Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature and the fall of man
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 300 (274934)
01-02-2006 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
01-01-2006 10:51 PM


Re: If no Fall
Well, most of us don't
I just meant that I've been walking around with this ideal "me" in my head which, of course, is a far cry from my actual self. I was assuming that most everybody else felt the same way.
I suppose one might work that up into some sort of argument. If not for the Fall, I would BE this ideal "me," not merely have it in my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 01-01-2006 10:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 6:40 AM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 300 (274935)
01-02-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Brian
01-02-2006 4:52 AM


Naive view of the Bible?
However, people such as yourself and Faith, really do have a very naive view of the Bible, and I do not mean that as an insult. You really appear to think that the Bible was written in a vacuum, uninfluenced by external social and political factors.
Which is really to say that although all other books may be fairly assumed to be influenced by such factors, we have the perspicacity to recognize that this one wasn't. It takes something other than naivete to recognize that, to make such an exception I would think, especially considering the amount of ridicule we have to take for it all the time. But if you don't see it, I don't want to get into a battle about it.
{ABE: The Bible is above such factors, is a commentary upon the world of such factors; its writers had the fear of God in them.
{ABE: Not happy with how I said the above. Trying to get said that you have the ordinary, normal way of regarding the Bible and its history. Really, the "mind of the flesh." Transcending that ordinary normal way takes something that's not naivete.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 07:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Brian, posted 01-02-2006 4:52 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Brian, posted 01-02-2006 8:33 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 300 (274936)
01-02-2006 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by robinrohan
01-02-2006 6:14 AM


Re: If no Fall
I just meant that I've been walking around with this ideal "me" in my head which, of course, is a far cry from my actual self. I was assuming that most everybody else felt the same way.
I suppose one might work that up into some sort of argument. If not for the Fall, I would BE this ideal "me," not merely have it in my head.
I didn't have a clue that you were thinking about it in such personal terms. I'm not sure it's really the same subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 01-02-2006 6:14 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by robinrohan, posted 01-02-2006 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 199 of 300 (274951)
01-02-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
01-02-2006 6:37 AM


Naive view of the Bible?
Which is really to say that although all other books may be fairly assumed to be influenced by such factors, we have the perspicacity to recognize that this one wasn't.
No, you have the naiveté and ignorance to fail to recognise that the Bible is a collection of texts put together by councils who accepted, or rejected, texts based on their own beliefs.
There is no reason to believe that the biblical texts are any different from any other ancient texts, they were written for many different reasons. To promote the faith, to give some sort of legitimacy for an action, to explain rituals, to preserve Israelite hierarchies, to give ancient Israel a ”history’, far too many reasons to go into. Look at the texts regarding true and false prophets, these are essentially self preservation texts, do no listen to any other prophet, even if their prophecies come to pass, you really need to believe in Yahweh or our faith will collapse. It is pretty obvious that the priesthood and Israelite elders were protecting their positions with texts such as these.
It takes something other than naivete to recognize that,
All it takes Faith is the Sunday School understanding that you have of the Bible. These arguments you put forward are simply childish. When adults study the Bible they go beyond Sunday School level investigation. Don’t get me wrong, Sunday School has its place, I still have a few Sunday School certificates from over 30 years ago, but its place in as far as understanding the construction of the Bible, is a starting point. I fear this is where both you and Randman, and a few others here, are stuck, you do not appear to want to burst out of the Sunday School comfort zone and actually appreciate the Bible in its true contexts. This stance is nave and childish, don’t you truly want to understand the Bible, are you not interested in the different worlds that it was written in?
to make such an exception I would think, especially considering the amount of ridicule we have to take for it all the time.
I only ridicule you to try and motivate you to study the Bible properly, and not to be content with this suffocating approach that you have. The Bible is wonderful, and I fear that you are missing out on so much with this blinkered approach.
But if you don't see it, I don't want to get into a battle about it.
But, I did see it, when I was earning these Sunday School certificates 30-odd years ago, I had the same understanding that you have now. However, when I could afford to, and when I had the time to, I wanted to really study the Bible, I wasn’t content with the childlike knowledge that I had, I knew there was far more to the Bible than what we see at face value, and it is only when studied in the context of the ancient worlds in which it was written can anyone fully appreciate the Book.
{ABE: The Bible is above such factors, is a commentary upon the world of such factors; its writers had the fear of God in them.
The writers maybe had fear of losing followers, or their esteemed positions, but why would they fear God? Also, it is rather nave to assume that we know who the writers of the Bible were, in the Old Testament we do not know who wrote a single book!
{ABE: Not happy with how I said the above. Trying to get said that you have the ordinary, normal way of regarding the Bible and its history. Really, the "mind of the flesh." Transcending that ordinary normal way takes something that's not naivete.
If it isn’t naiveté, what is it?
What is wrong with studying the Bible as an historical document, don’t you have any desire to reach the truth about the texts?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 6:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 10:19 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 214 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 1:24 AM Brian has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 200 of 300 (274953)
01-02-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by robinrohan
12-31-2005 2:47 AM


Re: If no Fall
LA writes:
By what criteria do you make this judgement?
robin writes:
By my criteria.
Then your God is you, since he is not allowed to do anything outside your criteria for good.
I doubt that Faith or Randman would subscribe to that definition of God even though they believe in the Fall as a literal event that is slowly destroying creation.
Let's say we take the fundamentalist point of view. Adam actions caused every "bad" thing that we see today....murder, theft, earthquakes, disease, birth defects. You still have to deal with the fact that God knew these things would happen before He made Adam, or anything in Creation. Yet He made Adam anyway and put him in a situation that God knew would result in the introduction of evil and decay into Creation. Does this make God evil by your criteria?
If you leave a gun out, and sit there, watching without doing anything, while your three-year-old shoots himself, are you responsible for the three-year-olds death? I would say yes, even if you did not know that the child could or would be able to weild the weapon. God knew the outcome of making Adam and put him in that situation.
This makes the fundamentalist God:
1. Evil (Bible disagrees)
2. Stupid (Bible disagrees)
3. Not omnipotent (Bible disagrees)
4. Not omniscient (Bible disagrees)
5. Working with a different concept of what is good and what is evil.
Even if I were a fundamentalist, I would have to choose number 5.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:47 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by robinrohan, posted 01-02-2006 9:21 AM LinearAq has replied
 Message 206 by lfen, posted 01-02-2006 9:31 PM LinearAq has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 300 (274962)
01-02-2006 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by LinearAq
01-02-2006 8:41 AM


Re: If no Fall
5. Working with a different concept of what is good and what is evil.
Even if I were a fundamentalist, I would have to choose number 5.
If we have a different concept of good and evil than God does, then our ideas of good and evil are worthless. Conscience is a lie.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-02-2006 08:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2006 8:41 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2006 6:36 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 300 (274966)
01-02-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
01-02-2006 6:40 AM


Re: If no Fall
I didn't have a clue that you were thinking about it in such personal terms
I did not mean it to be purely personal. I was just using myself as an example and assuming others were like me.
Suppose there was this fish who lived down deep in the ocean and never came anywhere near the surface. This fish can think. Now this fish can have no concept of "dryness," but he also has no concept of "wetness." If we were to interview him on a call-in radio show and asked him, "How does it feel to be wet your entire life?," the fish would answer, "I guess I don't understand the question. Are you asking me how it feels to be alive?"
We are fish that have a concept of wetness, and even a glimmer about dryness.
wetness--sense of the wrongness of the world
dryness--the ideal
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-02-2006 08:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 6:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 10:23 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 203 of 300 (274982)
01-02-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Brian
01-02-2006 8:33 AM


Re: Naive view of the Bible?
Which is really to say that although all other books may be fairly assumed to be influenced by such factors, we have the perspicacity to recognize that this one wasn't.
No, you have the naiveté and ignorance to fail to recognise that the Bible is a collection of texts put together by councils who accepted, or rejected, texts based on their own beliefs.
Uh huh, well I said I didn't want to get into a battle about this. Maybe it's so off topic an admin will curtail it anyway. Couldn't be that your view of this is wrong of course. Couldn't be that I've read a fair amount about the councils myself, and the writings of the Church Fathers. Nothing to the degree you've read no doubt, but I do read in faith. And what I see is men of faith contending strongly for the truth against all manner of heresies and conspiracies intended to derail the gospel, and the truth winning out in the end.
There is no reason to believe that the biblical texts are any different from any other ancient texts, they were written for many different reasons. To promote the faith, to give some sort of legitimacy for an action, to explain rituals, to preserve Israelite hierarchies, to give ancient Israel a ”history’, far too many reasons to go into. Look at the texts regarding true and false prophets, these are essentially self preservation texts, do no listen to any other prophet, even if their prophecies come to pass, you really need to believe in Yahweh or our faith will collapse. It is pretty obvious that the priesthood and Israelite elders were protecting their positions with texts such as these.
Except there isn't a shred of evidence for that view, just your own squinty-eyed suspiciousness. The mind of the flesh.
And how odd. Does any other ancient people behave so? Work so hard to preserve their institutions? Why the Israelites in particular? Couldn't it be that what they say is in fact the truth and the truth is a vulnerable item on planet earth where the devil roams and the flesh rules? That is, a true prophet of God will say things consistent with God's law, a false prophet won't. That is, Yahweh really IS the God who made it all, made you too Brian. That is, they were "protecting" the truth, the truth of Yahweh, the One True God. That's what it SAYS you know. And the kind of duplicity you are charging them with is exactly the sort of thing they got punished for. They didn't follow the commands of Yahweh and the later (true)prophets come along to warn them of the consequences of it based on the Law. Eventually the consequences came about according to the Law. Should be a hint in there that this would only occur if Yahweh were indeed the One True God.
It takes something other than naivete to recognize that,
All it takes Faith is the Sunday School understanding that you have of the Bible. These arguments you put forward are simply childish. When adults study the Bible they go beyond Sunday School level investigation. Don’t get me wrong, Sunday School has its place, I still have a few Sunday School certificates from over 30 years ago, but its place in as far as understanding the construction of the Bible, is a starting point.
A fantasy of your own entirely, but I'm sure it's as rock solid as the ToE when it comes to trying to point out its flaws. I started my odyssey to Christ in my forties, reading Evelyn Underwood, Hans Jonas on the Gnostics, Elaine Pagels, Harvey Cox, Matthew Fox, and all those heretics, and something in me told me it was all wrong. It felt wrong, there was nothing satisfying in any of it. Then I got to reading people like Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Theresa of Avila, Francis Schaeffer, eventually Jonathan Edwards, Martyn Lloyd Jones, Spurgeon, dozens of biographies, commentaries, Bible encyclopedia etc. Something in me KNEW where the truth was, and led me to it. If this is Sunday School, well then so be it, I'm happy to be in Sunday School. And in that case it confirms what the Lord taught, that we must become as little children. I've worried that maybe I haven't met His standard, but now it makes me happy to think I may have after all.
I fear this is where both you and Randman, and a few others here, are stuck, you do not appear to want to burst out of the Sunday School comfort zone and actually appreciate the Bible in its true contexts. This stance is nave and childish, don’t you truly want to understand the Bible, are you not interested in the different worlds that it was written in?
Most Bible Studies teach the true contexts. My pastor always gives historical background. And Brian, I KNOW I understand the Bible, it speaks to me personally straight from the mouth of God. Knowing about the worlds it was written in helps to understand its forms and idioms, but understanding it is hearing from God through it.
to make such an exception I would think, especially considering the amount of ridicule we have to take for it all the time.
I only ridicule you to try and motivate you to study the Bible properly, and not to be content with this suffocating approach that you have. The Bible is wonderful, and I fear that you are missing out on so much with this blinkered approach.
The feeling is mutual, Brian.
But if you don't see it, I don't want to get into a battle about it.
But, I did see it, when I was earning these Sunday School certificates 30-odd years ago, I had the same understanding that you have now.
Obviously not. You may have had the contents of the knowledge that I have, from being taught it, but you didn't hold it in faith, in relationship with Christ Himself. That is how it comes to be lost, and many who grow up in the church do lose it. Very sad. I went to church as a child too, and I sort of believed, not with the commitment it sounds like you did, and as soon as I got to high school I encountered sophisticated critics like those at EvC, and lost it. It is only head knowledge and that is easily lost. It has to be a heart certainty.
However, when I could afford to, and when I had the time to, I wanted to really study the Bible, I wasn’t content with the childlike knowledge that I had, I knew there was far more to the Bible than what we see at face value, and it is only when studied in the context of the ancient worlds in which it was written can anyone fully appreciate the Book.
Well, maybe there's no way to talk you out of that. But again, good preaching does illuminate the ancient worlds in which it was written.
{ABE: The Bible is above such factors, is a commentary upon the world of such factors; its writers had the fear of God in them.
The writers maybe had fear of losing followers, or their esteemed positions, but why would they fear God?
This is SUCH a bizarre idea. The ones who played to the people, the ones who feared losing followers, were the ones denounced by the true prophets as false prophets and corrupt leaders who DIDN'T have the fear of God in them. If the OT teaches anything it is that the people were hardly ever true to the teachings of the true prophets. They forgot the Law right away and went off pursuing the neighboring idolatries. What nonsense this idea is that the incredibly unpopular true teachings could have been defended for such mean motives. The truth is always held against the popular tide. Elijah held onto it against the entire establishment of Israel and their whole retinue of hundreds of false prophets, while the true prophets had to hide out in a cave. Elijah sure did worry about losing his followers there.
Also, it is rather nave to assume that we know who the writers of the Bible were, in the Old Testament we do not know who wrote a single book!
Tch tch tch. You may not but I don't have any doubts. The names that were attached to the books from earliest times need not be doubted.
Oh and yeah, I've read some of the Higher Critics. They bore me, though, so not much I admit.
{ABE: Not happy with how I said the above. Trying to get said that you have the ordinary, normal way of regarding the Bible and its history. Really, the "mind of the flesh." Transcending that ordinary normal way takes something that's not naivete.
If it isn’t naiveté, what is it?
Transcending the ordinary normal way.
What is wrong with studying the Bible as an historical document, don’t you have any desire to reach the truth about the texts?
Oh well.
Happy New Year Brian.
{ABE: This doesn't read very clearly in places, probably the result of my not having slept much last night. Hope it isn't too hard to follow as I'm too tired to do anything about it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 10:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Brian, posted 01-02-2006 8:33 AM Brian has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 204 of 300 (274983)
01-02-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by robinrohan
01-02-2006 9:29 AM


Re: If no Fall
OK, I get the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by robinrohan, posted 01-02-2006 9:29 AM robinrohan has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 205 of 300 (275110)
01-02-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by robinrohan
01-02-2006 9:21 AM


Re: If no Fall
robinrohan writes:
If we have a different concept of good and evil than God does, then our ideas of good and evil are worthless. Conscience is a lie.
I guess I could have communicated that better.
God lays out the limits of our actions, that will be considered good, through the written word of His prophets. These limits are based on our capabilities. Our sense of good and evil, conscience, is based on those words and our limitations. (Ex: Do unto others...)
God's knowledge is not limited so His actions cannot be judged by our limited knowedge as "evil" or "good". We really don't know.
What we see as a bad thing does not make it an "evil" thing. It could certainly be a good thing from God's perspective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by robinrohan, posted 01-02-2006 9:21 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2006 10:40 AM LinearAq has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 206 of 300 (275156)
01-02-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by LinearAq
01-02-2006 8:41 AM


Re: If no Fall
This makes the fundamentalist God:
Linear,
I'd like to toss in a 6th possiblity that the fundamentalist God is a early model of reality that for a number of deep psychological reasons is more reassuring to a large number of people than later refinements of understanding.
Because of some situations I've become aware of I've been studying about victims of abuse. One interesting finding is that some of them blame themselves for the abuse because they believe they were bad and deserved it. This is particularly true for children who are abused by caregivers. They seem to have a need to preserve the authority and "goodness" of the parent or parent figure.
Fritz Perls was the first place I encountered this idea decades ago that the priests of Judaism had hit on inducing their followers to retroflect their anger and assume blame for anything bad that happened to them. Instead of being angry with God and his priests they were encouraged to feel guilty and unworthy. So the conviction of guilt supports the power structure.
I am now seeing that this psychological vulnerability of humans is more widespread than I thought and thus is probably deeper and more fundamental to our brains than I had suspected.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2006 8:41 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by LinearAq, posted 01-02-2006 9:49 PM lfen has replied
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 10:18 PM lfen has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 207 of 300 (275159)
01-02-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by lfen
01-02-2006 9:31 PM


Re: If no Fall
Ifen writes:
...Instead of being angry with God and his priests they were encouraged to feel guilty and unworthy. So the conviction of guilt supports the power structure.
I was actually saying that we have no grounds to say that because the world has bad things happening and there was no actual "Fall" that there is no God.
Even if we use the YEC God, we still come to the point that the things we perceive as bad are His doing. Following the YEC premise that God is only good then the bad things in this world are only bad from our point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by lfen, posted 01-02-2006 9:31 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by lfen, posted 01-03-2006 1:19 AM LinearAq has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 300 (275171)
01-02-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by lfen
01-02-2006 9:31 PM


Re: If no Fall
I'd like to toss in a 6th possiblity that the fundamentalist God is a early model of reality that for a number of deep psychological reasons is more reassuring to a large number of people than later refinements of understanding.
The problem with this idea is that people don't believe anything simply because it is "reassuring." It has to be believed to be true. Even so, believing the gospel is not natural to us anyway, as witness the many exhortations in the Bible to stir up faith, protect faith, encourage one another.
Also the gospel is not an "early model of reality" -- it is the fulfillment of 2000 previous years of prophecy, and it took its contemporaries by surprise nevertheless, turning their theory of reality on its head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by lfen, posted 01-02-2006 9:31 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2006 12:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 211 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-03-2006 12:45 AM Faith has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 209 of 300 (275207)
01-03-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by randman
01-02-2006 2:48 AM


Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
My own thoughts on this is that Christ had little to do with "politics" within his own time.
However, if we were to match up the religious movements of Christ's time with the political flavours found currently within North America, I would suspect that the Pharisees would be akin to the Republicans/Conservatives and the Sadeucees would be akin to the Democrats/Liberals.
Like it or not, I'm fairly sure that Christ would have much to say to both major political groups of our modern day -- and some of it probably wouldn't be nice.
I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by randman, posted 01-02-2006 2:48 AM randman has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 210 of 300 (275208)
01-03-2006 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
01-02-2006 10:18 PM


Re: If no Fall
The problem with this idea is that people don't believe anything simply because it is "reassuring."
Every atheist knows that this statement is false. Apparently, you don't pay attention to what your cohorts are telling us all the time: "wouldn't it just be so much more comforting for you to believe in God?"
Of course people believe in things because they're reassuring. It's the oldest human story. Assurance comes first; truth is almost always second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 10:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 01-03-2006 1:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024