Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

By the way, since you cast aspersions upon "literalist creationists", do you by chance literally believe all that purports to be science? For example, do you believe that Time is a product of physical, celestial bodies in continuous, successive motion? That this is how Time literally works in this universe? You know...like...this how the sun "rises" and it also "sets" -- that kind of stuff? That this is how calendars are made, etc.? Apparently, you don't, despite the fact that my definition of time is a scientific fact based upon the physical realities of this universe. Now...I for one do believe this to be a literal scientific fact, and so did Moses when he penned Gen 1:14-19.

How quick you are to abandon your beloved sciences when some scientific fact flies in the face of one of your long held theological/spiritual presuppositions.

I relied upon the factual description (biblically literalist creationist) of individuals who regard Genesis as science, else God be irrelevant, and juxtaposed your view against other creationists. It was interesting to me that your position of individualistic Christianity was made even narrower by the differences within the Genesis-as-science camp, and I was curious as to whether you were aware of their differences with you. Personally, I filed it under "Reformed have different biblical views regarding embryonic experimentation". I was interested in the "two parties who both claim personal divine inspiration re: interpretation of scriptural doctrine" angle, much more than the science.

I devote most of my attention to individuals who don't claim a science vs. religion, faith vs. reason demarcation. I'm with those who are not troubled by scientific findings vis-a-vis the book of Genesis, since I hold that You-Know-Who is the author of both. That view does not compel acceptance of science-of-the-gaps arguments like "there is only apparent teleology in nature", or Dawkins' fairy dust (religious meme), e.g.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Sure, blame me...but WE are engaging him, aren't we? So it's as much OUR fault as it is mine.

You've got me there.

And people say I'll never admit being wrong.

It reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the townspeople are coming down on Cleavon Little the sheriff and he pulls out his gun and puts it to his head and says, "back off or I'll shoot this [sheriff]." Apparently some of us need saving from ourselves.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Are you saying that a Universe could be like an amoeba and reproduce itself by splitting forming two daughter Universes?

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a question.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I relied upon the factual description (biblically literalist creationist) of individuals who regard Genesis as science, else God be irrelevant, and juxtaposed your view against other creationists. It was interesting to me that your position of individualistic Christianity was made even narrower by the differences within the Genesis-as-science camp, and I was curious as to whether you were aware of their differences with you. Personally, I filed it under "Reformed have different biblical views regarding embryonic experimentation". I was interested in the "two parties who both claim personal divine inspiration re: interpretation of scriptural doctrine" angle, much more than the science.

I devote most of my attention to individuals who don't claim a science vs. religion, faith vs. reason demarcation. I'm with those who are not troubled by scientific findings vis-a-vis the book of Genesis, since I hold that You-Know-Who is the author of both. That view does not compel acceptance of science-of-the-gaps arguments like "there is only apparent teleology in nature", or Dawkins' fairy dust (religious meme), e.g.

All I do, Doc, is exegete scripture. I make a concerted effort, through prayer, to not bring my own presuppositional baggage to bear upon the text because that would be reading into a passage, which is eisegesis. I simply want to know what is a writer saying, who is he saying it to, and what did he mean by it. Having said that, however, I will confess that up until a couple of years or so ago, I, too, believed that the phrase "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 had to mean "in the beginning of time". That's what I was always taught and I never really questioned it until I read something by someone (name escapes me at the moment) that didn't have the ring of truth to it; and that prompted me to read the creation account with a very critical eye. And then God graciously opened my eyes to see what the passage was really saying.

I have learned over the years that is always a good idea to pick out the key word or phrases in a passage to see if they do have multiple meanings. When I did that with Bree'shiyt, I learned that it can mean the first in place, time, order or rank. Then when I got down to vv.14-19, I saw clearly for the first time, that Time was not created on their first day; therefore, the Hebrew term could not have meant "in the beginning of time".
It had to mean, "in the first place", "at the first" or "firstly". And this not only made sense for the Day 4 account of creation but for the entire creation account because God created the universe and all life in it in stages. He did not create everything at one time! Therefore, "in the first place", for example, makes very good sense in the context of the entire creation account. "In the first place, God created Space and Earth...". (This kind of phrase would mean "first in order".) This order of creation makes infinitely good sense because any matter that God would create would need Space in which to have its Motion. And creating only the earth on the first day -- totally apart from all the other celestial bodies -- made very good sense given everything scripture teaches about God and all the attention and care and grace he has given this planet from the very beginning. This planet is so special to God, even in its fallen state, that Christ is going to recreate it when he returns. He's going to restore this planet back to its pristine condition forever and ever so that all his saints will literally bask in the light His glory right here in this restored world. Then that new order -- that new world will be Christ's visible kingdom, whereas this fallen world is not. This fallen world is Satan's domain. Even Christ disowned this sin-filled world to Pilate when He told him that this world is not his kingdom.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Getting desperate, aren't we? The verbs and nouns argument...hmmm....surprised you even went there, since you abhor talking about things you've already "slam-dunked," and we danced this dance with one of my many "Jewish rabbis," remember him? I guess he was doing apples and oranges too.

Me thinks I have you punch drunk at this time. You don't even know which end is up at this point.

I've punch enough holes in your theory to leave you spinning like a top. Hopefully there is someone around to catch you when you fall.

The only one punched-drunk around here is you, Mr. No Answers. But hey...as I've said previously, live your short life with gusto -- for with the one ahead of you you will wish that you could slip into a drunken stupor forever and ever; but you won't be able to.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Are you serious with this question? How many times have answered this question by holding the premise of self-creation up against the Law of Noncontradiction?

In order for a thing to create or cause itself, it must exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. Clearly a violation of the Lw.[sic]

That assumes that time and space are linear, which Relativity says they ars not, and that both space and time are not qquntized, which Quantum Theory says they both are. If time and space are both non-leaner and both are quantized they the contradiction disappears.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I love Tyson's self-defeating attitude. So, why do science?

You missed it. What Tyson is saying is that it's up to you to make sense of the universe, not the other way around.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That assumes that time and space are linear, which Relativity says they ars not, and that both space and time are not qquntized, which Quantum Theory says they both are. If time and space are both non-leaner and both are quantized they the contradiction disappears.
You missed it. What Tyson is saying is that it's up to you to make sense of the universe, not the other way around.

And that assumes all those theories are right! The fact remains: If the universe had a "beginning" then in naturalism this implies that the universe created itself, which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.. But if you want to get cute and postulate that the universe is an eternal, self-existent entity in its essence, then you run into a brick wall with the Law of Identity.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And that assumes all those theories are right!

Are you saying that they are wrong? After a century of peer review?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are you saying that they are wrong? After a century of peer review?

What drives me nuts is the pitty-pat easy jabs back and forth, back and forth, not really causing much damage. Throw a hook or an uppercut once in a while.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you are amazingly gullible to not see through the world's attempt at the biggest hoax upon mankind -- a hoax designed to defraud the peoples of this world from their hard-earned money.

Hmmm...can anybody think of another hoax, massively bigger than climate change, designed to defraud the people of this world from their hard earned money?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Hmmm...can anybody think of another hoax, massively bigger than climate change, designed to defraud the people of this world from their hard earned money?

Climate Change is not a hoax.
The idea that is, or ever could be, Man-Made is undecided.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Hmmm...can anybody think of another hoax, massively bigger than climate change, designed to defraud the people of this world from their hard earned money?

Big Brown in the Belmont?

Sorry, Halv.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Big Brown in the Belmont?

Sorry, Halv.

To Winstrol or not to Winstrol, that is the question.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Hmmm...can anybody think of another hoax, massively bigger than climate change, designed to defraud the people of this world from their hard earned money?

My guess is that you have something in mind.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

All I do, Doc, is exegete scripture. I make a concerted effort, through prayer, to not bring my own presuppositional baggage to bear upon the text because that would be reading into a passage, which is eisegesis. I simply want to know what is a writer saying, who is he saying it to, and what did he mean by it. Having said that, however, I will confess that up until a couple of years or so ago, I, too, believed that the phrase "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 had to mean "in the beginning of time". That's what I was always taught and I never really questioned it until I read something by someone (name escapes me at the moment) that didn't have the ring of truth to it; and that prompted me to read the creation account with a very critical eye. And then God graciously opened my eyes to see what the passage was really saying.

I have learned over the years that is always a good idea to pick out the key word or phrases in a passage to see if they do have multiple meanings. When I did that with Bree'shiyt, I learned that it can mean the first in place, time, order or rank. Then when I got down to vv.14-19, I saw clearly for the first time, that Time was not created on their first day; therefore, the Hebrew term could not have meant "in the beginning of time".
It had to mean, "in the first place", "at the first" or "firstly". And this not only made sense for the Day 4 account of creation but for the entire creation account because God created the universe and all life in it in stages. He did not create everything at one time! Therefore, "in the first place", for example, makes very good sense in the context of the entire creation account. "In the first place, God created Space and Earth...". (This kind of phrase would mean "first in order".) This order of creation makes infinitely good sense because any matter that God would create would need Space in which to have its Motion. And creating only the earth on the first day -- totally apart from all the other celestial bodies -- made very good sense given everything scripture teaches about God and all the attention and care and grace he has given this planet from the very beginning. This planet is so special to God, even in its fallen state, that Christ is going to recreate it when he returns. He's going to restore this planet back to its pristine condition forever and ever so that all his saints will literally bask in the light His glory right here in this restored world. Then that new order -- that new world will be Christ's visible kingdom, whereas this fallen world is not. This fallen world is Satan's domain. Even Christ disowned this sin-filled world to Pilate when He told him that this world is not his kingdom.

What you are describing would not have been possible for, bare minimum, the first 1400 years of Christianity, for a church that would last forever (Eph 3:21), for whom Christ would be with always (Mt 28:20).

In say, 1217 rather than 2017, you are without the printing press, infrastructures supporting distribution of rare bibles, the chance that you are literate, supporting materials in Near Eastern languages and geographies,etc., the time for intense study despite family and the agrarian lifestyle requiring early rising and retiring for the next day, as well as the capacity for critical thinking skills in the areas of philosophy and theology.

Even today, the average Christian of history fits the above description. Toss in the arrival of differing doctrines through private judgement, and I don't believe sola scriptura is the plan of God for man.