Where's the water?

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

You're correct that what I'm proclaiming is more philosophical than biblical. The bible certainly does not teach this. I could pull random verses that kinda sorta lead someone that direction, but really, the bible isn't here to teach us metaphysics. So, if I'm going to talk about metaphysics, I'm necessarily going to have to be extra biblical. Whats important is that I do not contradict the bible. I don't believe this does.

I have two real reasons for why sin must be a deprivation. First, if sin is "something", it was created. Created by God. So God made sin, and now we have a questionably evil God. Satan does not have creation powers, so sin comes from God. This predicament makes a world of trouble. God is no longer perfect, he knows sin, righteousness is arbitrary, etc.

Reason number two is based on the understanding of what sin does. At the fall, sin separated us from God. We are no longer in the perfect way God made us, but instead we "fall short of the glory of God". So, sin would be a kind of shortage. And God gave Egypt a famine, which is a "shortage" of food. So I don't have problems with "nothing" being personified. It seems like that's just the way human language works sometimes.

Finally, ressurection. Jesus ascended bodily from the grave on the third day. Yes, it was a miracle. Jesus was, in accordance with our later inheritance, "made new". Resurrection is essentially a new creation. When God created the universe, he was not circumventing any part of his own design. He was creating. Resurrection, of the Firstfruit and of us later, gets the pass because it is recreation. But that is a very good objection.

Tex,

Thanks for your kind reply. I would argue that for "sin" to carry ontological status, it does not necessarily have to be created by God. I agree with you that God created beings with a very real freedom of choice. God did not create sin, but did create the potential for sin by the type of free-will beings he designed. I think it is a mistake to understand sovereignty in a manner that lays every action and element at the feet of God. I think God can create a type of universe in which he truly makes people in his image such that they are given genuine choice and creative powers of their own. The Bible is clear that Adam brought sin into the world, not God. Sin and death were the result of Adam's work and therefore cannot be laid at the feet of God in the biblical sense. I think any philosophical construct that looks at this differently is not allowing the Bible to have the last word on the issue.

Moreover, if you believe that sin has no ontological status and therefore is merely "nothing" or just the absence of good, then it really impacts the biblical teaching of the cross. The Bible does not teach, as your philosophical concept implies, that Jesus died merely as homo sacer. Jesus' death was more than a display of selflessness and identification with humanity. Rather, Jesus death was for the purpose of cleansing sin, defeating sin, purifying, and substitution. If sin is "nothing" then there is no penalty to pay and nothing to atone for. However, even a cursory reading of the OT shows this not to be the case. God did not merely have to add goodness to the situation to take care of the "nothingness" of sin. Rather he had to punish wrongdoing and evil before reconciliation could take place. Cleansing must take place which does not coincide with the idea that the way to solve "sin" is simply to add goodness.

 

[River Jordan]

Oh, so is he saying scientist must have faith?, since faith is the substance of things hoped for, which in this case the hope being that there is an answer to stuff they can't figure out, with the answer being the evidence of yet unseen, or undiscovered.

No, you have that entirely wrong. Dr. Tyson's point in that presentation was to demonstrate the history of scientists, upon encountering something that they could not figure out, giving up and declaring that something to be "the providence of the Gods", only to have another scientist come along after them and figure that something out. He used that history as a cautionary tale against today's scientists doing the same, specifically regarding intelligent design creationism, which was basically nothing more than "it's too complex to figure out, therefore God made it".

 

[Wormwood]

No, the "watchmaker" argument is not, "Its too complex to figure it out." The argument is, and always has been that the complexity and apparent design is prohibitive to the development of life through random, unguided processes. Once again you (by way of Dr. Tyson) are caricaturizing those you disagree with either because you don't know what you are talking about or because your argument is less than compelling. You critique creationists for the very thing you seem to do continually on this site RJ.

 

[Tex]

Tex,

Thanks for your kind reply. I would argue that for "sin" to carry ontological status, it does not necessarily have to be created by God. I agree with you that God created beings with a very real freedom of choice. God did not create sin, but did create the potential for sin by the type of free-will beings he designed. I think it is a mistake to understand sovereignty in a manner that lays every action and element at the feet of God. I think God can create a type of universe in which he truly makes people in his image such that they are given genuine choice and creative powers of their own. The Bible is clear that Adam brought sin into the world, not God. Sin and death were the result of Adam's work and therefore cannot be laid at the feet of God in the biblical sense. I think any philosophical construct that looks at this differently is not allowing the Bible to have the last word on the issue.

Moreover, if you believe that sin has no ontological status and therefore is merely "nothing" or just the absence of good, then it really impacts the biblical teaching of the cross. The Bible does not teach, as your philosophical concept implies, that Jesus died merely as homo sacer. Jesus' death was more than a display of selflessness and identification with humanity. Rather, Jesus death was for the purpose of cleansing sin, defeating sin, purifying, and substitution. If sin is "nothing" then there is no penalty to pay and nothing to atone for. However, even a cursory reading of the OT shows this not to be the case. God did not merely have to add goodness to the situation to take care of the "nothingness" of sin. Rather he had to punish wrongdoing and evil before reconciliation could take place. Cleansing must take place which does not coincide with the idea that the way to solve "sin" is simply to add goodness.

Wormwood,

I still disagree, but I see your point. If I add white paint to black paint, the black paint doesn't disappear. "Adding good" to the scenario is not reconciliation and is not a way to understand Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection.

I think that my argument would be better understood with the analogy as a house rather than paint. All creation is like a house. We trashed the house (and simultaneously are part of the house). Pipes are rusted, holes are in the walls, the sink is full of dirty/broken dishes, etc. If we just "added good", the scenario would go something like "Jesus came and cleaned up". And I agree with you, that is wrong. It would also be wrong to say that Jesus came and built a better house right next door. How I understand the Gospel is that this house is going to be completely demolished and a new house built. The demo-plan is already well on its way.

To relate the analogy back, what's wrong with the old house? It's not that there is anything extra in it, but that everything is broken. There is none of the original beauty or order or anything left. The old house lacks. And everything in it is so corrupted that it simply needs to be torn down.

Another decent analogy would be death. Sin causes death, so this one might be as accurate as they come. When something is dead or nearing death, the first thing that happens is decay. The body stops functioning, withers, and eventually becomes dirt again. What is different between the alive man and the dead one? The dead man lacks bodily function, organization, movement, etc. The things that are wrong are precisely that which do not exist.

What God needed to do and has already done is to restore, recreate, or as you put it, reconcile. What has been lost, our created perfection, has been recovered by our Lord and given to us through Jesus by marriage (faith).

It doesn't matter that sin is not a real thing. Christ did not remove a blockade between God and His creation, but instead Christ made all things new.

 

[River Jordan]

Do you have a problem with the way he uses his scientific analysis to encourage believers to trust the narratives of the Bible? Naturalists want nothing to do with someone publishing an article about how science shows that life could not have spontaneously originated because it is seen as invoking faith. As you pointed out, there are many creationists doing science. Clearly that means they line up with some sort of creationism view (since they are creationists)...whether old earth or new earth. As a Christian who loves science, I would think you would see such pursuits as healthy...rather than malign those who disagree with you.

I have a problem with a scientist going around to church groups, websites, and other non-scientific outlets to throw rocks at the work other scientists are doing. If he has valid scientific criticisms, he needs to send them to the journals, not present them to Grandma and Grandpa at Sunday evening Bible study.

I see the geologists you referenced as not unlike many theologians I encounter. Simply because someone has an educated opinion, doesn't meant they are right or that they speak for all educated people in that given field. You continually make assumptions and polarize people in your arguments. Either someone is a rational Christian scientist who clearly understands the stories of the Bible to be filled with fables, or they are an ignorant, agenda-driven fundamentalist who distorts information to make it fit into their preconceived worldview. As a "scientist" you are very biased and not very objective in your arguments.

Don't project your own black/white thinking onto me. I've not divided people into two all-or-none categories like you describe.

All you're doing is the same hand-waving excuse-making I see from a lot of creationists when confronted with the fact that not only has the scientific community disagreed with them for over two centuries, but the beginning of that process was initiated by Christian scientists. So how do you handle that fact? Well, a black/white thinker can only see two options; either 1) go with the science and throw away their Bible, or 2) maintain their fundamentalist beliefs and dismiss the science as mere opinions from biased people. Simple, clean, and safe.

Of course not everyone thinks in such absolutist terms.

No one is asking them to. We are discussing origins and historical events that we cannot observe. No one is suggesting that modern-day science take on the perspective of assuming everything is magical or miraculous. We are talking about believing a Biblical narrative or not. My point is, science cannot accommodate or explain phenomena that pertain to the past which may have happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. They can observe things now and make assertions about what might have been based on what they see. However, there are a host of assumptions in such hypotheses.

Sorry, but you may think "if you don't see it happen, you can't say anything about it" is the way science should operate, but reality just doesn't work that way. If it did, we'd never be able to convict anyone of crimes where there were no eye witnesses.

Christians have assumptions as do evolutionists. Why is it that you only want to point out when Christian assumptions have been wrong and not the other way around? Why are you so antagonistic towards those who create hypotheses to give rational explanations for life and the condition of the earth based on a perspective that honors God's Word as true? So what if some are wrong? You seem eager to defend the faithless and have no intention of encouraging our building up those who are of the faith...especially when they disagree with you on a very debatable and inconsequential matter.

I'll be blunt...because creationist organizations aren't at all honest. They are either incredibly stupid people (which I don't think is true), or they are outrageously deceitful. I can't tell you how many times a kid has come to me with some creationist material that is full of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Any time a kid comes to me with one of those "quotes from scientists" things, I'll go get the original articles they claim to be quoting, and just have the kid read through them and compare them to how the creationists have quoted them. And so far, every single kid has come back totally blown away at the deceit by the creationists. They'll say stuff like "The scientist said A, but the creationists cut up and moved words around to make it look like he was saying Not A! They're liars!" They know someone at that creationist organization had to at one time sit down with those articles and deliberately manipulate the words.

This is what caused S.J. Gould to say:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.""

Do you understand what he's saying there? He's expressing his frustration with Christians misrepresenting his words and wondering whether they're liars or just stupid.

And look at the example you provided earlier, where creationists were trying to say natural origins of life are impossible because the odds are too high for it to happen "by random chance", even though we know for a fact that chemistry is entirely non-random! So when you ask "Why are you so antagonistic" towards creationists, this is why. It's the basic dishonesty exhibited by so many creationists and creationist organizations. The only question out there is whether they're doing it knowingly, or are so wrapped up in doing what they think is defending scripture that they don't even appreciate what they're doing. IOW, "it's not a lie if it's for the cause of Christ".

No, I would expect fables and myths would be found in the fiction section of the library, not in the inspired Word of God. If you are claiming that the Bible belongs in the fiction section of the library, then you are simply not a Christian in the historical sense of the term and you need to come to grips with that. We can disagree on interpretations of how literally we want to see various stories or the points we derive from them, but when you simply fail to believe stories of the Bible as having any correlation to historical events in any way, shape or form, then you have ceased to be a person of faith in God's revelation. This is not just my personal opinion, but has been the view of the Church throughout Church history.

And here's that black/white thinking again. Not only that, but isn't factoring in which section of a library a book is found in, allowing an outside influence onto your interpretation?

What are you talking about? There is no indication that Jesus was interacting with a spiritual being? There is no indication that he was teleported to a mountain and to the pinnacle of the temple? There is no indication that earth, as the author wrote it, might have been referring to the Roman Empire? I'm saying the entire encounter is filled with spiritual and supernatural elements so there I see no requirement to view the "viewing of all the empires of the world" from a mountain to be understood as a purely natural event.

So what is your position? Did the temptation not happen at all? Is the entire story fabricated?

I'm trying to interpret the account using your framework of "only what the text says". And the fact is, there's nothing in the text that says seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from the top of one mountain was supernatural, nor is there anything indicating it was only the Roman Empire. Are you saying that the people who wrote this and the people who read it at the time understood that Jesus could see the Mayan civilization, the Chinese, and the Hopis all at the same time?

From my POV, of course it happened, and of course it was a supernatural event, but we don't know that from the text itself or from "how the people at the time understood it". They knew absolutely nothing about North and South America, let alone the civilizations that existed there. To them I'm sure it reads like Jesus and Satan went to a mountaintop and saw all the kingdoms of the earth (the ones they knew of at the time). We OTOH, read it differently because of our understanding of the earth and past civilizations. IOW, we allow outside information to influence our reading of scripture.

Again, you are confusing science as that which offers information about the present, observable universe with theories of that which took place many moons ago.

So you believe science cannot say anything at all about past events that humans didn't witness? Ever?

It was a Christian that discounted the geocentricism, not a secularist.

And it was Christian geologists who first discounted a global flood.

Jesus did not defend the idea of a flat earth. He did defend the flood of Noah as being a literal and universal judgment that took place historically...as well as Adam & Eve, Jonah, etc. If you want to disagree with Jesus, be my guest. I choose to accept what he taught.

Huh? Where did Jesus "defend the flood of Noah as being literal"?

Maybe you can explain the technicalities in your mind of how a story can be "borrowed" from a myth an not be "fabricated." Are you suggesting the Gilgamesh Epic is true? If not, how can a fable about Babylonian gods fighting each other being "borrowed" by Israelites anything but making a story up about creation based on something that is clearly untrue? You will need to explain.

It's very simple. The Hebrews go into Babylon without a flood story. The Babylonians have a flood story as part of the EoG. It's entirely possible the flood part of the EoG was at least in part based on an actual large flood. Large floods happen all the time. The Hebrews emerge from Babylon with a flood story that resembles the EoG in a number of key aspects, but with their own version of God substituted for the Babylonian Gods.

And now fundamentalists are all like "If the Noah flood story isn't 100% literally true, then all of Christianity is a farce!!" :wacko:

No, I ask the question, "What would the early readers have understood about this text." I simply see no way that they would see this encounter with its spiritual beings, teleportations, etc. as that which was to be understood in purely natural terms. Historical terms? Yes. Natural terms? No.

So early readers would have understood that the viewing of all the kingdoms of the earth had to be supernatural because of their knowledge of North and South America?

This is a loaded statement and I cannot address it all. I would agree that there are purposes to the literature and intentions behind it that we should be aware of. This is why we need, to the best of our ability, to try to discern the author's intent and how the early audience would have understood the passages. Yes, literalism is a choice, and many times it is not the right choice. I have never pretended like there is one way. However, what I am saying is that we allow the text to speak rather than allowing quotes from geologists to speak for the text. We try to understand what the author meant. Is this a symbolic vision? Is this a historical event? Is this a parable? Is this wisdom literature? Is this a song or poem?

How is that reasoning any different than a geocentrist who waves away cosmology and our knowledge of the universe as nothing more than "quotes from cosmologists"?

Clearly the authors were not Western 21st century folk. Even if they were, their narratives only tell some details and tell those details for a purpose. But, again, you need to understand the difference between a particular telling of an event or saying the event did not happed at all.

And there's your problem. You can't escape your black/white thinking where it's either 100% literally true, or it never happened at all. And not only that, you keep projecting that absolutist mentality onto me.

As it stands, it seems your hermeneutic is based on you and your science professors standing as authoritarians over the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to be the authority and allowing your scientific study to perhaps shape some of the inconsequential details of what is being taught in its narratives.

Seriously? You think my understanding of the world around us stems entirely from what my science professors tell me? You think I'm just some mindless, non-thinking robot who regurgitates whatever I hear? Do you think I'm unable to think for myself? Do you think I've never gone out and...you know...looked at things?

Geez.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

Your last paragraph pretty much sums up exactly what we think of you.

Gould has no credibility based upon his past "science sins."


Tex,

You seem to not wish to discuss how you determine what gets a pass and what doesn't. Your comment about wine was extremely odd.

However, I will leave you alone because you have already said you are not coming from a biblical perspective. The Word means nothing to you and you base your beliefs off of philosophy. So good day my good fellow.

 

[Wormwood]

Sorry, but you may think "if you don't see it happen, you can't say anything about it" is the way science should operate, but reality just doesn't work that way. If it did, we'd never be able to convict anyone of crimes where there were no eye witnesses.

That is not what I said or implied.

I'll be blunt...because creationist organizations aren't at all honest. They are either incredibly stupid people (which I don't think is true), or they are outrageously deceitful. I can't tell you how many times a kid has come to me with some creationist material that is full of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

Yes, it seems you have concluded that all creationists are deceitful liars and so you have sided with those who do not believe in God or creation in order to protect the truth. Sigh. In any event, I think there are two sides to that coin on the punctuated equilibrium quote. I don't know who all is involved so I wont try to defend what was, or what was not said. I will say, that according to creationists, the concept of punctuated equilibrium indicates that the major transitions happen very quickly and therefore leave no record of major transitional figures is a way of explaining what is not being found. I think creationists are saying this theory is ultimately concession because what was anticipated (a fossil record of gradual changes) is not there...which they think is favorable to their position that species do not have one common ancestor. Gould is arguing that smaller adaptations are evidence of evolution and feels he is being misrepresented, but that is not necessarily the case because the term "evolution" is being used differently by the different sides. Pretty much every creationist I have ever read or listened to agrees that there are adaptations....they do not refer to these slight changes in species as "evolution" while evolutionists do claim it to be the very gradual process of evolution as a whole (until punctuated event happen that somehow speed the process..for those who believe in punctuated equilibrium). So its really a language game and I think evolutionists are crying foul because either they don't understand what creationists are saying or both sides are just talking past each other. The point is, Gould argues for punctuated equilibrium as rationale for why there are gaps in the fossil record and sees small transitions as "evolution." Creationists claim punctuated equilibrium is a way naturalists are trying to deal with the things they aren't finding and that small scale adaptations are not evidence for Darwinian evolution. I don't think Gould was being misrepresented...I think his quote was used to make a point that he does not agree with...but that doesn't mean his quote was taken out of context.

And look at the example you provided earlier, where creationists were trying to say natural origins of life are impossible because the odds are too high for it to happen "by random chance", even though we know for a fact that chemistry is entirely non-random!

I already defined the word "random" to you. Random does not mean, "not abiding by natural law." My point is quite simple: No tests have shown that chemical properties and our environment as conducive to naturally produce living organisms from non-living materials. No one is saying its not a lie if its for the cause of Christ. These issues are based on perspectives RJ. You are so steeped in the mindset that creationists are deceptive, non-scientific, Neanderthals who want to explain everything by magic and miracles that you simply have lost objectivity in trying to understand the ideas from both sides. Evolutionists are not idiots and neither are creationists. You should really begin to think about your views when most of those you are defending are adamant atheists. This is not to say they are wrong, but I would think it would be a cause for concern for someone who claims to be a follower of Christ and believe in the Father of the Lord Jesus.

I'm trying to interpret the account using your framework of "only what the text says". And the fact is, there's nothing in the text that says seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from the top of one mountain was supernatural, nor is there anything indicating it was only the Roman Empire. Are you saying that the people who wrote this and the people who read it at the time understood that Jesus could see the Mayan civilization, the Chinese, and the Hopis all at the same time?

I appreciate your inquiry into this. My point is that the text is literature that was understood a certain way by the readers. What does the text MEAN? What did the author intend? Was the author making a flat-earth argument in this passage? Was the author trying to be scientific? Would the readers have read this passage and said, "What do you know, the earth is flat and there is a mountain somewhere by which the naked eye can see every single kingdom!" Or would they have said, "Hmmm, Satan must have vocal cords and a larynx because the passage said that Satan spoke to Jesus and you know one cant speak without a voicebox! Therefore spirits must have voiceboxes!"

I am saying that the point of the text is that there is a metaphysical exchange taking place here by which Jesus is being given visions and receiving very real temptations from a very real tempter. I don't think we should go beyond this and try to make scientific claims about the mountain or Matthew's understanding of the earth because that is not his point and that is not what the audience would have understood. I do NOT think the original audience of the Genesis account would have understood the story to be a parable, myth or local flood. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not see anything "in the text" that suggests otherwise. I think your ideas about why the story is a parable, myth or localized flood are not coming from the text, but from elsewhere. This is fine, but you simply have to admit that the Bible is no longer authoritative in the way you approach it, anymore than I would see Roman mythology as authoritative.

So you believe science cannot say anything at all about past events that humans didn't witness? Ever?

Of course not. However, I am saying that the issue of origins of life, age of the earth and so forth is based on a lot of uniformitarian assumptions. Perhaps they are right, but we cannot be sure. My point is that we cannot write a history book with science. Only eyewitnesses can do that. I believe the Genesis account, though a literary work and not a scientific document, is based on a narrative inspired by God...who was there.

How is that reasoning any different than a geocentrist who waves away cosmology and our knowledge of the universe as nothing more than "quotes from cosmologists"?

How is it the same? There is a difference in trying to use the Bible as a science book in all areas (as geocentrists have done) and using it as a work of literature that is historically true. We allow for metaphor, figures of speech, parables, etc. in literature. Our goal is to understand what the early readers would have understood. I do not think ancient people are as foolish as you think. Their writings are brilliant and fare more intelligently constructed and formed than any literature being printed today (even the non-inspired works). They communicate very well and very clearly. But they did not think like Westerners in our century which leads many to think they were ignorant and uncivilized. This is a horrible mistake.

Im out of time.

 

[River Jordan]

No, the "watchmaker" argument is not, "Its too complex to figure it out." The argument is, and always has been that the complexity and apparent design is prohibitive to the development of life through random, unguided processes.

And who told you that evolution is a random process?

Once again you (by way of Dr. Tyson) are caricaturizing those you disagree with either because you don't know what you are talking about or because your argument is less than compelling. You critique creationists for the very thing you seem to do continually on this site RJ.

Um no, I've studied ID creationism a pretty fair bit. What do you think the "irreducible complexity" argument is, if not "it's too complex to have evolved, therefore it was created"?

 

[Wormwood]

And who told you that evolution is a random process?


Um no, I've studied ID creationism a pretty fair bit. What do you think the "irreducible complexity" argument is, if not "it's too complex to have evolved, therefore it was created"?

#1. I am talking about the origin of life and the first cell...not the theory of Darwinian evolution.
#2. The spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter to living matter as a purely natural process is, by definition, random and unguided.
#3. While "natural selection" may not be a random process, new information on the cellular level that would allow for new traits, abilities or species would be a result of purely random mutations. We simply do not find this happening today in which information is being added to a cell to make it more complex. All adaptations are the result of that which is already in the information code of the DNA. Do you have a scientific study to show new and more complex information being added to a genetic code through natural processes such as natural selection or mutation?

Yeah, irreducible complexity is the very thing I was discussing. It is not "its too complex to figure out." Too complex to figure out and too complex to develop through natural processes are two very different concepts, and I think you know this. The whole idea of the watchmaker argument is that no one looks at a watch and says, "look what the forest made." This is NOT to say, we cannot study and understand the watch. It IS to say that natural processes do not create gears, wristbands, numbers and batteries. I think we both know what you were implying and you were misrepresenting creationists.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

I hate to keep interrupting while you are getting destroyed by Wormwood, but I thought you said you studied Behe's work and was well-versed in the concept of irreducible complexity.

Yet whenever you describe the concept, you seem totally ignorant of its conclusions.

You are either being disingenuous or you really don't understand. Which is it?

 

[Tex]

@ChristianJuggernaut

Whoa. The Word means nothing to me? That escalated quickly. I don't know how well your insults are usually tolerated, but believe me when I say this is not welcome. If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the harm of arguing who deserves to sit at the right hand of God and who knows the hearts of others. Do not discount me simply because you do not understand. In fact, if you do not understand, it would be best to ascribe yourself the lower position, otherwise you may be found to be an arrogant tool.

However, I both answered your question on miracles and on the Logos. Since you do not know, let me instruct you.

The Logos is a very widely used word in Greek, mostly for Neo-Platonist writings, and, of course, the bible. Understanding this word is a great boon to theological interpretation. In Greek philosophy, logos was used as a means to describe their god. Specifically, logos had the connotation of creator. See any resemblance yet? Logos is what made order from chaos, what made language, had a purposed design, and is uniquely "accessed" by human beings, separating us from the animals. Now it should sound very familiar. This is the word (with small alternations) that John used to describe the second person of the Trinity. The other, less philosophical Greek usage of the word logos is on "wisdom". If something makes sense, physically, spiritually, whatever, it has logos. After 2500 years, English language grabbed this word too. Logos, transliterated, is "logic".

In the septuigent (greek old testament not long after 200 BC), logos is used before the birth of our Savior. The Hebrew word "davar" is usually translated into "logos". The English, in similar passages, translates as "truth", "word", "plan" or "good thing". It has over 100 locations. The greek old testament was well known during Jesus' time and even quoted in the New Testament.

The New Testament grabs two words and makes them their own, Logos and agape. Logos doesn't mean something totally different. It still means pretty much the same thing, but now Logos includes the truths of YHWH rather than Stocism and Platonism. So, when we look at Logos, these connotations must be included. Truth, purpose (and ergo reason), and word are all necessary connotations of this word.

So, when I asked for philosophical arguments rather than biblical, it's not that the bible is less than philosophy. Simply put, both are tools of the Logos. Biblical interpretation requires reason. If the bible contradicted itself, would it still be infallible? Of course not. The bible obeys to reason because it is from the Logos. Equally, if I make an argument that contradicts, is it true? Nope, not a bit. Both philosophy and the bible are useful tools for good teaching.

 

[River Jordan]

That is not what I said or implied.

Then you need to be more careful with your posts. You stated:

"We are discussing origins and historical events that we cannot observe." What does whether something can be observed have to do with it?

"My point is, science cannot accommodate or explain phenomena that pertain to the past which may have happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago." Why can't science explain something that happened 2,000 years ago?

"They can observe things now and make assertions about what might have been based on what they see." Here again you cite direct observation and "what they see" as your main point.

Please explain how all that is not at the very least an implication that "if an event wasn't directly observed, science can't explain it"?

Yes, it seems you have concluded that all creationists are deceitful liars and so you have sided with those who do not believe in God or creation in order to protect the truth.

Again we see your black/white thinking in action. So in your mind, this is the process I went through?

1) Note that some creationist organizations misrepresent science, and the words and works of scientists.

2) Conclude that all creationists are liars.

3) Therefore, side with atheists.

Do you evaluate everything in such all-or-none terms? One is either with fundamentalist creationists or with atheists? And again, do you honestly think I've not done any independent study and work on some of these issues?

As far as punctuated equilibrium, if you're truly interested in this subject, I'd be more than happy to walk through it with you and direct you to some reading material. As it stands now, it looks to me like your understanding is based first and foremost on what creationists have told you people like Gould et al. have hypothesized, rather than looking for yourself at what Gould et al. have said.

I already defined the word "random" to you. Random does not mean, "not abiding by natural law." My point is quite simple: No tests have shown that chemical properties and the environment naturally produce living organisms from non-living materials.

I think you're forgetting the content of what you posted earlier. Remember, you specifically cited mathematical improbability as an argument against natural origins of life including, "there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power". That's a specific appeal to mathematical random trials, even though we know for a fact that chemistry operates in the exact opposite manner. You're being lied to. The only question is, are you able to admit it to yourself and come to terms with it?

No one is saying its not a lie if its for the cause of Christ. These issues are based on perspectives RJ.

So the Christians who manipulate Gould's quotes to try and make it look like he's saying transitional fossils don't exist, even though he's directly said they are "abundant" and specifically called out people who do so....are they liars?

You are so steeped in the mindset that creationists are deceptive, non-scientific, Neanderthals who want to explain everything by magic and miracles that you simply have lost objectivity in trying to understand the ideas from both sides. Evolutionists are not idiots and neither are creationists. You should really begin to think about your views when most of those you are defending are adamant atheists. This is not to say they are wrong, but I would think it would be a cause for concern.

Now that's fascinating to me; it's an interesting glimpse into your thought processes. You're not so much concerned with who's being honest or even who's right, but the "cause for concern" is which group I'm aligned with. IOW, it's not the actual content that's important as much as it is which side that content puts you on. And of course with the black/white mind there are only two sides...conservative Christians and atheists.

You probably don't appreciate it, but you've just demonstrated very well the basic psychology that creationist organizations rely on to peddle such absurdly false and deceitful material. When they quote S. Gould as saying transitionals don't exist, when they tell you chemistry happens by "random trial", when Dr. Fuz tells you origins researchers don't have a clue what they're doing....they're all counting on you to trust what they say, and most importantly, not go look at Gould's papers or origins research for yourself. IOW, they're relying on your sense of tribalism and fear of "defending atheists".

That's why "con men" is short for "confidence men". The first part in their equation is to gain your confidence. Once they have that, they can get you to believe almost anything. That's why people will go back over and over again, and give all their money to televangelists even after they've been exposed as frauds.

I am saying that the point of the text is that there is a metaphysical exchange taking place here by which Jesus is being given visions and receiving very real temptations from a very real tempter. I don't think we should go beyond this and try to make scientific claims about the mountain or Matthew's understanding of the earth because that is not his point and that is not what the audience would have understood.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Why would Jesus need to go to a mountaintop to be given a vision? It's pretty clear from the text that the point of going to the mountaintop was to be able to see all the kingdoms of the earth.

I do think the original audience of the Genesis account would have understood they story to be a parable, myth or local flood. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not see anything "in the text" that suggests otherwise. I think your ideas about why the story is a parable, myth or localized flood are not coming from the text, but from elsewhere.

Of course they are. I've specifically told you on multiple occasions that God's creation plays a role in how I interpret scripture.

1. How is it the same?

2. There is a difference in trying to use the Bible as a science book in all areas (as geocentrists have done) and using it as a work of literature that is historically true. We allow for metaphor, figures of speech, parables, etc. in literature. Our goal is to understand what the early readers would have understood. I do not think ancient people are as foolish as you think. Their writings are brilliant and fare more intelligently constructed and formed than any literature being printed today (even the non-inspired works). They communicate very well and very clearly. But they did not think like Westerners in our century which leads many to think they were ignorant and uncivilized. This is a horrible mistake.

1. Pretty simple, really...you dismissed our knowledge of the geologic history of the earth as "quotes from geologists" in the context of excluding it from your interpretive framework. By the same token, why can't geocentrists dismiss our knowledge of the solar system as nothing more than "quotes from cosmologists" in excluding their work from the geocentrist interpretive framework?

2. IOW, we all...you, me, and the geocentrists, make choices about how we interpret various scriptures, including what we do or don't allow to influence that process.

I am talking about the origin of life and the first cell...not the theory of Darwinian evolution.

You need to be much, much more specific and clear then. I was talking about ID creationism's "irreducible complexity" argument, which they apply to biological phenomena beyond the origin of the first life.

The spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter to living matter as a purely natural process is, by definition, random and unguided.

Again, chemistry is decidedly non-random. You need to pick a better term to describe what you're thinking.

While "natural selection" may not be a random process, new information on the cellular level that would allow for new traits, abilities or species would be a result of purely random mutations. We simply do not find this happening today in which information is being added to a cell to make it more complex. All adaptations are the result of that which is already in the information code of the DNA. Do you have a scientific study to show new and more complex information being added to a genetic code through natural selection or mutation?

Well, let's see if we can get past that first hurdle that trips up people who are just parroting what some creationist organization has told them.

What do you mean by "complex information" in terms of "a genetic code"? IOW, if I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more information?

Yeah, irreducible complexity is the very thing I was discussing. It is not "its too complex to figure out." Too complex to figure out and too complex to develop through natural processes are two very different concepts, and I think you know this.

How are they different?

The whole idea of the watchmaker argument is that no one looks at a watch and says, "look what the forest made." This is NOT to say, we cannot study and understand the watch. It IS to say that natural processes do not create gears, wristbands, numbers and batteries. I think we both know what you were implying and you were misrepresenting creationists.

And do you appreciate how ridiculous that argument is? Do we see watches reproducing themselves (let alone with variation) all on their own?

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

I still disagree, but I see your point. If I add white paint to black paint, the black paint doesn't disappear. "Adding good" to the scenario is not reconciliation and is not a way to understand Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection.

I think that my argument would be better understood with the analogy as a house rather than paint. All creation is like a house. We trashed the house (and simultaneously are part of the house). Pipes are rusted, holes are in the walls, the sink is full of dirty/broken dishes, etc. If we just "added good", the scenario would go something like "Jesus came and cleaned up". And I agree with you, that is wrong. It would also be wrong to say that Jesus came and built a better house right next door. How I understand the Gospel is that this house is going to be completely demolished and a new house built. The demo-plan is already well on its way.

To relate the analogy back, what's wrong with the old house? It's not that there is anything extra in it, but that everything is broken. There is none of the original beauty or order or anything left. The old house lacks. And everything in it is so corrupted that it simply needs to be torn down.

Another decent analogy would be death. Sin causes death, so this one might be as accurate as they come. When something is dead or nearing death, the first thing that happens is decay. The body stops functioning, withers, and eventually becomes dirt again. What is different between the alive man and the dead one? The dead man lacks bodily function, organization, movement, etc. The things that are wrong are precisely that which do not exist.

What God needed to do and has already done is to restore, recreate, or as you put it, reconcile. What has been lost, our created perfection, has been recovered by our Lord and given to us through Jesus by marriage (faith).

It doesn't matter that sin is not a real thing. Christ did not remove a blockade between God and His creation, but instead Christ made all things new.

Hey Tex,

I do not think your analogies are very true to the idea that sin is "nothing." A broken down house doesn't work because the stuff is broken. Its not the lack of stuff, but the stuff that is there that is flawed or unusable. It has to be fixed or replaced. I think this concept coincides with my view of sin having ontological status. It is there, it is broken and it prevents things from running correctly and therefore either needs to be fixed or replaced...which is what Christ has done.

The deprivation view is usually illustrated through darkness and light. It is argued that sin is like darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light. The way you cure darkness is not by trying to fix the darkness or restore the darkness, but simply by adding light. Thus, sin is nothing. You deal with sin because sin is not an entity...it is simply the absence of goodness. Jesus did not die to cure anything because sin is not a sickness, it is simply the absence of God's presence and goodness. Wickedness is not an entity or reality but is merely confusion, lack of understanding or perspective of reality. This is how the argument goes from what I have read. I disagree with this primarily because I think there is no association with these ideas and what the Bible actually says about sin, righteousness and the function of the cross of Christ.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Tex,

I was going by what you said. I don't believe you can use anything but scripture so I will leave you to it.



Furthermore, you didn't answer my question, but again you don't have to.

 

[Tex]

@ChristianJuggernaut

Water into wine is not magic, nor does it go outside the natural laws the God began from the beginning. If God were to go outside the laws he himself set up perfectly in the beginning, it would mean that either God did not make creation the way it should (God messed up) or that God did not plan for some change that in the future (God messed up). Both options diminish God's omniscience and benevolence.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

The bible says Jesus turned water into wine and it was a miracle.

How did he do it within natural laws?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

The bible says Jesus turned water into wine and it was a miracle.

How did he do it within natural laws?

The old wine-bottle-and-water-bottle-behind-the-back-switcheroo trick? :lol:

 

[Forsakenone]

The bible says Jesus turned water into wine and it was a miracle.

How did he do it within natural laws?

If I said I thought your question was the best I have heard, can you hear what I have said?

 

[Wormwood]

Then you need to be more careful with your posts. You stated:
"We are discussing origins and historical events that we cannot observe." What does whether something can be observed have to do with it?
"My point is, science cannot accommodate or explain phenomena that pertain to the past which may have happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago." Why can't science explain something that happened 2,000 years ago?
"They can observe things now and make assertions about what might have been based on what they see." Here again you cite direct observation and "what they see" as your main point.
Please explain how all that is not at the very least an implication that "if an event wasn't directly observed, science can't explain it"?

I would encourage you to go back and read the progression in context. My comment you quoted previously that brought this issue up was:

No one is asking them to. We are discussing origins and historical events that we cannot observe. No one is suggesting that modern-day science take on the perspective of assuming everything is magical or miraculous. We are talking about believing a Biblical narrative or not. My point is, science cannot accommodate or explain phenomena that pertain to the past which may have happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. They can observe things now and make assertions about what might have been based on what they see. However, there are a host of assumptions in such hypotheses.

So, I never said science cannot be used to understand past events. I was specifically referring to biblical narratives and events which relate to things that took place "thousands, millions, or billions of years ago." I find the example of a CSI examining a murder scene using technology to be very poor. First, the tools used and the examinations in such a scene relate to present day events. For instance, I compare the DNA of the blood on the scene with the blood of suspect A. If they match, suspect A was at the scene. Or, I found a fingerprint at the scene and compare it with suspect A. So on and so forth.

This is apples and oranges with conjectures about what might have happened millions or billions of years ago based on theories that we have not observed and cannot replicate in the controlled environment of a lab. You need to get out of your head that modern science and naturalism are one and the same thing. They are not.

Again we see your black/white thinking in action. So in your mind, this is the process I went through?

I can only respond to what I read. Thus far, I have not read one comment of agreement or appreciation of any creationists. Instead you said, "I'll be blunt...because creationist organizations aren't at all honest. They are either incredibly stupid people (which I don't think is true), or they are outrageously deceitful." Notice, you did not say some creationists organizations aren't at all honest. Nor did you say, "Some are either incredibly stupid..." No you said "they" (creationists) are either stupid (which you don't think to be true) or terrible liars. Now, lets look at the progression you lined out...

1) Note that some creationist organizations misrepresent science, and the words and works of scientists.
2) Conclude that all creationists are liars.
3) Therefore, side with atheists.

Actually, I would disagree with point 1. You never said "some" creationist organizations. You very explicitly said that creationists are liars. Thus I can only assume that you feel is someone is a creationist, they are a liar...because that is what you very clearly said. If I were to have said in our previous discussion, "Ill be blunt...homosexuals aren't at all honest about their promiscuity. They are either incredibly promiscuous or incredibly deceitful people" you would have gone through the roof. You would have felt I was saying that about every single homosexual and would have been outraged. So who needs to be more careful with their posts?

RJ, there is a lot I could respond to with your posts. However, I find that your mindset is about the same as the most rigid and staunch KJV only fundamentalist. You have no interest in learning a different perspective or trying to understand anyone elses view...even if you believe them to be wrong. It is clear you feel everyone else is a fool and have a label for everyone who disagrees with you that justifies your self-perceived intellectual superiority. I have no interest in trying to convince you that those who disagree with your views are not liars and morons, or quibble about definitions of words. I don't delight in arguments or trying to show my views are better than yours. Ive only been trying to bring balance to this discussion and it seems you want none of it.

Ill leave the arguing to others.

 

[Tex]

The bible says Jesus turned water into wine and it was a miracle.

How did he do it within natural laws?

It was a miracle. That doesn't mean it's unexplainable. How did the sea part to open the way for Moses and the Israelites? "The Lord drove the sea back BY A STRONG EAST WIND". Did it defy physics? No, it followed it perfectly. Was it a miracle? Absolutely.