We need a good topic to fight over.

[voicecrying]

Well, the first three chapters of Genesis are myth anyway (they are symbolic due to them being written as Hebrew poetry) so yeah, it isn't literal. The imagery is taken as to how the subject views it. That what happens with art forms (music, art, poetry, etc.)

Except in Exodus 20:11, written by the finger of God no less, it confirms everything was created in 6 days. Jesus (in red letters) also confirms the distinction of man and woman being separate creatures (as well as in some of the epistles).

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Except in Exodus 20:11, written by the finger of God no less, it confirms everything was created in 6 days. Jesus (in red letters) also confirms the distinction of man and woman being separate creatures (as well as in some of the epistles).

You might be right (FYI, this is an Adventist argument). I'm not Jewish nor follow Judaism so it might be worth looking into.


From my perspective, it doesn't matter and Ex. 20 doesn't confirm a literal 6-day creation: it uses it as an analogy which is the purpose of art (poetry). When the garden was created, there was no Sabbath all the way through Noah's world into Moses'. To use the symbolism of the creation story, it is plausible to make Sabbath a regulatory habit as opposed to willy-nilly time off. Exodus 20 was NOT written as confirmation of a literal creation; that can only be read into the text.

Also, Jesus used parables all the time so it would not be any inconsistency to take existing Jewish folklore as illustrative. Doesn't make the original stories factual (such as Jonah). When we teach lessons from Romeo and Juliet, or preachers use sermon illustrations from TV or movies, doesn't mean the events literally happened. It is used as illustration and Jesus was very good at using stories to get his points across.

That is assuming we have correct manuscripts, but that's another argument for another day.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No offense taken because you are making a very truthful observation about me. I would add to that in the end, we ALL are arbiters of our own truth: we gravitate toward beliefs that best fit our bias. The difference between mine and say, Evangelicals' is twofold: 1. I admit I am arbiter of what I choose to believe and 2. I don't get my interpretations from a singular source with a specifically-guided hermeneutic.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that my purpose is NOT to convince you or anyone else that I have the source to truth and that you don't. I don't care to convince anybody to adhere to my belief system because my system is geared toward me specifically. I'm just identifying with everyone differences I have come to as opposed to what I held in the past. Believe me or don't, really doesn't matter to me nor does it affect me in any way. The LAST thing I want is to be looked at as some kind of spiritual guru.

You are welcome to carry on as you choose and point out my flaws (of which there are many, I'm sure) and I will continue to point out flaws AS I SEE THEM in Funda/gelicalism, whether anyone on this platforms agrees or not. Doesn't mean my critique is right or that it won't change but it is my honest critique in the moment.

The big Truth difference in our perspectives is you are inwardly dependent upon your own evaluation of transcendent truth (which in itself is infinitely subjective) and I am claiming ontological being and objective Truth outside myself that comes and exists apart from my own initiative.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The "Christian" position is whatever it takes to justify slavery. Just like MacArthur...

He’s right, context is king. I am likewise glad to be slave to that Master, rather than my own sin/idolatry.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The big Truth difference in our perspectives is you are inwardly dependent upon your own evaluation of transcendent truth (which in itself is infinitely subjective) and I am claiming ontological being and objective Truth outside myself that comes and exists apart from my own initiative.

But the lens we receive things, the filters we process them, the evaluations we make and the conclusions we come to are based on our relative opinions.

The ontological argument (IMO) doesn't work for me because it presupposes God as being. I see better argument though the cosmological lens. Again, we each find our search for deity through our relativity.

Until there is quantitively scientific or biological evidence of God as a being, all we have is our relative perspective which is skewed by our education, bias, culture, etc.

 

[ALAYMAN]

But the lens we receive things, the filters we process them, the evaluations we make and the conclusions we come to are based on our relative opinions.

The ontological argument (IMO) doesn't work for me because it presupposes God as being. I see better argument though the cosmological lens. Again, we each find our search for deity through our relativity.

Until there is quantitively scientific or biological evidence of God as a being, all we have is our relative perspective which is skewed by our education, bias, culture, etc.

You’ve contrived a box of your own making that prohibits the discovery of God. Science (I’m a scientist by the way) is the study of the material world, not the supernatural. God is rightly found in the lofty world of philosophy and theology. But I forgive you for such basic error because even world renowned evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins makes similar category errors all the time.

Link“Setting aside issues of tone and editing, what are the central flaws? For all his proven talent at explaining evolutionary biology, Dawkins does not lay out philosophical arguments in a clear and persuasive way. He mixes up different arguments in a single exposition, makes circular arguments, and does not maintain a clear distinction between arguments against the existence of God, and refutations of arguments for the existence of God. Moreover, he systematically over-relies on scientific theories in confronting philosophical arguments. Given the problems that science educators already face from religious pressure groups in the USA, this is dangerous as well as confused, because it gives the impression that science is the source of arguments against the existence of God, when in fact these arguments have a much more generic basis.”

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You’ve contrived a box of your own making that prohibits the discovery of God. Science (I’m a scientist by the way) is the study of the material world, not the supernatural. God is rightly found in the lofty world of philosophy and theology.

Yep, but absolute truth cannot be known in either philosophy or theology. Truth can be suspected but can't be verified or tested.

But I forgive you for such basic error because even world renowned physicists ike Richard Dawkins makes similar category errors all the time.

I've never read Dawkins much less study his thoughts. I've only heard soundbites and from what I gather, he is a real ummm....piece of work. I have no respect for him or his ideals. Same goes with Christopher Hitchens. I consider them prophets of atheism because they promote atheism as a religion, trying to convert others. I have no interest in their opinions so I cannot comment on what you said about him.

Not sure why you would bring Dawkins into the conversation...

 

[Bob Jones V]

Is this a challenge?

LOL!

It is, and I have not heard a good topic yet, although you have brought a lot of life to the forum.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yep, but absolute truth cannot be known in either philosophy or theology. Truth can be suspected but can't be verified or tested.

I've never read Dawkins much less study his thoughts. I've only heard soundbites and from what I gather, he is a real ummm....piece of work. I have no respect for him or his ideals. Same goes with Christopher Hitchens. I consider them prophets of atheism because they promote atheism as a religion, trying to convert others. I have no interest in their opinions so I cannot comment on what you said about him.

Not sure why you would bring Dawkins into the conversation...

I brought him up, as I alluded to, as an analogy to wrong-headed thinking that confuses scientific proof with the existence of God. I have no desire to “be right” or win an argument, but coming from a different perspective than you, having grown up in a non-Christian home, want to help you think with clarity. Saying that God may be proven by science is just sloppy thinking.

 

[ALAYMAN]

And can I take your first sentence as absolutely true?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I brought him up, as I alluded to, as an analogy to wring-headed thinking that confuses scientific proof with the existence of God. I have no desire to “be right” or win an argument, but coming from a different perspective than you, having grown up in a non-Christian home, want to help you think with clarity. Saying that when God may be priven by science is just sloppy thinking.

Gotcha. Appreciate your perspective.

I just didn't want you to think I thought highly of him because I truly don't.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And can I take your first sentence as absolutely true?

Remember one of the first points I made coming back yesterday? Nothing is at one with itself, not even god. This certainly includes me too.

Humanity cannot but live in dialectic. Even democracy is a political structure that can't be at one with itself. Mathematics has Incompleteness. Psycho-analysis has the unconscious. Biology, it is evolution. Philosophy, it is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Granted I have not delved greatly into or understand all those things but I see the existing dialectical paradox that HAS to exist.

Christianity has a divided dimension of reality as well. It is the crucified god.

So such a "gotcha" is not problematic with me. I understand I cannot be but inconsistent and hence the object of whatever faith I would ever possess cannot be but inconsistent as well.

 

[Ransom]

Yep, but absolute truth cannot be known in either philosophy or theology. Truth can be suspected but can't be verified or tested.

So you can't verify or test the above, and therefore it shouldn't be regarded as absolutely true?