| Subject: Pump up the jam |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/24/03 5:18pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "A brief stop by..." on 03/24/03 11:03am
Wade,
Hey there. First of all, let me apologize for the fact that the subject of this message has absolutely nothing to do with the content of it. I was just thinking of that old Saturday Night Live where Chris Farley is a figure skater, and Phil Hartman is an announcer, and he says, "Uh oh... pump up the jam!" That was funny stuff.
Anyway, I don't have much time, but I wanted to very quickly address your points. I think you and I have pursued this issue before, but it's worth discussing.
>>Well, just because Wade said it doesn't make it true,
>>of course.
>
>Ah sure it does (TIC, I'm being a tad sarcastic).
Heh heh.
>>For the Christian, God's "existing outside
>>of time" is very convenient, because it solves a lot
>>of problems.
>
>Forming a theory of philisophical theism that "solves
>problems" isn't a bad thing for that theory. Indeed,
>it's the most rational way to go for any philisophical
>theory.
Yes, I agree. The question, of course, is whether this can be shown to be true. I have a friend who is a philosophy professor and not in any sense a Christian, and he also believes that God (as he defines "God") exists outside of time. So I understand that my view is not shared by everyone, but it makes much more sense to me than "existing outside of time."
>>But no, I don't think that God exists
>>outside of time, because I don't think it is possible
>>to do so.
>
>I don't see how it's not possible. It is logically
>possible as far as I can see, albeit qualitatively
>different from what we are normally used to.
Well, it isn't logically possible if time is simply a sequence of events. There isn't anything to exist outside of. In other words, I don't think of time as some alternate dimension in which beings can exist or not exist. It's nothing more than the way we measure events. It's like an inch. You can't show me an inch. It's just a concept we have in our heads to help us make sense of the world. It's the same with time. Therefore, I don't see that there's anything to exist outside of, and it isn't limiting God (if he/she/it exists) to say that God doesn't know the future. If the future simply can't be known because it doesn't exist, then God's not being able to know it doesn't mean he's not the most powerful being in the universe. As I understand the concept of "God," it just means the greatest possible being.
>From the web page:
>
>
>Genesis 1
>1
>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
>
>
>...
>
>[snipped some text so I could get to the point at hand]
>
>Anyone who now tells you that this passage somehow
>referred to stars the way we now understand them is
>kidding himself. When they said “heaven”, they meant
>the little canopy around the earth which (some
>believed) included little holes through which God’s
>glory shone. They had zero understanding of what
>those little points of light really were, and I don’t
>blame them. It is unreasonable to expect people who
>lived then to understand that. But, of course, the
>problem here is that if God wrote this, then
>one would definitely expect him to understand
>it.
>
>
>The problem is that there's no reason to think He
>didn't in this passage. Genesis was rather unspecific
>when it comes to the contents of the heavens here
>(heavens = all that stuff above the Earth). The
>author could have believed in mistaken or correct
>beliefs on the heavens in the passage you speak of,
>but we just don't know because he didn't write much
>about it.
I suppose. Remember that in writing that, I was trying to come at it from the angle of what makes the most sense to someone who isn't trying to make the Bible be this perfect book. The burden of proof is on the one who says the Bible could have had supernatural information. The natural assumption is that their culture didn't have any insights that other cultures at the time didn't have. They probably saw things the way most people did back then, and figured that the lights in the sky were right above the earth.
Plus, the research I have done has led me to think that this was what was meant by "heavens." (sigh) But anymore, I don't have the energy or the desire to even look stuff like that up. It's fairly inconsequential to me now. As you can see, I haven't written an article regarding these subjects in over a year. So I will admit that there is a possibility that the Bible could have been speaking accurately about these scientific things, although I find that possibility to be so small as not to warrant much consideration.
>>I have changed my beliefs on these issues... I used to
>>think the Bible was God's perfect word to mankind.
>>The fact that I changed my mind shows that I do not
>>have a closed mind.
>
>Strictly speaking, that isn't necessarily true. It is
>logically possible for you could have a closed mind
>now when it comes to the truthfulness of Christianity.
Yes, that's true. But the point is that I am not a closed-minded person. I think I have shown myself capable of changing my mind based on evidence, and I'm willing to do so again. As far as the Bible is concerned, yes, I have become convinced that it cannot possibly be God's perfect word for various reasons, most of which I've explained on here at some time or other.
>>I am also willing to change my
>>mind in the future if sufficient evidence is offered.
>>Are you?
>
>Disputable point: what is sufficient evidence?
I've listed several things that the Bible would have to be in order for me to see it as something that man couldn't do... I won't list them again this time, but they involve things like specific prophecies, an undisputable message regarding important things like salvation and the Trinity, etc.
>Your mind may not change if sufficient evidence is
>presented according to Jennifer, because for her some
>set of data is sufficient for her but not for you.
>The same holds true for me (data I perceive to be
>sufficient evidence may not seem sufficient to you).
Agreed. We all have a standard in our minds, whether we admit it or not, and we all have to be convinced based on what we count as sufficient evidence. I feel my standards are much higher than they used to be, which is why I require more evidence than I used to. Before, I believed the Bible was perfect, but now that my standards for evidence are higher, it doesn't meet them anymore.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 