What would it take?

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

What I mean is that from a language point of view, no one would expect there to be any inherent HOW to my statement of coffee. Why then would you apply a HOW to the statement of creation. From a linguistic point of view (i.e. "what it actually says") there is absolutely no reason to assume that the verses in question are making any claims whatsoever about how God created the universe. To assume that they do is to apply NOT "what it says" but rather what you've been told.

No. I'm going off what it ACTUALLY says.

No, you aren't - because it doesn't SAY anything about HOW God created the universe. Merely that he did.

God said....... ....and there was.
Everything is contained within that.

Just like I said "Let's have coffee" and we had coffee. What makes you say "everything is contained within that"? Once more, how is there any linguistic difference?

My point is, before we go interpreting, let's consider that Gods' creativity is in His command.

Why should we? If we wouldn't make any such assumption in the rest of the history of language, when such words are combined thusly, why would we suddenly change the rules of language when describing God? If there was an intent to express HOW God created everything, why wouldn't the authors have used the same language they would use when describing how others do things? Until you can provide an answer to that, the rest of your position is simply stubborn. It is holding on to an opinion regardless of consideration of other positions. I'd be fine if you could answer these questions, if you could provide alternatives that address my points, but you aren't doing that. You're simply saying "uh uh!".

Then we can apply what WE know to see if it is somehow possible.

Again, why on earth are you assuming that language suddenly loses all meaning when talking about God? That we must throw out standard forms of communication to fit with some assumption, and then build on such a shaky foundation?

Your scenario interprets what is said.
It assumes that God cannot create by word/sound/will.

No, it assumes that when people say someone does something they aren't trying to tell you how someone does something. Can you really not understand the difference between the two?

By doing this you are concocting an idea of God to suit your particular worldview.

No, once I recognize the reality of the words (rather than the doctrines of men), I am freed to apply other things we know to fill in the blanks.

My scenario accepts what it says, meaning my idea of God is a concoction.

No, your scenario concocts ideas to fill in blanks with as little information as possible, which is what makes it so dismissable. The blanks are the same for both of us. There is no reason to think the scriptures are telling us how God did anything, and when faced with that you go for the easiest answer you can think of, with complete disregard for evidence. There is nothing in the words used to support your position (any more than mine, frankly), but then you have nothing else to support your position either. This refusal to accept scientific discovery in favor of unsupported personal beliefs is precisely what motivates so many to completely disregard Christianity as a whole. It is unfounded, unbiblical, and unchristian. It is "taking for doctrine the commandments of men" which we are expressly warned against time and again in the New Testament.

Every scripture concurs that God creates by word/sound, none mention evolution of species according to natural selection.

Name one. And consider this - if substituting "God" for "I" and whatever is created with some everyday object makes perfect sense in the physical world then you haven't accomplished anything. Once more, WHY would the very same language used to describe WHAT I am doing rather than HOW suddenly mean HOW when talking about God. Answer that single question and we can progress this conversation. Without doing so, you - once again - are simply being stubborn.

There is a natural explanation as to creating a cup of coffee, then the buck stops at the conscious ability to desire a cup of coffee.
Nature looks as though it is acting by it self, just like a car looks like it driving itself, but we know there is a consciousness behind the car. And it is only untill we understand this, that we can know the car doesn't drive itself.
I believe the same applies to nature. And the information given states that there is a consciousness behind its creation and maintainence.

Umm, ok - so why can that not apply to natural selection?

I remember reading somewhere about a horse which was selectively bred dating around 1000bc. I'll look it up for you.

That doesn't really further your argument. Genesis was not written around 1000 BC, and I'm not saying that selective breeding hasn't been around for a long time, but that the authors of Genesis had neither the knowledge nor the language to describe natural selection. A horse being selectively bred some 500 years later (at best) is completely irrelevant.

Why wouldn't some people be interested in "strong intelligent people....."?
Why do you consider it a modern phenomenon.

I'm not saying they wouldn't be; I'm saying that they didn't do so out of some sense of knowledge surrounding natural selection. Are you really trying to argue that people knew about natural selection thousands of years ago? Really??

What reason do you have, to think it did?

I am afraid I don't know what "it" you are referring to. I haven't looked at this thread in days...

Because in order to process something fully, it must be accepted as fact and from there you can deduce the truth. That is unless you already know it is untrue. To accept something as untrue before knowledge means you have an opinion of it. This is dogmatic.

To accept something as true before knowledge also means you have an opinion of it. This is also dogmatic. Thus the hypocrisy.

Scriptures gave information of the roundness of the earth. So it was only a mystery to those wanting to discover the shape of the earth.

Oh, this I've never heard before - any references?

Like the shape of the earth, how the earth was populated is also scriptoral knowledge.

The Earth, or the region? Once more, references?

How long are you going to hold out that abiogenesis will be proven by conclusive evidence?
As it occurred to you that maybe God did populate the earth, just the way He said, either personally or through other beings?

Just like the rest of our scientific body of knowledge, I will always go with the best knowledge we have at the moment. That will change as more is learned. Your statements that "God did" this or that are absolutely meaningless, because I am not suggesting that God didn't. I am simply acknowledging that the Bible never explains HOW God does anything. And that's what the rest of us are trying to figure out.

Now you're making assumptions. It would be foolish of me to refuse knowledge, scientific, or otherwise. Would you care to state which scientific knowledge I have refused to accept?

Natural selection for one.

I wouldn't expect it to be worded. I think we would be like robots, acting purely within our designation. I don't think we would have any desire to know anything outside of that.

This doesn't answer my question at all. You are essentially saying that you believe the wording of Genesis is telling you HOW God created everything, but then if it was a different HOW you wouldn't expect the Bible to say anything at all? Why not? Why is one HOW more deserving of explanation than the other? And in what way would we be like robots?

You're right, I'm not interested in learning about things that don't appeal to me. I just don't have the time.

Which is fair enough. There is plenty that doesn't interest me as well. But to assume that the things you are interested in are the only things worthy of knowing for the rest of mankind is arrogant beyond all arrogance.

I'll bet some aspects of knowledge are more appealing than others, with these folks. Why do you think that is?

Because, as just noted, different strokes for different folks. You really are an ignorant condescending person, aren't you? It's not wonder the atheists on this forum have such a negative opinion of the religion you claim to represent.

And for the record, I REALLY don't mean to be mean or insulting here, but I am simply appalled at your attitude and position. I HOPE I am misinterpreting it and you can set me straight...

 

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

What I mean is that from a language point of view, no one would expect there to be any inherent HOW to my statement of coffee.
Why then would you apply a HOW to the statement of creation.

You're right, no one would, because we already know the process of how to make coffee. If however you could instantly manifest a cup of coffee by manipulating molecules and such, then our thought process would be changed.

From a linguistic point of view (i.e. "what it actually says") there is absolutely no reason to assume that the verses in question are making any claims whatsoever about how God created the universe. To assume that they do is to apply NOT "what it says" but rather what you've been told.

There is no assumption other than the most obvious, God SAID "let there be light, AND THERE WAS LIGHT".
If you or I said that, I would be in complete agreement with you.

No, you aren't - because it doesn't SAY anything about HOW God created the universe. Merely that he did.

It says that He "SAID" and as a result IT OCCURRED.
Why don't you explore that before going off on a tangent?

Just like I said "Let's have coffee" and we had coffee. What makes you say "everything is contained within that"? Once more, how is there any linguistic difference?

Everything is contained within that. It's basic as is the biblical statement, but present. I have a good idea of the few scenarios due to my experience and knowledge. So I can fill in the blanks based on that.
I nor you have no experience or knowledge of how this universe came into being, so we cannot fill in the blanks.
We have to accept what it says and choose, for whatever reason, to believe it or not.

Why should we?

Because that is what it says; God said let there be.... .....and there was.
You cannot deny that. And you cannot deny that that is probably how it occurred, least of all because that is what it says.
If you add to that, it contradicts that statement, then you are concocting.

If we wouldn't make any such assumption in the rest of the history of language, when such words are combined thusly, why would we suddenly change the rules of language when describing God?

Language means different things to different people in as many circumstances as there are people past and present.
How can you apply such strict limited, ordinary language to God, who is anything but limited or ordinary.
What makes you think the constuct of the english language is adequate to describe God, or His activeties in great detail?

If there was an intent to express HOW God created everything, why wouldn't the authors have used the same language they would use when describing how others do things? Until you can provide an answer to that, the rest of your position is simply stubborn.

Because God is The Supreme Being, The Origin and/or Controller of everything we percieve (including language and communication).
As a Christian, do you agree with the above statement?

It is holding on to an opinion regardless of consideration of other positions. I'd be fine if you could answer these questions, if you could provide alternatives that address my points, but you aren't doing that. You're simply saying "uh uh!".

No I'm not.
You are simply missing the point, and looking for something in line with your thinking.
Strip all that away, read the text, simply accept what it says, then start your process of deduction from that pov.
In doing so, you will realise that evolution of species, or abiogenesis could not have taken place.

Again, why on earth are you assuming that language suddenly loses all meaning when talking about God? That we must throw out standard forms of communication to fit with some assumption, and then build on such a shaky foundation?

Again, because we are discussing God, not an ordinary person or thing.

No, it assumes that when people say someone does something they aren't trying to tell you how someone does something. Can you really not understand the difference between the two?

But it says how God did it.
It says God "SAID".
That's how He did it.

No, once I recognize the reality of the words (rather than the doctrines of men), I am freed to apply other things we know to fill in the blanks.

Then you concoct your own ideas. You're bypassing what is said simply because you cannot believe that God can create by the means mentioned.
It's that simple.

No, your scenario concocts ideas to fill in blanks with as little information as possible, which is what makes it so dismissable. The blanks are the same for both of us. There is no reason to think the scriptures are telling us how God did anything, and when faced with that you go for the easiest answer you can think of, with complete disregard for evidence.

I have no ideas other than to try and find out how it is possible for God to create by WILL/SOUND.
I am not deviating from the statement.
The moment I do, then I may as well create my own scripture, and religion.

Your idea is to change what is written, by saying He could not have created us simply by Him Saying, because we have some ideas about how the universe and life came into being.
We also know that bodies have evolved due to the process of natural selection.
So if God did create, He create this way, not that, and so on.

There is nothing in the words used to support your position (any more than mine, frankly), but then you have nothing else to support your position either.

The words themself support my position, and show your position to be one of concocting notions.

It is unfounded, unbiblical, and unchristian. It is "taking for doctrine the commandments of men" which we are expressly warned against time and again in the New Testament.

I'm not arguing for Christianity. The bible is not a book specifically for Christians.
As far as I know "a Christian" is someone who follows Jesus Christ.

You cannot see how you are accepting the commandments of men, as opposed to accepting what is actually written?

Name one.

1In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This demonstrates the simultaneos oneness and difference. The word IS God, and was WITH God.
It goes on to say that everything was made by Him including life, which already presided in Him.
That same light/life was the light of men.
Not that He gave nature the command to create according to her own potency. But a union, the light contained within God, which shineth within the darkness (material nature).

Umm, ok - so why can that not apply to natural selection?

The idea that natural selection selects the most adaptable, and adds new genetic information, thereby creating entirely different species to survive in a new environment, contradicts God, and creation. You only have to read the John 1 text to understand that.

That doesn't really further your argument. Genesis was not written around 1000 BC, and I'm not saying that selective breeding hasn't been around for a long time, but that the authors of Genesis had neither the knowledge nor the language to describe natural selection. A horse being selectively bred some 500 years later (at best) is completely irrelevant.

Probably because it is irrelevant. Or only relevant to those to whom it may concern.
You don't need scientific evidence or language to understand the variation within species.
Parents will look at their children and see physical, and mental similarities between them and themselves.
They will see the similarities in others too.
It's not a difficult distinction to make, and a simple step in wanting to creating variation within species.

I am afraid I don't know what "it" you are referring to. I haven't looked at this thread in days...

What reason do have to think that abiogenesis took place?

To accept something as true before knowledge also means you have an opinion of it. This is also dogmatic. Thus the hypocrisy.

It is a default position.
One accepts the sound vibration, then from there we deduce.

Oh, this I've never heard before - any references?

isiah 40.22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The Earth, or the region? Once more, references?

genesis 1 v 26.

Just like the rest of our scientific body of knowledge, I will always go with the best knowledge we have at the moment. That will change as more is learned. Your statements that "God did" this or that are absolutely meaningless, because I am not suggesting that God didn't. I am simply acknowledging that the Bible never explains HOW God does anything. And that's what the rest of us are trying to figure out.

And you accuse me of stubborness?

Natural selection for one.

I don't deny natural selection, we just have differences of opinions.

This doesn't answer my question at all. You are essentially saying that you believe the wording of Genesis is telling you HOW God created everything, but then if it was a different HOW you wouldn't expect the Bible to say anything at all? Why not? Why is one HOW more deserving of explanation than the other? And in what way would we be like robots?

Why would anything need to be written. If we did evlolve into human beings we would know our origins by using the same method we use today.
But why would we evolve at all?
Why would we be?
What would be the point?

But to assume that the things you are interested in are the only things worthy of knowing for the rest of mankind is arrogant beyond all arrogance.

Tell that to the social engineers, the big corporations, the advertising media, and so on.

Because, as just noted, different strokes for different folks. You really are an ignorant condescending person, aren't you? It's not wonder the atheists on this forum have such a negative opinion of the religion you claim to represent.

And for the record, I REALLY don't mean to be mean or insulting here, but I am simply appalled at your attitude and position. I HOPE I am misinterpreting it and you can set me straight...

I'm really sorry you feel that way, because I quite like you, and happen to think you are an intelligent, not to mention nice, person.
I had hoped you could try at least to see it from my perspective, as I have from yours.
But it seems you are taking unnecessary offence to my posts.
Such a pity. :bawl:

jan.

P.S. my 'puter is on the blink at the moment which why I'm taking so long to respond.

jan.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
You're right, no one would, because we already know the process of how to make coffee. If however you could instantly manifest a cup of coffee by manipulating molecules and such, then our thought process would be changed.

You are ignoring my point, which is regarding the choice of words and language. No one would assume I was referring to how I manifested the cup of coffee not because they already know, but because the words selected were never meant to suggest a HOW. Until you can recognize this basic fact regarding language there is no reason to continue this thread. (As such, I didn't bother responding to each of your repetitive posts. Either you understand language or you don't. Until you do, I'm not going to continue spinning my wheels on you.)

There is no assumption other than the most obvious, God SAID "let there be light, AND THERE WAS LIGHT".
If you or I said that, I would be in complete agreement with you.

Think of it this way. Think of the difference between the statements "God said 'Let there be light', and there was light" and "God said 'Let there be light', so there was light". One suggests a cause and effect; the other simply suggests an order of occurrence, and you have them confused.

Because God is The Supreme Being, The Origin and/or Controller of everything we percieve (including language and communication).
As a Christian, do you agree with the above statement?

I agree with that statement, but you didn't answer my question at all.

Again, because we are discussing God, not an ordinary person or thing.

That makes absolutely no sense. People communicate via language. Authors of the Old Testament were trying to communicate something. Why would they use a different form of language than they did in all other forms of communication?

But it says how God did it.
It says God "SAID".
That's how He did it.

I guess that's a no - you can't understand the difference. Or you are just being stubborn.

The idea that natural selection selects the most adaptable, and adds new genetic information, thereby creating entirely different species to survive in a new environment, contradicts God, and creation. You only have to read the John 1 text to understand that.

To which verses are you referring?

What reason do have to think that abiogenesis took place?

It makes the most sense, given all the knowledge we currently have.

isiah 40.22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

If they knew the Earth was a globe, why did they say circle and not sphere? Or globe? And the ten analogy loses all meaning if the circle is indeed a sphere.

genesis 1 v 26.

I'm sorry; what is this verse supposed to be inferring?

And you accuse me of stubborness?

How was that statement at all stubborn?

Why would anything need to be written. If we did evlolve into human beings we would know our origins by using the same method we use today.
But why would we evolve at all?
Why would we be?
What would be the point?

Are you asking what would be the point in us evolving? What would be the point in us NOT evolving? Your questions don't make any sense.

Tell that to the social engineers, the big corporations, the advertising media, and so on.

Are you suggesting that those groups find all other knowledge/information to be worthless knowledge?

I'm really sorry you feel that way, because I quite like you, and happen to think you are an intelligent, not to mention nice, person.
I had hoped you could try at least to see it from my perspective, as I have from yours.
But it seems you are taking unnecessary offence to my posts.
Such a pity. :bawl:

jan.

Thank you, and I am not taking offense - I'm just frustrated at your refusal (or inability) to recognize the point I am making regarding the use of the words in Genesis. You don't have to be a linguist to understand that the word "and" has never in the history of language been used to indicate a cause/effect; it simply isn't what the word means - and yet you seem to think that it is the only POSSIBLE meaning. I would be just as frustrated if you were telling me the ocean was hot pink.

P.S. my 'puter is on the blink at the moment which why I'm taking so long to respond.

jan.[/QUOTE]

 

[wynn]

Solus Cado -


Are you playing the devil's advocate?

 

[SolusCado]

Solus Cado -


Are you playing the devil's advocate?

No, why do you ask?

 

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

You are ignoring my point, which is regarding the choice of words and language. No one would assume I was referring to how I manifested the cup of coffee not because they already know, but because the words selected were never meant to suggest a HOW.

I'm not ignoring your point.
They don't need to assume, because they know.
It is written from the point of view of one who KNOWS, and is not up for debated.

Rememer the John 1 v1 verse; in the begining......
It is stated that God and His Word are the SAME.
So by Gods' "saying" something, it IS personal interaction with God Himself.

Until you can recognize this basic fact regarding language there is no reason to continue this thread. (As such, I didn't bother responding to each of your repetitive posts. Either you understand language or you don't. Until you do, I'm not going to continue spinning my wheels on you.)

Your clinging to meaning of words makes for a weak argument Solus. It is almost as if you have a limit on discussing God, and refuse to break it, no matter what.

Think of it this way. Think of the difference between the statements "God said 'Let there be light', and there was light" and "God said 'Let there be light', so there was light". One suggests a cause and effect; the other simply suggests an order of occurrence, and you have them confused.

This is petty nonsense, and you are putting up blocks because of it.
"and" can be defined as something which occurrs as result of something else
It can also be defined as something used to introduce a situation or event that is a consequence of something just mentioned.

That makes absolutely no sense. People communicate via language. Authors of the Old Testament were trying to communicate something. Why would they use a different form of language than they did in all other forms of communication?

Of course it makes sense. For starters read John 1 v 1.


I've got to go now.
I will finish the rest of your responses later.
Try seeing it from the point of view of one or both of my definitions of "and", please?

jan.

 

[Kennyc]

why would you want that?
and there are MANY threads here with atheist trying to do just that.
(and they accuse us of this) so far of what i have seen, nothing changes that.

its a case of stereotyping..atheist assume ALL believers are a certain way..that is not the case..there are many types of believers just as there are many types of non-believers, it is not fair to classify ALL believers according to a stereotype..

also..
from a logical atheist perspective,

if theists have no evidence for their belief, what makes an atheist think that evidence will dissuade them from their belief?

All Theists are the same in that they believe things without proof. End of that discussion.

 

[wynn]

No, why do you ask?

Because earlier in the thread, I have brought up a similar point as Jan - namely that it makes a world of difference whether it is God who says something or looks at something, or whether it is a human who says something or looks at something.

You seemed to agree there -
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2649008&postcount=191.

But there, you also said: "You are now getting into a conversation that is meaningless to an atheist" - which gave me the impression that you wanted to explain the happenings written about in the Bible in such a manner that they would make sense to an atheist, using atheist vocabulary/concepts.

I do not understand the motivation for such a shift, unless it is meant to play the devil's advocate.

 

[wynn]

It is almost as if you have a limit on discussing God, and refuse to break it, no matter what.

I agree.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

That makes absolutely no sense. People communicate via language. Authors of the Old Testament were trying to communicate something. Why would they use a different form of language than they did in all other forms of communication?

"Communicate" being the opreative word.
They didn't use a different form of language, they used the language to describe God's (not human) activety.

I guess that's a no - you can't understand the difference. Or you are just being stubborn.

I understand the difference, but have you ever heard someone express "let the lawn be mowed"? Unless their chairing some lawn mowing race.
They're more likely to say something like "i'm going to mow the lawn today".

To which verses are you referring?

John 1 v 1.

It makes the most sense, given all the knowledge we currently have.

But there's no evidence for it.
Yet there is evidence that life comes from life.
How can you say it makes the most sense?

If they knew the Earth was a globe, why did they say circle and not sphere? Or globe? And the ten analogy loses all meaning if the circle is indeed a sphere.

"Circle" can mean a circle shaped object, or patterns.
Would you say the earth is a "circle"-shaped object?

I'm sorry; what is this verse supposed to be inferring?

It tells how the earth was populated.

How was that statement at all stubborn?

That "statement" wasn't stubborn. You are.

Are you asking what would be the point in us evolving? What would be the point in us NOT evolving? Your questions don't make any sense.

What would be the need of written scripture to inform us of what we already percieve?

Are you suggesting that those groups find all other knowledge/information to be worthless knowledge?

I'm suggesting that they fit your statement.

Thank you, and I am not taking offense - I'm just frustrated at your refusal (or inability) to recognize the point I am making regarding the use of the words in Genesis.

I am merely looking at what they say, and trying to understand them in relation to the subject matter, God. So there's no need for frustration.
All i'm asking you to do is look at what is written and expressed. Don't try and interpret it to make some sort of personal sense.

You don't have to be a linguist to understand that the word "and" has never in the history of language been used to indicate a cause/effect; it simply isn't what the word means - and yet you seem to think that it is the only POSSIBLE meaning. I would be just as frustrated if you were telling me the ocean was hot pink.

I have given definitions of how the word "and" can be used.
Use it in the context of genesis, go where it leads. If at the end of it all, you think it is nonsense, then at least you have a sound reason to think so. Your arguments will have more to offer than a definition of a word.

jan.

 

[SolusCado]

Because earlier in the thread, I have brought up a similar point as Jan - namely that it makes a world of difference whether it is God who says something or looks at something, or whether it is a human who says something or looks at something.

You seemed to agree there -
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2649008&postcount=191.

But there, you also said: "You are now getting into a conversation that is meaningless to an atheist" - which gave me the impression that you wanted to explain the happenings written about in the Bible in such a manner that they would make sense to an atheist, using atheist vocabulary/concepts.

I do not understand the motivation for such a shift, unless it is meant to play the devil's advocate.

I agree.

My agreement was in regards to the importance of knowing God, spiritually speaking. The effort to understand such things as Creation from a physical point of view is an exercise in curiosity - which may indeed have its own secondary spiritual benefits, but as a whole is not as important for the average Christian as simply having a spiritual relationship with God.

I do however strongly disagree with the notion that seeking to understand the limitations of language at the time the Old Testament was written somehow means one is limiting their discussion of God. Failure to recognize such linguitic limitations, in order to maintain a theological belief that itself was based on such failures is to compound one mistake with another. I am by no means limited in my capacity to discuss what or who God may or may not be, but it is simply wrong, in every sense of the word, to found such discussions on linguistic fallacies.

In other words, if one is to base their beliefs on "what the Bible actually says" they are being the worst kind of dishonest (or falling prey to the worst kinds of deception) to then infer meaning into words and phrases that simply don't carry that meaning. The causal relationship between God saying "Let there be light" and the subsequent occurrence of said light is a prime example, which is why I harp on it. It is so easy to see, when removing the context that has fueled such theological mistakes in the past, that such phrases do not linguistically carry any implicit causality, and yet - despite what the texts "actually say" - you and Jan both seem absolutely convinced at the meanings you have inferred. The worst part about it is that you both refuse to acknowledge the source of your beliefs - not in what the words "actually say," for it is clear that they don't "actually say" anything that would imply causality, but in what you have been taught to believe, through legacy theological foundations.

 

[wynn]

Generally, there are two approaches to scriptures.

One looks at the text and tries to understand it "per se"; in ways that are distinctly separate from any theological tradition.

The other tries to understand the text in line with a theological tradition.

You seem to be subscribing to the first approach, while some others subscribe to the second one.

Things being clarified like this, I suggest that we look at the merits of each approach.

Why do you think that the theological tradition (specifically, the disciplic succession from God Himself onward) is somehow an inferior way to approach and understand scriptures?

 

[SolusCado]

Generally, there are two approaches to scriptures.

One looks at the text and tries to understand it "per se"; in ways that are distinctly separate from any theological tradition.

The other tries to understand the text in line with a theological tradition.

You seem to be subscribing to the first approach, while some others subscribe to the second one.

Things being clarified like this, I suggest that we look at the merits of each approach.

Why do you think that the theological tradition (specifically, the disciplic succession from God Himself onward) is somehow an inferior way to approach and understand scriptures?

You have made an excellent observation and this is a worthwhile point to discuss. I am skeptical of your use of the phrase "the disciplic succession from God himself onward" as that is in and of itself a non-Biblical concept. The two approaches are however in practice, and to answer your question, I believe the theological tradition is inferior for a handful of reasons. Primarily, it either inherits the mistakes of those who have preceded us in forming a theology, or - if you believe it is inerrant, then it places faith in those who have preceded us that approaches the divine. There is no Biblical support for such faith, and a simple look around reveals how prone to error humans truly are.

 

[wynn]

You have made an excellent observation and this is a worthwhile point to discuss. I am skeptical of your use of the phrase "the disciplic succession from God himself onward" as that is in and of itself a non-Biblical concept.

At this point, it yet needs to be clarified what is "Biblical" and what is not, as this is precisely what is under discussion. So we cannot yet make arguments that "the disciplic succession from God Himself onward" is "in and of itself a non-Biblical concept".

The two approaches are however in practice, and to answer your question, I believe the theological tradition is inferior for a handful of reasons. Primarily, it either inherits the mistakes of those who have preceded us in forming a theology, or - if you believe it is inerrant, then it places faith in those who have preceded us that approaches the divine. There is no Biblical support for such faith, and a simple look around reveals how prone to error humans truly are.

So, to give another example of your approach, you are bascially making the argument that if you find a book that says "physics formulas" or "Course of Theoretical Physics" in the title or whose name is "A Brief History of Time", then the best way to properly understand what is being said in that book is to specifically not ask any physicists, but instead ask everyone else, from janitors to linguists to cooks, but not physicists or anyone who professionally has something to do with physics.

Or, another example, if you find something that you have some reason to believe is a music instrument (while you yourself are largely ignorant of music and musical instruments), then the best way to understand and use this object is to specifically avoid any and all musicians, but instead ask everyone else.

Primarily, it either inherits the mistakes of those who have preceded us in forming a theology,

We always have (some) faith in those who have preceded us; this is a given.

or - if you believe it is inerrant, then it places faith in those who have preceded us that approaches the divine.

Sure, but that still does not mean such faith is necessarily wrong.

There is no Biblical support for such faith, and a simple look around reveals how prone to error humans truly are.

If you wish to dismiss the theological tradition on the grounds of the human proclivity for error, then you must also dismiss all linguists, anthropologists, physicists, archaeologists, historians and everyone else whom you see as a more reliable source of knowledge about theistic topics than the theological tradition.

 

[SolusCado]

At this point, it yet needs to be clarified what is "Biblical" and what is not, as this is precisely what is under discussion. So we cannot yet make arguments that "the disciplic succession from God Himself onward" is "in and of itself a non-Biblical concept".

Once again, a fair point. I use the term "Biblical" to refer to the generally accepted canonization of the Bible. This includes both New and Old Testaments. I use the term "Scriptural" to refer to the Old Testament, since Paul actually wrote that the scriptures were complete before the NT was canonized.

So, to give another example of your approach, you are bascially making the argument that if you find a book that says "physics formulas" or "Course of Theoretical Physics" in the title or whose name is "A Brief History of Time", then the best way to properly understand what is being said in that book is to specifically not ask any physicists, but instead ask everyone else, from janitors to linguists to cooks, but not physicists or anyone who professionally has something to do with physics.

This is an excellent example, as reading books on something like Newtonian Physics will indeed give you an incorrect understanding of what we know today. It will of course explain Newtonian Physics, but if the book was written 300 years ago it will speak as though that is all there is to know, and that would be wrong. Regarding the notion of who you talk to about it, you bring up all these other professions as though they are somehow relevant - but I specifically said that following theological tradition places one's faith in those people rather than God. Giving me a list of other professions would continue to do the same. A more correct analogy would be to say that I would rather ask the author of such books for more details rather than all the people who have provided commentary on them.

Or, another example, if you find something that you have some reason to believe is a music instrument (while you yourself are largely ignorant of music and musical instruments), then the best way to understand and use this object is to specifically avoid any and all musicians, but instead ask everyone else.

Once again, I never suggested "asking everyone else."

We always have (some) faith in those who have preceded us; this is a given.

A fair statement, and I am not suggesting that people DON'T learn what others have taught and believed, but that you don't place your ultimate faith in it. As we learn more, our hearts and minds should be open to the idea that those people were wrong (and that God can and will guide us in the right direction). Otherwise, we have misplaced our faith.

Sure, but that still does not mean such faith is necessarily wrong.

Agreed.

If you wish to dismiss the theological tradition on the grounds of the human proclivity for error, then you must also dismiss all linguists, anthropologists, physicists, archaeologists, historians and everyone else whom you see as a more reliable source of knowledge about theistic topics than the theological tradition.

Not dismiss, but not follow blindly. If a new idea is put forth that makes more sense and is more inline with new knowledge, why would you NOT accept it? Why would you instead hold on to old beliefs that get more and more archaic and, by all observations, more and more incorrect?

 

[dhcracker]

Solus,

I still have a huge problem with your "rejecting of the NT" and yet you tell us about Jesus in the next post.

I'm going to tell you christians something, there is no divine being that can give me justice in a review of my life. I don't want some GOD who can manipulate things through a knowledge that gives him ultimate power judging me. If that God isn't willing to come down and walk in my shoes just like I have done then piss on him.

Jesus doesn't count apparently he knew he was the son of God, cop out if you ask me. I wasn't born able to walk on water or knowing I would raise from the dead.. I knew nothing of God and had to make my own way. Lets see a God come down and be ignorant of his own existance and still be sinnless... yeah right.

Believe that crud if you wish I know better, I don't want a God judging me that is too scared to be human himself. Think on that.

 

[SolusCado]

Solus,

I still have a huge problem with your "rejecting of the NT" and yet you tell us about Jesus in the next post.

Do you not see my logic, or do you just not like my application of it? It could be because you have equated what I actually said with "rejecting the NT" which I never claimed to do. I reject it as scripture, nothing more. That doesn't make it useless, or all wrong - it just means we should read it with more caution, and feel free to reject things that are not inline with what we know about God.

I'm going to tell you christians something, there is no divine being that can give me justice in a review of my life. I don't want some GOD who can manipulate things through a knowledge that gives him ultimate power judging me. If that God isn't willing to come down and walk in my shoes just like I have done then piss on him.

I hope you realize that this statement is as useful as a Christian telling you "I'm gonna tell you something. God sent his only son to die for your sins, and if you don't accept it you are going to go to Hell." IOW, you make this statement as thought it was something more than your own personal opinion - and while others may indeed share your opinion, there are plenty of others who don't - and you have said nothing that would sway either side. Basically, you are pissing in the wind.

Jesus doesn't count apparently he knew he was the son of God, cop out if you ask me. I wasn't born able to walk on water or knowing I would raise from the dead.. I knew nothing of God and had to make my own way. Lets see a God come down and be ignorant of his own existance and still be sinnless... yeah right.

Believe that crud if you wish I know better, I don't want a God judging me that is too scared to be human himself. Think on that.

And the rest of your statement reflects, once more, a judgement of who you think God is, rather than what the Bible has described God to be. Sooo... I for one am not at all surprised that you refuse it. I would also refuse the image of God you have presented. As do most (if not all) Christians. So hey! We are in agreement after all!

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

For any religious person here to become an atheist?

Is there any evidence that could be presented to change your minds?

Serious answers please.

EDIT: Atheists please feel free to answer the question of what it would take for you to become a theist.

Here's my position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg

Miracles, That would do it. Except people have dull hearts so even with Miracles happening all around them they still can't see the glory of creation. Put them on a sinking ship like the Titanic and that might help a little. Oh yeah I forgot . WE are on a sinking ship already. Brace your selves. Get ready for the inevitable.

 

[birch]

they still can't see the glory of creation

that's not even the issue but don't get it.

WE are on a sinking ship already

yeah, please go down with the glorious creation.

 

[wynn]

Regarding the notion of who you talk to about it, you bring up all these other professions as though they are somehow relevant - but I specifically said that following theological tradition places one's faith in those people rather than God.

How does a person place their faith in God - apart from any and all established theological traditions?

Were it not for the theological traditions, you would not even know the words "God", or "faith" etc.

Giving me a list of other professions would continue to do the same. A more correct analogy would be to say that I would rather ask the author of such books for more details rather than all the people who have provided commentary on them.

So in the case of holy texts, you suggest to ask God what this or that means?

Have you asked God what "And God said 'Let there be light' and there was light" means?

A fair statement, and I am not suggesting that people DON'T learn what others have taught and believed, but that you don't place your ultimate faith in it.

Placing faith in the theological tradition means that one has faith that the theological tradition will provide the means to proper knowledge of God and whatever else may be necessary.
The theological tradition is not meant to replace God.

As we learn more, our hearts and minds should be open to the idea that those people were wrong (and that God can and will guide us in the right direction). Otherwise, we have misplaced our faith.

Again: How does a person place their faith in God - apart from any and all established theological traditions?

The idea that "God can and will guide us in the right direction" is part of such established theological tradition which you accept implicitly here.

Not dismiss, but not follow blindly. If a new idea is put forth that makes more sense and is more inline with new knowledge, why would you NOT accept it? Why would you instead hold on to old beliefs that get more and more archaic and, by all observations, more and more incorrect?

Implicit in this is the assumption that new findings are necessarily more correct.
But as the history of mundane knowledge shows, today's "new and correct" is tomorrow "old and incorrect".
How can a person have any stable footing in such relativity?
With such relativity, "belief in God" is as stable and as happy as marriage where the spouses think and talk about divorce every day.