Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 181 of 208 (722310)
03-20-2014 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 11:36 PM


Re: THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES
DevilsAdvocate writes:
However, though I lean to the belief Paul is talking primarily about mankind I am not totally convinced this is not also talking about all of creation. There is figurative and metaphorical language here. What I am cautious of though is reading too much into this especially concerning the fall of Adam. Even if Paul is referring to all of creation, I still don't see how you can categorically state that this implies that all of creation was immortal and without death until Adam's fall. To me it seems two separate unconnected concepts which is not clearly defined in Scripture. Just my two cents.
To add to these comments, consider the details of the curse in Gen 3. Three things are addressed and three things are cursed:
1) the serpent is addressed, and is cursed to crawl on his belly
2) the woman is addressed, and is cursed with pain in childbirth
3) the man is addressed, and the ground is cursed to bring forth thorns and thistles so that it is difficult for man to till it
There is no mention that any other parts of creation are cursed beyond these three. Anything beyond what is mentioned in the text is merely inference and speculation.
It makes sense that the serpent and the woman are cursed, but why is the ground cursed instead of the man? I have some ideas, and I see a connection between the address to the woman and the man. But what do the rest of you think about this?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 11:36 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 03-20-2014 1:23 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 182 of 208 (722311)
03-20-2014 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by kbertsche
03-20-2014 12:44 AM


Did the whole Creation also die?
To add to these comments, consider the details of the curse in Gen 3. Three things are addressed and three things are cursed:
1) the serpent is addressed, and is cursed to crawl on his belly
2) the woman is addressed, and is cursed with pain in childbirth
3) the man is addressed, and the ground is cursed to bring forth thorns and thistles so that it is difficult for man to till it
There is no mention that any other parts of creation are cursed beyond these three. Anything beyond what is mentioned in the text is merely inference and speculation.
But inference that is based on the whole tenor of scripture is quite proper and even required, and I've given a long paragraph of my inferences, again, in the previous post.
It makes sense that the serpent and the woman are cursed, but why is the ground cursed instead of the man? I have some ideas, and I see a connection between the address to the woman and the man. But what do the rest of you think about this?
It's pretty strange that you say the man was not cursed since after all eating of the forbidden tree brought death to him and all his posterity. We find him and Eve cowering in fear of God after their sin, and now ashamed of their bodies which they feel the need to cover with fig leaves. A GREAT change is implied by this (they've lost their spiritual faculties and spiritual connection with God and become merely "flesh" which will also die in due time), and if you don't want to call it a "curse" I don't know what other word would be strong enough to convey the actual situation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 12:44 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 10:48 AM Faith has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 183 of 208 (722322)
03-20-2014 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
03-20-2014 1:23 AM


Re: Did the whole Creation also die?
Faith writes:
But inference that is based on the whole tenor of scripture is quite proper and even required, and I've given a long paragraph of my inferences, again, in the previous post.
Yes, but we must be very careful not to treat speculative inferences as if they were inspired Scripture. This is tantamount to "adding to Scripture", which Jesus and John warn us strongly against.
Faith writes:
It's pretty strange that you say the man was not cursed since after all eating of the forbidden tree brought death to him and all his posterity. We find him and Eve cowering in fear of God after their sin, and now ashamed of their bodies which they feel the need to cover with fig leaves. A GREAT change is implied by this (they've lost their spiritual faculties and spiritual connection with God and become merely "flesh" which will also die in due time), and if you don't want to call it a "curse" I don't know what other word would be strong enough to convey the actual situation.
Sorry for being unclear. Yes, of course man received death as a punishment for his sin. But I was referring to the explicit set of curses in Gen 3:14-19. Here only three things are addressed and three are cursed. The odd part is verse 17:
quote:
Gen. 3:17 But to Adam he said,
Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
cursed is the ground thanks to you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Note that here God addresses Adam but curses the ground, not Adam.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 03-20-2014 1:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 12:48 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 184 of 208 (722389)
03-20-2014 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
03-19-2014 10:56 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
Faith writes:
You come at the scripture as a scholar and not as a believer, as I said before, and a believer regards the Bible as God's word, which means that it was "written" by God Himself, inspired by God, overseen by God, however you prefer to put that. It's God's own work, God's own revelation to us. It is not to be read as other books are read, completely by human standards, such as its being understood one way or another "well after it was written." It is to be BELIEVED first and foremost.
as i wrote above, this is not a rational way to treat any source. if the bible functions to tell me about god, why must i begin with what it teaches? shouldn't i be able to approach the text from a neutral standpoint?
further, if it is god's word, even an academic, critical viewpoint should reveal that. you claim my idea of god is small, but it's your idea of god that demands i not scrutinize it, because apparently he disappears if you actually try to look for him.
But as a matter of fact the books that were finally accepted as canon had been passed down as inspired by God from the earliest days, copied and passed from church to church.
this is demonstrably not the case. not only are there multiple different canons, but there are books that the biblical authors seem to have accepted as authoritative that are no longer canon. as i mentioned above.
There were some disputes, mostly about some books that ended up NOT being accepted as canon, such as Enoch, which some of the Church Fathers treated as canon
quote:
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14-15)
quote:
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. (Enoch 1:9)
jude thought it was canon. you don't think it raises questions that non-canonical books are quoted in the canonical books?
You believe the destructive fragmenting work of the "scholars" rather than the work of the generations of believing theologians.
it's not a matter of belief. one model explains the peculiarities that are factually present in the text. the other model denies they even exist. one mode is rational, and is useful for making the text make sense. the other mode glosses over details for dogmatic reasons.
Job is resolved with a declaration of God's justice and righteousness, hardly a disputation with the prophets.
quote:
And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: 'My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job hath. Now therefore, take unto you seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you; for him will I accept, that I do not unto you aught unseemly; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.' (Job 42:7,8)
these are the last words that yahweh speaks in job. he is refuting the claims of job's friends (who are, of course, modeled on the major prophets). the things they said, not speaking rightly, were:
quote:
Doth God pervert judgment? Or doth the Almighty pervert justice? (Job 8:3)
so... i don't know what book you're reading. does your bible say something different?
God knows the end from the beginning, that's why the Bible is the only book of actual prophecy ever written, a fact that the scholars try to dismantle by redating the prophetic parts to periods after their fulfillment, which makes a confused incoherent mess of the prophetic books.
dating is perhaps a topic for another time. but note that, in a previous message, i described exactly how the bible treats prophecy: as a hypothesis to be tested. and that the prophets who claim to speak for yahweh, but have untrue prophecies, do not speak for yahweh. and those that claim to speak for yahweh but then ask you to follow anything except yahweh are to be killed.
do you think the biblical prophets somehow got a pass from this commandment? because i'm pretty sure that's about the biblical prophets.
Actually, you are here influenced by modern Judaism which is NOT the perspective of those who wrote the Torah, as Jesus continually pointed out.
this is sort of amusing because just the other day i was in a debate on another forum with modern jews, specifically on the topic of how biblical judaism tells us very little about modern judaism. i, of course, was making an argument based on, get this, the bible. so no, i am not here influenced by modern judaism. i'm influenced by the perspective of the people who wrote the torah.
Job fits with Jeremiah
job fits in with jeremiah the way my argument fits with yours.
The New Testament shows us HOW to read the Old, but you are only going to keep yourself in the dark by insisting on reading it the other way around.
is your bible bound in reverse order? i mean, granted, i have at least one where it appears to start at the back in comparison to normal books, but that's because it's half in hebrew.
Oh God is a LOT bigger than the time period between Genesis and Paul. THIS is what you fail to grasp, to your GREAT disadvantage.
okay. if god is a lot bigger than the time period between genesis and paul, why don't we see paul's metaphysics evident within the text of genesis?
i feel like this is a pretty straightforward proposition. you're proposing that something is there based on belief that it should be there, not based on any evidence that actually is. if your argument is right, it should be there. it's not. so, you're wrong, QED.
This may not be as true as you think, DA. Moses WAS the author of Genesis and he knew God face to face. He foretold the coming of "another prophet" like himself, that the people would HAVE to hear. He certainly looked forward to Jesus Christ.
indeed, and note the part i quoted in that previous message was the test of the prophet to come. though, contextually, this was almost certainly jesus's original namesake, joshua. but it applies to every subsequent prophet, real or false.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 10:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 8:55 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 1:10 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 185 of 208 (722390)
03-20-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 11:03 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
and even if you try to read it that way, there are plenty of parts missing. here are something like two dozen books that biblical authors refer to that are not included in the bible, and many of those aren't known about any other way
Not according to most Christian denominations.
then those christian denominations are ignorant or lying. because it's pretty trivial to demonstrate that the canonical books refer to extra-canonical books, and even quote them. i gave an example in the above post, where jude quotes enoch, and even says he's quoting enoch.
And yes I realize there is a difference between RC and Protestant Bibles as far as the Apocrypha. However, this has little bearing on our current discussion of Genesis.
sure it does: there's a part missing from genesis.
genesis 1 is a re-write of the J creation account, including genesis 2-4. it seems to have been meant to replace it entirely. in it, woman and man are created simultaneously, god never declares anything as "not good", and god does not lie/go back on his word/take mercy/whatever. you can cut out genesis 2-4 entirely (after verse 3, where the P sections end) and read genesis 1:1-2:3, 5:1-onwards continuously and still have the story make sense. those chapters were supposed to be missing, due to highly heretical content.
but what did J look like before? J begins with an already created heaven and earth. the P account, which summarizes and reduces the J, only overlaps J slightly, on the topic of the creation of man and woman. what J covers in three chapter, P covers in one verse. we are probably looking at similar J stories missing describing the major events found in genesis 1.
we know of at least one: leviathan. other creation accounts in the bible (including job, and psalm 74) include references to yahweh's defeat of leviathan, during the creation of the world. this is identical to the narrative of baal hadad slaying yam (lotan) in canaan, and marduk slaying tiamat in akkadia. these other biblical references are all drawing on a definitive hebrew source, and not adapting the myth from other cultures, and J, the author of genesis 2-4, is the best guess at where this content came from.
do you still think missing biblical text is irrelevant to the discussion of genesis?
However, you are not looking at this from a religious perspective that God is the overall author of the Bible.
this is not my premise; it is my conclusion. i do not start with any belief about who or what wrote the bible, and only draw those conclusions from the text, comparative texts, historical and archaeological knowledge relating to the contents of the text. this is exactly how you should approach anything, i think. it is certainly a more rational approach than beginning with an inherent bias, and then seeking to confirm that bias. if god is the author of the bible, then that conclusion should be able to be demonstrated from the text without assuming it to begin with.
Only because you are viewing this from a human perspective. God is outside of time and as the ultimate author knows history forwards and backwards. That is the Christian philosophy on the matter.
that's fine, but that position should be able to be demonstrated from the text, rather than using that position as a way to demonstrate things about the text which demonstrate that position. that is question-begging.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 11:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 8:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 186 of 208 (722391)
03-20-2014 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by DevilsAdvocate
03-19-2014 11:21 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
DevilsAdvocate writes:
I am unaware of a direct foretelling of another prophet in the Pentateuch
faith is talking about this:
quote:
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:18-22)
note that this advises you to be skeptical of any prophet that claims to speak for yahweh, and if that prophet gives you false prophecies or tells you to worship another god, he's to be executed. it doesn't say "just automatically believe, because anyone who claims to speak for me has my permission."

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-19-2014 11:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 8:45 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 1:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 187 of 208 (722400)
03-20-2014 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by arachnophilia
03-20-2014 6:23 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
then those christian denominations are ignorant or lying.
Ok, I was inaccurate in what I stated because I misread your post. Yes, I acknowledge there are other books written or thought to be written by Biblical authors not included in the Bible. However, my understanding of why they are not included in the final canonization is due to credibility of the sources (it was not 100% sure that they were written by these authors) or they were not deemed important or relevant enough to be included. That was my understanding of the process. We can get in more detail on this if desired.
I am familiar with the book of Enoch being mentioned in Jude as well.
genesis 1 is a re-write of the J creation account, including genesis 2-4. it seems to have been meant to replace it entirely. in it, woman and man are created simultaneously, god never declares anything as "not good", and god does not lie/go back on his word/take mercy/whatever. you can cut out genesis 2-4 entirely (after verse 3, where the P sections end) and read genesis 1:1-2:3, 5:1-onwards continuously and still have the story make sense. those chapters were supposed to be missing, due to highly heretical content.
but what did J look like before? J begins with an already created heaven and earth. the P account, which summarizes and reduces the J, only overlaps J slightly, on the topic of the creation of man and woman. what J covers in three chapter, P covers in one verse. we are probably looking at similar J stories missing describing the major events found in genesis 1.
Yes, I have read about the Documentary Hypothesis, where are you going with this.
do you still think missing biblical text is irrelevant to the discussion of genesis?
This is one area I need to do more research on. However, considering that we don't know exactly what was in the content you state is missing (we don't know what we don't know), yes it is kind of irrelevent. What is your point?
i do not start with any belief about who or what wrote the bible, and only draw those conclusions from the text, comparative texts, historical and archaeological knowledge relating to the contents of the text.
That is fine. However, are you saying you have to be an unbeliever to understand the Bible objectively?
I read the source text and supporting evidence as well. I am an avid reader of Archaeology, Biblical Archaeology, Jewish text, and other sources as well. However, I do read the Bible as a Christian believer as well and adopt this perspective based on the evidence I see. I have been to the brink of atheism and back to Christianity, don't think I haven't studied the evidence for and against the Bible as the word of God. However, I have been strapped for time lately and have not been able to devote as much time as I desire in this endeavor.
this is exactly how you should approach anything, i think.
I agree. However, I do see the ties between the OT and NT text and I agree with Paul's interpretation of Genesis as shown in Romans and other NT text. That is the approach I am coming from.
it is certainly a more rational approach than beginning with an inherent bias, and then seeking to confirm that bias.
Everyone has a bias of one degree or another. The perspective I am providing is a NT perspective. If my perspective is wrong in accordance with the NT, show me where I am wrong? Or are you saying the NT interpretation of the OT is wrong. If so, there is nothing I can argue here since you are arguing against the perspective I am providing. Whether the NT perspective of the OT is right or wrong is the real issue. If you are just reading the OT as a text standing on its own, than yes it won't be clear the connecting between the OT and NT. I am not arguing against this. However, if you read the OT in the light of the NT, than my perspective (and those of many other Christians) makes sense.
if god is the author of the bible, then that conclusion should be able to be demonstrated from the text without assuming it to begin with.
It is stated throughout the OT and NT that God is the author. Whether you believe that God is the author or not is a different matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2014 6:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2014 2:53 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2014 5:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 188 of 208 (722401)
03-20-2014 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by arachnophilia
03-20-2014 6:29 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
note that this advises you to be skeptical of any prophet that claims to speak for yahweh, and if that prophet gives you false prophecies or tells you to worship another god, he's to be executed. it doesn't say "just automatically believe, because anyone who claims to speak for me has my permission."
Ahh, haven't read this in a while. I missed that reference to the foretelling of another prophet. Thanks for pointing it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2014 6:29 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 189 of 208 (722402)
03-20-2014 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by arachnophilia
03-20-2014 6:02 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
as i wrote above, this is not a rational way to treat any source. if the bible functions to tell me about god, why must i begin with what it teaches? shouldn't i be able to approach the text from a neutral standpoint?
further, if it is god's word, even an academic, critical viewpoint should reveal that. you claim my idea of god is small, but it's your idea of god that demands i not scrutinize it, because apparently he disappears if you actually try to look for him.
Most religions require the element of faith (confidence or trust) to truly understand their faiths. For example: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17
An academic view of the Bible will only get you so far, according to Christianity, in understanding the concepts of the Bible. A believer, starts with hearing or reading the Bible, but has to go to the next steps of belief and trust to truly understand the message as spoken in the word of God.
Here are some scripture to understand this process:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." Proverbs 3:5-6
"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" Hebrews 11:6
and
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. " Hebrews 11:1
If you don't agree with me or other Christians such as Faith on this, that is fine. However, that is what most Christians believe as far as how one can understand the Bible.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2014 6:02 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 10:07 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 190 of 208 (722409)
03-20-2014 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2014 8:55 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
Most religions require the element of faith (confidence or trust) to truly understand their faiths. For example: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17
Your not doing justice to the text which says that faith comes from hearing the word of Christ and not that you need to have faith before you hear or understand.
And distinct from the mangling others are complaining about Faith producing, your interpretation is not even traditional.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 8:55 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 10:21 PM NoNukes has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 191 of 208 (722411)
03-20-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by NoNukes
03-20-2014 10:07 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
Your not doing justice to the text which says that faith comes from hearing the word of Christ and not that you need to have faith before you hear or understand.
Did you read my next sentence. I stated this.
Me writes:
A believer, starts with hearing or reading the Bible, but has to go to the next steps of belief and trust to truly understand the message as spoken in the word of God.
I probably went to far with this as far as having faith before comprehending. Hearing is the first step, faith is the next step.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 10:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 11:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 208 (722413)
03-20-2014 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2014 10:21 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
I probably went to far with this as far as having faith before comprehending. Hearing is the first step, faith is the next step.
Exactly. But that removes all of the edge from your sword. You were responding to someone's saying that understanding should start from the text. You said, in essence that faith comes first. Then you quoted scripture saying otherwise.
In short it should be possible to become convinced without bringing the 'I already believe DA's interpretation' with you.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2014 10:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-21-2014 6:05 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 208 (722416)
03-21-2014 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by kbertsche
03-20-2014 10:48 AM


Re: Did the whole Creation also die?
First, I don't think I treat inferences as on a par with scripture.
Second, I guess I've always regarded God's cursing the ground as an indirect curse of Adam since the upshot is that he will have to toil painfully from then on to grow food to eat.
But you said you have a theory about this, so please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 10:48 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 208 (722417)
03-21-2014 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by arachnophilia
03-20-2014 6:02 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
You come at the scripture as a scholar and not as a believer, as I said before, and a believer regards the Bible as God's word, which means that it was "written" by God Himself, inspired by God, overseen by God, however you prefer to put that. It's God's own work, God's own revelation to us. It is not to be read as other books are read, completely by human standards, such as its being understood one way or another "well after it was written." It is to be BELIEVED first and foremost.
as i wrote above, this is not a rational way to treat any source.
I'm sure Jesus finds it very enlightening that His command to believe is irrational.
if the bible functions to tell me about god, why must i begin with what it teaches? shouldn't i be able to approach the text from a neutral standpoint?
Not the Bible, it doesn't work that way. It's designed to defeat the inquiries of mere intellect while illuminating those of faith. Pascal said this very nicely in His Pensees, wish I could find the quote in the form I remember first reading it.
further, if it is god's word, even an academic, critical viewpoint should reveal that. you claim my idea of god is small, but it's your idea of god that demands i not scrutinize it, because apparently he disappears if you actually try to look for him.
Again, it doesn't work that way. But I didn't say you can't scrutinize it, the rule is you must scrutinize it from a standpoint of faith and not critical thought of the sort you'd apply to any other text. The former will lead you well, the latter will only fragment and destroy and leave you in the dark.
It doesn't hurt anything for inspired books to be left out of the canon, Enoch is still available for us to read, but it would hurt a great deal to include uninspired books in the canon. There are good reasons why Enoch was not included as canon, although it remained a respected source nevertheless.
Wow, it's Job's FRIENDS that are modeled on the major prophets? Wow, what a blasphemous indictment of the major prophets. I'm not up to entering into a dispute about that, but boy is that a perfect proof of the destructiveness of your method.
Your post continues in the same vein of course, to my mind clearly demonstrating the destructive fragmenting effects of your method. Try faith instead some time. Faith unifies and builds.
This does all make me very grateful to God, however, for giving me that faith when I first began to read the Bible. I just "knew" it was God's word and I read it as God's word from the beginning. I don't know if it's possible to simply decide to take that stance or not, perhaps it has to be given as a gift from God, but I'd like to think it might be possible to make such a choice and see where it leads.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2014 6:02 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2014 7:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 208 (722418)
03-21-2014 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by arachnophilia
03-20-2014 6:29 PM


Re: A very small idea of God
note that this [Deuteronomy 18:18-22] advises you to be skeptical of any prophet that claims to speak for yahweh, and if that prophet gives you false prophecies or tells you to worship another god, he's to be executed. it doesn't say "just automatically believe, because anyone who claims to speak for me has my permission."
Thank you for explaining to DevilsAdvocate what I meant about the prophet Moses was referring to.
But you are misrepresenting the position of belief in the second part of your comment. Of course there are warnings throughout scripture against trusting the FALSE prophets, nobody says we are to believe EVERYTHING, far far far from it. The command to believe is of course about believing the right people and the right teachings, which are of course first of all Jesus Himself, who validated all writers of the Old Testament, and the entire scripture itself. God has made sure we have what we need to believe rightly, but you have to trust Him first, pray for His guidance and not put your trust in your own fallen mind.
Jesus said "Repent and believe," NOT doubt, dispute and disagree.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2014 6:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2014 7:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024