You might want to re-read my post? I was suggesting that "God is susceptible to illness etc." would seem to be an unacceptable interpretation.However since we DO get sick, and we're not immortal, etc., it begs the question of in what ways we are really so much like God after all?
Including, presumably nearly everyone who ever quotes the Bible to make any sort of point at all, right? Smiley
Funny thing is, from my point of view your use of two verses to create your own custom context in order to reason by analogy is not much of an improvement. Did Jesus also turn the water into grape juice? (Of course, some folks will go to ridiculous lengths to attempt to support just such a conclusion.)
Which of course doesn't seem to stand up too well to rational inquiry. The original sin was, what? Being tempted into increasing our level of knowledge of both good and evil? And so God is going to curse an entire species in perpetuity for being tempted into trying to expand their mental horizons? What kind of petty little god would do that?
I'm totally aggravated by these people too. You'll be happy to know I'm not one of them in this case. Although I'm not Christian now, I certainly haven't forgetten the decades* I studied the Bible every day, often mornings and evenings, and went to church twice a week without fail. And it didn't matter if we were on vacation, or camping, or snowed in - we'd hold our own church service. I've studied the Bible more than I'd wager, oh, 95% of folks who currently claim to be Christian. Yay for me?
Quote from: quadz on December 15, 2007, 06:05:22 PMWhich of course doesn't seem to stand up too well to rational inquiry.
Which of course doesn't seem to stand up too well to rational inquiry.
"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. To me it's pretty simple..."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA&NR=1
Hey QD,Well... I'm afraid I have no choice but to agree with your point in general. There must indeed be lots beyond what we can comprehend, as our brains are of finite size.However at the same time I don't think it's impossible for us to reason about infinity as a concept in some small ways. For example, the prospect of there being an infinite number of tones between F and F# doesn't seem too overwhelming to me, from an imagination standpoint. Nor does the concept of an infinite plane seem to bother me too much, even though I can't literally picture it.Similarly, I may not be able to visualize more than three dimensions in my head, but that doesn't stop me from being about to reason about additional dimensions even though I can't see them.On the other hand, I believe it was we humans who invented the idea that God was/is infinite.As such, I would suggest it is completely within our purview to reason about the characteristics and implications of our own invention? (In terms of the idea of something being infinite.)... No? Maybe? Regards,quadz
OKIn the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth. (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")quadz
I've never taught we shouldn't learn all we are capable of learning about God or questioning why things happen. We should reason about the characteristics and implications of God. To not question leads to Jonestown and the like. I've never found anywhere in the Bible where God requires BLIND obedience - rather the opposite - everyone gets to choose.
Actually, the Holy Scriptures taught the earth was round at a time most of the world thought the earth was flat.
Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 24, 2007, 02:59:43 PMActually, the Holy Scriptures taught the earth was round at a time most of the world thought the earth was flat.I just can't help myself, but you're bringing in your own interpretation of the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge. You're suggesting round as if this means three dimensional, and you're picking and choosing certain verses to come to that conclusion in the first place (overlooking '"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13)' for example. It seems just about everyone before the 15th century believed the exact opposite of what the Holy Scriptures "taught" about the shape of our planet....and the Holy Scriptures taught that the numerical value of pi was 3.1459.... and not just 3....
You have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of
Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 24, 2007, 08:52:22 PMYou have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge - as opposed to my speaking of the original language word meaningIs all that necessary? I don't doubt the verse claiming the world is "round" (which has nothing to do with whether the earth has 2 or 3 dimensions). My point was you HAVE to neglect the other verses in the bible that don't support your modernized opinion on the earth's shape (and there are several).
You have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge - as opposed to my speaking of the original language word meaning
I did not say your interpretation was wrong, only that you pick and chose to support the correct interpretation.
So I ask, what's the point of the phrase "take the earth by the edges and shake..." It's just a metaphor right? . Because clearly "shaking the earth" isn't "poetic" enough, and the author thousands of years ago was fully informed on the spherical shape of the planet (and probably would be astonished by the technology in a wheelbarrow) yet simply wanted more symbolic power added to his passage. We must say shaking it by it's spherical edges... Just like the plants coming before the sun, another metaphor
Why would any early Christian author/leader oppose the idea of a spherical earth? Because the Holy Scriptures allow for the interpretations to take place. There is no place in the Bible that I know of where the word "spherical/sphere/ball-shaped" or anything of that nature shows up in reference to the shape of our planet.
So once again, I was only trying to point out you can't decree by fiat what the Bible "taught" before Galileo by picking out only a select number of vague verses, because now you're left with the problem of neglecting the contradictory ones. We have to go back to the metaphor/literal game again, which is entirely my point. You're using your personal interpretation with the benefit of a 21st century access to scientific knowledge.
as well as all the necessary research to support your statement concerning people's belief prior to the 15th century?
I would say I've done enough. Many ordinary Christian people thought the world was flat. Generally, the intellectuals (astronomers/philosophers etc.) did not. This was mostly independent of, sometimes because of, and sometimes in spite of what the Bible said (in the presence of counter-evidence).
Quote from: quadz on December 24, 2007, 02:27:56 AMIn the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth.
In the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth.
Quote from: DaHanG on December 24, 2007, 09:51:20 PMQuote from: QuakeDuke on December 24, 2007, 08:52:22 PMYou have, of course, done all the necessary word origin / meaning studies in the original Hebrew & Chaldean language to support your postulation that I am bringing in my own interpretation of the scriptures to support irrefutable 21st century knowledge - as opposed to my speaking of the original language word meaningIs all that necessary? I don't doubt the verse claiming the world is "round" (which has nothing to do with whether the earth has 2 or 3 dimensions). My point was you HAVE to neglect the other verses in the bible that don't support your modernized opinion on the earth's shape (and there are several).Yes, it would be necessary if I am to accept you are speaking from a knowledgeable viewpoint instead of a personal one. For instance, you say there are several verses that do not support my so-called modernized opinion. Give me the verses please. Also, define the modernized opinion I'm supposed to have and evidence that shows I have such an opinion. As for having to neglect verses, I don't believe I've ever given any indication of doing this, and your strongly insisting I have to do so isn't based on any facts that I'm aware of.
Quote from: DaHanG on December 24, 2007, 09:51:20 PM I did not say your interpretation was wrong, only that you pick and chose to support the correct interpretation.Again, what do you base this statement on? Have you ever sat in any of my classes? Have you read anything I have written to come to such a conclusion?
Quote from: DaHanG on December 24, 2007, 09:51:20 PM So I ask, what's the point of the phrase "take the earth by the edges and shake..." It's just a metaphor right? . Because clearly "shaking the earth" isn't "poetic" enough, and the author thousands of years ago was fully informed on the spherical shape of the planet (and probably would be astonished by the technology in a wheelbarrow) yet simply wanted more symbolic power added to his passage. We must say shaking it by it's spherical edges... Just like the plants coming before the sun, another metaphor If you will do the word studies in the original languages necessary and keep the verses you mentioned in context you would find it is referring to light that, suddenly springing out, reveals everything the wicked do - a viewpoint consistent with the scriptures teaching there is nothing done in darkness that won't be revealed in the light - and absolutely nothing to do with God suddenly deciding to "shake the earth" to get rid of the wicked. Are you using the World English Bible? The wording of your quote suggests you are.
Quote from: DaHanG on December 24, 2007, 09:51:20 PMWhy would any early Christian author/leader oppose the idea of a spherical earth? Because the Holy Scriptures allow for the interpretations to take place. There is no place in the Bible that I know of where the word "spherical/sphere/ball-shaped" or anything of that nature shows up in reference to the shape of our planet.The scripture reference is Isaiah 40:22.
Quote from: DaHanG on December 24, 2007, 09:51:20 PMSo once again, I was only trying to point out you can't decree by fiat what the Bible "taught" before Galileo by picking out only a select number of vague verses, because now you're left with the problem of neglecting the contradictory ones. We have to go back to the metaphor/literal game again, which is entirely my point. You're using your personal interpretation with the benefit of a 21st century access to scientific knowledge.Again, I must ask why you attribute to me that I am doing this if you have never been present to any of my teaching sessions or read any of my writings? Please supply me with the verses you say are contradictory. Also, why you consider the verses you refer to me as using as vague.
Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 24, 2007, 08:52:22 PMas well as all the necessary research to support your statement concerning people's belief prior to the 15th century?Quote from: DaHanG on December 24, 2007, 09:51:20 PMI would say I've done enough. Many ordinary Christian people thought the world was flat. Generally, the intellectuals (astronomers/philosophers etc.) did not. This was mostly independent of, sometimes because of, and sometimes in spite of what the Bible said (in the presence of counter-evidence).According to histories I have read and according to copies of maps of the time period, the general consensus of most nations, even sea-faring nations, of that time period considered the world to be flat. It wasn't restricted to "ordinary" Christian people.
Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 24, 2007, 02:59:43 PMQuote from: quadz on December 24, 2007, 02:27:56 AMIn the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth. (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")Uh..problem is - it's not....It was, however, against their own interpretation.That's kind of my point, though... It seems most anything in the Bible requires interpretation, and as such it seems odd when some folks are just certain that their particular interpretation must be the correct one.
Quote from: quadz on December 24, 2007, 02:27:56 AMIn the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth. (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")Uh..problem is - it's not....It was, however, against their own interpretation.
In the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth. (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")
Take something in very plain simple language, like supposedly a DIRECT COMMANDMENT from God, "Thou shalt not kill."Who decides what the correct interpretation of that commandment really is? Very few people seem to obey it as an absolute, that's for sure... Most everyone seems to put their own little asterisk after it, "Thou shalt not kill...except ...."etc.