The story of Creation is the most contested claim of the Holy Bible. Did God create the universe? Is Creation compatible with modern science?
The story of Creation is the most contested claim of the Holy Bible in general and the book of Genesis in particular. Does the book of Genesis contain wisdom or just a creation myth to which the superstitious can lay claim? With modern science embracing evolution, is it rational to believe in Creationism? Can intelligent people really believe in a Creator God or in the Bible?
The Bible's Creation Story
Moses, the likely writer of Genesis, penned the opening lines of the Hebrew book of Genesis several thousand years ago. "In the beginning, " wrote the ancient patriarch, "God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
According to the book of Genesis, the earth was created in six "days," with God resting on the seventh. A literal reading of the Creation story (Genesis 1-2) along with the Old Testament genealogies strongly indicates an earth no more than 6,000 years ago.
If one accepts the possibility that generations were skipped in the genealogies (something scholars say happened in several of the biblical records), then the age of the earth could be extended to as much as perhaps 10,000 or 12,000 years. Either way, a literal reading of Genesis gives us a young earth.
Many Christians, particularly in the mainline denominations, have embraced a more figurative reading of Genesis. They argue that the days of Genesis are "time periods" reflecting millions (perhaps billions) of years. William Jennings Bryan, for example, opened the door to this possibility when on the witness stand at the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial (1925).
Even so, a conservative, evangelical loyalty to the Bible can't fully jettison a literal reading of Genesis. The reasons are that Jesus quotes from Genesis several times as does the apostle Paul. What's more, the very doctrine of original sin stems from the Garden of Eden (Romans 5:12), which tells us there was one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) at the origin point for humanity. Conservative evangelicals must defend Genesis.
Evolution and Modern Science
Modern science has scientifically established a very old universe. Likewise, the earth is estimated to be at least 4.5 billion years old. These time estimates are based on a number of factors, including (but not limited to):
- the apparent age of the universe's chemical elements
- the rate of the universe's expansion
- the distance and estimated speed of light rays
- radiometric dating
- the geological data of the earth, including fossils, earth layers, etc.
Refutations of these evidences by Creationists have been summarily dismissed in the mainstream scientific community. It is a matter of canonical science that the universe and the earth appear billions of years old.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence, which is growing exponentially, indicates the universe is about 14 billion years old," concedes Christian author and apologist Ralph Muncaster.
How then can Christians reconcile evolution and the age of the universe with the book of Genesis?
Evidence for Creation
First, the time estimates are based on two fundamental presuppositions: naturalism and uniformitarianism. In other words, things happen by chance or natural forces only (naturalism) and generally in the same way and manner they always have (uniformitarianism).
Consequently, a person approaching the makeup of the universe, the chemical elements, geology, the fossil record, DNA, etc. from a naturalistic-uniformatarian outlook will naturally lean toward evolution. But someone who embraces monotheism will see things a little differently.
Can science prove that the monotheistic perspective is wrong? Hardly. It can only do that if it can prove that God doesn't exist. Richard Dawkins is trying to do that, along with several others, but he'll be trying a long time. Science can't disprove God, and therefore it can't disprove Creationism.
Ken Ham, founder and head of Answers in Genesis, puts it this way:
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
The bottom line is this...Science can only comment authoritatively on what it sees and observes. It can speculate on matters it can't observe, but it carries NO authority on such matters. Thus, a reasonable, intelligent person can believe in Creationism if he or she embraces the existence of an eternal, all-powerful God who is supreme over time, science, natural law, and reality.
******
For more information, check out....
Examine the Evidence by Ralph Muncaster
No Doubt About it: The Case for Christianity by Winfried Corduan
and the website Answers in Genesis
The copyright of the article Evidence for Creation in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Evidence for Creation in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Oct 29, 2007 9:11 AM
Pink :
.
You are hitting the nail on the head. Yuppers.
.
Put yourself back in the year 1776 or so as an American. I can tell you something about yourself and the people with whom you would have related.
.
You were, each and every one of you, raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord God Almighty. Chances are close to 100 % that you would have been a Christian. You might not have known there was any other form of religion in the entire world. You would not only never ever question the Genesis story of creation; but, you wouldn't even have been able to think of questioning it. The idea of questioning your place in society wouldn't have entered into your mind--you would have been almost completely incapable of such questions.
.
"You have come a long way, Baby."
.
Now, you are able to question all those things; but, if you do, let it be known that you will be pursued by others who will fault you for being apostate or worse, a small voice within your own being will pursue you with a vengence. It will take courage to question the authority of the Bible--great courage.
.
You are hitting the nail on the head. Yuppers.
.
Put yourself back in the year 1776 or so as an American. I can tell you something about yourself and the people with whom you would have related.
.
You were, each and every one of you, raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord God Almighty. Chances are close to 100 % that you would have been a Christian. You might not have known there was any other form of religion in the entire world. You would not only never ever question the Genesis story of creation; but, you wouldn't even have been able to think of questioning it. The idea of questioning your place in society wouldn't have entered into your mind--you would have been almost completely incapable of such questions.
.
"You have come a long way, Baby."
.
Now, you are able to question all those things; but, if you do, let it be known that you will be pursued by others who will fault you for being apostate or worse, a small voice within your own being will pursue you with a vengence. It will take courage to question the authority of the Bible--great courage.
.
Oct 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I think it is a shame that many fundamentalist / evangelical Christians turn a blind eye or deaf ear to anything that calls the Bible into question. Paul tells us to "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." And he tells us to "study." So, Christians shouldn't give themselves over to blind, irrational faith.
That said, I want to make clear...
Modern science has proven that the earth and the universe APPEAR to be billions of years old. It cannot prove that they are actually that old. Science (and, by that, I mean REAL science) is based on observation and/or reproducibility. No one - not even the most brilliant secular scientist - can PROVE that the earth is 4.5 billions years old or that the universe is 14-15 billion years old. All they can do is prove that it APPEARS that way.
Christians need to acknowledge that the universe and the earth appear to be billions of years old, and need to accept that public schools are (appropriately) going to teach that. But this doesn't disprove God or the Bible.
That said, I want to make clear...
Modern science has proven that the earth and the universe APPEAR to be billions of years old. It cannot prove that they are actually that old. Science (and, by that, I mean REAL science) is based on observation and/or reproducibility. No one - not even the most brilliant secular scientist - can PROVE that the earth is 4.5 billions years old or that the universe is 14-15 billion years old. All they can do is prove that it APPEARS that way.
Christians need to acknowledge that the universe and the earth appear to be billions of years old, and need to accept that public schools are (appropriately) going to teach that. But this doesn't disprove God or the Bible.
Oct 29, 2007 11:35 AM
Pink :
.
<i>Christians need to acknowledge that the universe and the earth <b>appear</b> to be billions of years old, and need to accept that public schools are (appropriately) going to teach that. But this doesn't disprove God or the Bible.</i> (My bold)
.
I never thought anyone could do that; but, it looks like you have figured out how to have it both ways..
.
:)
<i>Christians need to acknowledge that the universe and the earth <b>appear</b> to be billions of years old, and need to accept that public schools are (appropriately) going to teach that. But this doesn't disprove God or the Bible.</i> (My bold)
.
I never thought anyone could do that; but, it looks like you have figured out how to have it both ways..
.
:)
Oct 30, 2007 8:53 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Genesis strongly indicates that God created Adam and Eve as adults. So, on the first day of their lives, they would've been "grown-ups."
I see the creation of the universe similarly. It appears 14-15 billions years old, but (pardon the double negative) this doesn't mean God could NOT have created it several thousand years ago.
I see the creation of the universe similarly. It appears 14-15 billions years old, but (pardon the double negative) this doesn't mean God could NOT have created it several thousand years ago.
Oct 30, 2007 9:16 AM
Pink :
.
<i>I see the creation of the universe similarly. It appears 14-15 billions years old, but (pardon the double negative) this doesn't mean God could NOT have created it several thousand years ago.</i>
.
How about God created all that is just ten minutes ago and filled all our minds and adjusted all that is with whatever it took to make everything <i><b>appear</i></b> as though there truly is a history in which we had taken some part, even though we're only ten minutes old?
.
You have blown René Descartes and his famous statement, "I think; therefore I am", completely away. We can all stop thinking now.
.
It <i><b>appears</i></b> that you have come up with the cure-all answer to any question anyone could ever raise.
.
:)
.
How many camels will be swallowed today?
.
<i>I see the creation of the universe similarly. It appears 14-15 billions years old, but (pardon the double negative) this doesn't mean God could NOT have created it several thousand years ago.</i>
.
How about God created all that is just ten minutes ago and filled all our minds and adjusted all that is with whatever it took to make everything <i><b>appear</i></b> as though there truly is a history in which we had taken some part, even though we're only ten minutes old?
.
You have blown René Descartes and his famous statement, "I think; therefore I am", completely away. We can all stop thinking now.
.
It <i><b>appears</i></b> that you have come up with the cure-all answer to any question anyone could ever raise.
.
:)
.
How many camels will be swallowed today?
.
Oct 30, 2007 12:48 PM
Ronald L. Cote :
In addressing the issue of "the days of Genesis are time periods reflecting millions of years...", we need only to go to Genesis to refute this error quite conclusively.
On the third day, God made the earth bring forth vegetation. On the fourth day God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day (the sun) and the lesser light to rule the night (the moon). Vegetation requires the sun for photosynthesis. It is the process by which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into complex substances essential for plant life. Since vegetation came before the sun, there could not be vast periods of time between events and still have plants survive.
Had He reversed the two days, with the sun being created before the vegetation, then a long period of time between the days of Genesis could have been possible where the sun would have been available for whenever plants appeared. But such is not the case. The Lord knew what He was doing even to the point of proper sequencing of events in order for us to know that the six days were literal.
On the third day, God made the earth bring forth vegetation. On the fourth day God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day (the sun) and the lesser light to rule the night (the moon). Vegetation requires the sun for photosynthesis. It is the process by which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into complex substances essential for plant life. Since vegetation came before the sun, there could not be vast periods of time between events and still have plants survive.
Had He reversed the two days, with the sun being created before the vegetation, then a long period of time between the days of Genesis could have been possible where the sun would have been available for whenever plants appeared. But such is not the case. The Lord knew what He was doing even to the point of proper sequencing of events in order for us to know that the six days were literal.
Oct 30, 2007 2:24 PM
Migisi :
.
It appears God made light twice -
on Day 1:
"3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
.
and on Day 4:
"14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
.
It appears God made light twice -
on Day 1:
"3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
.
and on Day 4:
"14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
.
Oct 31, 2007 9:53 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, as inconvenient or frustrating as my "cure-all answer" is for you, it's right there in the Bible. If you take Genesis literally, God created Adam and Eve as adults. What's more, if you take Genesis literally (as in 24-hour day Creation), then God DID position the planets and the stars in a way where the universe would appear advanced in age. You can't get around that. If Genesis is literal, then God most certainly created it with the appearance of age. Sorry if that frustrates you, but that's the way it is. :)
Oct 31, 2007 9:54 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Good observation, Migisi. There's been lots of speculation on what that all means.
Oct 31, 2007 9:56 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Good points, brantlake. Thanks for stopping by. Personally, I take Genesis for what it says. But I recognize (and do so very respectfully) that those skeptical of Christianity and/or unwilling to take the Bible at face value do not. And, for that matter, there are many, many, many CHRISTIANS who view Genesis as allegorical. We must acknowledge that.
Oct 31, 2007 10:20 AM
Pink :
.
Brian sez,<i> " Sorry if that frustrates you, but that's the way it is."</i>
.
It doesn't bother me one little bit. You and Old Bob can say the moon is made out of cheese if you like. It's no more a stretch of the imagination.
.
:)
Brian sez,<i> " Sorry if that frustrates you, but that's the way it is."</i>
.
It doesn't bother me one little bit. You and Old Bob can say the moon is made out of cheese if you like. It's no more a stretch of the imagination.
.
:)
Oct 31, 2007 12:01 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>It's no more a stretch of the imagination.</i>
.
Every culture has its creation legend.
.
I've posted this link before:
<b>Creation Myths
& Sacred Narratives of Creation </b>
http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html
<i>It's no more a stretch of the imagination.</i>
.
Every culture has its creation legend.
.
I've posted this link before:
<b>Creation Myths
& Sacred Narratives of Creation </b>
http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html
Oct 31, 2007 12:46 PM
Ronald L. Cote :
This may be helpful in clarifying the "light" issue. See 1John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. Also Revelation 21:23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
As I understand it, with God as light, at the beginning, the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. On day 1, He said let there be light (His light) to divide the light from the darkness and He called the light Day and the darkness night. This established what was to constitute one day as we know it. In other words one light plus one darkness = one day.
This set the parameters for what God wanted to establish and constitute as the 24 hour day. That is different from His creating celestial bodies (two great lights), the sun and moon, which He set in the firmament of the heavens to give light and life upon the earth.
So my take on this is that, in the first instance He, as light, divided light from darkness to establish the day and as a separate and distinct act, created the sun and moon for the express purpose of illuminating and giving life to the earth. Thus, there were two separate events for two separate purposes.
As I understand it, with God as light, at the beginning, the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. On day 1, He said let there be light (His light) to divide the light from the darkness and He called the light Day and the darkness night. This established what was to constitute one day as we know it. In other words one light plus one darkness = one day.
This set the parameters for what God wanted to establish and constitute as the 24 hour day. That is different from His creating celestial bodies (two great lights), the sun and moon, which He set in the firmament of the heavens to give light and life upon the earth.
So my take on this is that, in the first instance He, as light, divided light from darkness to establish the day and as a separate and distinct act, created the sun and moon for the express purpose of illuminating and giving life to the earth. Thus, there were two separate events for two separate purposes.
Oct 31, 2007 1:06 PM
Pink :
.
In good postmodern style, we should think about deconstructing the story as it exists in Genesis.
.
I'm sure that doesn't frighten any biblicist. After all, nothing any one can say or do can detract from the value of the Bible--only help make it better, right?
.
It is interesting to note that the earth came before the sun and the moon were brought into existence.
.
And, another interesting point is the the moon is not a light in and of itself. Rather it is out there in darkness--EXCEPT--for the fact that it REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Another good point is that the light penetrates the darkness and that it is not perceived until it strikes some object that reflects it.
.
But, why would any biblicist want to know that?
.
In good postmodern style, we should think about deconstructing the story as it exists in Genesis.
.
I'm sure that doesn't frighten any biblicist. After all, nothing any one can say or do can detract from the value of the Bible--only help make it better, right?
.
It is interesting to note that the earth came before the sun and the moon were brought into existence.
.
And, another interesting point is the the moon is not a light in and of itself. Rather it is out there in darkness--EXCEPT--for the fact that it REFLECTS the light of the sun.
.
Another good point is that the light penetrates the darkness and that it is not perceived until it strikes some object that reflects it.
.
But, why would any biblicist want to know that?
.
Oct 31, 2007 3:52 PM
Ronald L. Cote :
Brian, thanks for the kind words of encouragement as this was my first contribution attempt. In blogging mostly with atheists/evolutionists I am rarely treated very kindly so this is refreshing. The Noahic flood is often a major bone of contention, often refuted and questioned even by Christians. The following approach uses demographics as evidence of its veracity. (As a bonus, it usually blows the socks off evolutionists). So far their best and most intelligent counter is that it is "bad math".Evolutionists believe that modern humans existed about 500,000 years ago but estimates range from 100,000 to 500,000 years.
In July of 1999, it was estimated that the world's population of humans had reached six billion. The population in year 2004 has been estimated at 6.3 billion.
Demographers have been able to develop mathematical formulas to determine populations. They take into account a variety of factors to arrive at average population growth rates. Factors include average life spans, number of child bearing years, average number of children per couple, mortality rates, wars, pestilence and other pertinent factors including actual annual population growth experienced over the past centuries. Verification is from census' The accepted statistical formula that was developed using all of these factors was .455% as an average annual world population rate of growth.
Using this proven and reliable statistic, and based on the claim of man appearing 500,000 years ago and also assuming the existence of only one man and one woman, the world population in 2004 would be the number 2.155 followed by 985 zeros. This is an incomprehensible number and obviously not true. One can conclude from this that man could not have appeared 500,000 years ago.
In a second scenario, using a conservative assumption that man appeared on earth 100,000 years ago and that the annual growth rate was only .1%, rather than the accepted .455%. Assuming also that there were only two humans, one man and one woman, the population in 2004 would be 5.38 followed by 41 zeroes. This still remains a figure hugely larger than what the world has actually experienced.
A third scenario using 25,000 years since modern man appeared, and using an ultra conservative annual growth rate of only .1%, and again basing the figures on only one man and one woman, the total is 1.44 followed by 9 zeroes. This results in a number that is 24 times greater than our actual population and obviously grossly incorrect.
A
In July of 1999, it was estimated that the world's population of humans had reached six billion. The population in year 2004 has been estimated at 6.3 billion.
Demographers have been able to develop mathematical formulas to determine populations. They take into account a variety of factors to arrive at average population growth rates. Factors include average life spans, number of child bearing years, average number of children per couple, mortality rates, wars, pestilence and other pertinent factors including actual annual population growth experienced over the past centuries. Verification is from census' The accepted statistical formula that was developed using all of these factors was .455% as an average annual world population rate of growth.
Using this proven and reliable statistic, and based on the claim of man appearing 500,000 years ago and also assuming the existence of only one man and one woman, the world population in 2004 would be the number 2.155 followed by 985 zeros. This is an incomprehensible number and obviously not true. One can conclude from this that man could not have appeared 500,000 years ago.
In a second scenario, using a conservative assumption that man appeared on earth 100,000 years ago and that the annual growth rate was only .1%, rather than the accepted .455%. Assuming also that there were only two humans, one man and one woman, the population in 2004 would be 5.38 followed by 41 zeroes. This still remains a figure hugely larger than what the world has actually experienced.
A third scenario using 25,000 years since modern man appeared, and using an ultra conservative annual growth rate of only .1%, and again basing the figures on only one man and one woman, the total is 1.44 followed by 9 zeroes. This results in a number that is 24 times greater than our actual population and obviously grossly incorrect.
A
Oct 31, 2007 5:19 PM
Brother_Jones :
Welcome! I think you will find this a good site to discuss and don't be put off by the few strained posts for the last couple of days. We are a group of friendly folk who have been putting up with each other for quite some time. You are among friends.
That's a fascinating study of the growth of mankind. I have always been intrigued by the limits of literary history which only seem to extend back three or four thousand years. Beyond that, all we have are mere scraps of drawings on caves and stones. So something seems amiss to the Evolutionary Theory that mankind's knowledge and habits just exploded in the last few thousand years with the emergence of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. There seems nothing gradual about it.
the oldtimer.
That's a fascinating study of the growth of mankind. I have always been intrigued by the limits of literary history which only seem to extend back three or four thousand years. Beyond that, all we have are mere scraps of drawings on caves and stones. So something seems amiss to the Evolutionary Theory that mankind's knowledge and habits just exploded in the last few thousand years with the emergence of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. There seems nothing gradual about it.
the oldtimer.
Nov 1, 2007 8:38 AM
Migisi :
.
Hi Ron. And I want to welcome you to our discussions here at Suite too.
.
<i>...God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.... As I understand it, with God as light, at the beginning,.. He said let there be light (His light) to divide the light from the darkness...</i>
.
There's 'spiritual' light and 'material' light. Are you confusing the two, or combining the two?
.
If, as you suggest per 1 John, that the light in Gen 1:3 is actually a reference to God ('spiritual' light), then let's run with that here.
.
God is the 'spiritual' light (let's call him "Light"),
and there was/is no darkness in Light at all,
and Light is eternal (NO beginning, no end),
then only Light existed.
.
Let's apply the 'spiritual' POV to vs 4:
Here, Darkness is mentioned for the first time. If only Light existed, where did Darkness come from? Light must've created it -- since Light is the sole Creator of all that was, is, and will be. But if there was/is no Darkness in Light, from where did Darkness come?
.
What's clearly missing in the Genesis narrative is mention of Light's creation of Darkness (both spiritual and material). Vs 4 reads "...God divided the light from the darkness..." implying that Darkness already existed. In essence, Light separated himself from the Darkness which he had created, along with the heavens and earth, on Day 1.
.
Bottom line... spiritual Light created his spiritual opposite - Darkness. And yes, for a purpose.
.
Now, to the material interpretation:
Gen 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Clearly, the text is referring to material light here, not spiritual Light. No need for Light to speak himself into existance, since he already existed.
.
Follow me?
Hi Ron. And I want to welcome you to our discussions here at Suite too.
.
<i>...God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.... As I understand it, with God as light, at the beginning,.. He said let there be light (His light) to divide the light from the darkness...</i>
.
There's 'spiritual' light and 'material' light. Are you confusing the two, or combining the two?
.
If, as you suggest per 1 John, that the light in Gen 1:3 is actually a reference to God ('spiritual' light), then let's run with that here.
.
God is the 'spiritual' light (let's call him "Light"),
and there was/is no darkness in Light at all,
and Light is eternal (NO beginning, no end),
then only Light existed.
.
Let's apply the 'spiritual' POV to vs 4:
Here, Darkness is mentioned for the first time. If only Light existed, where did Darkness come from? Light must've created it -- since Light is the sole Creator of all that was, is, and will be. But if there was/is no Darkness in Light, from where did Darkness come?
.
What's clearly missing in the Genesis narrative is mention of Light's creation of Darkness (both spiritual and material). Vs 4 reads "...God divided the light from the darkness..." implying that Darkness already existed. In essence, Light separated himself from the Darkness which he had created, along with the heavens and earth, on Day 1.
.
Bottom line... spiritual Light created his spiritual opposite - Darkness. And yes, for a purpose.
.
Now, to the material interpretation:
Gen 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Clearly, the text is referring to material light here, not spiritual Light. No need for Light to speak himself into existance, since he already existed.
.
Follow me?
Nov 1, 2007 8:52 AM
Pink :
.
<i>Here, Darkness is mentioned for the first time. If only Light existed, where did Darkness come from?</i>
.
Darkness is nothing other than empty space, non-existent. It is the absence of light and or of any object that reflects any light from its source.
.
A laser beam in a completely blackened room is unable to be seen unless there is something in its path that will reflect it. Dust, smoke, or some other substance in its pathway? Other than something to catch the light, the beam would be invisible. Where there is no light, there is darkness. Anything that does not reflect the light is not there.
.
It's almost too simple.
.
As you look at anything you see, what you actually see is reflected light. If the light source were to be removed, you would see nothing.
.
<i>Here, Darkness is mentioned for the first time. If only Light existed, where did Darkness come from?</i>
.
Darkness is nothing other than empty space, non-existent. It is the absence of light and or of any object that reflects any light from its source.
.
A laser beam in a completely blackened room is unable to be seen unless there is something in its path that will reflect it. Dust, smoke, or some other substance in its pathway? Other than something to catch the light, the beam would be invisible. Where there is no light, there is darkness. Anything that does not reflect the light is not there.
.
It's almost too simple.
.
As you look at anything you see, what you actually see is reflected light. If the light source were to be removed, you would see nothing.
.
Nov 1, 2007 9:59 AM
Migisi :
I wrote:
"God is the 'spiritual' light (let's call him "Light"),
and there was/is no darkness in Light at all,
and Light is eternal (NO beginning, no end),
then only Light existed."
.
Could there be a place or time, given that scenerio, where/when there could be an absence of Light? Only Light existed. 'There was/is no darkness in Light', meaning there was no absence - hense no darkness.
.
Are you saying that Light created the material world to reflect himself - that without the material mirror, Light could not see himself? Still, the sun's light reflecting off the moon is still only a reflection -- which can be distorted. That reflection is not the sun itself.
.
Your thoughts?
.
Real life beckons. I'll be back later.
"God is the 'spiritual' light (let's call him "Light"),
and there was/is no darkness in Light at all,
and Light is eternal (NO beginning, no end),
then only Light existed."
.
Could there be a place or time, given that scenerio, where/when there could be an absence of Light? Only Light existed. 'There was/is no darkness in Light', meaning there was no absence - hense no darkness.
.
Are you saying that Light created the material world to reflect himself - that without the material mirror, Light could not see himself? Still, the sun's light reflecting off the moon is still only a reflection -- which can be distorted. That reflection is not the sun itself.
.
Your thoughts?
.
Real life beckons. I'll be back later.
Nov 1, 2007 10:39 AM
Pink :
.
Light might be the most peculiar of all phenomenon.
.
Maybe that is why knowledge and wisdom are compared to it.
.
You asked, <i>Are you saying that Light created the material world to reflect himself - that without the material mirror, Light could not see himself?</i>
.
You are using the word, Light, to mean God according to your previous post.
.
I can't speak to those intentions. Light, to my understanding, is an emanation in and of itself. It operates for the benefit of something other than itself.
.
I remember when we really got into it in our first year college Natural Science class. Is light a wave? Is is a series of units? What is it? Unless you're looking at its source or its reflection, you cannot see it.
.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Light that shines on all men and that some of us reflect that light. Now, a person might not believe in Jesus as anyone of any real value; but, think of these five opening verses in the Gospel of John:
.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
.
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the <b>light of men</b>. The <b>light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.</b>"
.
For someone in antiquity to make that statement was amazing. We still have difficulties understanding the qualities and nature of light; but, we know that darkness does not comprehend the light. For anything to be seen, it must be exposed to the light.
.
Light has peculiar properties.
.
<i>Still, the sun's light reflecting off the moon is still only a reflection -- which can be distorted. That reflection is not the sun itself.</i>.
.
You fire a pistol and the bullet strikes a flat surface on an angle and ends up hitting someone. Are you saying that the bullet didn't hit them and that it was just the bullet's reflection? No, that's not what you're saying. So, what do you mean by saying that the reflection is not the sun itself? But, it is the sun's light, right? Just like the bullet wasn't the pistol?
.
Light is an emanation that makes all matter available to be seen. The light doesn't create that material world; but, it makes it available to be sensed by our comprehension.
.
Someone I love wrote, "All things are common in wisdom's light."
.
When energy is expended, it gives off heat which is, sometimes, so intense that it can give off l
Light might be the most peculiar of all phenomenon.
.
Maybe that is why knowledge and wisdom are compared to it.
.
You asked, <i>Are you saying that Light created the material world to reflect himself - that without the material mirror, Light could not see himself?</i>
.
You are using the word, Light, to mean God according to your previous post.
.
I can't speak to those intentions. Light, to my understanding, is an emanation in and of itself. It operates for the benefit of something other than itself.
.
I remember when we really got into it in our first year college Natural Science class. Is light a wave? Is is a series of units? What is it? Unless you're looking at its source or its reflection, you cannot see it.
.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Light that shines on all men and that some of us reflect that light. Now, a person might not believe in Jesus as anyone of any real value; but, think of these five opening verses in the Gospel of John:
.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
.
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the <b>light of men</b>. The <b>light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.</b>"
.
For someone in antiquity to make that statement was amazing. We still have difficulties understanding the qualities and nature of light; but, we know that darkness does not comprehend the light. For anything to be seen, it must be exposed to the light.
.
Light has peculiar properties.
.
<i>Still, the sun's light reflecting off the moon is still only a reflection -- which can be distorted. That reflection is not the sun itself.</i>.
.
You fire a pistol and the bullet strikes a flat surface on an angle and ends up hitting someone. Are you saying that the bullet didn't hit them and that it was just the bullet's reflection? No, that's not what you're saying. So, what do you mean by saying that the reflection is not the sun itself? But, it is the sun's light, right? Just like the bullet wasn't the pistol?
.
Light is an emanation that makes all matter available to be seen. The light doesn't create that material world; but, it makes it available to be sensed by our comprehension.
.
Someone I love wrote, "All things are common in wisdom's light."
.
When energy is expended, it gives off heat which is, sometimes, so intense that it can give off l
Nov 2, 2007 5:57 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>This one is extremely complicated. </i>
.
I agree. I have ideas bouncing around in my head, but sometimes it's a struggle to put them into words so others can understand. Can you relate?
.
<i>You are using the word, Light, to mean God according to your previous post.</i>
.
Yes. Ron introduced the God/Light concept with his reference to 1 John and his own understanding, and I ran with it. To me, the Hebrew Genesis legend explains how the 'material' world was created by their deity. In the text, God creates light and separates light from dark twice. Could the first creation event relate to the creation of spiritual entities (i.e. angels/demons - and perhaps for believers, the creation of Jesus)? Clearly, the second relates to the creation of material light (celestial bodies emitting/reflecting light). I wonder if Bri, Jones, Ron or others have commentaries they could offer on this double-light creation?
.
<i>Now, a person might not believe in Jesus as anyone of any real value;...</i>
.
As you know, I don't believe the man Jesus was/is God, so the Biblical and doctrinal references depicting him as such are lost on me. Nonetheless, I don't devalue Jesus for being human.
<i>This one is extremely complicated. </i>
.
I agree. I have ideas bouncing around in my head, but sometimes it's a struggle to put them into words so others can understand. Can you relate?
.
<i>You are using the word, Light, to mean God according to your previous post.</i>
.
Yes. Ron introduced the God/Light concept with his reference to 1 John and his own understanding, and I ran with it. To me, the Hebrew Genesis legend explains how the 'material' world was created by their deity. In the text, God creates light and separates light from dark twice. Could the first creation event relate to the creation of spiritual entities (i.e. angels/demons - and perhaps for believers, the creation of Jesus)? Clearly, the second relates to the creation of material light (celestial bodies emitting/reflecting light). I wonder if Bri, Jones, Ron or others have commentaries they could offer on this double-light creation?
.
<i>Now, a person might not believe in Jesus as anyone of any real value;...</i>
.
As you know, I don't believe the man Jesus was/is God, so the Biblical and doctrinal references depicting him as such are lost on me. Nonetheless, I don't devalue Jesus for being human.
Nov 2, 2007 6:09 AM
Pink :
.
<i>I don't believe the man Jesus was/is God, so the Biblical and doctrinal references depicting him as such are lost on me. Nonetheless, I don't devalue Jesus for being human.</i>
.
It's somewhat of a stretch to say that the Bible declares Jesus to--precisely--be God. In the sense that the Bible does declare that to be truth, it also declares that we all can be God.
.
But, think of the idea that the darkness does not comprehend the light and consider that Jesus is declared to be the Light.of Humanity in the opening words of John's Gospel. A person that doesn't reflect that Light must be non-existent in some sense of the word. Further, it has no significance in fact--whatsoever--that the person acknowledges the source of the Light as long as they reflect it. The moon doesn't have to acknowledge the sun to reflect its light. And, in the same manner, YOU do not have to acknowledge Jesus in order to reflect the Light that shines on you. The fact that YOU reflect it is the important thing--it puts YOU in the picture. And, whether or not you are getting the light directly from the source or by reflection, it still is the light. (Remember the ricocheting bullet?)
.
If you believe it or not. THERE you are!
.
:)
<i>I don't believe the man Jesus was/is God, so the Biblical and doctrinal references depicting him as such are lost on me. Nonetheless, I don't devalue Jesus for being human.</i>
.
It's somewhat of a stretch to say that the Bible declares Jesus to--precisely--be God. In the sense that the Bible does declare that to be truth, it also declares that we all can be God.
.
But, think of the idea that the darkness does not comprehend the light and consider that Jesus is declared to be the Light.of Humanity in the opening words of John's Gospel. A person that doesn't reflect that Light must be non-existent in some sense of the word. Further, it has no significance in fact--whatsoever--that the person acknowledges the source of the Light as long as they reflect it. The moon doesn't have to acknowledge the sun to reflect its light. And, in the same manner, YOU do not have to acknowledge Jesus in order to reflect the Light that shines on you. The fact that YOU reflect it is the important thing--it puts YOU in the picture. And, whether or not you are getting the light directly from the source or by reflection, it still is the light. (Remember the ricocheting bullet?)
.
If you believe it or not. THERE you are!
.
:)
Nov 2, 2007 8:01 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>It's somewhat of a stretch to say that the Bible declares Jesus to--precisely--be God. In the sense that the Bible does declare that to be truth, it also declares that we all can be God.</i>
.
There's much disagreement whether the Bible declares Jesus was/is God. If interested, here's a good study (IMO) of the verses used to make that stretch:
.
DOES THE BIBLE ACKNOWLEDGE JESUS WAS GOD?
Section One - Studies Nos. 1 to 7
http://www.mostmerciful.com/notgod--1-7.htm.
.
Section Two - Studies Nos. 8 to 16
http://mostmerciful.com/notgod--8-15.htm
.
<i>consider that Jesus is declared to be the Light of Humanity in the opening words of John's Gospel.</i>
.
A declaration made by a believer, a disciple who deified Jesus. John believing it and saying it doesn't make it true.
.
<i>A person that doesn't reflect that Light</i> [Jesus] <i>must be non-existent in some sense of the word.</i>
.
I've often felt that way in Christian circles.
.
<i>Further, it has no significance in fact--whatsoever--that the person acknowledges the source of the Light as long as they reflect it.</i>
.
Christianity requires acknowledgement of Jesus (whom John says is the Light); "confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord" (says Paul). I reckon if one believes John, he should believe Paul too.
.
And here I AM. (By saying that 'I AM', does it make me God? wink)
<i>It's somewhat of a stretch to say that the Bible declares Jesus to--precisely--be God. In the sense that the Bible does declare that to be truth, it also declares that we all can be God.</i>
.
There's much disagreement whether the Bible declares Jesus was/is God. If interested, here's a good study (IMO) of the verses used to make that stretch:
.
DOES THE BIBLE ACKNOWLEDGE JESUS WAS GOD?
Section One - Studies Nos. 1 to 7
http://www.mostmerciful.com/notgod--1-7.htm.
.
Section Two - Studies Nos. 8 to 16
http://mostmerciful.com/notgod--8-15.htm
.
<i>consider that Jesus is declared to be the Light of Humanity in the opening words of John's Gospel.</i>
.
A declaration made by a believer, a disciple who deified Jesus. John believing it and saying it doesn't make it true.
.
<i>A person that doesn't reflect that Light</i> [Jesus] <i>must be non-existent in some sense of the word.</i>
.
I've often felt that way in Christian circles.
.
<i>Further, it has no significance in fact--whatsoever--that the person acknowledges the source of the Light as long as they reflect it.</i>
.
Christianity requires acknowledgement of Jesus (whom John says is the Light); "confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord" (says Paul). I reckon if one believes John, he should believe Paul too.
.
And here I AM. (By saying that 'I AM', does it make me God? wink)
Nov 2, 2007 8:24 AM
Pink :
.
<i>And here I AM. (By saying that 'I AM', does it make me God? wink)</i>
.
No; but, I sense you reflect the "Light of Men" in a much brighter GLOW than that which I see reflected from the punctilious ones who put themselves between the Light and those to whom they address their doctrinal approach to Jesus and his teachings. And, to the degree they do that, they eclipse the Light that Jesus reflects on us. So, they leave their audiences in the darkness of empty space.
.
Even so, reflected light has a way of getting into the nooks and crannies of everyday life. I suspect there are those who see that Light in you. So, that is why I say, THERE YOU are!
.
Can I get an "AMEN" from the congregation?
.
heh heh heh :)
.
<i>And here I AM. (By saying that 'I AM', does it make me God? wink)</i>
.
No; but, I sense you reflect the "Light of Men" in a much brighter GLOW than that which I see reflected from the punctilious ones who put themselves between the Light and those to whom they address their doctrinal approach to Jesus and his teachings. And, to the degree they do that, they eclipse the Light that Jesus reflects on us. So, they leave their audiences in the darkness of empty space.
.
Even so, reflected light has a way of getting into the nooks and crannies of everyday life. I suspect there are those who see that Light in you. So, that is why I say, THERE YOU are!
.
Can I get an "AMEN" from the congregation?
.
heh heh heh :)
.
Nov 2, 2007 2:07 PM
Migisi :
.
The 'glow' you see in me is a power surge. Heh heh.
.
<i>punctilious</i>
.
I learned a new word today. Thanks. I haven't seen any punctilious ones around today, have you?
.
<i>Even so, reflected light has a way of getting into the nooks and crannies of everyday life.</i>
.
I was just fooling around online and came across this:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness
(quote) "Darkness is the absence of light. Scientifically it is only possible to have a reduced amount of light....
.
"So, although an object may appear dark, it is likely bright at a frequency that a human being cannot see....
.
"The scientific definition of light includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible light, so it is physically impossible to create perfect darkness. For example, all objects radiate heat in the form of infrared light and gamma rays, extremely high frequency light, can penetrate even dense materials." (end)
.
'Dense materials' like me. Tee hee.
The 'glow' you see in me is a power surge. Heh heh.
.
<i>punctilious</i>
.
I learned a new word today. Thanks. I haven't seen any punctilious ones around today, have you?
.
<i>Even so, reflected light has a way of getting into the nooks and crannies of everyday life.</i>
.
I was just fooling around online and came across this:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness
(quote) "Darkness is the absence of light. Scientifically it is only possible to have a reduced amount of light....
.
"So, although an object may appear dark, it is likely bright at a frequency that a human being cannot see....
.
"The scientific definition of light includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible light, so it is physically impossible to create perfect darkness. For example, all objects radiate heat in the form of infrared light and gamma rays, extremely high frequency light, can penetrate even dense materials." (end)
.
'Dense materials' like me. Tee hee.
Nov 2, 2007 2:54 PM
Pink :
.
Light is a most interesting phenomenon.
.
Some scholars thought that it traveled in waves. But, think about waves on the ocean coming in to an area along the shore that is like a coral. That area gets to build up in turbulence the more the waves force water into it. In other words, if light traveled in wave and you shined a light into a closet, the light would be trapped and grow brighter and brighter. So, that disproves the wave theory.
.
<i>I haven't seen any punctilious ones around today, have you?</i>
.
They are afraid of us. All except Wendell who is trying to mellow out a little. It's bad on the old timer's heart to get too excited. And, Brian picks the battles he thinks he can win. heh heh heh
.
:)
.
If you get the chance, you should watch that MIT video at the Morality site--the source of morals.
Light is a most interesting phenomenon.
.
Some scholars thought that it traveled in waves. But, think about waves on the ocean coming in to an area along the shore that is like a coral. That area gets to build up in turbulence the more the waves force water into it. In other words, if light traveled in wave and you shined a light into a closet, the light would be trapped and grow brighter and brighter. So, that disproves the wave theory.
.
<i>I haven't seen any punctilious ones around today, have you?</i>
.
They are afraid of us. All except Wendell who is trying to mellow out a little. It's bad on the old timer's heart to get too excited. And, Brian picks the battles he thinks he can win. heh heh heh
.
:)
.
If you get the chance, you should watch that MIT video at the Morality site--the source of morals.
Nov 2, 2007 4:42 PM
Pink :
.
No matter if the punctilious are here or not, we are more than capable in discussing and learning with or without their input. They can stay away if they like or enter in if that is what they like. If they want an influence on our thoughts, they are free to enter any conversation. It is all up to them. Nothing excludes anyone who has come far enough to read this.
.
Newbies of every stripe are welcome.
.
If we wait around for them, they will expect they can put any discussion off. We should proceed regardless of their input.
.
:)
No matter if the punctilious are here or not, we are more than capable in discussing and learning with or without their input. They can stay away if they like or enter in if that is what they like. If they want an influence on our thoughts, they are free to enter any conversation. It is all up to them. Nothing excludes anyone who has come far enough to read this.
.
Newbies of every stripe are welcome.
.
If we wait around for them, they will expect they can put any discussion off. We should proceed regardless of their input.
.
:)
Nov 2, 2007 5:05 PM
Ronald L. Cote :
I am somewhat surprised that the discussion on light has elicited so much comment. Maybe we should lighten up. Far be it from me to try to explain the thoughts of an omnipotent God. The term "light" is hard to understand hard to define and can have many meanings. To debate whether light is the absence of darkness and darkness the absence of light is moot. I'm not smart enough to distinguish the differences especially when I am reminded that the sum total of my knowledge as compared to all knowledge in the world is probably less that 1%. That is humiliating and humbling.
In answer to the question of whether I was separating or confusing the two lights, in my mind they are distinct and different. It could be that in the first instance where God commands "let there be light", it could mean that this also encompassed 'Enlightenment" giving way for the earth to possess the natural laws that would govern and control its existence and survival. (Like setting boundaries for land and water) . It could also mean that He was directing His light, not necessarily creating another. I add also that I do not believe that there are "natural laws" in the sense that nature can set the rules. Laws of nature are established by God and nature obeys. Maybe this initial mention of God's light was the establishment of His natural laws.
That aside, one can readily see the sequence of events in Creation and the logic. First , He provides light so that the sequence of one period of light and one period of darkness would establish and constitute one literal 24 hour day. Then water was separated from land so as to provide a place for man. That was followed by vegetation to provide food for man, then the sun and moon as light and for the life giving photosynthesis without which vegetation for food would not grow. With the earth now able to accommodate the needs of life, He created man and animals. All of the sequences in proper order were for the express purpose of preparing the earth for the advent of man and life. The day of rest rounds out what He establishes as the week.
For Pink101, I suggest that you do not emulate my experience by dragging your feet before accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior. You too may possess no more than my 1% of the worlds knowledge and must realize that many answers are elusive. Don't think for a moment that you need or can find all the answers. To compensate, God has given us the gift of faith, and it is "by grace through faith that we are save
In answer to the question of whether I was separating or confusing the two lights, in my mind they are distinct and different. It could be that in the first instance where God commands "let there be light", it could mean that this also encompassed 'Enlightenment" giving way for the earth to possess the natural laws that would govern and control its existence and survival. (Like setting boundaries for land and water) . It could also mean that He was directing His light, not necessarily creating another. I add also that I do not believe that there are "natural laws" in the sense that nature can set the rules. Laws of nature are established by God and nature obeys. Maybe this initial mention of God's light was the establishment of His natural laws.
That aside, one can readily see the sequence of events in Creation and the logic. First , He provides light so that the sequence of one period of light and one period of darkness would establish and constitute one literal 24 hour day. Then water was separated from land so as to provide a place for man. That was followed by vegetation to provide food for man, then the sun and moon as light and for the life giving photosynthesis without which vegetation for food would not grow. With the earth now able to accommodate the needs of life, He created man and animals. All of the sequences in proper order were for the express purpose of preparing the earth for the advent of man and life. The day of rest rounds out what He establishes as the week.
For Pink101, I suggest that you do not emulate my experience by dragging your feet before accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior. You too may possess no more than my 1% of the worlds knowledge and must realize that many answers are elusive. Don't think for a moment that you need or can find all the answers. To compensate, God has given us the gift of faith, and it is "by grace through faith that we are save
Nov 2, 2007 5:34 PM
Pink :
.
It's good to meet you, Ron. I read your brief profile--interesting.
.
I can tell you that I've been around the block several times. I am a septugenarian--76.
.
I accepted Jesus as my savior about 68 years ago.
.
Over the years, I have worked out my salvation and it is <b>nothing</b> like I was taught in any formal sense of the word.
.
As far as knowledge being compared in a percentile, forget it. You know what you know and that's what it is. You're probably as smart as the next guy so there is no reason to feign humility. Forget that part--it wastes time.
.
But, your post appears to put you in the ranks with biblicists everywhere. The only remaining question is whether you think it is the Literal Word of God or the Inspired Word of God that the Spirit interprets for persons on an individual basis.
.
Or someplace in between.
.
I expect we will hear much from you.
.
It's good to meet you, Ron. I read your brief profile--interesting.
.
I can tell you that I've been around the block several times. I am a septugenarian--76.
.
I accepted Jesus as my savior about 68 years ago.
.
Over the years, I have worked out my salvation and it is <b>nothing</b> like I was taught in any formal sense of the word.
.
As far as knowledge being compared in a percentile, forget it. You know what you know and that's what it is. You're probably as smart as the next guy so there is no reason to feign humility. Forget that part--it wastes time.
.
But, your post appears to put you in the ranks with biblicists everywhere. The only remaining question is whether you think it is the Literal Word of God or the Inspired Word of God that the Spirit interprets for persons on an individual basis.
.
Or someplace in between.
.
I expect we will hear much from you.
.
Nov 3, 2007 6:22 AM
Pink :
.
<i>I expect we will hear much from you.</i>
.
But, then again, you may make yourself scarce.
.
There is a surge in American education these days to down play knowledge in consideration of the rise of ideology. I see it here in these discussion threads where certain participants are far more interested in promoting some ancient ideology than they are in gaining some simple knowledge.
.
I DO NOT claim there is some transcendent truth we can all know. And, knowledge, itself, doesn't hold itself up as such. Knowledge is only knowledge; but, that is what life is about.
.
Those ideologists that run and hide in the face of knowledge do more to express their cowardice than anything else.
.
<i>I expect we will hear much from you.</i>
.
But, then again, you may make yourself scarce.
.
There is a surge in American education these days to down play knowledge in consideration of the rise of ideology. I see it here in these discussion threads where certain participants are far more interested in promoting some ancient ideology than they are in gaining some simple knowledge.
.
I DO NOT claim there is some transcendent truth we can all know. And, knowledge, itself, doesn't hold itself up as such. Knowledge is only knowledge; but, that is what life is about.
.
Those ideologists that run and hide in the face of knowledge do more to express their cowardice than anything else.
.
Nov 3, 2007 7:09 AM
Ronald L. Cote :
Thanks for the kind words. I like your candor and see that you tell it like it is. As a point of clarification, I am 75 years old, and can assure you that I am not "feigning" humilityand I was anything but. It is a recent phenomenon resulting from being terminally ill. When in a wheelchair with your well being totally dependent on others, you quickly learn humility.
Nov 3, 2007 7:09 AM
Ronald L. Cote :
Thanks for the kind words. I like your candor and see that you tell it like it is. As a point of clarification, I am 75 years old, and can assure you that I am not "feigning" humility as I was anything but. It is a recent phenomenon resulting from being terminally ill. When in a wheelchair with your well being totally dependent on others, you quickly learn humility along with what an awesome gift undeserved salvation is.
I don't understand your comment about working out your salvation as it says "not of works should any man boast", but that must be a private matter. As to inspired versus literal, I think there is some of each.
As an aside, I could not interpret from your previous comments whether or not you were saved. I prayed for you and you claimed to have received Christ as savior 58 years ago. Who says He doesn't answer prayer?
I don't understand your comment about working out your salvation as it says "not of works should any man boast", but that must be a private matter. As to inspired versus literal, I think there is some of each.
As an aside, I could not interpret from your previous comments whether or not you were saved. I prayed for you and you claimed to have received Christ as savior 58 years ago. Who says He doesn't answer prayer?
Nov 3, 2007 7:46 AM
Pink :
.
I have something to do so let me just drop in this quotation from Philipians, chapter 2:
.
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
.
And that was more than <b>sixty</b>-eight years ago.
.
As to some of your other comments.
.<i>When in a wheelchair with your well being totally dependent on others, you quickly learn humility along with what an awesome gift undeserved salvation is.</i>
.
:)
.
<i>I don't understand your comment about working out your salvation as it says "not of works should any man boast", but that must be a private matter.</i>
.
Well, there's your literal interpretation coming to the surface. To "work" something out doesn't mean to practice something as a way of earning it; although, in another sense, one does "earn" the result. The the result is not a reward for living a life of piety or <i>humility</i>; but, moreso, it is like a painter creating the master piece of his or her career. It is a work of creation.
.
<i>As an aside, I could not interpret from your previous comments whether or not you were saved. I prayed for you and you claimed to have received Christ as savior 58 years ago. Who says He doesn't answer prayer?</i>
.
Yeah, well, many people pray that I will--finally--turn into a cookie cutter churchie when it comes to accepting the Bible as the foundation of my faith. That way, we could all sit around and commiserate about how none of us deserves anything other that crap and to be shoved in it. That time for me has long since passed. I don't buy that in any sense of the word. I put knowledge far ahead of ideology in such a sense. I am much more inclined to listen to Athenian philosophy than any Levantine ideologies.
.
Sorry to hear about your physical condition. Can you explain any of it to those of us here?
.
I have something to do so let me just drop in this quotation from Philipians, chapter 2:
.
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
.
And that was more than <b>sixty</b>-eight years ago.
.
As to some of your other comments.
.<i>When in a wheelchair with your well being totally dependent on others, you quickly learn humility along with what an awesome gift undeserved salvation is.</i>
.
:)
.
<i>I don't understand your comment about working out your salvation as it says "not of works should any man boast", but that must be a private matter.</i>
.
Well, there's your literal interpretation coming to the surface. To "work" something out doesn't mean to practice something as a way of earning it; although, in another sense, one does "earn" the result. The the result is not a reward for living a life of piety or <i>humility</i>; but, moreso, it is like a painter creating the master piece of his or her career. It is a work of creation.
.
<i>As an aside, I could not interpret from your previous comments whether or not you were saved. I prayed for you and you claimed to have received Christ as savior 58 years ago. Who says He doesn't answer prayer?</i>
.
Yeah, well, many people pray that I will--finally--turn into a cookie cutter churchie when it comes to accepting the Bible as the foundation of my faith. That way, we could all sit around and commiserate about how none of us deserves anything other that crap and to be shoved in it. That time for me has long since passed. I don't buy that in any sense of the word. I put knowledge far ahead of ideology in such a sense. I am much more inclined to listen to Athenian philosophy than any Levantine ideologies.
.
Sorry to hear about your physical condition. Can you explain any of it to those of us here?
.
Nov 3, 2007 8:13 AM
Pink :
.
I will redo the above post as I am unhappy with the way it turned out and it is too late to edit it.
.
Sorry.
I will redo the above post as I am unhappy with the way it turned out and it is too late to edit it.
.
Sorry.
Nov 3, 2007 8:46 AM
Pink :
.
<i>I don't understand your comment about working out your salvation as it says "not of works should any man boast", but that must be a private matter.</i>
.
Well, there's your literal interpretation coming to the surface. To "work" something out doesn't mean what you seem to be implying here. The result is not a reward for living a life of piety or humility; more importantly, it is a work done by two working in conjunction with each other--one being God and the other being the person in question. Here's what Phillipians has to say in chapter 2, verses 12, and 13.:
.
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
.
<i>When in a wheelchair with your well being totally dependent on others, you quickly learn humility along with what an awesome gift undeserved salvation is.</i>
.
It is a terrible tragedy about your physical condition. Can you explain any of it to the rest of us?
.
<i>As an aside, I could not interpret from your previous comments whether or not you were saved. I prayed for you and you claimed to have received Christ as savior 58 years ago. Who says He doesn't answer prayer?</i>
.
heh heh :)
.
People often pray that I will be magically turned into a cookie cutter churchie and accept the Bible as the foundation of all truth--been there, done that. Knowledge comes in front of ideology--Athenian concepts over Levantine stories of super races. I am quite sure my idea of salvation is quite different than yours.
.
<i>I don't understand your comment about working out your salvation as it says "not of works should any man boast", but that must be a private matter.</i>
.
Well, there's your literal interpretation coming to the surface. To "work" something out doesn't mean what you seem to be implying here. The result is not a reward for living a life of piety or humility; more importantly, it is a work done by two working in conjunction with each other--one being God and the other being the person in question. Here's what Phillipians has to say in chapter 2, verses 12, and 13.:
.
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
.
<i>When in a wheelchair with your well being totally dependent on others, you quickly learn humility along with what an awesome gift undeserved salvation is.</i>
.
It is a terrible tragedy about your physical condition. Can you explain any of it to the rest of us?
.
<i>As an aside, I could not interpret from your previous comments whether or not you were saved. I prayed for you and you claimed to have received Christ as savior 58 years ago. Who says He doesn't answer prayer?</i>
.
heh heh :)
.
People often pray that I will be magically turned into a cookie cutter churchie and accept the Bible as the foundation of all truth--been there, done that. Knowledge comes in front of ideology--Athenian concepts over Levantine stories of super races. I am quite sure my idea of salvation is quite different than yours.
.
Nov 3, 2007 12:32 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>Maybe we should lighten up.</i>
.
Heh heh. That's funny.
.
<i>...it could mean that this also encompassed 'Enlightenment" giving way for the earth to possess the natural laws that would govern and control its existence and survival... Maybe this initial mention of God's light was the establishment of His natural laws.</i>
.
A different perspective I hadn't thought of. Thanks for that.
.
<i>First, He provides light so that the sequence of one period of light and one period of darkness would establish and constitute one literal 24 hour day.... then the sun and moon as light...</i>
.
On Day 1, God created light and "... divided the light from the darkness..." (vs 4), creating Day and Night. That's all we're told. The ~length~ of a Day and Night isn't established on Day 1. It's on Day 4 that the light and darkness are divided ~again~ specifically "...to give light upon the earth..." (vs 14) "... for seasons, and for days, and years.."
.
If, as you suggest, the light and 24 hour cycle had been established since Day 1, wasn't the Day 4 creation of celestial light/energy sources redundant and unnecessary?
.
If the light/energy emitted from celestial bodies created on Day 4 was snuffed out, wouldn't the universe be in darkness?
.
Do you suppose that the Day 4 light/darkness division might be the specific creation of TIME and its passage, and the Hebrew explanation for the creation of their calendar?
.
On Day 4, God created the stars along with sun and moon. Note vs 14 includes 'signs' as a purpose for them. Would these signs be astrological signs which the primitive cultures incorporated into their spiritual beliefs? Ideas?
.
It could also mean that He was directing His light, not necessarily creating another.
.
The text says that he spoke light, sun, moon, and stars into existence, therefore I assume they had not existed before he did so. But I'm certainly willing to entertain other ideas. God's light would be eternal, no? If God directed his energy/light to form our sun, would this mean that the sun has eternal life?
<i>Maybe we should lighten up.</i>
.
Heh heh. That's funny.
.
<i>...it could mean that this also encompassed 'Enlightenment" giving way for the earth to possess the natural laws that would govern and control its existence and survival... Maybe this initial mention of God's light was the establishment of His natural laws.</i>
.
A different perspective I hadn't thought of. Thanks for that.
.
<i>First, He provides light so that the sequence of one period of light and one period of darkness would establish and constitute one literal 24 hour day.... then the sun and moon as light...</i>
.
On Day 1, God created light and "... divided the light from the darkness..." (vs 4), creating Day and Night. That's all we're told. The ~length~ of a Day and Night isn't established on Day 1. It's on Day 4 that the light and darkness are divided ~again~ specifically "...to give light upon the earth..." (vs 14) "... for seasons, and for days, and years.."
.
If, as you suggest, the light and 24 hour cycle had been established since Day 1, wasn't the Day 4 creation of celestial light/energy sources redundant and unnecessary?
.
If the light/energy emitted from celestial bodies created on Day 4 was snuffed out, wouldn't the universe be in darkness?
.
Do you suppose that the Day 4 light/darkness division might be the specific creation of TIME and its passage, and the Hebrew explanation for the creation of their calendar?
.
On Day 4, God created the stars along with sun and moon. Note vs 14 includes 'signs' as a purpose for them. Would these signs be astrological signs which the primitive cultures incorporated into their spiritual beliefs? Ideas?
.
It could also mean that He was directing His light, not necessarily creating another.
.
The text says that he spoke light, sun, moon, and stars into existence, therefore I assume they had not existed before he did so. But I'm certainly willing to entertain other ideas. God's light would be eternal, no? If God directed his energy/light to form our sun, would this mean that the sun has eternal life?
Nov 4, 2007 7:48 PM
Boanerges :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PCg1SpEan5k
Nov 5, 2007 7:55 AM
Ronald L. Cote :
Some very thoughtful comments, Migisi.
I do think that Day 1 establishes the 24 hour day in that "the evening and the morning were the first day". On the first day also, it says "let there be light". This could mean that He created it or that He allowed His light to permeate the earth. I am going to ask Him when we meet!
On day 4 He distinguishes this light, specifying that they be in the firmament of the heaven specifically to divide the day from the night and for signs, seasons, days and years.
Another observation that supports the literal day is that on day 6, He creates all other living creatures which would include insects such as bees, important for pollination of many species of plant. Had there been long spans between days, those plants dependent on insect pollination would have died.
I think you are correct about day 4. It ties in with " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Ps 19).
I think that the sun will exist for as long as He wills it or until Exxon or the Arabs find a way to explore it for its energy reserves. This would also please Al Gore if it cooled the sun and prevented global warming and gave him more fuel for his jet. He might even get another Peace Prize.
I do think that Day 1 establishes the 24 hour day in that "the evening and the morning were the first day". On the first day also, it says "let there be light". This could mean that He created it or that He allowed His light to permeate the earth. I am going to ask Him when we meet!
On day 4 He distinguishes this light, specifying that they be in the firmament of the heaven specifically to divide the day from the night and for signs, seasons, days and years.
Another observation that supports the literal day is that on day 6, He creates all other living creatures which would include insects such as bees, important for pollination of many species of plant. Had there been long spans between days, those plants dependent on insect pollination would have died.
I think you are correct about day 4. It ties in with " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Ps 19).
I think that the sun will exist for as long as He wills it or until Exxon or the Arabs find a way to explore it for its energy reserves. This would also please Al Gore if it cooled the sun and prevented global warming and gave him more fuel for his jet. He might even get another Peace Prize.
Nov 6, 2007 3:39 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>I do think that Day 1 establishes the 24 hour day in that "the evening and the morning were the first day". On the first day also, it says "let there be light". This could mean that He created it or that He allowed His light to permeate the earth. </i>
.
4 "God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness."
.
Doesn't sound to me like he's admiring on his own light, but his handiwork. Again, wouldn't darkness need to be created first before God could separate it from light? If we use the definition of darkness as 'absence of light, could there even be such an absence -- if God/Light is eternal? This would mean his light would've always existed before creating the heavens and earth... the universe would've always been filled with his light, no? I'm just trying to nail this down... going as far back as possible in my mind.
.
On Day 4, he separates day from night again - this time using the light-emitting heavenly bodies he created - having ~them~ separate light and dark. Is this what you mean by 'directing' his light -- like transferring authority for such to the heavenly bodies? In my mind, Day 4 is where God sets up the natural laws, since the text says he set them up to 'govern'.
.
<i>I am going to ask Him when we meet!</i>
.
Heh heh. Say 'hi' from me. He'll remember me.
.
<i>Had there been long spans between days, those plants dependent on insect pollination would have died.</i>
.
Maybe all life was in a state of a sort of suspended animation? Bam... everything created, but nonfunctional. That's why I think Day 4 is about the creation of time and its passage. Sort of a kick start. Winding the universal 'clock', as it were. Without creating the forward movement of time, there'd be no such thing as 'long' or 'short' spans, eras, and so on. We couldn't even think or talk about '24 hours', seasons, years, etc. Just my musings here.
.
<i>I think that the sun will exist for as long as He wills it or until Exxon or the Arabs find a way to explore it for its energy reserves.</i>
.
Don't we already do that... solar power? :)
.
<i>This would also please Al Gore if it cooled the sun...</i>
.
Gasp! You mean my solar-powered calculator, my Malibu lights, and solar energy panels are sucking heat from the sun and cooling it? It's all my fault. Hee hee. That's funny.
.
<i>... and prevented global warming and gave him more fuel for his jet. He might even get another Peace Prize.</i>
.
And all that would please m
<i>I do think that Day 1 establishes the 24 hour day in that "the evening and the morning were the first day". On the first day also, it says "let there be light". This could mean that He created it or that He allowed His light to permeate the earth. </i>
.
4 "God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness."
.
Doesn't sound to me like he's admiring on his own light, but his handiwork. Again, wouldn't darkness need to be created first before God could separate it from light? If we use the definition of darkness as 'absence of light, could there even be such an absence -- if God/Light is eternal? This would mean his light would've always existed before creating the heavens and earth... the universe would've always been filled with his light, no? I'm just trying to nail this down... going as far back as possible in my mind.
.
On Day 4, he separates day from night again - this time using the light-emitting heavenly bodies he created - having ~them~ separate light and dark. Is this what you mean by 'directing' his light -- like transferring authority for such to the heavenly bodies? In my mind, Day 4 is where God sets up the natural laws, since the text says he set them up to 'govern'.
.
<i>I am going to ask Him when we meet!</i>
.
Heh heh. Say 'hi' from me. He'll remember me.
.
<i>Had there been long spans between days, those plants dependent on insect pollination would have died.</i>
.
Maybe all life was in a state of a sort of suspended animation? Bam... everything created, but nonfunctional. That's why I think Day 4 is about the creation of time and its passage. Sort of a kick start. Winding the universal 'clock', as it were. Without creating the forward movement of time, there'd be no such thing as 'long' or 'short' spans, eras, and so on. We couldn't even think or talk about '24 hours', seasons, years, etc. Just my musings here.
.
<i>I think that the sun will exist for as long as He wills it or until Exxon or the Arabs find a way to explore it for its energy reserves.</i>
.
Don't we already do that... solar power? :)
.
<i>This would also please Al Gore if it cooled the sun...</i>
.
Gasp! You mean my solar-powered calculator, my Malibu lights, and solar energy panels are sucking heat from the sun and cooling it? It's all my fault. Hee hee. That's funny.
.
<i>... and prevented global warming and gave him more fuel for his jet. He might even get another Peace Prize.</i>
.
And all that would please m
Nov 6, 2007 4:44 PM
Pink :
.
I think the problem with your thinking here is that both of you are too tied into a literal understanding of what was written in the Book.
.
And, it makes me wonder where you will end up with this king of thinking. The deep frame here is that a physical creation is taking place. I say, <b>"WRONG!!"</b>.
.
What I see taking place here is a out take on primitive man coming out of his dark primitive mind and gaining the ability to understand language. Face it! Those primitives didn't have language. What we are seeing in the Genesis story is the invention of language.
.
Human beings were completely unable to recall what took place in the distant or the immediate past because they did not have words. They could not say, "Remember yesterday?", because they didn't have any words to make such a statement. Imagine you do not have a word for the phenomenon of light. Duh.... That should give you some sense of where humanity was at that stage--before language.
.
Think that some one came along and pointed at the sun and uttered the sound, Light. And looked at you and repeated it pointing at his lips and yours until you finally got it. Light!! Bingo!
.
It's a lot more complicated than that; but, you must get my point.
.
:)
I think the problem with your thinking here is that both of you are too tied into a literal understanding of what was written in the Book.
.
And, it makes me wonder where you will end up with this king of thinking. The deep frame here is that a physical creation is taking place. I say, <b>"WRONG!!"</b>.
.
What I see taking place here is a out take on primitive man coming out of his dark primitive mind and gaining the ability to understand language. Face it! Those primitives didn't have language. What we are seeing in the Genesis story is the invention of language.
.
Human beings were completely unable to recall what took place in the distant or the immediate past because they did not have words. They could not say, "Remember yesterday?", because they didn't have any words to make such a statement. Imagine you do not have a word for the phenomenon of light. Duh.... That should give you some sense of where humanity was at that stage--before language.
.
Think that some one came along and pointed at the sun and uttered the sound, Light. And looked at you and repeated it pointing at his lips and yours until you finally got it. Light!! Bingo!
.
It's a lot more complicated than that; but, you must get my point.
.
:)
Nov 7, 2007 8:15 AM
Migisi :
.
Well, Pink, you know that I think the Creation story is simply a legend told around the campfire. I'm just having some creative fun 'supposing' with Ron. I think he gets that. :)
.
We'll soon be getting to the creation of language in the Babel legend over in the Bible thread - that is, if we ever get past Noah's math problem. Tee hee.
Well, Pink, you know that I think the Creation story is simply a legend told around the campfire. I'm just having some creative fun 'supposing' with Ron. I think he gets that. :)
.
We'll soon be getting to the creation of language in the Babel legend over in the Bible thread - that is, if we ever get past Noah's math problem. Tee hee.
Nov 7, 2007 9:36 AM
Migisi :
.
Very cool vid, Bo. Thanks. I watched some others. Interesting symbols/shapes seen from heaven. Imagine God drawing in the dirt with his finger (like Jesus did in Jn 8:7). :)
Very cool vid, Bo. Thanks. I watched some others. Interesting symbols/shapes seen from heaven. Imagine God drawing in the dirt with his finger (like Jesus did in Jn 8:7). :)
Nov 7, 2007 11:11 AM
Boanerges :
hey Mig.. how goes it in the upper midwest.... ?
down here in the central midwest, fall has arrived.......
yeah.. I liked the vids of Google Earth.. quite kool indeed.. Glad you liked them.. I was wondering if anyone ever saw the link! But, looks like you browsed back through the line-up of messages....
I made a little vid.. mainly for the tunes, which I think you will like (below).. its basically a video slideshow, so, the quality of the pics is limited.. but.. I think you will like the music...
the Canna's pictured in my backyard... some of them got to 14'ft tall this year.. wow! I'm going to leave the bulbs in the ground on these (hardy enough maybe?) and cover them with a thick layer of mulch to see if they can survive the winter down here in KC.. If not.. well.. as you know.. these bulbs multiply like rabbits!.. :)
ttyl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7chU7ULd8
down here in the central midwest, fall has arrived.......
yeah.. I liked the vids of Google Earth.. quite kool indeed.. Glad you liked them.. I was wondering if anyone ever saw the link! But, looks like you browsed back through the line-up of messages....
I made a little vid.. mainly for the tunes, which I think you will like (below).. its basically a video slideshow, so, the quality of the pics is limited.. but.. I think you will like the music...
the Canna's pictured in my backyard... some of them got to 14'ft tall this year.. wow! I'm going to leave the bulbs in the ground on these (hardy enough maybe?) and cover them with a thick layer of mulch to see if they can survive the winter down here in KC.. If not.. well.. as you know.. these bulbs multiply like rabbits!.. :)
ttyl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7chU7ULd8
Nov 7, 2007 3:50 PM
Migisi :
.
I love the music, Wendell. Your slides make me miss my garden. Everything's dead and on the burn pile now. I cut the last dead flowers down today. :( WINTER is here already (so much for global warming). I finished winterizing just in time.
.
I used to have a house full of plants too (they were everywhere!)... until the grandkids came along. Now I have a house full of toys. Always had lots of life in one form or another around here. :)
.
Thanks for sharing, and good luck with your Cannis!
I love the music, Wendell. Your slides make me miss my garden. Everything's dead and on the burn pile now. I cut the last dead flowers down today. :( WINTER is here already (so much for global warming). I finished winterizing just in time.
.
I used to have a house full of plants too (they were everywhere!)... until the grandkids came along. Now I have a house full of toys. Always had lots of life in one form or another around here. :)
.
Thanks for sharing, and good luck with your Cannis!
Nov 15, 2007 4:21 PM
Ronald L. Cote :
Dear Migisi, having fun supposing may be a pleasant pastime but seeking the truth to determine how we spend eternity is serious business and we only have but a short lifetime in which to do so. Two of the most debatable events in the Bible are creation, itself and the Noahic or biblical flood.
What is astounding and astonishing is that in both instances, there was an eye witness, God Himself, but apparently few want to acknowledge His credibility. Why should anyone take the testimony of God over Darwin, Dawkins, Gould or any other reknowned and learned scientists? Or Migisi?
When I do meet Him, will he really remember you? Rev 3:15,16 says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth".
Yeah, and its a lot more complicated than that and I don't get your point!
What is astounding and astonishing is that in both instances, there was an eye witness, God Himself, but apparently few want to acknowledge His credibility. Why should anyone take the testimony of God over Darwin, Dawkins, Gould or any other reknowned and learned scientists? Or Migisi?
When I do meet Him, will he really remember you? Rev 3:15,16 says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth".
Yeah, and its a lot more complicated than that and I don't get your point!
Nov 15, 2007 4:25 PM
Pink :
.
:)
.
God?
.
Okay....
.
You didn/t happen to see any of the Creation shows on National Geographic tonight, did you?
.
:)
.
God?
.
Okay....
.
You didn/t happen to see any of the Creation shows on National Geographic tonight, did you?
.
Nov 16, 2007 9:08 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>Dear Migisi, having fun supposing may be a pleasant pastime but seeking the truth to determine how we spend eternity is serious business and we only have but a short lifetime in which to do so.</i>
.
Yes, 'supposing' is fun for me. It inspires my creative side. I won't waste my short lifetime worrying about (and fearing) how I will spend my afterlife (if there is one). Matthew 6:34 - "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Ain't that the TRUTH!!
.
<i>Two of the most debatable events in the Bible are creation, itself and the Noahic or biblical flood.</i>
.
They're both great stories, but I think there are others which trump those.
.
<i>What is astounding and astonishing is that in both instances, there was an eye witness, God Himself, but apparently few want to acknowledge His credibility. </i>
.
If you and Moses say so. Let's say I write this (my 'supposing' again), would you believe it was true? <i>"In the beginning Migisi created the heavens and the earth."</i> What? You doubt my credibility? It's written right here in black and white, therefore, it must be the truth, no?
.
<i>Why should anyone take the testimony of God over Darwin, Dawkins, Gould or any other reknowned and learned scientists? Or Migisi?</i>
.
Why should anyone take the testimony of Moses, Isaiah, Solomon, Samuel, Paul, John, or any other Bible author to be the truth? They were imperfect and 'sinful' humans just like Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and Migisi.
.
<i>When I do meet Him, will he really remember you? </i>
.
You won't know until you ask.
.
<i>Rev 3:15,16 says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth".</i>
.
Hmm. The way it reads, he'll only spit out the lukewarm. Guess that means you (being hot) and I (being cold) won't be spit out. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. (wink)
.
<i>Yeah, and its a lot more complicated than that and I don't get your point!</i>
.
Sorry I didn't make my points clear enough. Some ideas are just hard to put into the right words.
<i>Dear Migisi, having fun supposing may be a pleasant pastime but seeking the truth to determine how we spend eternity is serious business and we only have but a short lifetime in which to do so.</i>
.
Yes, 'supposing' is fun for me. It inspires my creative side. I won't waste my short lifetime worrying about (and fearing) how I will spend my afterlife (if there is one). Matthew 6:34 - "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Ain't that the TRUTH!!
.
<i>Two of the most debatable events in the Bible are creation, itself and the Noahic or biblical flood.</i>
.
They're both great stories, but I think there are others which trump those.
.
<i>What is astounding and astonishing is that in both instances, there was an eye witness, God Himself, but apparently few want to acknowledge His credibility. </i>
.
If you and Moses say so. Let's say I write this (my 'supposing' again), would you believe it was true? <i>"In the beginning Migisi created the heavens and the earth."</i> What? You doubt my credibility? It's written right here in black and white, therefore, it must be the truth, no?
.
<i>Why should anyone take the testimony of God over Darwin, Dawkins, Gould or any other reknowned and learned scientists? Or Migisi?</i>
.
Why should anyone take the testimony of Moses, Isaiah, Solomon, Samuel, Paul, John, or any other Bible author to be the truth? They were imperfect and 'sinful' humans just like Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and Migisi.
.
<i>When I do meet Him, will he really remember you? </i>
.
You won't know until you ask.
.
<i>Rev 3:15,16 says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth".</i>
.
Hmm. The way it reads, he'll only spit out the lukewarm. Guess that means you (being hot) and I (being cold) won't be spit out. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. (wink)
.
<i>Yeah, and its a lot more complicated than that and I don't get your point!</i>
.
Sorry I didn't make my points clear enough. Some ideas are just hard to put into the right words.
Nov 16, 2007 1:27 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Migisi, you over-simplify the evangelical Christian position into a convenient straw man - and then beat the stuffing out of it. What was it Pink keeps saying about "spin"? You are a master of spin.
The fact that Moses wrote "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" isn't enough to compel belief in God as the Creator of the universe. But...
It is enough to prove that the ancient Hebrews believed that Yahweh or the Lord Jehovah was responsible for the creation of the universe.
This then represents the ancient Israelite version of the Creation story, which we can hold up alongside all of the other ancient accounts of Creation - many of which YOU have cited in posts.
What's the next step? Well, you don't seem to take any next step. You just seem to dismiss the Genesis account, along with the Babylonian creation story and all the other ancient creation myths and stories.
I think all the Creation accounts, including Charles Darwin's, should be held up and scrutinized with LOGIC, REASON, and SCIENCE (and by science, I mean science without any inherent and automatic anti-supernatural conclusions).
Which of the Creation stories is most plausible in light of science, history, logic, and reason? THAT is the question EVERY PERSON should confront - and should confront honestly.
The fact that Moses wrote "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" isn't enough to compel belief in God as the Creator of the universe. But...
It is enough to prove that the ancient Hebrews believed that Yahweh or the Lord Jehovah was responsible for the creation of the universe.
This then represents the ancient Israelite version of the Creation story, which we can hold up alongside all of the other ancient accounts of Creation - many of which YOU have cited in posts.
What's the next step? Well, you don't seem to take any next step. You just seem to dismiss the Genesis account, along with the Babylonian creation story and all the other ancient creation myths and stories.
I think all the Creation accounts, including Charles Darwin's, should be held up and scrutinized with LOGIC, REASON, and SCIENCE (and by science, I mean science without any inherent and automatic anti-supernatural conclusions).
Which of the Creation stories is most plausible in light of science, history, logic, and reason? THAT is the question EVERY PERSON should confront - and should confront honestly.
Nov 16, 2007 2:02 PM
Pink :
.
The problem with your framing is that you're asking us to compare the different creation stories of various ancient cultures. And, you want us to pick the one that seems most plausible. That's like trying to prove one of the three little pigs is the smartest of all beings that has ever lived. We're better than that.
.
How about, we re-frame your question so that we compare all the creation stories including the most recent ones we have come up with in our post modern culture?
.
.
The problem with your framing is that you're asking us to compare the different creation stories of various ancient cultures. And, you want us to pick the one that seems most plausible. That's like trying to prove one of the three little pigs is the smartest of all beings that has ever lived. We're better than that.
.
How about, we re-frame your question so that we compare all the creation stories including the most recent ones we have come up with in our post modern culture?
.
.
Nov 16, 2007 6:00 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>Migisi, you over-simplify the evangelical Christian position into a convenient straw man - and then beat the stuffing out of it.</i>
.
Here in rural Illinois, we don't beat the strawman, we use him for target practice. Ka-BOOM!
.
<i>... You are a master of spin.</i>
.
Why, thank you. :) But I was just re-spinning what has already been spun.
.
<i>The fact that Moses wrote "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" isn't enough to compel belief in God as the Creator of the universe. </i>
.
Correct.
.
<i>It is enough to prove that the ancient Hebrews believed that Yahweh or the Lord Jehovah was responsible for the creation of the universe.</i>
.
Okay...proof that the ancient Hebrews believed their God created the world. The Babylonians believed Marduk created the world from the spoils of battle. Babylonian and Hebrew beliefs are proof of what?
.
<i>This then represents the ancient Israelite version of the Creation story, which we can hold up alongside all of the other ancient accounts of Creation - many of which YOU have cited in posts.</i>
.
Okay, hold it up. Now what?
.
<i>What's the next step? Well, you don't seem to take any next step. You just seem to dismiss the Genesis account, along with the Babylonian creation story and all the other ancient creation myths and stories.</i>
.
IS there a next step??
.
<i>I think all the Creation accounts, including Charles Darwin's, should be held up and scrutinized with LOGIC, REASON, and SCIENCE (and by science, I mean science without any inherent and automatic anti-supernatural conclusions).</i>
.
Good idea.
.
<i>Which of the Creation stories is most plausible in light of science, history, logic, and reason? THAT is the question EVERY PERSON should confront - and should confront honestly.</i>
.
So far, I haven't found any religious/culture-based Creation legends that appear worthy of belief using your criteria. IMO, all of them defy science, logic, and reason. That's not to say that the scientific creation theories don't have flaws. The difference is that scientists openly admit their theories have holes, whereas the religious can't admit the flaws in their creation stories. So, who's more honest?
<i>Migisi, you over-simplify the evangelical Christian position into a convenient straw man - and then beat the stuffing out of it.</i>
.
Here in rural Illinois, we don't beat the strawman, we use him for target practice. Ka-BOOM!
.
<i>... You are a master of spin.</i>
.
Why, thank you. :) But I was just re-spinning what has already been spun.
.
<i>The fact that Moses wrote "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" isn't enough to compel belief in God as the Creator of the universe. </i>
.
Correct.
.
<i>It is enough to prove that the ancient Hebrews believed that Yahweh or the Lord Jehovah was responsible for the creation of the universe.</i>
.
Okay...proof that the ancient Hebrews believed their God created the world. The Babylonians believed Marduk created the world from the spoils of battle. Babylonian and Hebrew beliefs are proof of what?
.
<i>This then represents the ancient Israelite version of the Creation story, which we can hold up alongside all of the other ancient accounts of Creation - many of which YOU have cited in posts.</i>
.
Okay, hold it up. Now what?
.
<i>What's the next step? Well, you don't seem to take any next step. You just seem to dismiss the Genesis account, along with the Babylonian creation story and all the other ancient creation myths and stories.</i>
.
IS there a next step??
.
<i>I think all the Creation accounts, including Charles Darwin's, should be held up and scrutinized with LOGIC, REASON, and SCIENCE (and by science, I mean science without any inherent and automatic anti-supernatural conclusions).</i>
.
Good idea.
.
<i>Which of the Creation stories is most plausible in light of science, history, logic, and reason? THAT is the question EVERY PERSON should confront - and should confront honestly.</i>
.
So far, I haven't found any religious/culture-based Creation legends that appear worthy of belief using your criteria. IMO, all of them defy science, logic, and reason. That's not to say that the scientific creation theories don't have flaws. The difference is that scientists openly admit their theories have holes, whereas the religious can't admit the flaws in their creation stories. So, who's more honest?
Nov 16, 2007 8:46 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Go back and re-read my post. You'll see that I acknowledge modernity. I don't say we have to stick with only the ancient accounts.
Nov 16, 2007 8:53 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Migisi, it's interesting that we agree on much here. Where we differ is toward the end of the post. I appreciate humility wherever it may be, and I've seen it in the Christian community MORE SO than from the evolutionist camp. (And by "evolutionist" camp, I refer to those scientists who are zealously committed to promoting and solidifying evolution's hold in academia, the media, and pop culture -- NOT those who simply accept it).
I will grant that many scientists ARE humble about evolution and its gaps, problems, etc. And I appreciate and respect that. I have no problem with evolution - presented HUMBLY and HONESTLY - being the prevailing theory of origins in the public school classroom. None.
All that said, I still think monotheistic Intelligent Design is much more plausible -- all things considered -- than naturalistic evolution. And I came to that conclusion, even during my doubting periods. Completely naturalistic evolution - the universe and all of life coming spontaneously from NOTHING-NESS - simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. How that can be more 'plausible' than Genesis 1:1 is something I just don't understand. I really, truly don't.
I will grant that many scientists ARE humble about evolution and its gaps, problems, etc. And I appreciate and respect that. I have no problem with evolution - presented HUMBLY and HONESTLY - being the prevailing theory of origins in the public school classroom. None.
All that said, I still think monotheistic Intelligent Design is much more plausible -- all things considered -- than naturalistic evolution. And I came to that conclusion, even during my doubting periods. Completely naturalistic evolution - the universe and all of life coming spontaneously from NOTHING-NESS - simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. How that can be more 'plausible' than Genesis 1:1 is something I just don't understand. I really, truly don't.
Nov 17, 2007 4:30 AM
Pink :
.
I watched the t-v special regarding the Dover incident in which the school board had tried to push Intelligent Design on students in its high school science classes.
.
The program was quite well done as a documentary and it high lighted the court trial. I-D was shown in court to not be science. I didn't take notes; but, if the program comes up on television again, it will be worth any one's while to see it.
.
I watched the t-v special regarding the Dover incident in which the school board had tried to push Intelligent Design on students in its high school science classes.
.
The program was quite well done as a documentary and it high lighted the court trial. I-D was shown in court to not be science. I didn't take notes; but, if the program comes up on television again, it will be worth any one's while to see it.
.
Nov 17, 2007 7:14 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>Migisi, it's interesting that we agree on much here.</i>
.
Remember this moment. :)
<i>I've seen it [humility] in the Christian community MORE SO than from the evolutionist camp.</i>
.
That's not been my observation or experience.
.
<i>I will grant that many scientists ARE humble about evolution and its gaps, problems, etc. And I appreciate and respect that.</i>
.
Me too.
.
<i>I have no problem with evolution - presented HUMBLY and HONESTLY - being the prevailing theory of origins in the public school classroom. None.</i>
.
The sciences were my favorite classes ~because~ they were presented in that way. Most often, the topic was qualified with "scientists speculate that X happened, and this is why...". My religious instructors, however, never allowed any variance from the Bible creation story. That was heresy.
.
<i>All that said, I still think monotheistic Intelligent Design is much more plausible -- all things considered -- than naturalistic evolution. And I came to that conclusion, even during my doubting periods.</i>
.
I haven't arrived at any final conclusions - except that the Genesis account is an ancient Hebrew legend.
.
<i>Completely naturalistic evolution - the universe and all of life coming spontaneously from NOTHING-NESS - simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.</i>
.
IMO, this is what compels scientists to continue to TRY to find logical and provable answers... answers that make sense to them and you. IF and until they do, a supernatural force will continue to fill in the blanks for most people - just as it did for ancient Man for everything they didn't know or understand.
.
<i>How that can be more 'plausible' than Genesis 1:1 is something I just don't understand. I really, truly don't.</i>
.
And I truly don't know how an ancient Hebrew legend can be considered more plausible - any more 'true' than the Babylonian, Aztec, Nordic (pick a culture) creation legends are. So, there we are.
<i>Migisi, it's interesting that we agree on much here.</i>
.
Remember this moment. :)
<i>I've seen it [humility] in the Christian community MORE SO than from the evolutionist camp.</i>
.
That's not been my observation or experience.
.
<i>I will grant that many scientists ARE humble about evolution and its gaps, problems, etc. And I appreciate and respect that.</i>
.
Me too.
.
<i>I have no problem with evolution - presented HUMBLY and HONESTLY - being the prevailing theory of origins in the public school classroom. None.</i>
.
The sciences were my favorite classes ~because~ they were presented in that way. Most often, the topic was qualified with "scientists speculate that X happened, and this is why...". My religious instructors, however, never allowed any variance from the Bible creation story. That was heresy.
.
<i>All that said, I still think monotheistic Intelligent Design is much more plausible -- all things considered -- than naturalistic evolution. And I came to that conclusion, even during my doubting periods.</i>
.
I haven't arrived at any final conclusions - except that the Genesis account is an ancient Hebrew legend.
.
<i>Completely naturalistic evolution - the universe and all of life coming spontaneously from NOTHING-NESS - simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.</i>
.
IMO, this is what compels scientists to continue to TRY to find logical and provable answers... answers that make sense to them and you. IF and until they do, a supernatural force will continue to fill in the blanks for most people - just as it did for ancient Man for everything they didn't know or understand.
.
<i>How that can be more 'plausible' than Genesis 1:1 is something I just don't understand. I really, truly don't.</i>
.
And I truly don't know how an ancient Hebrew legend can be considered more plausible - any more 'true' than the Babylonian, Aztec, Nordic (pick a culture) creation legends are. So, there we are.
Nov 17, 2007 7:28 AM
Pink :
.
<i>And I truly don't know how an ancient Hebrew legend can be considered more plausible - any more 'true' than the Babylonian, Aztec, Nordic (pick a culture) creation legends are. So, there we are.</i>
.
Interesting post; but, your last statement, sic, is the one that exposes the problem here.
.
Suppose your statement were a question and you asked, "Why is it important that we consider the Genesis account(s) of creation to be plausible?".
.
What makes that important for any biblicist is that if it is seen as implausible, the entire bible goes up for grabs.
.
That IS the problem with which we are faced here. The bible MUST be seen as the Revealed and Absolutely True Word of God or the entire scaffold that holds popular christianity up will collapse. So, anyone that has devoted their "self" to the christian community is stuck with creationism--they cannot deviate or they will lose their faith. It is as simple as that.
.
And, don't forget, the Intelligent Design argument is nothing more or less than a buttress for holding up the Genesis accounts of creation. Basically, that is why it was taken out of the Dover Schools by the courts.
.
When a person devotes their entire existence to an ideology that exists outside of their being, the consequences are that if they ever see that ideology as a lost cause, their entire life is seen as of no value whatsoever. Christians are caught in a double bind. They are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't. They cannot escape their bondage easily. Their situation forces them to defend their position in the face of every possible proof to the contrary. When a person is their own jailer, they are in the deepest of troubles.
.
We CANNOT come up with an argument they will accept. It is something that has to take place within their own mind. That's how it happened for me and I think it is how it happened for you.
.
It takes one heck of a lot of courage to express your self in opposition to what you have devoted it to that is outside your being. I'm sure it would drive some of them crazy.
.
<i>And I truly don't know how an ancient Hebrew legend can be considered more plausible - any more 'true' than the Babylonian, Aztec, Nordic (pick a culture) creation legends are. So, there we are.</i>
.
Interesting post; but, your last statement, sic, is the one that exposes the problem here.
.
Suppose your statement were a question and you asked, "Why is it important that we consider the Genesis account(s) of creation to be plausible?".
.
What makes that important for any biblicist is that if it is seen as implausible, the entire bible goes up for grabs.
.
That IS the problem with which we are faced here. The bible MUST be seen as the Revealed and Absolutely True Word of God or the entire scaffold that holds popular christianity up will collapse. So, anyone that has devoted their "self" to the christian community is stuck with creationism--they cannot deviate or they will lose their faith. It is as simple as that.
.
And, don't forget, the Intelligent Design argument is nothing more or less than a buttress for holding up the Genesis accounts of creation. Basically, that is why it was taken out of the Dover Schools by the courts.
.
When a person devotes their entire existence to an ideology that exists outside of their being, the consequences are that if they ever see that ideology as a lost cause, their entire life is seen as of no value whatsoever. Christians are caught in a double bind. They are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't. They cannot escape their bondage easily. Their situation forces them to defend their position in the face of every possible proof to the contrary. When a person is their own jailer, they are in the deepest of troubles.
.
We CANNOT come up with an argument they will accept. It is something that has to take place within their own mind. That's how it happened for me and I think it is how it happened for you.
.
It takes one heck of a lot of courage to express your self in opposition to what you have devoted it to that is outside your being. I'm sure it would drive some of them crazy.
.
Nov 17, 2007 8:54 AM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>The bible MUST be seen as the Revealed and Absolutely True Word of God or the entire scaffold that holds popular christianity up will collapse.</i>
As an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian (in particular, an Independent Baptist preacher), I will agree with Pink that biblical authority is a vitally important - critical - doctrine of the Christian faith.
Putting on my "Big Tent" Suite101 Protestantism editor hat (sorry to mix the hat and tent metaphor), I will say that many denominations and professing Christians will strongly disagree with your statement, Pink.
I recommend N.T. Wright's book <i>Simply Christian</i> or C.S. Lewis' classic <i>Mere Christianity</i>. Ultimately, what being a Christian comes down to is....Jesus Christ.
As an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian (in particular, an Independent Baptist preacher), I will agree with Pink that biblical authority is a vitally important - critical - doctrine of the Christian faith.
Putting on my "Big Tent" Suite101 Protestantism editor hat (sorry to mix the hat and tent metaphor), I will say that many denominations and professing Christians will strongly disagree with your statement, Pink.
I recommend N.T. Wright's book <i>Simply Christian</i> or C.S. Lewis' classic <i>Mere Christianity</i>. Ultimately, what being a Christian comes down to is....Jesus Christ.
Nov 17, 2007 11:10 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>Ultimately, what being a Christian comes down to is....Jesus Christ.</i>
.
Without the Book, you have no Jesus Christ.
<i>Ultimately, what being a Christian comes down to is....Jesus Christ.</i>
.
Without the Book, you have no Jesus Christ.
Nov 17, 2007 11:49 AM
Pink :
.
<i>Without the [bible], you have no Jesus Christ.</i>
.
And, if there had been no such person, we would all be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
.
But, I like what Shakespeare had to say about roses, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.", or something like that.
.
And, THAT is exactly where I run into trouble with the traditionalist and popular christianists that demand their explanation of what Jesus did on the cross.
.
IDEAS, Migisi, are what are important to me--not so much individual words, names, or titles. YOU are the same person to me--here-- if I know your given name or you site handle. And, it is your mind that I like--it's BIG and it has a lot of room where you can rearrange the furniture (ideas?) and bring in new stuff without having to lose it.
.
I think it is possible to show and "prove" that people do not really believe in a specific god no matter what they say.
.
<i>Without the [bible], you have no Jesus Christ.</i>
.
And, if there had been no such person, we would all be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
.
But, I like what Shakespeare had to say about roses, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.", or something like that.
.
And, THAT is exactly where I run into trouble with the traditionalist and popular christianists that demand their explanation of what Jesus did on the cross.
.
IDEAS, Migisi, are what are important to me--not so much individual words, names, or titles. YOU are the same person to me--here-- if I know your given name or you site handle. And, it is your mind that I like--it's BIG and it has a lot of room where you can rearrange the furniture (ideas?) and bring in new stuff without having to lose it.
.
I think it is possible to show and "prove" that people do not really believe in a specific god no matter what they say.
.
Nov 17, 2007 1:21 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>And, it is your mind that I like--it's BIG and it has a lot of room where you can rearrange the furniture (ideas?) and bring in new stuff without having to lose it.</i>
.
I like that analogy.... and big rooms. Fewer walls the better. And I do purge my old stuff frequently cuz I really enjoy openness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience
<i>And, it is your mind that I like--it's BIG and it has a lot of room where you can rearrange the furniture (ideas?) and bring in new stuff without having to lose it.</i>
.
I like that analogy.... and big rooms. Fewer walls the better. And I do purge my old stuff frequently cuz I really enjoy openness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience
Nov 17, 2007 1:34 PM
Pink :
.
Ya see?
.
You have not devoted yourself to some group to which you belong.
.
Instead, you are expressing your self to the group.
.
That is great, Migisi. Very few people are able to do that.
.
Ya see?
.
You have not devoted yourself to some group to which you belong.
.
Instead, you are expressing your self to the group.
.
That is great, Migisi. Very few people are able to do that.
.
Nov 17, 2007 1:55 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>You have not devoted yourself to some group to which you belong.</i>
.
I don't know what group that might be. I used to know. Life's getting too short to fret about people pleasing and belonging. :)
<i>You have not devoted yourself to some group to which you belong.</i>
.
I don't know what group that might be. I used to know. Life's getting too short to fret about people pleasing and belonging. :)
Nov 17, 2007 2:24 PM
Pink :
.
Maybe I should have written, you have not devoted yourself to any group to which you belong.
.
Maybe I should have written, you have not devoted yourself to any group to which you belong.
.
Nov 18, 2007 9:28 AM
Migisi :
.
I let my memberships lapse long ago. :)
I let my memberships lapse long ago. :)
Nov 18, 2007 9:50 AM
Pink :
.
Me, too.
Me, too.
Nov 18, 2007 6:14 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I can only speak for myself, but there is a serious misconception that Pink especially keeps floating out there. I will grant that many Christians engage in group-think (and so do many adherents in ALL the world's religions), and I appreciate Migisi and Pink saluting the exploration of ideas.
HOWEVER...what's often missing here is an acknowledgment that many brilliant thinkers - people have engaged in exactly the kind of dynamic, deeply intellectual thought that is being heralded - have come to the conclusion that Christianity is TRUE! Or at least that Judeo-Christian monotheism is true.
Now, before Migisi jumps on that and says "What about those who come to the conclusion that it isn't true?" -- let me say that I'm NOT citing the above as proof for Christianity. I'm citing it as proof that believing Christians who hold to the Word of God need not turn their brains off and engage in "group-think."
I'm not saying I have a great mind, but - in bringing this back around and speaking for myself - I can say that I am a Christian today, because of where my spiritual AND intellectual journey has taken me. Not because I was told to believe in Christ or I've been pressured to believe in Christ.
It's time some of the folks here stop implying or outright saying that agnostics, skeptics, and liberal thinkers have the corner on or some kind of monopoly on rational, explorative thought. It's just not the case.
HOWEVER...what's often missing here is an acknowledgment that many brilliant thinkers - people have engaged in exactly the kind of dynamic, deeply intellectual thought that is being heralded - have come to the conclusion that Christianity is TRUE! Or at least that Judeo-Christian monotheism is true.
Now, before Migisi jumps on that and says "What about those who come to the conclusion that it isn't true?" -- let me say that I'm NOT citing the above as proof for Christianity. I'm citing it as proof that believing Christians who hold to the Word of God need not turn their brains off and engage in "group-think."
I'm not saying I have a great mind, but - in bringing this back around and speaking for myself - I can say that I am a Christian today, because of where my spiritual AND intellectual journey has taken me. Not because I was told to believe in Christ or I've been pressured to believe in Christ.
It's time some of the folks here stop implying or outright saying that agnostics, skeptics, and liberal thinkers have the corner on or some kind of monopoly on rational, explorative thought. It's just not the case.
Nov 18, 2007 6:24 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Without the Book, you have no Jesus Christ</i>
Okay, this is where YOU - not me - fall prey to a very superficial either/or paradigm. For all the talk you and Pink celebrate about open-minded, rational thinking, this does NOT reflect it.
A rational, intelligent person can choose to reject the Bible as being the "Revealed Word of God," but - follow me here - that does NOT mean you throw the Bible in the garbage can.
YOU, Migisi, seem to taking the position that the Bible is either the "Revealed Word of God" or it's worth nothing. Pink, you haven't gone that far - but you float back toward that position occasionally.
At the very least, an intelligent, rational person HAS TO ACCEPT the books of the Bible as being ancient historical documents of at least SOME value.
The Gospel of Luke, for example, names both Augustus and Tiberius as emperors of the Roman Empire. No ancient historian has taken exception to that.
All of the books of the Bible contain references to historical places, people, events, etc. -- and MANY of those references have been affirmed by other historical records or by archaeology.
Now, again, Migisi, do NOT GET AHEAD OF ME. I'm not arguing for biblical innerancy or perfection here. Don't come back with supposed biblical errors. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that there are - at the least - disputed 'facts' in the Bible which many regard as errors. Fine. This may (and if the errors are indeed errors, does) reflect against the Bible as the "Revealed Word of God," but it does NOT completely discredit the Bible (or the books of the Bible) as a historical record.
I say all that to say this --- the overwhelming majority of ancient historians accept the basic highlights of Jesus' life and many (though not all) of the historical events recorded in the New Testament.
So....a person CAN believe in Jesus Christ, and yet also believe there are some problems, errors, etc. with the Bible.
Okay, this is where YOU - not me - fall prey to a very superficial either/or paradigm. For all the talk you and Pink celebrate about open-minded, rational thinking, this does NOT reflect it.
A rational, intelligent person can choose to reject the Bible as being the "Revealed Word of God," but - follow me here - that does NOT mean you throw the Bible in the garbage can.
YOU, Migisi, seem to taking the position that the Bible is either the "Revealed Word of God" or it's worth nothing. Pink, you haven't gone that far - but you float back toward that position occasionally.
At the very least, an intelligent, rational person HAS TO ACCEPT the books of the Bible as being ancient historical documents of at least SOME value.
The Gospel of Luke, for example, names both Augustus and Tiberius as emperors of the Roman Empire. No ancient historian has taken exception to that.
All of the books of the Bible contain references to historical places, people, events, etc. -- and MANY of those references have been affirmed by other historical records or by archaeology.
Now, again, Migisi, do NOT GET AHEAD OF ME. I'm not arguing for biblical innerancy or perfection here. Don't come back with supposed biblical errors. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that there are - at the least - disputed 'facts' in the Bible which many regard as errors. Fine. This may (and if the errors are indeed errors, does) reflect against the Bible as the "Revealed Word of God," but it does NOT completely discredit the Bible (or the books of the Bible) as a historical record.
I say all that to say this --- the overwhelming majority of ancient historians accept the basic highlights of Jesus' life and many (though not all) of the historical events recorded in the New Testament.
So....a person CAN believe in Jesus Christ, and yet also believe there are some problems, errors, etc. with the Bible.
Nov 18, 2007 6:33 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Following up my last thread and bringing this back toward the topic of Creation....
Let's take the historical accounts of ALL the ancient civilizations as they pertain to the Creation. What do they all have in common - the ones preserved down through the ages, that is????
The answer is that they all claim a supernatural driving force behind the creation of the world.
This, therefore, proves that the ancient world almost universally attributed the creation of the world to a supernatural force of some kind.
Some of you may not regard that as strong evidence for a Creator, but I think it is. Follow me here....
Belief in a supernatural Creative Force (of some kind) goes back to the very dawn of human history!!!!
One of the biggest misconceptions about early human history is that the people were dumb and primitive. Well, one look at the wonders of the Pyramids (as but one example) should dispel that myth. Ancient peoples were not stupid, and they were CLOSER TO THE BEGINNING than we are.
They have some credibility to tell us how things began - that we don't have. Now, obviously, we can't just take what they say at face value. But you can look at ALL the ancient accounts - and then study them for commonalities.
What's that commonality? Answer: a supernatural, creative force of some kind brought about the world and all life.
When you take that and then combine it with some of the philosophical arguments that have been made for Creation or Intelligent Design at this site, you have the makings for a powerful argument for Creation - and against wholly naturalistic (meaning atheistic) evolution.
Let's take the historical accounts of ALL the ancient civilizations as they pertain to the Creation. What do they all have in common - the ones preserved down through the ages, that is????
The answer is that they all claim a supernatural driving force behind the creation of the world.
This, therefore, proves that the ancient world almost universally attributed the creation of the world to a supernatural force of some kind.
Some of you may not regard that as strong evidence for a Creator, but I think it is. Follow me here....
Belief in a supernatural Creative Force (of some kind) goes back to the very dawn of human history!!!!
One of the biggest misconceptions about early human history is that the people were dumb and primitive. Well, one look at the wonders of the Pyramids (as but one example) should dispel that myth. Ancient peoples were not stupid, and they were CLOSER TO THE BEGINNING than we are.
They have some credibility to tell us how things began - that we don't have. Now, obviously, we can't just take what they say at face value. But you can look at ALL the ancient accounts - and then study them for commonalities.
What's that commonality? Answer: a supernatural, creative force of some kind brought about the world and all life.
When you take that and then combine it with some of the philosophical arguments that have been made for Creation or Intelligent Design at this site, you have the makings for a powerful argument for Creation - and against wholly naturalistic (meaning atheistic) evolution.
Nov 18, 2007 7:02 PM
Pink :
.
You called it Group-Think.
.
Well, I guess we could approach this subject in a scientific sense. That is, Brian, if you will allow it.
.
But, without going into a lot of scientific jargon, we can say that human beings exist in groups. We are who we are because of our relationship to the various groups to which we belong.
.
The process begins when we are yet infants when we are introduced to such primitive things as baby talk and cooing and cuddling. And, through the process, we learn that we have a self that is growing inside of us.
.
Then we begin the child's play when we are all alone by ourself when we take on the role of a parent and child--maybe we have pet or a teddy bear that we give some life to in our childhood imagination. We carry on conversations with them and learn the art of talking to our self--an art we continue with throughout our entire lifetime.
.
But, the groups to which we belong help us identify who it is that we are in a very real sense. We learn the rules just like we learned the rules of playground baseball. We knew the role we played and we knew the roles the rest of the kids played; catcher, pitcher, first, second, third base, short stop, fielders, and batters. We had to know all the roles so we could carry ours out. Some of us were better at it than others. Baseball was a good game to learn as it taught us about the bigger games we would be playing as we went out into life.
.
If we dedicate ourself to the group, then we allow the group's rules to be applied to the role we're playing if it's first base or if its choir director. If the group to which we have dedicated our life is that of Evangelical Christianity, then we play the role that is assigned to us. To know all the rules and we play by them. It isn't childhood play anymore--it's real adult living.
.
The group to which we belong has a scientific name--the Generalized Other.
.
Have you heard of it?
.
.
You called it Group-Think.
.
Well, I guess we could approach this subject in a scientific sense. That is, Brian, if you will allow it.
.
But, without going into a lot of scientific jargon, we can say that human beings exist in groups. We are who we are because of our relationship to the various groups to which we belong.
.
The process begins when we are yet infants when we are introduced to such primitive things as baby talk and cooing and cuddling. And, through the process, we learn that we have a self that is growing inside of us.
.
Then we begin the child's play when we are all alone by ourself when we take on the role of a parent and child--maybe we have pet or a teddy bear that we give some life to in our childhood imagination. We carry on conversations with them and learn the art of talking to our self--an art we continue with throughout our entire lifetime.
.
But, the groups to which we belong help us identify who it is that we are in a very real sense. We learn the rules just like we learned the rules of playground baseball. We knew the role we played and we knew the roles the rest of the kids played; catcher, pitcher, first, second, third base, short stop, fielders, and batters. We had to know all the roles so we could carry ours out. Some of us were better at it than others. Baseball was a good game to learn as it taught us about the bigger games we would be playing as we went out into life.
.
If we dedicate ourself to the group, then we allow the group's rules to be applied to the role we're playing if it's first base or if its choir director. If the group to which we have dedicated our life is that of Evangelical Christianity, then we play the role that is assigned to us. To know all the rules and we play by them. It isn't childhood play anymore--it's real adult living.
.
The group to which we belong has a scientific name--the Generalized Other.
.
Have you heard of it?
.
.
Nov 18, 2007 10:08 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>So....a person CAN believe in Jesus Christ, and yet also believe there are some problems, errors, etc. with the Bible. </i>
.
Dear Brian, you can believe in whomever and whatever you like, and hold fast to ideas taken from any flawed and problematic book you choose. :)
<i>So....a person CAN believe in Jesus Christ, and yet also believe there are some problems, errors, etc. with the Bible. </i>
.
Dear Brian, you can believe in whomever and whatever you like, and hold fast to ideas taken from any flawed and problematic book you choose. :)
Nov 20, 2007 12:01 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, I'm familiar with the points you're making, thought I'm only vaguely aware of the specific term "Generalized Other." Feel free to continue.
My initial reaction to this, though, is that you're taking a valid point and extending it beyond what is necessary. An individual is still an individual - and has the capacity to step outside of his/her social fabric and/or dynamic and examine his/her perspective at least semi-objectively.
I grew up in the fundamentalist sub-culture that I've heard you talk about. One of the reasons I feel we 'click' is that you and I share a similar childhood heritage. And even though you're older than me, the Independent Fundamentalist Landmark Baptist sub-culture hasn't changed all that much is the last 30-40 years. :( So, I know it well - as do you. And through my teen years, I had to spread my wings and grow out of it. (I was helped by my dad who, though he and my mom raised me in it, he taught me to NOT just accept everything I heard at face-value).
In my 20s, I went through some deep soul-searching that took me out of that sub-culture. And then in my early 30s, I went through another period of deep doubt and questioning that caused me to question the whole enchilada - evangelical Christianity itself.
So, I am a Christian today - NOT because of some group dynamic where I've been assigned a part to play, but because of an INDIVIDUAL choice that I've made.
My initial reaction to this, though, is that you're taking a valid point and extending it beyond what is necessary. An individual is still an individual - and has the capacity to step outside of his/her social fabric and/or dynamic and examine his/her perspective at least semi-objectively.
I grew up in the fundamentalist sub-culture that I've heard you talk about. One of the reasons I feel we 'click' is that you and I share a similar childhood heritage. And even though you're older than me, the Independent Fundamentalist Landmark Baptist sub-culture hasn't changed all that much is the last 30-40 years. :( So, I know it well - as do you. And through my teen years, I had to spread my wings and grow out of it. (I was helped by my dad who, though he and my mom raised me in it, he taught me to NOT just accept everything I heard at face-value).
In my 20s, I went through some deep soul-searching that took me out of that sub-culture. And then in my early 30s, I went through another period of deep doubt and questioning that caused me to question the whole enchilada - evangelical Christianity itself.
So, I am a Christian today - NOT because of some group dynamic where I've been assigned a part to play, but because of an INDIVIDUAL choice that I've made.
Nov 20, 2007 12:06 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Yes, Migisi. But what I'm getting at is more significant than the credit you're giving it.
There's a Christian apologist who I think even you would respect. His name is Gary Habermas, and he has written extensively on this subject. He takes a respectful attitude toward skeptics of Christianity and the Bible, and yet lays out a very evidence-based, logical, and methodical case for Christianity -taking it step by step.
I encourage you to read more of Habermas.
There's a Christian apologist who I think even you would respect. His name is Gary Habermas, and he has written extensively on this subject. He takes a respectful attitude toward skeptics of Christianity and the Bible, and yet lays out a very evidence-based, logical, and methodical case for Christianity -taking it step by step.
I encourage you to read more of Habermas.
Nov 20, 2007 12:37 PM
Pink :
.
<i>I am a Christian today - NOT because of some group dynamic where I've been assigned a part to play, but because of an INDIVIDUAL choice that I've made.</i>
.
Certainly--and I am the person I am because of the individual choices I have made. That's as concise a way of defining existential thought by example as can be. We are the sum total of our choices.
.
That is a big part of my approach to life. God, when he tells Abraham he is that which he is becoming makes the same point.
.
In another thread, you used the term, group-think, in response to something I had written. The <i>generalized other</i> really isn't group-think; but, it is similar. The idea comes out of the writings of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). It deals with how we get and build our self and conscience in relation to the society in which we exist and interact. We play to each other--it's where we find our morality and the rules we use in our day to day experiences. Sort of a "birds of a feather that flock together" in the biblical sense. The people we identify with--they are our generalized other. You can put it in your search engine and will get more information than you can read in a single sitting.
.
We still are responsible to make our own decisions even though we judge what we do based on the generalized other--an unspoken consensus? Maybe; but, not quite.
.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/mead.htm
<i>I am a Christian today - NOT because of some group dynamic where I've been assigned a part to play, but because of an INDIVIDUAL choice that I've made.</i>
.
Certainly--and I am the person I am because of the individual choices I have made. That's as concise a way of defining existential thought by example as can be. We are the sum total of our choices.
.
That is a big part of my approach to life. God, when he tells Abraham he is that which he is becoming makes the same point.
.
In another thread, you used the term, group-think, in response to something I had written. The <i>generalized other</i> really isn't group-think; but, it is similar. The idea comes out of the writings of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). It deals with how we get and build our self and conscience in relation to the society in which we exist and interact. We play to each other--it's where we find our morality and the rules we use in our day to day experiences. Sort of a "birds of a feather that flock together" in the biblical sense. The people we identify with--they are our generalized other. You can put it in your search engine and will get more information than you can read in a single sitting.
.
We still are responsible to make our own decisions even though we judge what we do based on the generalized other--an unspoken consensus? Maybe; but, not quite.
.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/mead.htm
72 Comments
celebrity writers
more in suite
- business & finance
- education & career
- film & tv
- food & drink
- health & wellness
- history
- home & style
- mind & soul
- music
- outdoor & recreation
- partners & parents
- plants & animals
- politics & society
- reading & literature
- science & nature
- sports
- technology
- travel
- visual & performing arts
- writing & publishing
Mind & Soul
categories
latest articles