Posted on 02/15/2004 10:57:05 PM PST by lockeliberty
All very true, Marron. However, those experiences must be backed by the objective facts of Scripture. If we claim there are objective facts of Scripture then we must judge our experiences according to those facts, facts that are immutable themselves.
I heartily agree, Mark -- God's "mouthpieces."
I'm so sorry to hear you are leaving FR. You will be missed. But wherever you go, may you continue to walk with God. May he bless you always. In Christ's love and peace, bb.
I think you have put your finger on something. The words are intended to describe real events, real people, real ideas. So we really aren't free to read just anything into the words. But the words are intended to describe something, they aren't the thing itself obviously. In our efforts to boil everything down into an easily codified doctrine we sometimes squeeze the life out of the words.
The work of building doctrines is how we make sense of things, and if it weren't for our tendency to freeze the doctrine, and to place the doctrine above the thing it is meant to describe, we wouldn't have a problem. Doctrines are tools, and tools can be modified. Truth can't, but doctrine is merely a means of getting at it.
Furthermore, scripture was never intended to be a biology text, or an astronomy text, or any kind of textbook at all. It is what it is, the history of the Hebrews, followed by several accounts of Christ and the early church. This is why some of the evolution threads mystify me... the evolutionists believe that proving the theory disproves God, and the creationists, at least some of them, seem to agree, so they fight back desperately to save God's life from this mortal attack... whereas I just see a discussion about tools. What tools did God use? You seem to be on my wave-length, I think, the IC debate for you is just digging into the details of the design, which is great fun. God is not at risk here, he built it. We're just trying to figure out how. We can afford to turn on the microscope and have a look, he is not going to vanish when we flip on the light.
Or, thats the way I see it.
I believe that God deals with every human, and every race of people, which means that every human chooses and has chosen again and again whether he will or will not serve God. Which is why it does not disturb me to see that Plato and the Greeks happened on to certain truths 300 or 400 years before Christ.
You said it very well, they are not competing with John the Baptist, its apples and oranges. John had his job to do, and Plato had his. Plato is obviously not part of scripture, but he had his earthly mission to carry out just like the rest of us do.
We have talked here about the need to build a purely Christian cosmology... (although I actually think you just did that with your essay Cosmology, Ancient and Modern ). I know some of us are uncomfortable at using metaphors or elements derived from non-Christian sources whether they be classical or modern. Within limits this does not worry me. You wouldn't try to build a bridge based on scripture, and you wouldn't try to fix your plumbing that way either. You develop the technology for the task at hand, gaining the knowledge and experience where you find it.
I think new advances in ontology are going to come from the AI people, the information sciences, at least in the short term. Developing "smart" technologies, and complex software teaches us a lot about how we are designed. Its odd but perhaps not surprising that we are starting to understand DNA better as a result of our familiarity with software, meaning we see information we have seen for a long time, but we now understand it differently as a result of our own efforts at creating intelligence.
Scriptural truth is not threatened by truth found outside of scripture. I used to know a preacher who would challenge people to close their Bibles and open their eyes to what God was doing, right now, all around them. That if there were no Bible, it would be possible to recreate it from simply observing, and participating, in what God is doing, now, in the streets, and in history. Because God is still God, and he is still forging the world. We humans are part of the tool set, and would be witnesses if we just opened our eyes.
The Hebrews and the Church are, respectively, a particular priesthood with a particular mission. But God is at work on all sides of us, and its a much bigger game than just us. Its fine for us to kick around the fine points of doctrine, its important in fact, as long as we remember that we are just the priests. The folks are out there doing God's will, we're just keeping the altar polished.
I think of us sometimes as being like the cooks at a lumber camp. We have to keep the guys fed, but they are the ones out there felling the trees. We are a key part of the operation for sure, but someone still has to fire up the chain saw.
My metaphors could use some work, I know...
Somewhere you quoted Voegelin: “Christianity is not concerned with belief in a literary text, but with man’s confrontation with God through faith.” So while certainly someone has to broadcast God's word out into the culture, and keep doing it, that is not the whole game. There are also trees to fell, and dragons to slay.
I never know if I make any sense at all... Work with me here...
IMHO, you are simply a superb essayist, natural born. :^)
I just loved this: "...we really aren't free to read just anything into the words. But the words are intended to describe something, they aren't the thing itself obviously. In our efforts to boil everything down into an easily codified doctrine we sometimes squeeze the life out of the words."
And once the life is squeezed out of them, we are then free to simply redefine the words. With the life gone out of them, after a while nobody remembers what they originally meant anyway. I imagine this sort of thing is at the bottom of all progressive political ideologies. It's at the bottom of scientific materialism....
And I also loved this:
"This is why some of the evolution threads mystify me... the evolutionists believe that proving the theory disproves God, and the creationists, at least some of them, seem to agree, so they fight back desperately to save God's life from this mortal attack... whereas I just see a discussion about tools. What tools did God use? You seem to be on my wave-length, I think, the IC debate for you is just digging into the details of the design, which is great fun. God is not at risk here, he built it. We're just trying to figure out how. We can afford to turn on the microscope and have a look, he is not going to vanish when we flip on the light."
You and I are definitely on the same wavelength.
Thank you for noticing that my Cosmology piece really was a Christian cosmology. I just used Greek terms to disguise the fact. I wonder that people would think to construct a cosmology entirely out of Biblical resources. Seems to me the Holy Scriptures are about one-half of God's Revelation to man. The other half is the Creation itself. Or that's the way it seems to me. One can see the Hand of God in all things if one knows how to look. Creature is worth studying to find the marks of God.
With you, I believe that God is not in ANY kind of danger from advances in scientific thought....
Thank you so much, dear marron, for writing.
Because some doctrine teaches that Adam is the first mortal man, instead of the first ensouled man, those who adhere to that doctrine become ideologically “targeted” by evangelical atheists on the evolution threads. Conversely, those who hold to that doctrine are frequently evangelically compelled to debunk scientists who testify to an much older age for man and the universe.
It never seems right to see a Christian involved in an angry confrontation. Moreover, in this never-ending “age of the universe” debate neither side is willing to discuss space/time, relativity and the inflationary theory. So much would be resolved if they could only agree to the terminology.
I also agree with you concerning the importance of information theory to cosmology and biology, including evolution theory. Biologists have no interest in answering the question ”what is life?” – but a group of physicists and mathematicians have tackled that very question (Pearson, Pattee, Rocha, Yockey, etc.) and it appears the answer is “information”. In this context, “information” is a politically correct pseudonym for soul/spirit. IOW, at bottom, information (as defined by Shannon – successful communication) is a necessary cause for autonomous biological self organizing complexity.
Because the Word is alive, I cannot agree that one could receive it without the facility of either reading or hearing the Scriptures. Nature has much to teach us, but it does not speak of Christ or the Great Commandments, to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased).
However, I also believe that those who diligently seek Him – like Abraham – will be rewarded. I can also think of a few situations in today’s world where a person has neither heard nor read the Truth – aborted babies, young children, severely handicapped people, primitive people and those under oppressive theocracies or communism. But God will be merciful and have compassion as He wills. (Romans)
It does seem so odd to me that biology isn't interested in the question, "What is life?" "Information" in the sense defined above -- as soul/spirit manifesting as "successful communication" is precisely the sense I meant in saying that a part of God's revelation is in the Creation.
Alamo-Girl, you wrote: "Because the Word is alive, I cannot agree that one could receive it without the facility of either reading or hearing the Scriptures. Nature has much to teach us, but it does not speak of Christ or the Great Commandments, to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased)."
Oh I completely agree with your insight, A-G. The Word of God is prior to Creation and as such is the absolutely authoritative relevation. IOW, the Holy Scriptures are of higher rank than the revelation of Nature, which cannot give us Christ or the Great Commandments so needful to our spiritual welfare and salvation. I hope I didn't leave anyone with the impression that I believe otherwise.
With all respect to the Unknown Preacher: It seems the human mind, completely unaided, would be able to conceive of a general idea of God. But how could it ever imagine what God is doing at any particular time? The mind and action of God are completely incommensurable with human mind and action. We would have to know something about the nature of God before we could imagine "what God is doing, now, in the streets, and in history." And I think that is precisely what we cannot discover for and by ourselves. When man has tried to do that in the past, the result has been concepts of violent nature gods, or lascivious Olympians, etc. For us to really know anything about the nature of God, He would have had to tell us that Himself -- which is exactly what He has done, in the Holy Scriptures.
RE: My reply at 112: On the other hand, all of the above is true also, marron. At bottom, the Unknown Preacher seems have taken quite for granted the Christian acculturation of his flock, which would enable them to imagine ways in which God is acting in the world. I think that Christian belief is not supposed to be "otherworldly." Its two great laws place an enormous emphasis on the actuality of the here and now, with the "what's going on right under our noses," so to speak. FWIW
I guess I'd say He wants each of those who are His own, to get enough of it, individually and collectively, in order to bring about the harvest of His regenerate disciples. Prophesy may be the most glaring example of what we may know in part, here --especially prophesy yet unfulfilled, but we all only know in part at this point.
Yes, Ll, one explanation, yet one with a panoply of meaning and purposes inherent in the one.
Yes, marron, bb, it is not for us to exalt ourselves to either label God's Logos malleable metaphor, nor dried and brittle hyperdoctrine.
Yes, bb, A-G, the Logos is there in Creation too.
And how do we know these things? "The Bible tells me so."
The Logos Inscribed and the Logos made flesh are more defined, gainable knowledge to us, bb, than mere Creation without them. Wouldn't you say? --more able to be directly and fully related with and known. And the more important the relationship, the more it deals in specific communication --the more it comes by intent gaze and touch --by specified and focused concern, especially if self is to be shared. Especially so, when the sharing is between specific Creator and specifically Created.
Good point and worth repeating. We have a whole history of examples of how people tried to imagine God unaided by the Holy Spirit. It isn't pretty.
At bottom, the Unknown Preacher seems have taken quite for granted the Christian acculturation of his flock, which would enable them to imagine ways in which God is acting in the world.
I think this is exactly the point. He was speaking to Christians, and challenging them to look at what is going on in their own lives and the world around them. But you are right, this is kind of thing you could only say to a believer. This is the kind of thing I might say to you, or you to me, coming as we do from a similar sensibility. It isn't something you would or could say to someone who didn't already understand God and humandkind in the way that we do, or understand in some way the way that the Holy Spirit moves among us.
And it was really an offhand remark very limited in its context which I repeated to make a very limited point. To push it beyond that is to take it too far.
You said something else "The mind and action of God are completely incommensurable with human mind and action. " Again, true. We can only understand what we understand, in the limited way that we are capable. I make no claim to any knowledge beyond that available to your average guy ruminating over his coffee. My remarks have to be understood in that context, not that I am standing in as this month's prophet, but rather working my way through something and mumbling out loud in earshot of my friends.
Someone I know has a t-shirt that reads "I have lots of friends, you just can't see them"... I probably should find me one like it.
Yes Betty, I agree, partially. For as Scriptures say,
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even the most ardent atheist knows God through creation but "just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind..." So when you say,
For us to really know anything about the nature of God, He would have had to tell us that Himself.I would have to disagree. In fact, we know the nature of God, what is more important is that God reveals to us who we are. True knowledge of God is knowing ourselves, firstly. Unspun alluded to that exact "beginning of knowledge." I agree completely with you when you say "that is precisely what we cannot discover for and by ourselves." It seems all we are left with is how is it we come to know ourselves and begin to have a true knowledge of God?
But no matter how one perceives the purpose of "all that there is", it is nevertheless not possible for any being other than the Father to know Him fully. Christ would certainly be the closest, but even He does not know everything known to the Father (such as "the day and the hour").
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.