Turbohot

Ditch, to tell you the truth, I don't see JT's cage rattled whatsoever. I also still don't see sufficient relevance of you bringing up the proverbs and terms such as Platonism and Neoplatonism at your disjointed random into the context. You say you have done it all and been there by your 17, but then you say you've done it all by even 15, and therefore, you can't be @rsed digging the old graves. Sorry, I don't buy it.

In all transparency, you seem to be very prejudiced or at least very annoyed with JT's bookish ramblings. I get that because most book derived material he refers to, doesn't exactly justify his faith / beliefs to a lot of people here. So far you're concerned, you bring up these terms without having the in-depth knowledge of them, and yet claim that you had studied them at, let's settle for the average- by your 16th. Come on, man. If you had studied all that at so young, then your long term memory can't be so bad for an 'intelligent' if not an 'intellectual' man. You could bring your teenage knowledge to the surface and with a bit of research, you should be able to discuss those terms in length, quite clearly within the context. The way you're going on about it e.g. by saying that Plato and his chums were no different and by calling James Plato's b!tch etc. gives away a shattering revelation of your shallow knowledge of those terms. Ok, forget reading. Even if your learning style was other than reading, then you, as an intelligent man, still would have absorbed the take better than what you project here on this thread.

Basically, it's better to say that you may have glanced over these terms but you never bothered learning about them, that you never studied them in depth, that you don't understand these terms as well you may like to think and you don't know how they make proper sense within the theological context. It's better than chucking defensive spanners and try to put the opposition down because they believe in the utter non-sense airy fairy. They may do, but they seem to do better reading, let's face it. Metaphors and proverbs etc. as well are useless unless they're applied sensibly and where applicable. Unnecessary use of such doesn't make anyone a natural born philosopher. LOL

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Well I did have Nottingham University Library on my doorstep, just because a person doesn't have the pieces of paper or follow the ordained path, it doesn't make them less worthy, a point you would do well to remember.

There are many levels on which people communicate, stay on your own and that's all you'll ever know.

I was looking for some more stuff to point you in the right direction, but it doesn't seem to be on the internet, in plain sight anyway, seems to just lead to Buddhism and meditation

So you'll have to do it the old fashioned way and go find out for yourself in a big old library like I did, not too sure if there are many of those left these days.

JTaylor

Morning, Geezer. Thanks for a clear and considered polemic. There's a lot to address in your post so I've picked out the paragraph which refers specifically to me. As you can imagine I have lots to say on the subject, but will ask a favour: Would you be good enough to revise the following? Theistic evolution, the literary framework interpretation and the relationship between the two. This coupled with my Calvinist (see TULIP) approach to the New Testament will clear-up where I currently stand theologically and will save me having to write a dissertation on why I believe what I believe. Besides, I have nothing original to add, all the work's been done for me by my brothers and sisters in faith, Jesus at the cross and God the Father at the beginning of time!

JTaylor

Thanks, Ditch. I guess you didn't buy in to Augustine then. We recently did a Bible study on him and his contemporary and opponent Pelagius. In fact I think I mentioned that I'd been doing some further study on this when I should have been fixing the tractor mower! Whose side did you come down on during your investigation?

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

You've tried to psychoanalise me before and it didn't work out too well for us did it.

I suggest you stick to what you know because you're a little out of your depth, you got stuck on peanuts.

Geezer

Theistic evolution highlights my concerns over the way the religion tries to deceive, or more kindly, fit in with science.

It illustrates both of my previous points. Either the bible is simplistic and incorrect, as the writers of the time had no concept of how life evolves, or the origins of it (and I accept that the actual origin of life from matter is a thorny one for science too,but it just means we don't know yet, the God of gaps isn't an appealing one), or it allows anything whatsoever to be reconciled with the idea of a creator being.

So, humans discover that life has evolved, that it started about 3 billion years ago, which, on the face of it, it pretty contradictory to Genesis, so they can just slot in "oh but God put evolution in motion, and Genesis is allegory, and you can fit it..........prove black is white etc."

Essentially, what theistic evolution, and lots of other ideas, does, is allow you to say "God did it". And that is it, nothing more, nothing less. It requires no proof, no investigation, no research, no peer review. Whatever science comes up with, you can just say "oh yes, the glory of God is wonderous, look how he has revealed dark energy to us................"

It's lazy, it's deceitful, it adds nothing to our existence.

Of course, if you want to believe that, then that is up to you, and apart from some discussions on here, I don't get the impression you go around shoving it down people's throats, or killing in the name of [insert belief here], but some do, and that cannot be a good thing.

JTaylor

Thank you, and the literary framework view?

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

This is for you Swati, I should have done this when I first mentioned him but I was busy looking for something else when I came across the first link I posted.

Now this should keep your mind busy for a few years and now you'll see why I struggle to remember all the details from 35yrs ago. Read it, ingest it, travel down each avenue and try and recognise the implications, each aspect is a journey in it'self.

It should also help with your interest in Psychology and show you various avenues there to follow.

Remember to ingest not just skip read and forget, like you seem to do with my posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

P.S; I only tend to hold current information that's relevant to what I'm doing, right now my head is full of information about building walls and roofs, calculations for doors and windows and pulling it all together to form a building in which everything fits as it should. I don't do this philosophy thing anymore, I do stuff not sit around thinking about stuff.

neil-h

The same could be said of any good scientific paper though. The author is only ultimately given their interpretation of the results observed.

Geezer

I hadn't heard of that term before, but was aware of what it meant in the context of Genesis not being literal, but rather a framework representing the creation. But looking at it, it all comes back to the same thing - interpretation, believers trying to fit Genesis to something that contradicts it.

It was quite interesting to see some of the discussions, literalists simply dispel it "but it's the ineffable word of God!", but obviously it on the flip side, it has many proponents because, once again, it allows the Bible to fit.

Who is right? Literalists have as much claim to them being right as proponents of the framework. To the best of my knowledge, the Bible does not say anywhere that it is allegorical, so why claim it is?

The obvious answer is that it is untenable as a literal piece, so simply interpret it, any way you want really!

Geezer

To a degree, but at least someone else can repeat the experiment. The Bible is a single, un-verifiable piece of text, which has many interpretations. We do not have access to the data it is sourced from, nor the authors.

neil-h

Thing is it can be verified, if you cross reference the bible against the holy texts of various other religions then you find a lot of the salient points are similar if not the same.

As for access to data and authors. Access to the authors is academic as a lot early scientific work was carried out by people who are long dead and yet is still taken to be valid. Same with the data to be honest, a lot of early science was done by observation. It's only in more modern times that data has become more quantifiable.

JTaylor

The highlighted point is the key to my belief set. Here's a paraphrased copy of a text I sent to my pastor the other day:

"If it were the case that a prima facie reading of the creation account was the only one open to me, then I'd have to charge the account with being false. Thank God it's not the only reading available and thank God that there are brothers and sisters in faith who've developed the framework view."

In other words, if history, linguistics, anthropology and so forth led me to believe that Genesis 1-3 was meant to be read literally then I'd limp away from the faith. As it transpires, it was the concept of theistic evolution, enabled by a literary framework view, that gave me the courage to make the leap to faith and by grace I landed safely in a well lit room.

hodgy0_2

also good science does not come with any preconceptions

and good science forms a framework from which predictions can be made and tested against


religion is the anti-thesis of this, it is the end of the conversation not the beginning


as Geezer has said, people are free to believe in anything they want, the issue I have is when they presents dodgy evidence and flawed logic to back it up

hodgy0_2

yes because the common human experience is the same

or did god create all the other religions to validate his particular one

Geezer

And therein lies the problem, against other religious texts. Cross reference it against archaeology and geology and biology, it simply falls apart.

The basic concepts of all religions are the same, it's hardly surprising they are similar, really.

neil-h

That's a whole different argument about which is the one true religion and it's one I'm not even going near.

As for common human experience, verification of scientific data is the same. Reproduction of a set of circumstance for a common human experience.

Only so far, once you reach the limit of human understanding everything else becomes unknown.

As for cross referencing against other religious texts, why's that an issue? You'd verify scientific against other relevant experiments.

hodgy0_2

and science recognises that, what we don't know is simply what we don't know yet

you're just simply parroting the "god of the gaps" argument

hodgy0_2

why, it simply highlights another gaping logical fallacy

neil-h

Not really, if you don''t know what's in the gap then it's entirely possible that it is God but by that same notion it's entirely possible it's the Dark Lord Ktulu or an infinite number of other things.

It's essentially another variation of the Schrodinger's cat experiment, up until the point you observe the cat you have no way of knowing if the cat even exists.

JTaylor

The moral argument tells us that God is good.

Geezer

It is better to say "we don't know" than simply insert an unknown deity.

As for the cat, it's not what he said, nor what he was illustrating, though in an extreme extension of the experiment, I could see why you may think that.

JTaylor

Is it? And what if one can have a personal relationship with the Deity, what if He can be known. John 14:6. Why would you want to deny yourself and others that experience? What do you have that's better?

steve05wrx

Hi,
Are we alone in the Universe - if yes, then are we Gods little snow globe for his amusement?
If no - are there lots of Earths around the Universe with similar features to ours, all under God's wing?
Cheers
Steve

Geezer

How can you? If you say you have a personal relationship with something you cannot touch or feel, the it is just a belief, nothing else. If you hear voices, or see 'God', you are probably mentally ill.

If you think differently, explain why someone who hears voices telling to do all sorts of things is considered mad, and someone who speaks to God is not.

neil-h

I wasn't saying he wasn't, Ktulu was just the first polar opposite example that came to mind.

Saying which is better is a purely subjective stand point. I was simply challenging Hodgy's statement about 'god of the gaps' argument. Same with the Schrodinger example. I was simply highlighting the fact that unless something can be observed, you can't definitively state whether or not it exists.

Geezer

No, Schrodinger's cat said you didn't know what state it was in. It is an important difference. It's existence is not in question.

JTaylor

I see and hear God through Scripture and "When I consider (the) heavens, the work of (His) fingers, the moon and the stars, which (He) has set in place" (Psalm 8:3) and when I read the Sermon on the Mount (or rather when it reads me). Perhaps I should be sectioned. You seem to struggle with metaphor and poetry, Geezer. By your own admission 'love-making' is perfunctory. Your physicalism is deeply unattractive to me.

neil-h

The cat is either dead or alive, or any combination of the 2 states. At some point after it's death the cat will decompose to a point it ceases to exist as a cat. So it's existence is in fact in question as that is a possible state you could find that cat (or at least it's remains) in.

Geezer

Well, what you hear is what you want tp hear then. Like Mulder, you want to believe. Scripture and the physical world around us are not proof, nor really a relationship, any more than I would be having a relationship with Frodo by reading Lord of the Rings.

As for love making, I never said it was perfunctory, merely that it's basis is a biological need. The fact it is pleasurable is largely irrelevant. It is an urge, and that is why we do it. Underneath all the fancy talk, flowers, orgasms, essentially we are driven to do it by millions of years of evolution. Even the pleasure side of it will be an evolutionary thing, it further encourages the sex to be performed. After all, that is the aim of every gene, to flourish and out compete the others, and they accomplish that through re-production, amongst other things.

It's interesting you say you find physicalism unattractive, I think that is what frightens, or is most unpalatable to theists, that it's all just biology and physics. Surely there must be some higher meaning? Well, there probably isn't, so just enjoy the time you have, there really isn't much of it.

To me is it far more wonderous that hydrogen atoms have managed to figure out they exist. Religion is quite mundane compared to that. Unless of course you go back to where does God come from.......