A Working Definition of God

Could you explain this paragraph a bit more? I'm not sure I understand it. I have read it actually. But I will read it again to make sure I'm understanding it clearly.

Actually it is, and worse than that, as you "oppose" the person, not merely the belief. Which I will say more about. The intolerance is on your side, which was my point, and this statement is a perfect example of it. You are intolerant of anyone who believes that their way is the right way, but in fact you have exactly the same belief that YOUR way is the right way, meaning your belief that ALL ways are acceptable to God. That's YOUR belief and from that position you condemn others who do NOT believe that all ways are acceptable to God.The point is that you don't merely disagree with the belief, you condemn the PERSON, as you are doing to me here. A few posts back you actually claimed that your ad hominem character assassination of me was just "speaking from the heart." I decided not to respond to that, but it's apropos here.You are far more intolerant in the true sense of the word than I am as I haven't come out with the ad hominems you've thrown against me (pride conceit intolerance hard cold rigid), I've merely said I consider others' beliefs wrong. I certainly consider YOURS wrong. Thank you for identifying yourself as a Unitarian, which is a view of course I judge to be false.THAT is the proper way to deal with conflicting beliefs, to judge them false but not the person. You have it backwards. You don't content yourself with arguing that the opponent's belief is wrong, you judge the opponent -- intolerant, arrogant, rigid.What tolerance IS, which nobody seems able to grasp any more, is refraining from the very condemnation you do while clearly declaring that the belief is wrong. INtolerance is ironically in fact THE defining characteristic of the multiculturalist philosophies like Unitarianism that so pride themselves on tolerance while committing the opposite. It's like ancient Rome. They persecuted and martyred Christians for refusing to acknowledge their multiple gods, for daring to worship only One God. For that the Christians were called "atheists." The thinking of today's multiculturalists and religious pluralists is very like ancient Rome.The concept of tolerance, however, came out of the many warring sects of Christianity. It is an agreement to respect a persons's right to a different view WITHOUT having to treat the view itself as right. {EDIT: In fact WITH the attitude that the view is fair game for debate and attack. Just not the person who holds it.You reverse that and in fact commit intolerance.Sorry for being repetitive but I think it's important to get this said as clearly as I can.{EDIT: TOLERANCE IS LIVING CORDIALLY WITH PEOPLE WHOSE VIEWS YOU CONSIDER FALSE AND WORSE. IF YOU LABEL THEIR CHARACTER WITH NAMES LIKE BIGOT/HARD/COLD/RIGID/INTOLERANT/CONCEITED THAT'S NOT LIVING CORDIALLY WITH THEM.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 09:44 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 09:46 AM

Oh yes, I absolutely am. Whatever is true in the other religions is true nevertheless, but where they contradict the Bible, yes, the Bible absolutely excludes them as false. This is not about how I USE the Bible, it's what the Bible SAYS that excludes them. God is the one who has determined the way to Him, not I. Jesus has made it clear that HE is the way to the Father and there is no other. He has made it clear that the way to Him is "narrow" and those who go by the "broad" way are not going to get there. The whole Bible shows the falseness of all other religions. To deny this is to rewrite the Bible to suit yourself. I am a bit shocked I have to admit, though by now I shouldn't be. To treat the sacrificial love of Christ on behalf of all humanity as "wickedness" rather takes the breath away. But to answer your question, yes of course they will be turned away. That is why Jesus said to take the gospel everywhere, so that many may be saved from just such a terrible fate.I'm afraid you will find out too late that it is GOD who decides these things. I certainly don't do any of the deciding. He has mercifully given His Word so that no-one can be in doubt. If you prefer a different view from His, that's your right in human terms, but rejecting His chosen provision for your salvation is not something you should do lightly. This choice will have eternal consequences and you really need to rethink it. {EDIT: Perhaps you think you accept that provision. I don't see how that is possible without understanding that it is the ONLY provision given by God for all humanity.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 10:06 AM

Apples and oranges. You aren't saying I don't make sense. You are saying I'm contradicting myself. Ptolemy has a problem with language, with expressing his thoughts. That's not the same as having contradictions in his thoughts. It's simply too hard to follow him to find out what he's saying, so I can't tell if he's contradicting himself or not.

I thought I'd answered this thoroughly.The evidence of the miracles dissipated in short time. It's gone.The evidence of God's hand in the world on all levels is opaque to us as we think in terms of the natural laws that are the proximal cause, instead of in terms of God who guides it all. This is our own inability to see, but the evidence is there for whose who can see it.The Flood may turn out to be evidence, but it is in process of being thought through.What am I leaving out?We do, however, have LOTS of witness evidence to make up the difference, provided mercifully by God on account of our spiritual blindness.

I don't think I can make it much clearer. The distinction is between the ensoulment and fall of two individuals from a population of fully modern homo sapiens, and the emergence of two fully modern homo sapiens , not yet ensouled or fallen, from a population of proto-human hominids, followed by ensoulment and fall. IMO either option is possible. You seem to think only the latter is, if I am understanding you correctly. I'm not seeing it, if we grant that Genesis uses figurative language to affirm a primeval historical event, which I thought we did. I think it's possible our understanding of the document differs, but only in fine distinction. You aren't demanding YEC, and I am not demanding Teilhard de Chardin's theology. So what are we arguing about ?

Uh, no. Sorry if you don't like the examples, but they were chosen because they were the ones that came to mind when I was trying to think of well known insular religous communities with weird ideas. I would have used less well known religious communities with weird ideas that didn't have disasterous outcomes except that I couldn't think of any since, having not come to disaster, they didn't make the front pages and hence I never heard of them. Though I guess if you go back a century or so the Shakers and the Oneida colony qualify.The point is by no means that Faith's religious ideas are leading her toward disaster. The point is that insular religious communities have a tendency to take on weird ideas that make sense within the community but to few outside it. After dealing repeatedly with Faith's contradictions that she flatly states aren't contradictions I am in essence asking her to freshly examine her views. Again, I'm truly sorry if the examples seemed poorly chosen, but I try to find new explanations rather than repeating old ones under the assumption that if it wasn't understood the first time, saying it again won't be helpful. But after explaining something a number of times one runs out of novel ways to explain it. I'm sure Faith appreciates your support. Could you express this a bit differently, though? I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not actually saying that Faith's religious beliefs are fine and mine are crap. Actually, I don't recall Faith saying that there aren't many paths to Christ, but maybe she did. But she definitely echos your sentiments that the only path to God is through Christ. I find much in this to recommend it. But the question I've been asking Faith is the same one I would still ask you: do you deny salvation to those who don't accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?Of course, that isn't the topic of this thread, but it hearkens back to the issue of evidence of God's deeds. Thanks for the information about Catholic beliefs.--Percy

I'll have to read up on this subject more, but my impression is that subduing the creatures doesn't have to mean anything violent, but simply involve the work of cultivating or training, what we do with both plants and domesticated animals now. Maybe the word "taming" applies. Breeding them perhaps. But overall simply "ruling" as authority. Good rulers don't normally kill their subjects, they rule them, give them good laws, see to their needs, improve their condition.Romans 5:12 says both sin AND death "entered the WORLD," making no distinction between humanity and other parts of the creation: "...as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."His adding that "death passed upon all men" is simply a focusing on humanity, not an exclusion of the rest of the creation, the point being that from that point on death was inherited by all of us.This is my reasoning on the subject anyway. I will have to read up more on it.And again, do you know the Catholic position on the shortening of the human life span as catalogued in the begats up to and after Noah?

People - Look at the topic title.Also, message 1 was: Adminnemooseus

I have a problem reconciling the idea that we NEED to eat for sustenance with the idea that we will have eternal life. The language of Revelation is certainly symbolic or allegorical, but I don't see any hint whatever that Genesis is. It reads like straight narrative reporting. Again, since we will have eternal life whatever food we have available can't be for sustenance but for some other purpose I would think, at the very least simply one of the many pleasures of eternal life.

A fair question!
If someone were cured of disease, it would be hard to find any physical evidence.If water were turned to wine, the wine would long be gone. (As would the wineskins)Many Christian apologists have discussed the empty tomb, so I'll leave that to another thread.All that remains to prove or quantify is the matter of the current impact of God interacting with humanity. I would say that here at EvC for us at least, the jury is still out on that one.

Good discussion happening, but it belongs somewhere else.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Per this request, the topic has been reopened.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2005 01:45 PM

---

This is a good point. The Forum Guidelines request that discussions not become personal, and I'll try harder to follow this in the future. I don't usually participate in the non-science threads, and I can see that it is harder to do this when discussing religious beliefs. Actually, I think it would be more accurately expressed differently. You accept only your way to the Lord, while I accept both our ways. You further believe my way is wrong. Now who is more tolerant again?I'm not condemning for you for your belief about the way to the Lord. I'm critisizing you for holding a belief that demonstrates a clear lack of charity and tolerance for the beliefs of others.But let's move off this and back on to the main topic. I apologize if I offended you, and for playing so significant a role in getting this thread temporarily closed.In a Message 245 you said you felt as if you'd already answered the question about evidence. I can't be sure which point I'm not getting across, so being as brief as possible, let me begin from scratch.God has performed and still performs physical deeds in the physical world. These deeds leave behind physical evidence. The evidence from deeds of long ago has long since disappeared. But the evidence from recent deeds should still be around. Where is it?I have a feeling this isn't going to be enough, so let me say a little more. The Bible records momentous deeds that left copious evidence, like the parting of the Red Sea and so forth. Is the reason that evidence from God's recent deeds isn't apparent is because he no longer performs deeds significant enough to produce detectable physical evidence? If a physical event is indetectable, how can we be sure it really happened?Please keep in mind that by evidence I mean objective evidence. That's the kind of evidence where I can see it, you can see it, everyone can see it. This is the "parting of the Red Sea" and "the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah" kind of evidence that is apparent to everyone living in that time and place. If we shift contexts later to consider witness evidence we must keep in mind that only one person can "see" it and testify to it.--Percy

I'm saying both. It is very difficult to make sense of explanations containing contradictory statements. But my point wasn't that you and Ptolemy are peas in a pod. What you both hold in common is the feedback you're receiving *and* ignoring that your message isn't getting across. Ptolemy has been reduced to posting almost identical statements over and over, and your problem is nowhere as severe as that. But your explanations of the contradictions look to me as contradictory as the original statements.Keeping clear definitions in mind is how we'll break out of this. We now undestand there's a difference between physical "everybody can see it" evidence and witness evidence. You now know that the definition of "objective" that I'm using means "of or having to do with a material object". You now know that the definition of "faith" I'm using means "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". When I use them in different ways I'll be clear about that, and if you can do the same then we might actually make some progress.--Percy

Faith, Yes, it does. A myth in the broadest sense is a traditional story pertaining to a peoples history, the parting of the Red Sea meets that criteria, it is a myth by definition. What I meant when I said, "remains a myth", was that it wasn't being elevated to a fact, or anything resembling one.If you want to suggest that the Red Sea business is indicative of reality, then you need independent corobborating evidence supporting the notion. Invoking the myth as evidence supporting the veracity of the myth is circular argumentation & logically invalid. Not scientifically, it isn't. Science requires reproducibility, & eyewitness evidence is entirely unrepeatable. I find it unlikely that no-one has pointed this out to you. In the case of the bible you have no way of knowing if it is a story rooted in truth or completely made up. Given the fantastic nature of the alleged phenomenon, we can reasonably expect fantastic evidence?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't