Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And that is one of my points for why theistic evolution cannot be biblical. You argued from the "four senses of scripture" to tell us that scripture can have multiple meanings. Then you cited a few examples, such as baptism, circumcision, typology, etc. == all of which are biblical doctrines and all of which also have multiple applications as affirmed in the NT. We're both in agreement on this. Yet, now we're supposed to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, accommodated ancient man's ignorance of science by condescending to man and making the ancients believe that he created the universe in six literal days. So, the very first problem with your appeal to the "four senses of scripture" is that now, by your own admission, the NT is completely silent on any affirming revelation that would reveal a deeper, spiritual truth to the literal 6-day creation account. Therefore, this is unprecedented because, as we have discussed, the NT does support multiple senses of interpretation by actually revealing deeper, spiritual truths to doctrines that originated in the OT. But you're telling us that the NT contains no such affirming revelation to give us any deeper, spiritual meaning behind the literal 6-day creation account. Your appeal to the "four senses of scripture" is convenient and arbitrary, since you have categorically ruled out any spiritual meaning to theistic evolution and have admitted that there is no affirming NT revelation that teaches us any such truths.

Not only that, but you're telling us that theistic evolution itself is not a spiritual truth. Yet, CREATIONISM is!!!. Or are you going to tell us that the Genesis creation account is not spiritual truth? Do none of the "four senses of scripture" (spiritual, moral, theological or eschatological) apply to the Genesis creation account?

Thirdly, it is begging to be asked why an infinitely wise, all-loving, holy God, who cannot lie, would, in a manner of speaking, trip over himself, break his back bending over backwards, and go out of his way at every turn, and jump through hoops in the creation account to lead the ancients to believe that he created the universe in 6-literal days, when it was entirely unnecessary for him to do so? It's one thing to inspire Moses to use Hebrew terms that denote "create" and "made" because the ancients might not have understood what it means for something to "evolve" over time; yet, it's quite another to repeatedly ram literal days down their throats with first day, second day, third day, fourth day, etc. when God could have used other time-related terms that would have denoted long ages, such as owlam used in Eccl 1:10. Or he could have used other poetical language to convey a very long period of time. In fact, the Holy Spirit set the precedent in the creation account with the day-counting formula "one day", "second day", third day", etc., since wherever this formula is found in scripture it always refers to a literal day. Therefore, what compelling, exegetical and scriptural reason is there to not interpret the creation account and other closely related creation passages in the sensible sense of scripture -- which in this case would be literal days?

Me:
" It would seem to me that whatever God had a hand in directly creating would be made in his image and likeness..."




Must be, since you think God being the Fist Cause is good enough for all things to be made in his image and likeness. The entire universe, then, must be made in God's image and likeness.




But the text above has God also being the immediate cause.

Me:
And since you think Adam and Eve came unto the world stage gazillions of years after God kick-started the evolutionary chain, how could it be said in Gen 2:7 that God directly breathed life into Adam -- and man, subsequently, became a living being. Isn't Adam the product of 100% natural forces in your hybrid scheme of theistic-evolution"?



Okay...time out. So, in your scheme of theistic evolution, God's hand was directly involved in every single stage of evolution? He directly and immediately superintended every step of the evolutionary process? Is this correct? He treated man differently from the rest of the animals, and even the lower animals from the higher ones, etc., right? If this is the case, then the only real, substantive difference between creationism and theistic evolution is the time frame involved. With the former model, it took God 6 literal days to create the universe; with the latter model it took God about 14 billion years to evolve the heavens and earth (i.e. universe)? But in both cases God was the first, formal and immediate cause of all that was created/evolved, correct?

So, let's stop here until you tackle the problems in this post.

Good luck.

C'mon, Box.

I'm here for entertainment. I surrendered a significant part of my university level education for the horses, and now you want me to reverse that.

I initially questioned your perceived categorization of science as incompatible
with religion. I cited plausible interpretations, in my view and others, that make the two kiss regarding creation, and your trying to pin me down to the last detail, when the Early Fathers, scholars, the Reformed I cited, and a host of others have kept the matter controversial for centuries.

I'm just gonna ramble as something appeals to me.

First off, your later paragraph about First Cause contrasted with time frames. You're channeling your inner Dawkins. First Cause doesn't mean necessarily temporally. It means principally, or sustaining in existence now. Anyway, creation from nothing "ex nihilo", with but an idea, a Word, was the initial creation of matter, with God as First Cause. How God wants to change-- reform that matter, again--dust or hominid--can involve secondary causes. Matter gets reformed --change-- when I type. The First cause of that is God, though I'm years from when I was created. The secondary causes, etc., are everything else that enabled me to type that in my present.

Spiritual sense of scripture regarding the matter? Surely the Christological point of reference for Gen 1 is Jn 1...so allegorical in play...the NT is not silent and I don't think I claimed that. You asked for Christ's view. Christ alluded to Gen 6 or 7 times, and not early Gen. He quoted Gen once (Mt 19:4-5) regarding Gen 1:24, 2:24, that is, restoring the inseparable marriage covenant.

Yes, the Genesis account is spiritual truth, conveyed through contemporary motifs that weren't necessarily literalistic. The literal sense of scripture can be the intended use of allegory, symbol, etc by the author (cf. Song of Songs). If the sacred author of gen 1 intended a mythopoeic return of serve to his mythopoeic Mesopotamian neighbors, that is the literal sense.

I subscribe to the "framework" model...I am heavily influenced by Augustine, Aquinas and modern science. The 4th day of creating the sun, and the chronological contradictions in the two Gen accounts, plausibly gave the initial audience the impression of symbol, well known within their ancient Near East culture.

My head hurts. I'm gonna focus on beating #2 El Playon in Gulfstream's opener. He is vulnerable to early speed and had a rail trip on turn in his last race at 26-1 vs. same class. Wish he drew wider post. The Stooges-inspired Deweycheatemanhowe and Watch Your Step look dangerous, Homedrill is dropping...no deep insights there, as I glance at the symbolism in the PP's.

G'Night Box, or morning probably if you read this.

[Actor]

#9077

The Templeton Foundation is a philanthropic foundation founded by John Templeton to “support progress in religious and spiritual knowledge, especially at the intersection of religion and science.” The foundation is supposed to be neutral with respect to politics, religion and science. However, the foundation has come under widespread criticism from numerous sources alleging bias if favor of political conservatism and against global warming & evolution.

In April 2006 the Templeton Foundation funded (at a cost of $2,400,000) The Great Prayer Experiment. This was a double blind study involving 1802 cardiac patients at six hospitals, all receiving coronary bypass surgery. The patients were divided into three groups. Each group was prayed for, or not, by three congregations far removed from the hospitals involved. The first group (the control group) received no prayers; the second group received prayers but were unaware of this fact; the third group received prayers and were made aware of the fact. The results: groups 1 and 2 had similar results, i.e., the same percentage (with minor variations) of favorable outcomes and unfavorable outcomes. Unexpectedly, group 3 (received prayers and knew it) had more unfavorable outcomes compared to groups 1 and 2. The only explanation that has been advanced for this result is that the third group experienced stress from performance anxiety.

The conclusion is that prayer or the lack of prayer does not influence medical outcomes. Given the Templeton Foundation’s history this result can hardly be attributed to a bias of their part.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... a 600 B.C. understanding of science.

Did any human being on the entire planet Earth have any understanding of science in 600 B.C.? I think not.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Job was basically wrestling with the problem for the ages--the existence of evil.

The Riddle of Epicurus. To this day religion has not solved it.

• Is God willing to prevent suffering but unable to? Then he is not omnipotent.
• Is God able to prevent suffering but unwilling to? Then he is not benevolent.
• Is God both willing and able to prevent suffering? Then why is there suffering?
• Is God unwilling and unable to prevent suffering? Then why call him God?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

C'mon, Box.

I'm here for entertainment. I surrendered a significant part of my university level education for the horses, and now you want me to reverse that.

I initially questioned your perceived categorization of science as incompatible
with religion. I cited plausible interpretations, in my view and others, that make the two kiss regarding creation, and your trying to pin me down to the last detail, when the Early Fathers, scholars, the Reformed I cited, and a host of others have kept the matter controversial for centuries.

I'm just gonna ramble as something appeals to me.

First off, your later paragraph about First Cause contrasted with time frames. You're channeling your inner Dawkins. First Cause doesn't mean necessarily temporally. It means principally, or sustaining in existence now. Anyway, creation from nothing "ex nihilo", with but an idea, a Word, was the initial creation of matter, with God as First Cause. How God wants to change-- reform that matter, again--dust or hominid--can involve secondary causes. Matter gets reformed --change-- when I type. The First cause of that is God, though I'm years from when I was created. The secondary causes, etc., are everything else that enabled me to type that in my present.

Spiritual sense of scripture regarding the matter? Surely the Christological point of reference for Gen 1 is Jn 1...so allegorical in play...the NT is not silent and I don't think I claimed that. You asked for Christ's view. Christ alluded to Gen 6 or 7 times, and not early Gen. He quoted Gen once (Mt 19:4-5) regarding Gen 1:24, 2:24, that is, restoring the inseparable marriage covenant.

Yes, the Genesis account is spiritual truth, conveyed through contemporary motifs that weren't necessarily literalistic. The literal sense of scripture can be the intended use of allegory, symbol, etc by the author (cf. Song of Songs). If the sacred author of gen 1 intended a mythopoeic return of serve to his mythopoeic Mesopotamian neighbors, that is the literal sense.

I subscribe to the "framework" model...I am heavily influenced by Augustine, Aquinas and modern science. The 4th day of creating the sun, and the chronological contradictions in the two Gen accounts, plausibly gave the initial audience the impression of symbol, well known within their ancient Near East culture.

My head hurts. I'm gonna focus on beating #2 El Playon in Gulfstream's opener. He is vulnerable to early speed and had a rail trip on turn in his last race at 26-1 vs. same class. Wish he drew wider post. The Stooges-inspired Deweycheatemanhowe and Watch Your Step look dangerous, Homedrill is dropping...no deep insights there, as I glance at the symbolism in the PP's.

G'Night Box, or morning probably if you read this.

Actually, it's afternoon. Spent the wholemorning sitting under God's Word at worship service.

I don't want you to reverse anything. But I would like you to see the truth.

So...let's cut to the chase. First of all, you did deny that evolution is spiritual truth. But yet, the creation account, when taken in its sensible sense, is spiritual truth? This revelation from you alone is sufficient for me to categorically reject evolution as a viable theory.

Since I'm extremely influenced by scripture alone and by the application of sound hermeneutical principles, I presented very strong evidence that Moses intended his creation story to be taken in its sensible sense, which in this case would the grammatical-historical sense. The evidence I presented were how all the days of creation are numbered and that Moses, therefore, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended for those numbered days to be understood literally. This becomes even more apparent when we understand that if God had intended for future generations of believers in the modern world to understand the account in a different or allegorical sense, there would have been no reason under the sun for Moses to repeat those numbered days seven times. For God could have conveyed the idea of long ages more than adequately in other ways without the repeated use of the term "day", and in ways his ancient audience would have understood.

I also pointed out that whenever numbered days appear anywhere in scripture, they're always literal days. Therefore, Moses in Genesis 1 sets the precedent for all the other writers of scripture, which to the best of my knowledge they have followed faithfully.

But there is even more solid evidence that those days in Genesis 1 are to be taken literally with, yet, another formula -- a very Jewish one, in fact. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning..." -- repeated of course six times, also. As most Christians would know, the ancient Hebrews reckoned time from sundown to sunup as being a day -- evening to morning.

Once again, it's begging to be asked why would the Holy Spirit go to such great lengths to convince pre-modern readers of his Word that he really is conveying the idea of literal 24-hour days -- only for modern readers to be told many centuries later that was never God's real intention. God's real intention, apparently, was for modern man to wait for profane, fallen, depraved men of science, whose minds are at enmity with God, to come along to tell us what God really meant. But I think that if God's real intention was to rely on the mighty men of science to straighten God's modern people out, then God would not have been so fixated on very specific and explicit periods of time in Genesis. The Holy Spirit would have been more vague and talked in terms of "ages", or "after many seasons passed..." -- or some such formula. He could have conveyed the idea of a very long period of time in terms the ancients would have easily understood.

I'm mindful of this Hebrews text, with respect to this discussion:

Heb 1:1-2
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
NASB

Yet, according to theistic evolution proponents, God had additional "revelation" for modern man and has REALLY and FINALLY spoken to us by men of science to straighten out what the Son of God was incapable of fixing in these last days -- even after he rose from the dead! But I digress...

There is still a third stand to this time argument: The Fourth Commandment (Ex 20:8-11). As you are well aware, God gave the ancient Israelites the reason why they needed to keep the Sabbath in this commandment. They were required to emulate God!

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
NASB

This amounts to nothing less than a bald-faced lie if God did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 literal days. There is no way of escaping this kind of conclusion. Why would God stretch the truth (and I'm being very generous here) in the Genesis account so out of proportion that it has to be incorporated as an outright lie into his very Law, which is supposed be holy? And God blessed a day that had nothing to do with the completion of creation, and called it "holy" yet!? Again, there was no reason for God to do this, if it took him gazillions of years to create the universe. He could have simply commanded the ancient Hebrews to keep the sabbath and be done with it. He didn't have to give any reason for Sabbath-keeping in the 4th commandment, any more than he did for the other nine commandments in the Decalogue.

And with these three pieces of exegetical evidence, I still haven't scratched the surface with respect to theistic evolution's untenability. But we can begin to plumb the depths [some] of the Genesis creation account whenever you feel up to the task of tackling the Achilles' Heel to theistic evolutionary theory -- Death. Another lie God didn't have to tell, most especially since it's a Gospel destroyer.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

• Is God willing to prevent suffering but unable to? Then he is not omnipotent.
• Is God able to prevent suffering but unwilling to? Then he is not benevolent.
• Is God both willing and able to prevent suffering? Then why is there suffering?
• Is God unwilling and unable to prevent suffering? Then why call him God?

Only in your mind. I am sure dnlgfnk can introduce to a few rebuttals.

BTW is was enjoying your tome about your journey back to the prior ignorance of your infancy and childhood. Are you going to continue?

[boxcar]

Nice call on the 4 and 7 in the 1st, Doc. Hope you had the X.

The 4 was actually the stronger play for a few reasons, but mainly because he dropped in class last start, ran a gaining race in that race and earned a LR SR that was several points higher than in his 2RB. All strong, positive factors. Plus the horse was bet down sharply today off his 2nd back and his LR, indicating "inside/smart" money. He was truly the logical selection.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Did any human being on the entire planet Earth have any understanding of science in 600 B.C.? I think not.

The Riddle of Epicurus. To this day religion has not solved it.

• Is God willing to prevent suffering but unable to? Then he is not omnipotent.
• Is God able to prevent suffering but unwilling to? Then he is not benevolent.
• Is God both willing and able to prevent suffering? Then why is there suffering?
• Is God unwilling and unable to prevent suffering? Then why call him God?

"Did any human being on the entire planet Earth have any understanding of science in 600 B.C.?

Xenophanes. Ok, technically a little after 600.
But because Xenophanes is such an illiterate boob when it comes to religion, living well before Scholastic metaphysics (God is not "born")...

"But mortals suppose that gods are born"...https://www.iep.utm.edu/xenoph/#SH3a

...therefore his science is bunk, and he's got nothing to contribute to our experience of the world ..."his single most important scientific contribution--his contention that clouds or cloud-like substances play a basic role in a great many natural phenomena...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/#SciInt

I doubt you'll get the implication.
* * *

"The Riddle of Epicurus"...

Of course the theist rejects A, B, D, and wrestles with C.

Does subjective evil exist? Abortion for me, allowing a Downs baby to born for Dawkins.
Does objective evil exist? Things opposed to what all cognitive, moral people know to be good? Racism, the torture of the young.
Objective evil cannot exist w/o God. Objective morality requires a Lawgiver over all. Christopher Hitchens conceded this. As soon as one moves from acknowledging universal evil, such as taking the Riddle seriously (the world is)...that person implies a universal value system (the world ought to be).

One can accept that no objective morality exists (Dawkins' "shifting moral zeitgeist"), but then Auschwitz was just a "different" choice, not an evil one, and the skeptic as moral critic is being irrational.

The presence of evil ought not be an intellectual problem for the theist, but no doubt a heart-wrenching practical problem. I've posted here about my son's classmate who died suddenly from misdiagnosed leukemia.

And the question usually drifts to "natural" evil. Personally I don't grasp the difference. If objective moral evil implies God in the manner suggested above, then natural evil falls under the same umbrella within the same world. A God because objective morality, in a world containing natural evil.

The matter for the theist then, becomes one of mystery rather than rejection.

[dnlgfnk]

[QUOTE=boxcar;2412643]Actually, it's afternoon. Spent the wholemorning sitting under God's Word at worship service.

I don't want you to reverse anything. But I would like you to see the truth.

So...let's cut to the chase.

Maybe tonight. Gotta come up for air after #9082. And I'm missing a ton of racing.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nice call on the 4 and 7 in the 1st, Doc. Hope you had the X.

The 4 was actually the stronger play for a few reasons, but mainly because he dropped in class last start, ran a gaining race in that race and earned a LR SR that was several points higher than in his 2RB. All strong, positive factors. Plus the horse was bet down sharply today off his 2nd back and his LR, indicating "inside/smart" money. He was truly the logical selection.

Not sure about smart money. Public loves droppers in weak fields. Not looking at PP's currently, but #2 as heavy fave hadn't been within 2 lengths of the wire? weakish field.

Truth? We all overslept and renewed the New Covenant (went to Mass) late. Ergo I only made a mental bet-could have only lost my mind. Forget who first delivered that line.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Not sure about smart money. Public loves droppers in weak fields. Not looking at PP's currently, but #2 as heavy fave hadn't been within 2 lengths of the wire? weakish field.

Truth? We all overslept and renewed the New Covenant (went to Mass) late. Ergo I only made a mental bet-could have only lost my mind. Forget who first delivered that line.

But that's the point. He wasn't dropping today. He dropped last start and came back at the same class level today. Believe me when I tell you because I know from long experience: These kinds of horses like the 4 are, generally, stronger bets when going up against a horse who was not dropped last start and is dropping today.

For another winner with the same MO on today's GP card, take a look at the 13 in the 7th. Dropped last start, not dropping today, ran a gaining race last out, and the horse earned a better LR SR than he did in his 2rb. But this horse would have been an even stronger bet than your 4 in the 1st because he had a lot of things going for him that the 4 didn't. But 4/1 was certainly a fair price on this horse.

The 6 in the 5th appears to have the same trainer maneuver angle, but doesn't because he won his LR. A big key to LR droppers is that they must have lost their LR. The rationale behind this is that if a horse won his last outing, the drop last start may have already served its intended purpose.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Not sure about smart money. Public loves droppers in weak fields. Not looking at PP's currently, but #2 as heavy fave hadn't been within 2 lengths of the wire? weakish field.

Truth? We all overslept and renewed the New Covenant (went to Mass) late. Ergo I only made a mental bet-could have only lost my mind. Forget who first delivered that line.

I think it was Mickey Rooney. After many years of unsuccessful horseplaying, he declared that he had been reduced to making only mind bets...because his mind was the only thing that he hadn't yet lost.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But that's the point. He wasn't dropping today. He dropped last start and came back at the same class level today. Believe me when I tell you because I know from long experience: These kinds of horses like the 4 are, generally, stronger bets when going up against a horse who was not dropped last start and is dropping today.

For another winner with the same MO on today's GP card, take a look at the 13 in the 7th. Dropped last start, not dropping today, ran a gaining race last out, and the horse earned a better LR SR than he did in his 2rb. But this horse would have been an even stronger bet than your 4 in the 1st because he had a lot of things going for him that the 4 didn't. But 4/1 was certainly a fair price on this horse.

The 6 in the 5th appears to have the same trainer maneuver angle, but doesn't because he won his LR. A big key to LR droppers is that they must have lost their LR. The rationale behind this is that if a horse won his last outing, the drop last start may have already served its intended purpose.

Why do you resist posting in the horse racing part of this forum? I think debating things like your opinions here would be way more interesting than the off-topic stuff that we aimlessly quarrel about.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Why do you resist posting in the horse racing part of this forum? I think debating things like your opinions here would be way more interesting than the off-topic stuff that we aimlessly quarrel about.

Didn't work out too well "over there" many moons ago when I tried to share some insights. People wanted my picks not my knowledge that I was willing to share. So...the only time I go "over there" is to post selections from time to time. But I don't discuss handicapping -- nor will I.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Didn't work out too well "over there" many moons ago when I tried to share some insights. People wanted my picks not my knowledge that I was willing to share. So...the only time I go "over there" is to post selections from time to time. But I don't discuss handicapping -- nor will I.

Too bad...because I really would enjoy getting into some detailed discussions with you about our respective handicapping "knowledge". It sure would beat the senseless bickering that we get into here.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Too bad...because I really would enjoy getting into some detailed discussions with you about our respective handicapping "knowledge". It sure would beat the senseless bickering that we get into here.

That would be fun. Why don't you find a site that will let you host your own forum and make your own rules, and then give me an invite?