What would it take?

[Jan Ardena]

SolusCado,

...which may indeed have its own secondary spiritual benefits, but as a whole is not as important for the average Christian as simply having a spiritual relationship with God.

How do relationships end when one party has a contradictory idea of the other, despite being told constantly by the other the simple facts of the matter?

I do however strongly disagree with the notion that seeking to understand the limitations of language at the time the Old Testament was written somehow means one is limiting their discussion of God.

You are assuming that the language was limited, and as such most probably explained some notion of naturalistic evolution the only way they could.
This means you are willfully bypassing what is actually being written on the strength that they couldn't have words from particles like atom, molecule, abiogenesis, and so on.

I am by no means limited in my capacity to discuss what or who God may or may not be, but it is simply wrong, in every sense of the word, to found such discussions on linguistic fallacies.

Please explain what you think is meant by;

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

4In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

In other words, if one is to base their beliefs on "what the Bible actually says" they are being the worst kind of dishonest (or falling prey to the worst kinds of deception) to then infer meaning into words and phrases that simply don't carry that meaning.

No, it means you are more justified in your belief or lack of.
In order to get the best from a book, story, movie, etc.. one should actually believe what they see, hear, and feel. From that point we are in the best position to understand. If we have a preconceived idea, then we only understand through those goggles.

The causal relationship between God saying "Let there be light" and the subsequent occurrence of said light is a prime example, which is why I harp on it. It is so easy to see, when removing the context that has fueled such theological mistakes in the past, that such phrases do not linguistically carry any implicit causality, and yet - despite what the texts "actually say" - you and Jan both seem absolutely convinced at the meanings you have inferred. The worst part about it is that you both refuse to acknowledge the source of your beliefs - not in what the words "actually say," for it is clear that they don't "actually say" anything that would imply causality, but in what you have been taught to believe, through legacy theological foundations.

We aren't infering any meanings.
You are.
Which is my point.

I'm afraid you are the one in denial Solus, which probably the real reason you are ignoring me.

jan.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Atheists please feel free to answer the question of what it would take for you to become a theist.

If your "God" would appear to everyone at the same time, like a face in the sky so that everyone could view it and tell us something about itself. Why does "God" hide from everyone, would it want to be known to all people? Why only can those who "believe" be in touch with God, shouldn't everyone get to see it or hear it speak even if they do not believe? So I will await with an open mind to see what your God can do about its "image" problems before I would ever think about changing my views that it doesn't exist to me.

 

[SolusCado]

How does a person place their faith in God - apart from any and all established theological traditions?

Were it not for the theological traditions, you would not even know the words "God", or "faith" etc.

Once more, I didn't say the theological traditions were useless, but (to quote the NT), we should not be taking for doctrine the commandments of men. Placing one's faith in God over man means trusting that God will reveal the meaning of scriptures if your heart and mind is open, and not thinking that you have to rely on someone else to tell you what it means.

So in the case of holy texts, you suggest to ask God what this or that means?

Yes, and that of course involves taking in as much knowledge as possible. One doesn't operate in a vacuum, and it is incumbent upon any who truly seek to understand to seek out relevant knowledge on the subject.

Have you asked God what "And God said 'Let there be light' and there was light" means?

Actually, yes. The propositions I have made were revelations that came to me while I was studying the scriptures and in prayer. However, I don't go around saying "trust in me because God told me so" for the same reasons I wouldn't want anyone else to follow those who do. It should be made clear by the Holy Spirit; not by my claims that He talked to me.

Placing faith in the theological tradition means that one has faith that the theological tradition will provide the means to proper knowledge of God and whatever else may be necessary.
The theological tradition is not meant to replace God.

And yet, that is precisely what it does for so many. If your best answer to a question is "this is what someone told me" then you aren't doing your job as a Christian.

Again: How does a person place their faith in God - apart from any and all established theological traditions?

See above.

The idea that "God can and will guide us in the right direction" is part of such established theological tradition which you accept implicitly here.

Again, see above.

Implicit in this is the assumption that new findings are necessarily more correct.
But as the history of mundane knowledge shows, today's "new and correct" is tomorrow "old and incorrect".

No, it is not an implicit assumption, but rather a constantly moving target. Further refinement should be just as necessary in spirituality as it is in science.

How can a person have any stable footing in such relativity?

How stable a footing is really necessary in understanding the mechanics of Creation? I have said before that the mistakes I have perceived are largely (if not exclusively) surrounding not the things of the Spirit, but those of the physical world, where man has applied his limited knowledge of the physical world to the relevant scriptures and come up lacking. These are largely inconsequential points to the spiritual nature of Christianity, and yet they are the sounding boards for atheists who quite rightly recognize the fallacies espoused by "Christians" who talk less about spirituality and more about science - trying to shoehorn one into the other, and warping both in the process. One more reason we should not take for doctrine the commandments of men.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
How do relationships end when one party has a contradictory idea of the other, despite being told constantly by the other the simple facts of the matter?

I fail to see the relevance of your question to the conversation at hand, and since it seems to simply be argumentative, I won't respond.

You are assuming that the language was limited, and as such most probably explained some notion of naturalistic evolution the only way they could.

That is correct. Do you deny that the language was limited? If so, let me ask you - what was the Hebrew for "atom", "molecule", "chemistry", "nucleus", "proton", "photon", etc.?

This means you are willfully bypassing what is actually being written on the strength that they couldn't have words from particles like atom, molecule, abiogenesis, and so on.

No Jan, and I am not going to repeat myself again. The very notion of "willfully bypassing what is actually being written" assumes that "what is actually being written" is what you think it is. However, you have not provided legitimate linguistic support for your claim (or any linguistic support, for that matter). If you are going to stick to phrases like "what it actually says" then you are going to HAVE to engage me on linguistic issues. Refusal to do so is refusal to acknowledge what any texts "actually say".

Please explain what you think is meant by;

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

4In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Once again, I fail to see any relevance. The mainstream understanding of this passage is sufficient for me.

No, it means you are more justified in your belief or lack of.
In order to get the best from a book, story, movie, etc.. one should actually believe what they see, hear, and feel. From that point we are in the best position to understand. If we have a preconceived idea, then we only understand through those goggles.

Then please explain to me why you believe "God said let there be light, and there was light" inferred causality, and not just temporality?

We aren't infering any meanings.
You are.
Which is my point.

I'm afraid you are the one in denial Solus, which probably the real reason you are ignoring me.

jan.

No Jan - I am ignoring you because you don't seem to understand English well enough to have this conversation.

 

[wynn]

Once more, I didn't say the theological traditions were useless, but (to quote the NT), we should not be taking for doctrine the commandments of men. Placing one's faith in God over man means trusting that God will reveal the meaning of scriptures if your heart and mind is open, and not thinking that you have to rely on someone else to tell you what it means.

But how do you know that (again, apart from established theological traditions)?
How do you know that deism is not the right form of theism?

The propositions I have made were revelations that came to me while I was studying the scriptures and in prayer. However, I don't go around saying "trust in me because God told me so" for the same reasons I wouldn't want anyone else to follow those who do. It should be made clear by the Holy Spirit; not by my claims that He talked to me.

In other words, you have no other grounds for your claims than private revelation?

If your best answer to a question is "this is what someone told me"

If you ask God, and He tells you something, then your answer is indeed "this is what someone told me". What is wrong with that?

then you aren't doing your job as a Christian.

That is probably right to the point, given that the founding teacher of Christianity, namely Jesus, has departed, and you are not submitting to the theological tradition that claims direct disciplic succession from Jesus (namely the Holy Catholic Church).

So such a Christian (mainly the Protestant denominations) will somehow, on his own, have to do the work that is otherwise done by the disciplic succession / theological tradition. It is reasonable to assume that such work cannot be done by a single person.

No, it is not an implicit assumption, but rather a constantly moving target. Further refinement should be just as necessary in spirituality as it is in science.

I agree that there needs to be refinement as far as one's own realizations are concerned, and "inner evolution" - in the sense that one should not relax and kick back, saying "I have figured it out, now I can rest, assured!"

How stable a footing is really necessary in understanding the mechanics of Creation?

It depends on what you want to do based on that understanding.
And in this regard, the differences can be considerable.

For example, the scenario in which man evolved from a molecule gives me the impression that God is basically a deist god - and this is certainly not a god I would want to pray to or have much to do with.

I have said before that the mistakes I have perceived are largely (if not exclusively) surrounding not the things of the Spirit, but those of the physical world, where man has applied his limited knowledge of the physical world to the relevant scriptures and come up lacking. These are largely inconsequential points to the spiritual nature of Christianity, and yet they are the sounding boards for atheists who quite rightly recognize the fallacies espoused by "Christians" who talk less about spirituality and more about science - trying to shoehorn one into the other, and warping both in the process. One more reason we should not take for doctrine the commandments of men.

If you are the kind of Christian who believes in evolution from molecule to man, then some other theists will take issue with you, too.

 

[wynn]

I'm afraid you are the one in denial Solus, which probably the real reason you are ignoring me.

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?"
Jer. 5:30-1

 

[SolusCado]

But how do you know that (again, apart from established theological traditions)?
How do you know that deism is not the right form of theism?

If we are going to get this theoretical, how does anyone know anything? As I said before, one should take the whole of knowledge in making their decisions, particularly regarding theistic belief.

In other words, you have no other grounds for your claims than private revelation?

First of all, they aren't claims so much as "what-ifs" or "how do you know it isn't this". Secondly, I came to the ideas through private revelation (and study), but vet them through further study, communications with others, reason, etc. Once more - ALL KNOWLEDGE should be used.

If you ask God, and He tells you something, then your answer is indeed "this is what someone told me". What is wrong with that?

Nothing; but are you putting others on the same level as God? It almost seems as though you are deliberately twisting my words in an argumentative effort. I won't continue to engage in that, just so you know.

That is probably right to the point, given that the founding teacher of Christianity, namely Jesus, has departed, and you are not submitting to the theological tradition that claims direct disciplic succession from Jesus (namely the Holy Catholic Church).

How did I know this was going to come down to a Catholic thing... Just because the Catholic Church makes such a claim doesn't make it true. And frankly, there is neither scriptural nor biblical support for such claims.

So such a Christian (mainly the Protestant denominations) will somehow, on his own, have to do the work that is otherwise done by the disciplic succession / theological tradition. It is reasonable to assume that such work cannot be done by a single person.

Again, see above - this isn't what I am saying, and you appear to know that.

I agree that there needs to be refinement as far as one's own realizations are concerned, and "inner evolution" - in the sense that one should not relax and kick back, saying "I have figured it out, now I can rest, assured!"

At least we agree on something.

It depends on what you want to do based on that understanding.
And in this regard, the differences can be considerable.

For example, the scenario in which man evolved from a molecule gives me the impression that God is basically a deist god - and this is certainly not a god I would want to pray to or have much to do with.

Then I would argue you missed the point of Christ's message entirely.

If you are the kind of Christian who believes in evolution from molecule to man, then some other theists will take issue with you, too.

But probably mostly Catholics.

 

[SolusCado]

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?"
Jer. 5:30-1

Sounds like the Catholic Church if you ask me.

 

[wynn]

But probably mostly Catholics.

Not at all.
I am not sure about the Muslims, but certainly many Hindus will oppose the idea of evolution from molecule to man.

 

[wynn]

I do however strongly disagree with the notion that seeking to understand the limitations of language at the time the Old Testament was written somehow means one is limiting their discussion of God. Failure to recognize such linguitic limitations, in order to maintain a theological belief that itself was based on such failures is to compound one mistake with another.

We can call them "limitations of OT language" or "specifics of OT language".

I would go with the concept of specifics.

In other words, if one is to base their beliefs on "what the Bible actually says" they are being the worst kind of dishonest (or falling prey to the worst kinds of deception) to then infer meaning into words and phrases that simply don't carry that meaning. The causal relationship between God saying "Let there be light" and the subsequent occurrence of said light is a prime example, which is why I harp on it. It is so easy to see, when removing the context that has fueled such theological mistakes in the past, that such phrases do not linguistically carry any implicit causality, and yet - despite what the texts "actually say" - you and Jan both seem absolutely convinced at the meanings you have inferred. The worst part about it is that you both refuse to acknowledge the source of your beliefs - not in what the words "actually say," for it is clear that they don't "actually say" anything that would imply causality, but in what you have been taught to believe, through legacy theological foundations.

When one finds a phrase or passage in a holy text that one does not understand, that seems counterintuitive, or even flat out wrong, there are basically two possible responses:

1. "The text is wrong, and I am right."
2. "The text is right, and I just don't understand it right now."

The person with the second approach will try to find evidence of one kind or another to support the wording of the holy text.

The person with the first approach will to a lesser or greater extent dismiss the holy text as "limited".

As far as I understood Jesus' message, he would take the second one.

 

[wynn]

Sounds like the Catholic Church if you ask me.

Why?

You seem to be suggesting that you know better than the oldest continuous tradition of Christianity what is biblical/scriptural and what is not.

IMO, that is quite a bold position to take ...

 

[SolusCado]

Not at all.
I am not sure about the Muslims, but certainly many Hindus will oppose the idea of evolution from molecule to man.

In reality, I am sure there are a great many theists that oppose it, but not for any justifiable reasons. Rather, they are led by the same thing that led them into their faith in the first place - something that usually falls in line with a need to fit in, a respect for tradition, or being raised with beliefs being a sacred value - such that daring to think outside what they've been indoctrinated into would seem downright evil. Unfortunately, this is not an approach to life shared by any major biblical figures, least of whom Christ himself. We are taught to be shepherds rather than sheep, and yet the world is full of sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves - and it will likely be another hundred years or so before they follow reality. It's happened time and again (the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, the solar system was the center of the universe, etc.), so there is no reason to expect more from them now. But knowledge will progress, and we will continue to find life thriving in all sorts of environments, which will undoubtedly one day include other planets, and we will be able to synthesize life from raw chemicals, and engineer new life forms, and so on. Theists will either refine their theologies, or they will be left behind in the dustbins of mythology.

 

[Bravowon]

You could show me a creator but you could never show me a god.

 

[wynn]

If we are going to get this theoretical, how does anyone know anything?

Then let us go there.
What do you think: How does a person know something?

As I said before, one should take the whole of knowledge in making their decisions, particularly regarding theistic belief.

This is not only impractical, but also impossible and full of contradictions.
How is one to select between which knowledge statements to accept as relevant, and which to dismiss?

Nothing; but are you putting others on the same level as God?

Yes, some of them in some regard.

It depends on what you want to do based on that understanding.
And in this regard, the differences can be considerable.

For example, the scenario in which man evolved from a molecule gives me the impression that God is basically a deist god - and this is certainly not a god I would want to pray to or have much to do with.

Then I would argue you missed the point of Christ's message entirely.

How?

Do you see Jesus as a kind of user-friendly interface, like a computer program (like Word) is an interface between the user and the CPU/disk?

 

[SolusCado]

Why?

Because the Catholic Church, like the priests in Jeremiah, rule over their church thanks to their church's own claims of divinity, and Catholics love it this way. Your arguments are evidence of that.

You seem to be suggesting that you know better than the oldest continuous tradition of Christianity what is biblical/scriptural and what is not.

The Orthodox Church would argue the point of the oldest continuous tradition of Christianity, and yes - I am suggesting that. The Catholic Church has been full of corruption since day one, and it has a history of atrocities against mankind as proof. They make their own rules, calling it divine, despite the fact that Paul long ago said the scriptures were complete. They adopt pagan holidays and insult Christ by giving them His name. They pray to countless dead people, and they revere graven images. They have an altar in the center of their capital adorned with pagan imagery. Their capital is full of wealth that serves their own glory, instead of helping the world's poor. I'm sure there is more, but I only have so much time, and I think you get my point.

IMO, that is quite a bold position to take ...

Yes, it is. Once again, we agree.

 

[wynn]

In reality, I am sure there are a great many theists that oppose it, but not for any justifiable reasons. Rather, they are led by the same thing that led them into their faith in the first place - something that usually falls in line with a need to fit in, a respect for tradition, or being raised with beliefs being a sacred value - such that daring to think outside what they've been indoctrinated into would seem downright evil. Unfortunately, this is not an approach to life shared by any major biblical figures, least of whom Christ himself. We are taught to be shepherds rather than sheep, and yet the world is full of sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves - and it will likely be another hundred years or so before they follow reality. It's happened time and again (the Earth was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, the solar system was the center of the universe, etc.), so there is no reason to expect more from them now. But knowledge will progress, and we will continue to find life thriving in all sorts of environments, which will undoubtedly one day include other planets, and we will be able to synthesize life from raw chemicals, and engineer new life forms, and so on. Theists will either refine their theologies, or they will be left behind in the dustbins of mythology.

You seem to think that this above is the only justified explanation of why some theists oppose the notion of evolution from molecule to man.
Why could there be no other explanation for such opposition?

 

[SolusCado]

We can call them "limitations of OT language" or "specifics of OT language".

I would go with the concept of specifics.

Which ignores the very fundamental, inarguable fact that there are concepts and ideas in modern times that have contributed to our language, that did not exist back then. If we have a language of a quarter million words, and they had a language of even 50,000 (I don't think it was that high), then YES - it is LIMITED. I don't understand how one can even argue that.

When one finds a phrase or passage in a holy text that one does not understand, that seems counterintuitive, or even flat out wrong, there are basically two possible responses:

1. "The text is wrong, and I am right."
2. "The text is right, and I just don't understand it right now."

The person with the second approach will try to find evidence of one kind or another to support the wording of the holy text.

Agreed.

The person with the first approach will to a lesser or greater extent dismiss the holy text as "limited".

As far as I understood Jesus' message, he would take the second one.

And I am suggesting that the existing theological foundations are examples of people who just didn't understand the texts at the time. That we take their word for it, instead of continuing to try to understand, is placing more faith in them than in God's ability to continue teaching us.

 

[SolusCado]

You seem to think that this above is the only justified explanation of why some theists oppose the notion of evolution from molecule to man.
Why could there be no other explanation for such opposition?

I actually gave a few reasons, but if you have others I am certainly open to hear them.

 

[wynn]

Solus Cado -

Just to be clear - I will need your reply to my post 234 above.

 

[SolusCado]

Solus Cado -

Just to be clear - I will need your reply to my post 234 above.

Sorry, missed that one.

Then let us go there.
What do you think: How does a person know something?

That's a good question. Like I said, I think if you want to get truly philosophical, no one really KNOWS anything. We all believe one thing or another based on the observations and rationale that we have.

This is not only impractical, but also impossible and full of contradictions.
How is one to select between which knowledge statements to accept as relevant, and which to dismiss?

As noted above, they must apply their own observations and rationale.

Yes, some of them in some regard.

A Catholic approach that would never be shared by a Protestant. To quote Jehovah, there is only one God.

How?

Do you see Jesus as a kind of user-friendly interface, like a computer program (like Word) is an interface between the user and the CPU/disk?

Actually, yes. Christ is the conduit between man and God. He replaced the need for priests in this respect. This is a fundamental Protestant theological point, and perhaps the key issue between Protestantism and Catholicism.