Joralex and Yaro, open to comment.

But, maybe if it is read when you have The Holy Spirit in you, all becomes clear. At least until the drugs wear off.Brian.

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]

"What I can't understand is why you don't seem to see that if God isn't using our language the same way we are - if his definitions aren't ours - then he's made it impossible for us to seek his meaning." I understand perfectly what you and the others here that share your ideas are saying. For starters, you guys are making an erroneous assumption - that "God doesn't use our language the same way we are". Geesh, He invented language - I'd say that makes Him the authority, wouldn't it?

​

But He is also infinitely beyond us in knowledge and understanding and when He says many things to us they may 'appear' as "non-sense" (because of our limitations). Specifically, what is your standard when you arrive at a conclusion of 'nonsense'?

​

The correct way to approach God's Word is to realize what the Source is. With this realization it may take a great deal of digging for us to capture His meaning. He knows this and He also knows what we are capable of achieving if we set our heart and mind to it. The entire thing is part of His plan.Since God (if he exists, etc.) wants us to know what he's talking about, we can safely assume that when he uses a word, it means what we percieve it to mean. Ergo God's definitions are ours. His meaning doesn't have to conform to any of our expectations - but the words he uses to communicate it must conform to the expectations of the community he's addressing. This is fundamental to language and again, something God should already know. I won't argue with your points above but I insist that you're missing the bigger picture. You're not alone. I'll consider a new thread to try and explain this some more...It's really pretty simple. Your rule of "God's definitions are not ours" is pretty clearly just an escape hatch for whatever non-literal interpretation you plan to make to support statements that aren't literally Biblical. In the context of a God who's actually speaking to humans, the rule doesn't make any sense. I assure you, it's not an "escape hatch" nor is it meant to be one - it's fact.

​

Suppose, for instance, you had the power of life and death - that you could give life and take it away as easily as thinking about it. Would the secular definition of "killing" apply to you?

​

As another example, remember the episode when Christ fed 5,000 people with just a few loafs and fishes. Does the First Law of Thermodynamics apply to Him?

​

There's our definitions (and limitations) and then there are His. We must conform to His, not the other way around.

​

Joralex

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]

I had responded to someone else the following and it fits your post also:

​

"I understand perfectly what you and the others here that share your ideas are saying. For starters, you guys are making an erroneous assumption - that "God doesn't use our language the same way we are". Geesh, He invented language - I'd say that makes Him the authority, wouldn't it?

​

But He is also infinitely beyond us in knowledge and understanding and when He says many things to us they may 'appear' as "non-sense" (because of our limitations). Specifically, what is your standard when you arrive at a conclusion of 'nonsense'?

​

The correct way to approach God's Word is to realize what the Source is. With this realization it may take a great deal of digging for us to capture His meaning. He knows this and He also knows what we are capable of achieving if we set our heart and mind to it. The entire thing is part of His plan."Since God (if he exists, etc.) wants us to know what he's talking about, we can safely assume that when he uses a word, it means what we percieve it to mean. Ergo God's definitions are ours. His meaning doesn't have to conform to any of our expectations - but the words he uses to communicate it must conform to the expectations of the community he's addressing. This is fundamental to language and again, something God should already know. "I won't argue with your points above but I insist that you're missing the bigger picture. You're not alone. I'll consider a new thread to try and explain this some more..."It's really pretty simple. Your rule of "God's definitions are not ours" is pretty clearly just an escape hatch for whatever non-literal interpretation you plan to make to support statements that aren't literally Biblical. In the context of a God who's actually speaking to humans, the rule doesn't make any sense. "I assure you, it's not an "escape hatch" nor is it meant to be one - it's fact.

​

Suppose, for instance, you had the power of life and death - that you could give life and take it away as easily as thinking about it. Would the secular definition of "killing" apply to you?

​

As another example, remember the episode when Christ fed 5,000 people with just a few loafs and fishes. Does the First Law of Thermodynamics apply to Him?

​

There's our definitions (and limitations) and then there are His. We must conform to His, not the other way around."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? I made no assumption and, no, you do not have to subscribe to 'my' theology to believe in God. Did you make an assumption?

​

Joralex

More like methylated spirit you mean....PE

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]

Ia! Pontious Pilate fhtagn!------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

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 still don't seem to get the fact that language usage is defined by consensus. There is no higher authority - and by the nature of language there cannot be.

Prozacman responds to me:

quote:

---

Interestingly, Jesus speaks to his audiences in aphorisms and parables, which all have a great deal of meaning tucked away in them.

---

Indeed, but those parables require a common cultural history in order to work.There was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode that sorta dealt with this: Captain Picard was stranded on a planet with an alien. While the universal translator was capable of translating the individual words, the meaning was completely cryptic because they spoke in metaphors. An analogy was made that if we were to do that in English, we might refer to a romantic setting as "Juliet on her balcony." But, that requires a knowledge of the story of Romeo and Juliet and what that image represents. It would be meaningless to somebody who didn't have that cultural background to fill in the details.So we're left with the original point: Why would god, who knows that we poor humans don't understand his language, refuse to accomodate us by using ours? If god really wants us to pay attention, wouldn't the best course of action be to use a method of communication that the recipient comprehends and will not misinterpret?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Off-topic question:What I never understood (and part of why I think Star Trek is bad science-fiction) is how that society is supposed to work.I mean, if the language is purely metaphor, and "Juliet on her balcony" is the only way to refer to a romantic situation, then how do children assimilate the language? If you have no way to tell a child who Juliet was, or explain the plot of "Romeo and Juliet", then how are they supposed to know what "Juliet on her balcony" is supposed to mean? Within a generation your language becomes a set of metaphors that nobody understands. If there's no concrete basis to the language - no way to say "this is called an 'apple'" - then there's no way for a neophyte to assimilate the language.And if they do have a way to explain their vast scope of metaphor to children, why didn't the alien talk that way to Picard?I know, I know. It's just a TV show. But it's a stupid one. (Your point is, of course, valid.)

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

What I never understood (and part of why I think Star Trek is bad science-fiction) is how that society is supposed to work.

---

That crossed my mind, too, but it could eventually become a highly abstract way of saying things. That is, it would sorta be a "pictographic" method of speaking. The original context surrounding the metaphor is lost as the metaphorical unit, itself, acquires the meaning of that context. Thus, "Juliet on her balcony" is the translation for "romance." If you associate the big phrase, "Juliet on her balcony," with the same instances that you would the single word, "romance," then we just have a language that has really, really big words.Now, why the UT couldn't make this comprehension, I dunno. The only reason I could think of is that the physical utterings still contained enough semantic remnants that it was confused and got stuck translating the individual words rather than recognizing the larger patterns contained in clumps of words. But, they never mentioned that and it smacks of "Doubletalk generators at maximum, Captain."Notice when Picard came back, he used what he had learned about their method of speech to communicate with the other ship. He didn't try and force English upon them. A method of communication was found and exploited in order to have an exchange of ideas.When you know they don't understand what you're saying, simply saying it louder and slower doesn't solve anything.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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.