Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[Legion]

Politics is not about the merits of an idea, but emotional persuasion.

 

I've heard that politics is a discussion of "SHOULDS." I've noticed that Vigile says "should" frequently.

[Vigile]

Ok, LR you lost me. I tried jumping but your point still jumped straight over my head.

[Legion]

Ok, LR you lost me. I tried jumping but your point still jumped straight over my head.

 

No problem Vigile. I once heard a woman say "It's the shoulds you should watch out for." And I thought it was somewhat funny.

 

You know politics.... "We should do this. We should not do that. You should do this. You should not do that." Shoulds are a tricky thing in my opinion, much as judgment is.

 

I've been trying to keep my "shoulds" to a minimum.

[Vigile]

Hmm... I'll have to pay more attention. I'm not big on liberal use of the word should. It sounds too much like moralizing and I'm not comfortable with that. I'm also not a big fan of politics in general. I'm more of a fan of civil liberties, or limits on the pols.

[BuddyFerris]

Just have a discussion about the point on this page - I'll be satisfied with that.

Spatz

Yes Milady; as you wish.

 

Ok Buddy,

 

Since you promised (by implication) to have a real discussion, here are my opening points:

 

1. You profess to be a christian, yet from reading your numerous postings, without your actually denying it, you don’t seem like much of one. You have some ideas that are certainly not doctrinal and definitely not biblical. Since the Bible and the doctrine form the very essence of the Christianity, much of what you say indicates that you have some weird “Christianity without Christ†belief. Perhaps I’m wrong, but whatever you call I think I’d like to understand.

 

2. When I contemplate life, the universe and everything, I admit there are many things that I don’t understand or have only a very shallow knowledge of. I also know that I will get to the end of my life, whether it is very long, and still will have only scratched the surface of all the interesting things there is to know. At no time do I automatically assume “god†or something magical spiritual when I encounter a anomaly or some un-explainable event. My automatic assumption is usually and more than likely will be in the future, that something natural and not yet understood has occurred, yet when I read your texts Buddy, I get the distinct impression that for you it is nearly the opposite and you firstly assume “god†or “magicâ€, and then have to be argued out of it. Am I seeing this correctly?

 

3. You often resort to the science†won’t solve everything†straw man type of argument. This is grossly annoying as no one is saying that science will solve everything. So let me say it right up front now “Science will NOT solve everything. So thanks for telling us something we all already know. You can collect a 50 cent cigar at the door as you if you want.†Honestly Buddy, we know science won’t solve everything, and it’s a straw man argument to imply that everyone is saying that.

 

I’m picking you up on this because whilst you may not have said these words explicitly, reading over your comments you imply this strongly on a number of occasions and it is just plan wrong. It’s insincere and totally untrue.

 

It’s akin to the religious zealot who is anthropomorphising “science†into a sinister and demonic consciousness that is deliberately trying to destroy the world. It’s nonsense, it’s crap. Please stop doing this.

 

If you are as intelligent as you seemingly like everyone to think you are, then please realize that you’re quite transparent of this front.

 

4. OK, evidence. Where is it Buddy? You said you were willing to speak “evidenceâ€, so spit out. Habeas Corpus! Where is it? Just remember that evidence for “Godâ€, in fact any “godâ€, would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries. So if you have, lay it out and let us all have a look. Please don’t keep us waiting.

 

5. You still haven’t given a satisfactory answer of what it is you hope to gain by all of this. What’s the point? You having a “chat†(I won’t call it a discussion) with a number of people and you’ve made it quite clear that your mind won’t be changed. So what is it? Are you just here to “chew the proverbial fatâ€, or something?

 

I mean, if you here just to say you disagree then fine, piss off now. I can hear a street preacher any day of the week if I want. I don’t have to have it on a web site that exists for people like me (and not like you). Just consider there has to be a place where people like me can mix with like minded individuals without having a street-preacher coming in and witnessing.

 

So are you “witnessing�

 

So, there’s some starting points. Don’t disappointment now Buddy. I took you seriously and took you up on your offer.

 

Spatz

Dear Sparrow,

Very well done. Thank you for taking the time to humor an old man. I'll pick up a couple of points to lay the groundwork and then take a shot at your numbered interests.

 

- Nope. I'm not deliberately witnessing (except in the most general sense that we all paint the world with our presence; everyone an artist, every day a canvas, every stone a critic). I don't have any particular sense of calling to evangelize the world or the community or whatever. I would be an awkward instrument for such a task; seems a lot like telemarketer script stuff. If you have telemarketers like we do, you can imagine how I feel about self-appointed evangelists. A God-appointed evangelist would be a different thing entirely (in the context of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers as gifts of God to the body of believers.) I've met a couple; different, different, and different.

 

5. What do I hope to gain buy all of this? It's selfish, perhaps entirely so. I've encountered a group of folks here, many of whom are clear thinking, lucid beyond the norm for a casual encounter, willing to be vocal on issues about which they feel strongly, and willing to do so beyond just gratuitous complaint. I haven't seen anything to suggest the folks here are wicked minded or evil by intent. They are intense, strong, and they have opinions they're willing to own independently. What a magnificent place. That said and understood, I've lived in the same world, walked similar paths, fought the same fights, had the same doubts, and I've arrived differently. It's worth a talk. Beyond that, and recognizing the distress many have been put through, I'd like to know if I'm part of the problem. I'm unwilling to let the years pass in ignorance. That's the short version for number 5.

 

4. Evidence. You'll be disappointed. I had a classic conversion experience as a child (age 5?), another encounter around age 11, a stunning encounter with God around age 15, a kick in the head around 23, and it gets worse from there. Doubts (severe) along the way, loss, crisis, catastrophe, deaths. Many probable God events dismissed over the years as laking adequately precise and exclusive explanation. At this end of my life, the tally is just a few very pointed God encounters, inexplicable without a God. Adequate for me, but nothing with which you'd be satisfied.

However...

 

3. Science won't solve everything. We agree. I hope that I've used the argument in the following fashion. Modern views often reduce observations and experience down to the formalized state of repeatable process (mechanism analysis). Although all science begins with experience (Rosen, others), following the reductionist path quickly eliminates most of the tools and materials needed for a complete analysis. Physics and the social sciences are worlds apart, yet the reductionist is persuaded that physics (and math) will be the final authority. I disagree, as do many modern scholars. When reductionism's argument is offered here, I'm likely to point out as you do, that science (physics) won't solve everything (by providing a full description and explanation of qualitative but non-quantifiable real constructs).

 

2. Your 'natural and not yet understood' perspective is one I share to a degree. I've been a science and discovery type since childhood. I've also been aware of the boundaries between 'hard' sciences (math, physics, chem, bio), the 'soft' sciences (sociology, psychology, philosophy), and those fields that straddle the boundary between the two (anthropology, archeology, geology) due to the imprecision of the samples and records and the varying interpretations that might equally be applied. Your observation that you lean away from supernatural explanations is valid and appropriately objective from your point of view. From mine, it is a little imbalanced. You presume, it seems from your conversation, that 'natural and not yet understood' will one day be explained by science. I think that it is more likely they will not, and for several tedious reasons we'll haul out if you like.

 

1. Yes, I profess to be a Christian. I come from a long history of simple folks, mostly Christians, mostly mainstream conservative, mostly good citizens, mostly good, hard-working people. Mostly Baptists, Methodists, Free Methodists, and modern emerging church types. My beliefs are simple and quite personal; the apostle's creed will do for a listing. I'm surprised to find that I'm considered non-standard by the folks here. My family and I have lived and traveled literally all over the world; we've connected to the church in each locale, and they're pretty much like us in faith and practice. We have run across the fundies (our women can't play softball because the bible says so) in various places, but didn't know what to do with them on doctrinal issues. Did a couple of projects with them successfully; did ok when it was just work and not dogma. I consider our position (mine, my wife and friends, family) to be both biblically sound and common across hundreds of folks I know personally representing perhaps tens of thousands with whom they associate and affiliate. Feel free to examine me on the issues that interest you or provoke your curiosity; hope I have an adequate answer.

 

How did I do?

Buddy

[Sparrow]

Willa: Firstly, yes you did well. Really well. Now we’re talking.

 

Buddy: Dear Sparrow,

Very well done. Thank you for taking the time to humor an old man. I'll pick up a couple of points to lay the groundwork and then take a shot at your numbered interests.

 

Willa: Hmmm ... looking at your foto, you must either age well or the photo is “best-lightâ€. Either way, I’m grateful you’re now talking to me instead of what I felt was like lecturing.

 

 

Buddy: Nope. I'm not deliberately witnessing (except in the most general sense that we all paint the world with our presence; everyone an artist, every day a canvas, every stone a critic). I don't have any particular sense of calling to evangelize the world or the community or whatever. I would be an awkward instrument for such a task; seems a lot like telemarketer script stuff. If you have telemarketers like we do, you can imagine how I feel about self-appointed evangelists. A God-appointed evangelist would be a different thing entirely (in the context of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers as gifts of God to the body of believers.) I've met a couple; different, different, and different.

 

Buddy: 5. What do I hope to gain buy all of this? It's selfish, perhaps entirely so. I've encountered a group of folks here, many of whom are clear thinking, lucid beyond the norm for a casual encounter, willing to be vocal on issues about which they feel strongly, and willing to do so beyond just gratuitous complaint. I haven't seen anything to suggest the folks here are wicked minded or evil by intent. They are intense, strong, and they have opinions they're willing to own independently. What a magnificent place. That said and understood, I've lived in the same world, walked similar paths, fought the same fights, had the same doubts, and I've arrived differently. It's worth a talk. Beyond that, and recognizing the distress many have been put through, I'd like to know if I'm part of the problem. I'm unwilling to let the years pass in ignorance. That's the short version for number 5.

 

Willa: OK, that’s fair, but it’s still not clear. It’s fine chewing the fat, but it gets tedious when one has to talk for the sake of talking. What I’m trying to say is that I would get more from likeminded people and I assume it is the same for you.

 

Buddy: 4. Evidence. You'll be disappointed. I had a classic conversion experience as a child (age 5?), another encounter around age 11, a stunning encounter with God around age 15, a kick in the head around 23, and it gets worse from there. Doubts (severe) along the way, loss, crisis, catastrophe, deaths. Many probable God events dismissed over the years as laking adequately precise and exclusive explanation. At this end of my life, the tally is just a few very pointed God encounters, inexplicable without a God. Adequate for me, but nothing with which you'd be satisfied.

However...

 

Willa: That disappoints me (smile), however it’s not a surprise. What were your inexplicable events?

 

Buddy: 3. Science won't solve everything. We agree. I hope that I've used the argument in the following fashion. Modern views often reduce observations and experience down to the formalized state of repeatable process (mechanism analysis). Although all science begins with experience (Rosen, others), following the reductionist path quickly eliminates most of the tools and materials needed for a complete analysis. Physics and the social sciences are worlds apart, yet the reductionist is persuaded that physics (and math) will be the final authority. I disagree, as do many modern scholars. When reductionism's argument is offered here, I'm likely to point out as you do, that science (physics) won't solve everything (by providing a full description and explanation of qualitative but non-quantifiable real constructs).

 

Willa: See, this where we differ greatly. Science is not some object. It’s a tool. It’s a method – in fact, it’s called the empirical method if I can translate properly ... and it’s nothing more than that. When used properly, it is highly illuminating as it shows what is easy to understand and what requires a lot more effort. This is why there is peer reviews and testing of claims (which is what I do for a living). Science is not simply reductionism. I don’t care what a text book tells you that, but the fact is that science is simply a tool for discovery ... and it does it very, very well.

 

You make a distinction between physics and the social sciences – a distinction that in my experience simply doesn’t exist. The spirit of investigation can be applied to any and every endeavour of the human experience. Yes, sometimes it shows us our understanding of things is rather poor and there are certainly significant and robust scientific theorems that suggest we will never know everything (heavily mathematical). So whilst we agree that science won’t solve everything, it’s a large leap of faith and a rather inaccurate statement to make when one says that something is “beyond†scientific comprehension – particularly when we’re seeing some fantastic strides in the area you broadly describe as “social sciencesâ€.

 

So no, science is not physics. Science is a method and it can be applied to any and every aspect of our existence. We may eventually encounter some things that are unsolvable – however, we’ve already started predicting classifications of those – consider chaos theory.

 

Buddy: 2. Your 'natural and not yet understood' perspective is one I share to a degree. I've been a science and discovery type since childhood. I've also been aware of the boundaries between 'hard' sciences (math, physics, chem, bio), the 'soft' sciences (sociology, psychology, philosophy), and those fields that straddle the boundary between the two (anthropology, archeology, geology) due to the imprecision of the samples and records and the varying interpretations that might equally be applied. Your observation that you lean away from supernatural explanations is valid and appropriately objective from your point of view. From mine, it is a little imbalanced. You presume, it seems from your conversation, that 'natural and not yet understood' will one day be explained by science. I think that it is more likely they will not, and for several tedious reasons we'll haul out if you like.

 

Willa: Again, this is where we have to differ greatly. Most of the differences and “imprecision†you mention are firstly, not as great and wide as you imply, and secondly, what large differences there are, that are known, differ mostly for egoistic, political or financial reasons. It’s not so surprising that the anti-environmentalist lobby is mostly manned by companies who have to spend the most and make the most changes and the pro-side is manned by companies who have invested in researching technologies that are green. Politics and egoism are not the sole domains of science. Nearly every day someone spits the dummy for these and religions’ history is busting with tales of political intrigue and damaged ego’s.

 

I don’t mean to be rude Buddy, but it is stunningly naive to think it’s any other way.

 

Either way, what is left that is either imprecise or badly interpreted is as it is because we don’t have the technology to determine the answer or because we haven’t investigated long enough yet. Simply and purely that.

 

It’s quite disingenuous to say that because science hasn’t produced all the answers yet, that science is a bad tool. The empirical method has only been in use for roughly 350 years and only in any significant use for maybe 100 – 150 years. Religion and belief has been around for 40,000 to 100,000 years and has failed to do anything like what science has done in the last 350 years.

 

Be fair. Give the empirical method equal chance before you start labelling it as crap.

 

Buddy: 1. Yes, I profess to be a Christian. I come from a long history of simple folks, mostly Christians, mostly mainstream conservative, mostly good citizens, mostly good, hard-working people. Mostly Baptists, Methodists, Free Methodists, and modern emerging church types. My beliefs are simple and quite personal; the apostle's creed will do for a listing. I'm surprised to find that I'm considered non-standard by the folks here. My family and I have lived and traveled literally all over the world; we've connected to the church in each locale, and they're pretty much like us in faith and practice. We have run across the fundies (our women can't play softball because the bible says so) in various places, but didn't know what to do with them on doctrinal issues. Did a couple of projects with them successfully; did ok when it was just work and not dogma. I consider our position (mine, my wife and friends, family) to be both biblically sound and common across hundreds of folks I know personally representing perhaps tens of thousands with whom they associate and affiliate. Feel free to examine me on the issues that interest you or provoke your curiosity; hope I have an adequate answer.

 

 

Willa: With all due respect, I doubt you are really living a biblically sound life. Particularly, if you’re the type that takes the OT as true.

 

Do you wear clothes of mixed fibres? Do you eat sea food – crustaceans? Do you eat pork? Do you keep the Sabbath free? Etc.

 

If you don’t do these then you are living a life-style crime that some interpretations say is equivalent to homosexuality.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Legion]

Science is not simply reductionism.

I think there will come a time when people will be glad that science is more than reductionism. I think there will come a time when people will wonder why many scientists (especially biologists) got so caught up with trying to explain everything in terms of molecules.

[BuddyFerris]

Willa: With all due respect, I doubt you are really living a biblically sound life. Particularly, if you’re the type that takes the OT as true.

 

Do you wear clothes of mixed fibres? Do you eat sea food – crustaceans? Do you eat pork? Do you keep the Sabbath free? Etc.

 

If you don’t do these then you are living a life-style crime that some interpretations say is equivalent to homosexuality.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

Dear Sparrow, well answered.

Don't read too much into my statement of being on track with what the Bible says. I'm far from perfection personally, although my wife is a pretty neat lady and as near perfect as is needed. I don't ignore the OT, but I don't live in Abraham's culture or among Moses' nomads. We've talked elsewhere about how the Bible was written (several authors over a spread of time), to whom and on what occasion or to what purpose. The Bible explains itself fairly well for those points of inquiry, which tells us a lot about what to do with the content. I think that's important as a beginning point.

 

That said, consider change in law and culture. We can follow early secular law, pointing to both the reason for its' inception and the reason for its' having been superceded. For a Swiss example, women were granted the right to vote in local and federal elections between '59 and 70'(?) something. Why the change? It was appropriate and overdue. Why not earlier? At some earlier point it was culturally unworkable, just as it was at some point culturally unworkable for non-landowners to participate in government. At some point in the past, the vote was not the preeminent cultural development concern. Literacy, justice, slavery, property ownership, social mobility, and other critical issues preceded the issue of women's suffrage.

 

The same concept is visible in the Bible. Let me do this graciously without preaching, if I can. Here's my thoughts and a little on how I arrived at my conclusions.

 

The Biblical narrative describes much in the way of cultural change. You'll notice the NT provides little in the way of describing how government should be formed, but much in the way of how people should relate to each other. It doesn't say slavery is good, but it does say that masters should treat those over whom they have the rule with fairness. It doesn't suggest that taxation was fair, but it does say that the tax collectors should collect only what was due by law. It doesn't say one way or another about a lot of things you might like it to, but it's clear about the law and its' application in each era. By the time you get to the end, there's not a hint that you should be avoiding shrimp or cotton-poly shirts. Unless perhaps someone manufactures one by skirting the basics of hermeneutics.

 

I don't think I'm at the extreme on this one. The issue is reasonably dealt with by classical and contemporary scholars, as well as by Jesus' teachings on the law, and by James' and Paul's continuations.

 

Keeping the Sabbath is a good case in point. In the OT, we find that the Israelites were told to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Six days for work and one for rest. The law expanded to include how far they could walk, whether or not they could pull the ox out of the ditch, blah, blah. Then things start to change. The Sabbath is made for man, we discover. One man will esteem one day above others while another will esteem them all the same; both are correct, as it's a personal conscience issue rather than a legal one.

 

Paul in Colossians gives us a good wrap up of what Jesus began. It's scripture, so you can skip it if you like and just take my word for it. Note that, though you may not accept the Bible as authoritative, the statement is grammatically and logically consistent with the historical and cultural context, the audience, the occasion, the stated purpose for having written, and with the rest of scripture.

 

God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with all its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you for what they see you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

If I seem fringe to you, you'll note that the above is classic mainstream handling. The issue was not deemed a particularly difficult one after the first century.

 

Buddy

Let me know if I wander off into obscure rambling.

[Grandpa Harley]

The issue wasn't 'resolved' at the first century time... more the 6th or 7th, when every other motherfucker who disagreed with the Pauline view was removed, with the blessing of the Empire.

 

I've said it before, but mostly Christians try to ignore two major points

 

1) Paul, until Marcion, was an also ran... his ideas found favour with a couple of Charismatic leaders who manage to create enough trouble to be taken notice of. Doesn't make Paul 'correct', just expedient.

2) Limitations/Differences in Aramaic thought when compared to Classical thought. Jesus couldn't have implied much of what Paul said since Aramaic didn't support the concepts. Extrinsic 'Kingdom to come' being a prima facie case.

 

Thus, slaves have to submit to their masters, whether just or unjust, Christian or no. The 'Fair master' instruction is only to Christian, and then OT rules seem to apply. To use the apologetic to say that 'it doesn't say slavery is good'... well it don't say it's BAD either... but it has a fair amount to say about same sex relations... the culture card just means you make up what you take note of based on circumstance... which is cool, but it means that you can STFU when it comes to 'backbone' over the wee bairns...

 

To play the culture card really means there is no advice from god, and Paul's letters were NOT to the ages, just to the church communities involved.

 

I've never understood why folk place so much faith in Paul. Seems to me it was obvious from the get go that he was MAKING THAT SHIT UP ON THE FLY. If someone claims Jesus came to them on the Road to Duluth, most Christians will think there a nut job. Just because it 'happened' nearly 2000 years ago, it becomes 'magic'

 

TBH, there is little evidence that the Bible is more than heavily biased, mythologised, poorly edited and politically edited stories, with no more 'reality' than, say, the adventures of Spiderman or the Fantastic Four (their stories happen in real geography, occasionally real people crop up in their stories... but, when last I checked, New York hasn't been visited by Galactus, nor by The Vulture). At least Spidey and the FF have to be internally consistent.

 

Seems to me the only real difference is that the Bible is claimed to be god breathed, whereas Spidey and the FF are Lee and Ditko or Lee and Kirby breathed...

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy: Dear Sparrow,

Very well done. Thank you for taking the time to humor an old man. ....

Willa: Hmmm ... looking at your foto, you must either age well or the photo is “best-lightâ€. Either way, I’m grateful you’re now talking to me instead of what I felt was like lecturing....

Why thank you my dear, I'm all aflutter.

The photo goes with the name; that is, neither the face nor the name is mine. The photo is of a fine gentleman I met this last summer in West Africa, a communications engineer. The picture was accidentally well composed and too cool to leave in a business folder.

What I’m trying to say is that I would get more from likeminded people and I assume it is the same for you.

You've got a good point. We vacation with old friends and their extended families. We stay up late playing poker and solving the problems of the world. This isn't vacation, though. If I wanted to talk about what I think, I'd pick likeminded folks. If I wanted to know if what I thought was reasonable, worthy, or defensible, I'd ask you. (Plus, I observe that we don't exchange content in a vacuum; we give ourselves as well with each exchange.)

Willa: That disappoints me (smile), however it’s not a surprise. What were your inexplicable events?

Let's do that one separately, if that's ok. It needs some groundwork.

Nearly every day someone spits the dummy for these and religions’ history is busting with tales of political intrigue and damaged ego’s.

... spits the dummy ????? OK, I give up. What ... ah, looked it up. I think I get it. Spits the dummy!!! HA! Great turn of phrase. Reminds me of sitting in a bar in San Juan PR (1968) with a German couple. The wife was kidding us sailors about our slang; said 'pimple' was the stupidest, silliest word she had ever heard. I asked her what she called the little bumps; "Pickies," she said, making little picking motions with her fingers. The whole place broke up laughing.

Fuppy.

[dano]

If you go around talking about Jesus as if it is an established fact that he actually was a real person, and if you witness to strangers about God and Jesus, and if you hang around a bunch of Christians talking Christian talk, and mostly if you speak about God as if you knew what God is, and tell everybody you know, that you pray to this imaginary being,YOU ARE AN ENABLER to others who are inclined towards all this bullshit.

 

Most all of the serious problems in the world today, and in the past, pertaining to societies of men getting along with each other, are exacerbated by the belief that "my imaginary being is the only imaginary being, and anyone who believes different should be punished until they start believing exactly like me."

 

YOU ARE AN EN-ABLER ! YOU ARE PROLONGING THE EXISTENCE OF RELIGIOUS CULTS. YOU ARE HELPING TO DESTROY THE MINDS AND LIVES OF PEOPLE.

 

YOU ARE SCAREING LITTLE CHILDREN ETC, ETC,...............

[BuddyFerris]

...

To play the culture card really means there is no advice from god, and Paul's letters were NOT to the ages, just to the church communities involved.

 

I've never understood why folk place so much faith in Paul. Seems to me it was obvious from the get go that he was MAKING THAT SHIT UP ON THE FLY. If someone claims Jesus came to them on the Road to Duluth, most Christians will think there a nut job. Just because it 'happened' nearly 2000 years ago, it becomes 'magic'

 

TBH, there is little evidence that the Bible is more than heavily biased, mythologised, poorly edited and politically edited stories, with no more 'reality' than, say, the adventures of Spiderman or the Fantastic Four (their stories happen in real geography, occasionally real people crop up in their stories... but, when last I checked, New York hasn't been visited by Galactus, nor by The Vulture). At least Spidey and the FF have to be internally consistent.

...

Hello GH. Sort of expected you to weigh in on this.

At issue for the moment if you'll allow, is whether the scriptural content should be understood as if the words were spoken today, or as it was offered at the time.

 

Literalists (fundamentalists?) insist that the scripture is somehow to be understood in only one way as though spoken anew in every culture and every generation. I'll propose that it's a linguistically unsound to suggest that the scripture (or any document) will in every case serve the same purpose with the same applicability in every generation. Scripture being 'God breathed' is profoundly true, but I think it's overplayed by both religionists and critics.

 

Grant me for a moment the context for a conjecture on God and prophets. If a real prophet were to be sent to you with a word from God, and if the prophet came and spoke it in your presence while his helper wrote it down, that's generally what is described as 'God breathed'. It still has the flavor and even the wording the prophet provided as he painted the picture of what he saw and heard, but the content originated with God. Within the context of this conjecture, it's a big deal, but not a difficult concept. It doesn't require that what is presented to you be anything other than that. It is just a word spoken to you. You can read it to me, and I can get principle and concept easily. But if it's for you, then I can't take it for myself without some additional support. Now close the context and take a look.

 

All of history's fighting and squabbling can't change the simple rule of context. To whom was it written, on what occasion or to what purpose, and in what historical context. If we were to treat the documents of government with the same rules, I think the results would be unintelligible to us but perhaps more easily reconciled by a reasonable historian.

 

Now that doesn't come close to addressing all your complaints about the Bible, I know. But it does cloud the issue a bit when this one issue isn't handled well.

 

Ah. Dano's back. Thought we'd lost him.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Most all of the serious problems in the world today, and in the past, pertaining to societies of men getting along with each other, are exacerbated by the belief that "my imaginary being is the only imaginary being, and anyone who believes different should be punished until they start believing exactly like me."

Perhaps. Or perhaps greed, pride, selfishness, arrogance, pettiness, jealousy, bitterness, anger, stubbornness, desire for power, desire for position, desire for reputation, desire for vengeance, unrestrained appetite, a need to win over others, a lack of self-control, lack of self-restraint, lack of compassion, lack of gratefulness, and a profound lack of humility had something to do with it.

 

Nice to hear from you, as always Dano. For the moment if you don't mind, Sparrow has the floor at her request. Perhaps we would do well to stay with her subject line. I expect she'll return us to the free-for-all when she's ready. Thanks, pal.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

It's a non issue... it can only speak to the time. TO compare the meandering nonsense of some junked up or sunstroked desert dweller who lived on insects with the law is the kind of apples and oranges nonsense one expects from the apologist... They are not equivalent, and to claim otherwise is tosh. Law is precise. I has to be to allow the narrowest logical interpretation possible. Prophesy has to be a vague as is possible, with as many Barnum words and phrases to allow our inherent Rorschachery to kick in and see something that may or may not be there...

[Grandpa Harley]

and this

 

"Grant me for a moment the context for a conjecture on God and prophets. If a real prophet were to be sent to you with a word from God, and if the prophet came and spoke it in your presence while his helper wrote it down, that's generally what is described as 'God breathed'. It still has the flavor and even the wording the prophet provided as he painted the picture of what he saw and heard, but the content originated with God. Within the context of this conjecture, it's a big deal, but not a difficult concept. It doesn't require that what is presented to you be anything other than that. It is just a word spoken to you. You can read it to me, and I can get principle and concept easily. But if it's for you, then I can't take it for myself without some additional support. Now close the context and take a look."

 

Is long winded nonsense.

[HuaiDan]

Wow, Up to 5 pages already

[BuddyFerris]

Willa: See, this where we differ greatly. Science is not some object. It’s a tool. It’s a method – in fact, it’s called the empirical method if I can translate properly ... and it’s nothing more than that. When used properly, it is highly illuminating as it shows what is easy to understand and what requires a lot more effort. This is why there is peer reviews and testing of claims (which is what I do for a living). Science is not simply reductionism. I don’t care what a text book tells you that, but the fact is that science is simply a tool for discovery ... and it does it very, very well....

Be fair. Give the empirical method equal chance before you start labelling it as crap.

Dear Willa,

Perhaps I didn't say it well (that's happened once or twice); I don't think science is a bad tool, nor is the scientific method to be abandoned, but a tendency in popular science, often expressed on this forum, is to attempt the reduction of non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands. (human being₁=_qorganism cell count₁), and perhaps we shouldn't expect much success. When we're able to quantify honor or count the components of mercy, perhaps we can be more optimistic. A general behavioral model that would have predicted Masada may forever be beyond any simple or complex mathematical description.

 

You point out correctly that politics and ego obscure scientific progress. True. Science describes, philosophy assigns meaning. One claims strong objectivity, the other acknowledges its' complete inability to do the same.

 

With that understood, we agree well on many elements of science and discovery as tools and processes. Our disagreements may be in the realm of interpreting what our scientific observations mean. E.g., it is human or it isn't. That sort of thing. Does that make sense?

Buddy

[Legion]

A general behavioral model that would have predicted Masada may forever be beyond any simple or complex mathematical description.

I think this is a neat assertion. I noticed you said "may" Buddy. I'm glad you did. The thing is, I can't decide whether I am leaning towards agreement or disagreement with this statement.

 

I do know that it is notoriously difficult to predict what we will understand in the future. And forever is a very long time. Who can say with certainty what we will and will not some day be able to predict?

 

I suspect though that you are right about one thing. If we are ever able to predict an event like that at Masada then it probably won't be through the tradition of reductionism.

[BuddyFerris]

... This is why there is peer reviews and testing of claims (which is what I do for a living). ...

No kidding! Interesting stuff?? Tell us more, if you don't mind; perhaps it will add context to our discussions.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps I didn't say it well (that's happened once or twice); I don't think science is a bad tool, nor is the scientific method to be abandoned, but a tendency in popular science, often expressed on this forum, is to attempt the reduction of non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands. (human being₁=_qorganism cell count₁), and perhaps we shouldn't expect much success.

That's a straw-man and a misunderstanding.

It's just as me saying that Christianity is only about believing in pagan human blood sacrifices.

Misrepresentation because of lack of understanding the subject doesn't make your argument right or wrong.

But I won't bother explaining it further. This is just a little foot note.

 

So why should we believe in Human Blood Sacrifices, Buddy? Why does the gods need a death of a human being to be pleased?

 

-edit-

 

Oh, and I forgot, Christianity is about one more thing, cannibalism. Which is totally insane! How can they allow cannibals in our society today?

[Sparrow]

Buddy: Dear Sparrow, well answered.

Don't read too much into my statement of being on track with what the Bible says. I'm far from perfection personally, although my wife is a pretty neat lady and as near perfect as is needed. I don't ignore the OT, but I don't live in Abraham's culture or among Moses' nomads. We've talked elsewhere about how the Bible was written (several authors over a spread of time), to whom and on what occasion or to what purpose. The Bible explains itself fairly well for those points of inquiry, which tells us a lot about what to do with the content. I think that's important as a beginning point.

 

 

Willa: Fair enough, but I suppose the acid test is how you feel about homosexuality and if you are Yet Another Christian that beats up gays and uses the Bible for justification. If this is the case, then you’re clearly living a double-standard as you’re cherry-picking the OT parts that best suit your personal whims feelings. In other words, if you think Gays are biblically bad (whatever wording is used to justify discrimination, hate, etc), it becomes evident that it is in fact, nothing to do with the Bible at all – as shrimps, mixed fibres, etc.

 

So until you make yourself clear on these type of issues (such as gays), it’s not evident what “type†of christian you reality are, as compared to what you profess yourself to be.

 

I would also dispute that the bible explains itself fairly well in a number of contexts. Don’t forget that I’m an ex-christian, and I, like many others here, was a pretty dedicated one. I know the bible very, very well too. I also know all the justifications and all the supposed “explanations†– and the truth is, these are more doctrinal aspects rather than truly biblical “explanations†of the “contextâ€.

 

 

Buddy: That said, consider change in law and culture. We can follow early secular law, pointing to both the reason for its' inception and the reason for its' having been superceded. For a Swiss example, women were granted the right to vote in local and federal elections between '59 and 70'(?) something. Why the change? It was appropriate and overdue. Why not earlier? At some earlier point it was culturally unworkable, just as it was at some point culturally unworkable for non-landowners to participate in government. At some point in the past, the vote was not the pre-eminent cultural development concern. Literacy, justice, slavery, property ownership, social mobility, and other critical issues preceded the issue of women's suffrage.

 

 

Willa: I don’t know the answer to that Buddy. I suppose you’d find an answer to that if you knew why there are still red-neck racists in the USA who hate black people, or why parts of the America resisted an end to slavery when many other parts of the world had already abolished it, or why the USA nuked two cities in Japan when dropping the bombs off-shore or on some other less populated area would have been just as convincing demonstrations of US military prowess. I suppose it may be related to it seeming like a good idea at the time. Get an answer to these, and I suppose you have an answer to many things.

 

Either way, please don’t make the mistake of thinking my English is not good enough to recognize a subtle ad homonym attack – as if I’m responsible for the lack of progress of women’s suffrage in Switzerland and as if you’re responsible for the reluctance to end slavery in the USA – clearly we’re not. Despite Grandpa Harley’s very gracious concerns about my “literalness†with English, please do understand that I’ve learnt and used English since I was an early teen and made a career with it.

 

Despite all of this, I still don’t really understand he point you’re making and how it relates to taking the Bible literal or not. Clearly many people do take the Bible literal and still do. This is one of the myriad of things this web-site protests at.

 

 

 

Buddy: The same concept is visible in the Bible. Let me do this graciously without preaching, if I can. Here's my thoughts and a little on how I arrived at my conclusions.

 

The Biblical narrative describes much in the way of cultural change. You'll notice the NT provides little in the way of describing how government should be formed, but much in the way of how people should relate to each other. It doesn't say slavery is good, but it does say that masters should treat those over whom they have the rule with fairness. It doesn't suggest that taxation was fair, but it does say that the tax collectors should collect only what was due by law. It doesn't say one way or another about a lot of things you might like it to, but it's clear about the law and its' application in each era. By the time you get to the end, there's not a hint that you should be avoiding shrimp or cotton-poly shirts. Unless perhaps someone manufactures one by skirting the basics of hermeneutics.

 

Buddy: I don't think I'm at the extreme on this one. The issue is reasonably dealt with by classical and contemporary scholars, as well as by Jesus' teachings on the law, and by James' and Paul's continuations.

 

 

Willa: That’s terribly convenient Buddy, but I beg to differ on this as the Bible does clearly state that it is OK to take slaves – you know, the neighbouring state item. There’s also that pesky little item in the NEW Testament where Jesus confirms the Old Testament. It’s patently obvious that Jesus saw the OT as the absolute, unchanging, set-in-concrete Word of God. From the Bible - "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Jesus said the scripture was "the commandment of God" - Matthew 15:3 and the "Word of God" - Matthew 15:6. According to Paul, Jesus was quite clear that the rules and commandments from the OT were not to be changed or considered any other way: Matthew 5:18 - "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished".

 

 

Buddy: Keeping the Sabbath is a good case in point. In the OT, we find that the Israelites were told to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Six days for work and one for rest. The law expanded to include how far they could walk, whether or not they could pull the ox out of the ditch, blah, blah. Then things start to change. The Sabbath is made for man, we discover. One man will esteem one day above others while another will esteem them all the same; both are correct, as it's a personal conscience issue rather than a legal one.

 

 

Willa: Ah!!, But the point is, which day IS the Sabbath? I think I’ve already shown you cultural changes or “re-interpretationsâ€, are in deed, not in any way acceptable if you call yourself a Christian that follows the Bible – in fact, you’re more or less ordered to follow the Old Testament.

 

 

Buddy: Paul in Colossians gives us a good wrap up of what Jesus began. It's scripture, so you can skip it if you like and just take my word for it. Note that, though you may not accept the Bible as authoritative, the statement is grammatically and logically consistent with the historical and cultural context, the audience, the occasion, the stated purpose for having written, and with the rest of scripture.

 

 

 

Buddy: God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with all its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you for what they see you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

Buddy: If I seem fringe to you, you'll note that the above is classic mainstream handling. The issue was not deemed a particularly difficult one after the first century.

 

Buddy: Let me know if I wander off into obscure rambling.

 

 

Willa: Well Buddy, I don’t think you’re “fringe†at all – in fact I think quite the opposite - you’re clearly very main-stream. Most of the christians today think and act and justify their lack of observance of the bible in the same way you do. Goodness me, I did the same thing.

 

Either way, it doesn’t really matter. You’re not living like you’re explicitly commanded to do by Jesus – i.e. follow the Old Testament rules and laws, and all your protestations and justifications are clearly just intellectual exercises that have absolutely no grounding in the Bible whatsoever.

 

Simply put, you and most other christians are not very christianly at all. You are not doing as Jesus commanded.

 

There’s no other interpretation.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Sparrow]

Dear Willa,

Perhaps I didn't say it well (that's happened once or twice); I don't think science is a bad tool, nor is the scientific method to be abandoned, but a tendency in popular science, often expressed on this forum, is to attempt the reduction of non-quantifiable observations into quantified operands. (human being1=qorganism cell count1), and perhaps we shouldn't expect much success. When we're able to quantify honor or count the components of mercy, perhaps we can be more optimistic. A general behavioral model that would have predicted Masada may forever be beyond any simple or complex mathematical description.

 

You point out correctly that politics and ego obscure scientific progress. True. Science describes, philosophy assigns meaning. One claims strong objectivity, the other acknowledges its' complete inability to do the same.

 

With that understood, we agree well on many elements of science and discovery as tools and processes. Our disagreements may be in the realm of interpreting what our scientific observations mean. E.g., it is human or it isn't. That sort of thing. Does that make sense?

Buddy

 

 

But this is the whole point Buddy. Science is NOT reductionism.

 

Continually calling or insisting that science is reductionism is a complete disservice to everyone. It mixes up the discussion and no one can agree on what “is†and what “isn’tâ€.

 

Reductionism is only one of the many tools science has at it’s disposal in its’ efforts to understand things.

 

You’d no more count the components of honor or mercy than you’d use a screw-driver to smooth a piece of hardwood. No one would attempt to dismantle a jet-engine with a single wrench alone. You’d use the appropriate tool in the appropriate situation.

 

Take for example a beautiful piece of art. Think of something by Turner or Van Gogh.

 

You’d no more break those up into one centimetre by one centimetre squares in an effort to appreciate it, than you try to fly by holding a chicken in each hand and jumping off a cliff.

 

What you could do though was examine how it made viewers feel by showing them these pictures while they were in a NMR machine and see first hand how beautiful art affects the brain. You could even attempt to quantify why some pictures are pretty well universally celebrated and others not, by attempting to look for familiarities.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Vigile]

Take for example a beautiful piece of art. Think of something by Turner or Van Gogh.

 

You’d no more break those up into one centimetre by one centimetre squares in an effort to appreciate it, than you try to fly by holding a chicken in each hand and jumping off a cliff.

 

What you could do though was examine how it made viewers feel by showing them these pictures while they were in a NMR machine and see first hand how beautiful art affects the brain. You could even attempt to quantify why some pictures are pretty well universally celebrated and others not, by attempting to look for familiarities.

 

 

Really cool Willa. I love it when people can take a broad based subject and present a big picture view of it. Not only does it show an incredibly strong grasp of the material, but it is also highly fascinating. I can say after reading this that I now see science with a bit more color and appreciation.

[Sparrow]

Take for example a beautiful piece of art. Think of something by Turner or Van Gogh.

 

You’d no more break those up into one centimetre by one centimetre squares in an effort to appreciate it, than you try to fly by holding a chicken in each hand and jumping off a cliff.

 

What you could do though was examine how it made viewers feel by showing them these pictures while they were in a NMR machine and see first hand how beautiful art affects the brain. You could even attempt to quantify why some pictures are pretty well universally celebrated and others not, by attempting to look for familiarities.

 

 

Really cool Willa. I love it when people can take a broad based subject and present a big picture view of it. Not only does it show an incredibly strong grasp of the material, but it is also highly fascinating. I can say after reading this that I now see science with a bit more color and appreciation.

 

Vigile, thank you very much.

 

That's just so nice of you to say.

 

Best Regards

 

Spatz

[Sparrow]

Hello GH.

 

....

 

Buddy

 

Hi Buddy,

 

Please do take Grandpa Harley and Dano very seriously. They're really clever and their insights into many things are quite profound. Please don't dismiss them as trivial.

 

Thanks

 

<willa