Joralex and Yaro, open to comment.

In this discussion, about "Gods' definitions not being ours", I think is a point. The bible does seem to say that Gods' definitions are not ours"; It states, "his ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts"(Isaiah.55:89). I suppose we can quibble over the meaning of that verse, but that would bog us down in further debate about the meaning of this verse. If one accepts at the outset this passage to be a rule in this debate, then one is accepting, a priori, whatever definitions that will stated by the originator of this rule.

Indeed, this debate seems to be headed in one direction.God says it's ok, thus it is.Because I can't understand his deffinition. In that case, how on earth do you make a decision on weather or not to belive?

I think you are overintepreting the Isaiah verses. It is not the content of God's thoughts that is subject to the rule it is the nature of His expression of them.
The purpose of the rule is clearly to put Joralex's opiniosn of what the verse should mean over what it says (which in my experience seems to be the usual way fundamentalists interpet the Bible anyway).The most ironic thing is that the people who claim that the Bible is the literal word of God show it less respect than many who hold that tiis a human creation.

Joralex responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you know that the people to whom you are speaking use the specific words in a specific way, then it behooves you to speak in that fashion so as to be understood.

​

Why would god speak to people using terms he knows they won't understand?

​

And more importantly, why would he get upset when they inevitably misunderstand?

---

​

It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours.

---

That doesn't answer the question nor does it address the point.If I know that you do not and cannot understand the language that I speak, then it would be a fool's errand to continue to speak in that language. As the cliche goes, it is foolish to try to teach a pig to sing: It frustrates you and annoys the pig.According to the Bible, we will never be able to understand his words. So since god knows that humans will never be able to understand his language, it would be foolish for him to insist upon it, especially when trying to make very important statements. Instead, he should use the language of the people to whom he is communicating.Why would you spout French to a speaker of Chinese and then get upset when he looks quizzically at you?

quote:

---

I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

---

Strange, I was going to say the exact same thing to you.How do you expect humans to be able to understand the mind of god when the mind of god is inherently incomprehensible?Do you speak to a 3-year-old as if he were a poet laureate? Is it the 3-year-old's fault for not understand what you're talking about?Or, when speaking to a 3-year-old, is it not the responsibility of the adult to adapt to the communication restrictions of the child since the adult is the one that can adapt his thought processes?If we are but children to god, why doesn't god treat us as children and speak to us in ways we can understand?

quote:

---

No, wait, I do see : people that do not believe in God in essence make themselves to be 'god' - the 'defining authority'.

---

Incorrect. Where did I say I don't believe in god? Are you making an assumption? Anybody who disagrees with your theology is an atheist?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours. I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

---

Let's try a different route, here. If God's definitions of language aren't the same as ours, and we don't have to assume he's simply saying what he means, it would mean that the meaning of anything in the bible is up for debate, right? I mean... God makes his own definitions, and our flawed reading could easily not match up with his.So if we take the section of the Bible which begins with "In the beginning" and ends with "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the Saints. Amen," how do we know that God's definition of this isn't "HA HA! I'm just screwing with you! 6,000 years? Honestly, are you people dense or something? What the Hell did you think all those dinosaur bones were doing there?"

quote:

---

It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours. I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

---

It really isn't about conforming, it is about communication. For communication to be successful all involved must understand the meaning of what is said. We can't know God's definitions. We can't get into God's head. God can get into ours, and God can know our definitions. The only option is to speak our language.Of course, it really isn't about that is it? It is about providing yourself some wiggle room in the wording so that you can make the text mean whatever the hell you want.

quote:

---

No, wait, I do see : people that do not believe in God in essence make themselves to be 'god' - the 'defining authority'. Hence, these people and their like-minded amigos name themselves the de facto standard that others (including God) must conform to. Yes, that's it... viewed this way what you say makes perfect sense.

---

You really took to that brainwashing.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The classic argument against the possibility of a private language is Wittgenstein's from Philosophical Investigations. Often called, "The Private Language Argument" Wittgenstein comes down decidedly on the side of impossibility for reasons more obscure but not wholly disimilar than those cited in this thread.I agree with Yaro on this issue as I am certain I would in many others between these two debaters.

If "god's defintions are not ours," then we are foolish to think we can understand his word.

Interestingly, Jesus speaks to his audiences in aphorisms and parables, which all have a great deal of meaning tucked away in them. Lets do a little experiment. Let's ask a group of ten 5th graders who have never heard of parables to seperately read the parable of the ten virgins, and then record thier interpretations. For a control we'll ask 10 different 5th graders to read nothing, but look at Rembrant paintings. I predict that every one in the first group will have a different interpretation. What do you think? By the way, anybody who disagees with his theology is'nt necessarily an atheist, but you might as well be.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003]

Nice point, but no cussing please.

Y'think that's cussing? Man, you oughtta see me when I get worked up...

Hey John. Remember this from a former conservative christian; it's really about both, he communicates his beliefs to you(from "God's word"), and you conform.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003]

OK, just don't get too emotional, because you may forget the critical thinking skills you(I assume) learned in High-School science, math, and english. Then he will have you for lunch.

How can you conform if you don't understand his words?PE

Exactly. If God's using his own private language then Bible could well be telling us to worship Pontius Pilate.PE