The other is that the author's viewpoint is firmly embedded in a literal Genesis, with a single Adam and Eve birthing humanity, carnivores that never ate meat nor died, food crops created in final form without evolving, etc. This worldview is so pervasive that he didn't realize how much it shaped his narrative. This worldview is a distinct minority in Christian doctrine today, existing only in the most conservative evangelical seminaries.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:50PMThat's actually a very interesting link.
I think it misses two ideas.
One is that until very recently, a world inhabited by all sorts of spirit and/or supernatural creatures was generally accepted. This would have posed no problem for a medieval peasant, for example, nor for an American pre-1900 (and, sigh, even today for a smaller number). The idea of these creatures having sex with humans was part and parcel of the folklore. That continues today with the alien abduction movement - almost all of the stories include sexual experimentation.
The other is that the author's viewpoint is firmly embedded in a literal Genesis, with a single Adam and Eve birthing humanity, carnivores that never ate meat nor died, food crops created in final form without evolving, etc. This worldview is so pervasive that he didn't realize how much it shaped his narrative. This worldview is a distinct minority in Christian doctrine today, existing only in the most conservative evangelical seminaries.
I think the fact that the angel-human copulation view was rejected by a significant number already in the early Christian centuries suggests that many of them didn't automatically go there if the text did not mandate them to do so.
I think he is aware of his worldview and in fact he is writing to those who share that worldview in his appeal to rehabilitate that particular interpretation. The fact that it has been rather hard sledding for many significant periods during the history of the Christian church shows that traditional Christians don't just jump at a miraculous interpretation if the text does not warrant it. That, of course, is quite different from automatically adopting a naturalistic perspective the rules out the miraculous whatever the text may say.
I think it misses two ideas.
One is that until very recently, a world inhabited by all sorts of spirit and/or supernatural creatures was generally accepted. This would have posed no problem for a medieval peasant, for example, nor for an American pre-1900 (and, sigh, even today for a smaller number). The idea of these creatures having sex with humans was part and parcel of the folklore. That continues today with the alien abduction movement - almost all of the stories include sexual experimentation.
The other is that the author's viewpoint is firmly embedded in a literal Genesis, with a single Adam and Eve birthing humanity, carnivores that never ate meat nor died, food crops created in final form without evolving, etc. This worldview is so pervasive that he didn't realize how much it shaped his narrative. This worldview is a distinct minority in Christian doctrine today, existing only in the most conservative evangelical seminaries.
I think the fact that the angel-human copulation view was rejected by a significant number already in the early Christian centuries suggests that many of them didn't automatically go there if the text did not mandate them to do so.
I think he is aware of his worldview and in fact he is writing to those who share that worldview in his appeal to rehabilitate that particular interpretation. The fact that it has been rather hard sledding for many significant periods during the history of the Christian church shows that traditional Christians don't just jump at a miraculous interpretation if the text does not warrant it. That, of course, is quite different from automatically adopting a naturalistic perspective the rules out the miraculous whatever the text may say.
-
ttf_Radar
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:01 pm
God
I don't think it's possible to define or pigeonhole God. You will get as many answers as there are people in the world. The one word that defines God for me is that he is a Mystery. We as humans ascribe human traits to him but we really don't know, if you are of the Judeo Christian background God appeared to Moses as a Burning bush because it was impossible for Moses to comprehend or be in his presence in his everyday form. Gods attributes are what God chooses them to be. My best guess is that his form is more spiritual than physical, and more spectacular than we can fathom, but like everyone else I'm only guessing.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Rejected, or questioned?
It seems reasonable a few did in the early days, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority do today.
It's also clear why: it's just too ridiculous a claim, and it is rejected for that reason. Not because there is any dispute over the text, nor any other way to differentiate it from the lesser miracles (like raising people who'd been dead several days and already smelled).
There is a continuum of believability from the purely mundane through a series of more and more supernatural miracles to the really big ones.
Where do you draw the line? And if you reject the unbelievable, what do you do with the mundane that has exactly the same description and evidence?
It seems reasonable a few did in the early days, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority do today.
It's also clear why: it's just too ridiculous a claim, and it is rejected for that reason. Not because there is any dispute over the text, nor any other way to differentiate it from the lesser miracles (like raising people who'd been dead several days and already smelled).
There is a continuum of believability from the purely mundane through a series of more and more supernatural miracles to the really big ones.
Where do you draw the line? And if you reject the unbelievable, what do you do with the mundane that has exactly the same description and evidence?
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:25PMHowever, the basic problem is this: confirmatory evidence is not as important as contradictory.Sounds like a fight in a relationship. You kept your word 9 out of 10 times, but that one time you didn't... it's more important than all of the others, right? That single negative discounts EVERYTHING good.
It can feel that way.
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:25PMSure, there was a city named Jericho, so the bible is accurate. Except, it didn't have walls, and it's in the wrong time period for the text. So is that support, or not? Well, that gets into the fun on what is a confirmation and what is a contradiction.
If you can't find a city mentioned, does that mean it wasn't there? Because you are unable to prove a positive, does it make it a negative?
If you found something about the right place, but not in the described way... is that what it was talking about and the description was wrong, or could it have changed?
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:25PMContradictory information adds far more to our knowledge.Maybe if you want to know why you are going through a divorce, than yes... Otherwise, if your colleague is right on the money 9 out of 10 times, he's a pretty safe bet and likely pretty competent.
Don't forget, human records of history or events is never foolproof. But then neither are methods to try to go back into time where we have little to check ourselves.
It can feel that way.
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:25PMSure, there was a city named Jericho, so the bible is accurate. Except, it didn't have walls, and it's in the wrong time period for the text. So is that support, or not? Well, that gets into the fun on what is a confirmation and what is a contradiction.
If you can't find a city mentioned, does that mean it wasn't there? Because you are unable to prove a positive, does it make it a negative?
If you found something about the right place, but not in the described way... is that what it was talking about and the description was wrong, or could it have changed?
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 12:25PMContradictory information adds far more to our knowledge.Maybe if you want to know why you are going through a divorce, than yes... Otherwise, if your colleague is right on the money 9 out of 10 times, he's a pretty safe bet and likely pretty competent.
Don't forget, human records of history or events is never foolproof. But then neither are methods to try to go back into time where we have little to check ourselves.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2017, 01:17PMRejected, or questioned?
It seems reasonable a few did in the early days, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority do today.
It's also clear why: it's just too ridiculous a claim, and it is rejected for that reason. Not because there is any dispute over the text, nor any other way to differentiate it from the lesser miracles (like raising people who'd been dead several days and already smelled).
There is a continuum of believability from the purely mundane through a series of more and more supernatural miracles to the really big ones.
Where do you draw the line? And if you reject the unbelievable, what do you do with the mundane that has exactly the same description and evidence?
The incarnation and the resurrection shows that the historic Christian faith sets it quite high-- the historic faith is incurably supernatural. That doesn't rule out that not every possible supernatural claim is to be taken at face value, even in the biblical text, if the text doesn't warrant it. I'm not sure that the supernatural interpretation of Gen 6 was rejected because it was just too implausible or because it wasn't a good interpretation of that text for individual interpreters-- I'm not an expert in that area.. I would argue for the latter, but don't really seen any need to go for the supernatural because nothing is riding on it. If someone wants to see it that way, I have no problem. It's just not demanded by the text.
It seems reasonable a few did in the early days, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority do today.
It's also clear why: it's just too ridiculous a claim, and it is rejected for that reason. Not because there is any dispute over the text, nor any other way to differentiate it from the lesser miracles (like raising people who'd been dead several days and already smelled).
There is a continuum of believability from the purely mundane through a series of more and more supernatural miracles to the really big ones.
Where do you draw the line? And if you reject the unbelievable, what do you do with the mundane that has exactly the same description and evidence?
The incarnation and the resurrection shows that the historic Christian faith sets it quite high-- the historic faith is incurably supernatural. That doesn't rule out that not every possible supernatural claim is to be taken at face value, even in the biblical text, if the text doesn't warrant it. I'm not sure that the supernatural interpretation of Gen 6 was rejected because it was just too implausible or because it wasn't a good interpretation of that text for individual interpreters-- I'm not an expert in that area.. I would argue for the latter, but don't really seen any need to go for the supernatural because nothing is riding on it. If someone wants to see it that way, I have no problem. It's just not demanded by the text.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jun 28, 2017, 01:20PMDon't forget, human records of history or events is never foolproof.
Yet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
Yet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:02 AMYet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
