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.

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.

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.

Precisely, You have to be taught; remember sunday school and church? You were trusting the interpretation stated to you by the teacher, pastor, priest, etc(I'm assuming you went at least once.) And you were discouraged from asking probing/critical questions like: "...but in biology class we learned that humans have been around for millions of years, what's all this business about Adam and Eve and 6000 years ago??" Since you have to be taught, you also must believe what you're taught because it all sounds so nice and warm and fluffy, and because of social pressure, and because "God says so in his word". Two problems: I'ts self-fulfilling, and it's the ol' argument from authority.

That is precisley what I was taught Brian. You first have to be proselytized, and then after all the "washing" you must believe, and finally the Holy Spirit will come upon you and suddenly...boom, crack, drums&thunder... you are forever able to understand what the preacher said about a particular verse in the bible, even if it doesn't jive with what another preacher said down the street!?! By the way, for some churches in the "Hippie 60's", it was drugs![This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003]

On top of all this stuff about "language" and how God is to be communicated with and understood, is the sticky fact that Greek is not the original language of the first couple generations of the christian movement. Jesus, since some believe him to be God, the son,and the Jewish people around him spoke Aramaic, not Greek which is the language of the New Test. But, I think this is a topic for another thread so I'll leave it alone.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003]

It is your assuption that God invented language because you can point to a bible story about a tower where everyone spoke the same language, and then God made everyone speak a different language. The story may be a cozy religious myth explaining how the world's languages came about, but I don't think any modern historical linguist
would accept that God really invented language the way a literal reading of the text says. So it is just plain difficult to accept that God invented language in the first place. There we have the argument from authority AGAIN! Anyway, since this is the Judeo-Christian god of the christian bible you're talking about, how do you know that "us guys are making an erroneous assumption that God doesn't use language the same way we are"? I certainly don't make any assumptions about the way the Judeo-Christian God uses language. As I said in post 39, I don't believe the J-C God had anything to do with it,and I stated my reason. The assumption that "God's definitions are not ours" is a fact, is really your opinion based on your a priori belief that bible is factual, which is based on some bible verses. It,s self-serving. Does God have the power of life and death because stories we read in the bible tell us he does? Again, self-serving. Apparently you believe the story of Jesus feeding 5000 people with a few loaves & fishes is literal history. I don't; instead I think it's a metaphor for how God can provide for our needs. Again, as I have said, one has to believe in this God before one can conform to him, but that's all based on the idea that humans are sinful, and that's a whole 'nother topic! Finally, since you're writig to "us guys", I do believe in God; just not yours.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003]

You make that decision based on a few factors:1. social pressure. 2. emotional security. 3.you cave in to the argument from authority. 4. you fall for circular reasoning. 4. you were taught while you were a highly impressionable child. 5. you didn't learn other rules of logic. 6. You fell for a girl in the choir. Seriously, Do you really want to debate a topic with a guy who probably has a degree level knowledge of the bible? I mean no disrespect, but you ought'a back out or insist on changing some of the rules.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-17-2003]

You are, I believe absolutely correct! There does have to be a cultural context within. Jesus' parables and aphorisms. When realizing that Jesus and most people in his culture were Jewish peasants surrounded and influenced by a larger mediterannean Roman& Greek world, the meaning of some these sayings may be establishedI'll get back to you on this and how I think it relates to "God speaking our language". The librarian is chasing me off the computer.

You're right! I was overinterp. Isaiah. That was how I interped it when I was a fundamentalist! Some things take time to wear off! If Jorlax is given exlusive rights on interp. what God means, then Yaro is at a distinct unfair disadvantage in any debate. Fundamentalists have consistently interpreted bible verses to fit a particular theology. Jesus' virgin birth has been take as a literal historical event, because Matthew refers back to Isaiah 7:14 and interprets "woman" to be "virgin"; but of course there's a continuing squabble among bible scholars over this, because of something(I can't recall at the moment what) to do with the Hebrew and Greek languages. Anyway, a Jewish friend of mine says that the fund. christian's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is wrong.

That's what it's all about; fooling yourself.

The poor woman could have been knocked out before she was raped. No screaming there.

And, not just who is interpreting it. There are two more related problems for us(and the bible scholars) to contend with(subjects for other threads).1. Who wrote it and when? 2. How it's oral and written forms were changed over time. The assumption I used to make: the bible was quite literally the written down words directly from God, as if the people who wrote it were willingly posessed by God to write it. It has been several years since I believed that, thank God!,especially since hairy and sweaty palms can mess up a newly-written document![This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-25-2003]