Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
The analogy here would be to time and space. Both are distinct, yet both are necessary in context.
I don't. I'm questioning whether the interpretion of "void and without form" as meaning "having neither form nor substance" is correct. Putting this into context, we have "God created the earth, and there was no earth there".
I'm asking if it wouldn't make more sense in context to interpret it to mean "God created the earth, and it was lifeless and featureless", and proceed with creation from there.
That argument seems to agree with betty boop's, that the Earth was created outside of time as we understand it, so the reference to "days" can't be held to be as we experience it.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.. d;-)~.,.,,
Outrageous is the hubris that some can present what the earth was in Genesis ch 1.. as if Genesis ch 1 (time stamped) was as certain as Quantum Mechanics.. NO WAIT.. Einsteins relativity.. urg!. some other wazoo if'n... Whatever God did to the earth (then) there is no standard to measure or disassemble.. or even conceive of the processes involved..
On the otherhand God is pretty outrageous.. Let there be LIGHT!.. Woo Wee lighting up the Sun like a light bulb.. or starting a campfire.. Actually walking on unfrozen water is quite a trick too.. I tend to like Jesus spitting into some dudes eyes and creating functioning eyes.. Is that outrageous or WHAT?.. Him saying eat my flesh and drink my blood did indeed blow a few Jewish minds.. Many still to this day have their eyes rolling and their tongues hanging out drooling makeing stange noises over that one..
Csense: but I do like to cause Boopie to do double takes ever now again.. I'm guilty.. brothers are like that..
Really? Although they are required by Darwinism, those statements are all false, and obviously so, especially insofar as applied to man.
Because Christianity declares that all men are "equal" under and before God, Who one day will judge us "equally," according to His justice.
Many non christian and/or non religious groups declare that all men should treat each other as equals, as you would be treated in return.
Mankind's golden rule is the basis for all rational law. - And Christians have no special claim to that concept, - no factual support for their 'equality' opinion.
Every person has dignity; every person has unalienable rights.
Is someone arguing otherwise?
This is so because we are all desired sons (and daughters) of God, and He gives us what we need to be fully human....
You're free to believe your God gives you - whatever. - I hope you can agree I'm fully human even though I do not believe that anything is 'given' by a God/Creator.
There are NO unalienable rights without a God to grant them.. Actually there are not even any rights at all.. All a government can grant are privileges.. Which of course are infinitely alienable.. and are alienated at every opportunity..
Some don't even know the difference between rights and privileges.. And UNalienable rights are beyond them to understand..
Why would that matter? Without a God, who would there be to grant them to?
Introduction to
Samuel Rutherford's
Lex, Rex
by Jon Roland
The title, Lex, Rex, is a play on the words that conveys the meaning the law is king. When theologian Samuel Rutherford published the book in 1644, on the eve of the revolutions that rocked the English nation from 1645 through 1688, it caused a sensation, and provoked a great deal of controversy. It is ostensibly an argument for limited monarchy and against absolute monarchy, but its arguments were quickly perceived as subversive of monarchy altogether, and in context, we can perceive that it provided a bridge between the earlier natural law philosophers and those who would further develop their ideas: the Leveller movement and such men as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney, which laid the basis for the American Republic.
This book has long been undeservedly neglected by scholars, probably because it is written as a polemic in the political and sectarian controversies that are distasteful to later generations, and many of its references are somewhat obscure, but a closer reading reveals how it laid the foundation for the contractarian and libertarian ideas that came to be embodied in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Rutherford's main idea is that in the politic realm the real sovereign is the people, and that all officials, including monarchs, are subject to the rule of law, a phrase Rutherford uses only once, in Question 26, "Whether the King be above the Law or no", but this is the book that developed the contrast between the rule of law and the rule of men. He does not use the term social contract, but does develop the earlier idea of covenant in a way that leads naturally to the idea of the social contract. He also develops the idea of a separation of powers between legislative (nomothetic), executive (monarchic), and judicial functions, in a way that they can balance one another, in a mixed constitutional order that combines the best features of monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic forms of government.
What made the book controversial was Rutherford's argument that not only does the magistrate lose his authority when he violates the law, but that it is a right, and perhaps even a duty, for the people to resist such violations.
Cordially,
I'm asking if it wouldn't make more sense in context to interpret it to mean "God created the earth, and it was lifeless and featureless", and proceed with creation from there.
You're still making the fundamental mistake that the first line in Genesis is an act of creation. It's not.
Saying that ' evolutionary humanists' are causing gov't socialism is a ludicrous nonproductive generalization.
The issue is not about you and your feelings.
Exactly. the issue is about our Constitution. As I said just above.
You only feel it is divisive because you've allowed yourself to dwell on your feelings.
You feel that I 'feel'? How silly.
..The Declaration and Constitution are founded squarely upon the core presupposition: God created man - man is His creature, made in His image. Streaming forth from this core presupposition is this major assumption: man's Creator has endowed man with inalienable (not from man) rights....
You want to believe a Creator endowed you? - Fine. - I don't. Our inalienable [not infringable] rights are self-evident and do not require a creator to be valid.
Expecting that an elected leadership comprised of evolutionary humanists who reject God, and who contemptuously call Him a superstitious belief to nonetheless respect a system grounded upon God, is to be disattached-from-reality.
Read Joseph Story on the religious tests line of Article 6, Clause 3:
"-- It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. -"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saying that "evolutionary humanists" are causing gov't socialism is a ludicrous nonproductive generalization
Evolutionary Humanism is but the modern version of pre-Biblical naturalism. Naturalism, in its many permutations, has always been socialistic (collectivistic), with an aristocractic ruling class and a rigid class and/or caste system.
American indian & pre-christian nordic cultures belie your theory. Both were developing individual rights as a basis for law.
Evolutionary Humanism leads to socialism as naturally as day follows night.
Study worldview and you'll discover these things.
Studying our Constitutions principles is a far better preparation to fight socialism.
Within the context of the discussion (relating to evolution/evolutionists and creation/creationists), the question seems nonsensical.
Assuming the question is posed by a creationist (which seems a reasonable assumption), speculating on whether we would have inalienable rights without a God is pointless. If you really believe in creation then without a God it should be inconceivable that we would even be here to have those rights granted to us.
It certainly appears so. Is there some secret decoder ring you need to know it isn't really saying what it appears to say?
HUGS! dear brother 'pipe. You do make me do double-takes, all the time! :^)
But I still hope you'll take me fishing on your boat some "day" soon, or even sooner.
Just to assure you, I do not think that Genesis 1 and quantum mechanics are "identities."
Just another one of them pesky philosophical terms. Identity simply means "two seemingly different terms refer to the same thing." In the case of the Logos and QM, they do not. The two terms are not even in the same category.
That argument seems to agree with betty boop's, that the Earth was created outside of time as we understand it, so the reference to "days" can't be held to be as we experience it.
You misunderstand.
My statement above was in response to this statement by you:
I find it redundant to say that a physical entity ("the earth") is without form or substance, when being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form.
The point I was trying to make was, you can't speak of space, without an inference to time, (motion) and you can't speak of time, without an inference to space (distance)
Both are distinct, and necessary when speaking the language of the universe, yet neither is redundant.
The fact that things have these two qualities, form and substance, does not mean they are indistinguishable, or that one is redundant if they are. Neither quality is inferred by the other. Form does not infer substance, and substance does not infer form.
That's all I was trying to clear up.
As far as Betty Boop's argument, and those that are similar, believe me, I would welcome an interpretation of eons with regard to Genesis. It would certainly make science and theology much more compatible, but again, I have yet to hear one that has merit.
So you're saying the conclusion that something with no substance would also have no form is irrational?
Every person has dignity; every person has unalienable rights.
This is so because we are all desired sons (and daughters) of God, and He gives us what we need to be fully human....
Is someone arguing otherwise?
You're free to believe your God gives you - whatever. - I hope you can agree I'm fully human even though I do not believe that anything is 'given' by a God/Creator.
Hosepipe:
There are NO unalienable rights without a God to grant them.. Actually there are not even any rights at all..
Well, I think the Framers, even the religious ones, - would have called you a Tory [or worse] for that rather odd view.
All a government can grant are privileges.. Which of course are infinitely alienable.. and are alienated at every opportunity..
"Infinitely alienable" is hyperbole.. [lots of that on this thread]
Governments under our State/Fed Constitutions can not be empowered to 'grant rights'. [See the 9th] - As to privileges and immunities, read the 14th. Due process must be followed if someone is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Some don't even know the difference between rights and privileges.. And UNalienable rights are beyond them to understand..
Speak for yourself Hose. Your first line above doesn't inspire much confidence in 'understanding'.
Boy do I wish there was. It would make this so much easier. I don't know what to say tactic. It's all very obvious to me. I'm befuddled that people get confused over this.
Well, actually I'm not, but let's not get into that. You probably wouldn't believe me, even if I told you....
"the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection" - Darwin, Descent of Man, ch.5. Is the "progress of the United States" a genetic change? It must be if it arose by natural selection, as Darwin says. What about the "character" of the american people? Is that genetic? What are the loci for these genes?
Second, the process of reproduction creates far more offspring than survive to reproduce.
This assertion is nonsensical. Are there far more Norwegians born than can survive to reproduce? Is your pet cat busy producing "far more offspring" than can survive? What about you?
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.