Stephen:
In Message #34 you worry that, "Somewhat out of character, [Abshalom at Message #17] misinterprets what [Stephen at Message #16] said with: "So now RaSBey provides an analogy wherein anyone who questions the Bible is portrayed as some sort of Demonic Trial Attorney 'lying to, confusing, and distracting' the Almighty Inquisitor General (in this analogy the 'judge' is clearly Stephen), who as 'judge' sits on his High Throne for the sole purpose of determining Truth!"
Okay, it's entirely possible I may have taken your words out of context. Let's look back and see.
Revenge of Reason begins the topic with:
"Do Christians even reflect on the things the Bible says? Take for example the thought process of this:
1) God creates Earth, man, animals, etc.
2) God tells Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of knowledge
3) Duped by Satan they do in fact eat from the tree
4) Mankind is punished by God and original sin is introduced
5) God later appears on Earth in the shape of a man on the cross to absolve this sin.
The question is, why would God do this? Why would he need to die on the cross to convince himself to absolve original sin? What would be the purpose? Does the bible mention anything about God having multiple personalities?"
Stephen, in what I believe is your first response to Revenge of Reason's questions, you reply in Message #16:
"Christians present God as unable (or unwilling) to speak. Effectively dumb. So then, guys like you end up with questions you try to answer by trying to 'go figure'."
First of all, Stephen, I've had hundreds of folks who declare themselves Christians assure me they carry on direct communications with one or more of their gods. Some, like you, seem to prefer going directly to "the Father," while others claim to have their pow wows with "the Son." We don't have any misunderstanding on this point, I think.
Stephen, anwering the primary topic questions posed in Revenge of Reason's Message #1, you claim, "The Bible insists that it is essential to ask God, and 'hearken' to His voice, to understand the sorts of questions you raise."
So now we have two pricipal participants in the dialogue, the Petitioner and the Deity.
Stephen, next you say, "That book [the Bible] portrays an epistemologicl problem you and I and everyone faces, similar to that of a judge trying to get to the truth of a matter."
Stephen, here is where I drew the conclusion that you meant the Petitioner (in your example that would be either you, Revenge, or anyone else doing the asking) becomes "a judge trying to get to the truth of the matter."
So, essentially maybe I did misrepresent your analogy as Petitioner=Judge=Inquisitor General, but maybe your analogy is rather confusing; ie., the person asking the question in prayer (Petitioner) becomes like a "judge" who all of a sudden is the sole entity responsible for determining the truth.
Stephen, if I misinterpretted your analogy, I am sorry; but you may wish to consider that the type of reasoning you're presenting may be part of the problem you're having convincing folks of your scientific methods. I'm not a scientist, and know very little about kosher scientific procedures, but this is how your method appears to me, Stephen:
1) There is a species of bird that is very important to me personally (for whatever reason).
2) The species appears to be diminishing in number in an area that I have had an opportunity to study and from which I have a series of bird counts that appears to confirm diminishing numbers of the subject species.
[At this point please allow me to interject that some investigators might want additional historic information that probably is not available such as bird counts over an extended period of time to see if this particular bird species experienced fluctuating counts in concert with other phenomena like Jet Stream, El Nino, or other climatic or food source conditions.]
3) The Bible says I can petition the Lord with prayer in anticipation of possitive results if the petition is made properly, and in conjunction with appropriate tything (I've seen you say).
4) I present my petition properly and with the appropriate offerings all in accordance with Biblical protocol.
5) Subsequent bird counts indicate steadily increasing numbers of the target species are returning to the studied local.
6) I do not cross reference any other data like Jet Stream patterns, El Nino fluctuations, or food source and weather highs and lows.
7) I assume that: (a) My prayers are effective, so therefore there is a God; [or (b) I am the master of my universe and can control natural phenomena]. But lest that I get facitious again ...
Is this real science? Or is this even real religion? But again ... I'm wandering off track.
Stephen, what really got my attention in your Message #16 was this:
"There is an 'enemy' lying and confusing and distracting and muddying up the waters. You are inclined to think that you are just thinking, but you are actually being subconsiously manipulated mentally by whispering demons getting you to agree to some anti-god agenda."
Now remember, in your analogy you have set yourself up as the "judge trying to get at the truth of the matter." And now that you are in the process of deducing the truth, along comes the "Evil One" lying, confusing, distracting, and muddying up the waters." << Your words, Stephen.
So, Stephen, how am I supposed to interpret your analogy if not: "The Bible tells us when asking theological questions to be both the Petitioner and the Judge of Truth, and to beware the Evil One (in the role of a Philadelphia defense lawyer) who will disrupt the proceedings with "lying, confusing, distracting, and muddying up the waters."
Stephen, you then tell us that what we will deduce using your theo-scientific methods "could be either true or false. [Are there no other options?] The only way to know is to assume it is true, and take necessary precautions. [What prohibits us from assuming it's false until proven true?] If it is false, you have wasted some time, finding out that it is false. [Why would a finding of fact be a waste of time?] If it is true, your precautions will allow you to know that. [Exactly how do "precautions" serve to determine fact?] But, if it is true and you assume it is false, that's what you mistakenly will conclude. [That last sentence actually makes sense after I read it a couple of times.]
Now, to conclude Message #16, you say, "Christians teach that God is 'dumb,' according to the Bible, because they are actually children of the devil, liars, put on earth to confuse the message of the gospel."
You've said this or something similar in many postings, Stephen; so at first I just thought you were laying bait. But after reading Message #16 several times, it just adds to my confusion.
Somehow or another you are bundling all these concepts together as if only you or persons who use your particular "HD" method will arrive at the correct theological determinations regarding this whole Dune/Star Wars/Voodoo/Essene battle for Creation.
In conclusion, if my take on what you present (as you said) " bears ... no resemblance at all to anything (Stephen) said or thinks, may we regard it as confirmation of the biblical hypothesis that our thoughts are generally haunted (?)"
Your thoughts, my thoughts, or both? Shit, Stephen, you have me so confused, I don't really care anymore.
In fact, forgettaboutit. I'm gonna go have a Guinness Stout.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 02-02-2004]
™ Version 4.2