- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If God created the universe, life, mankind, etc., and the events were related to the author/authors of Genesis through some sort of divine inspiration, how was it done? If we look at the universe as created it is a complex system that modern science has barely scratched the surface thereof. Even on our own planet there is much to know and greater yet to analyze and understand. How then would you explain such to men of stone to bronze age technology, where all but a tiny handful of people had no education and were illiterate? Then how would those thoughts even divinely sent or influenced be recorded much less preserved from person to person when the connection to any divine inspiration becomes ever more remote, when the very language used to express these thoughts or images has no words or vocabulary to convey them?
Which leads me to my next thought, how today do we as parents explain complex issues to preschoolers? We dummy it down to what we perceive as their level of comprehension, usually by oversimplifying. Try explaining a simple everday device like a telephone to a 3 year old, in the end its all magic; analog, digital, encoding, modulation, frequency, the concepts are meaningless to them, so if we were to write a manual for them we would skip over how it works and if they ask, we'd give them something grossly oversimplified to fill the gap and satisfy them.
Just something to think about, I do not doubt that divine inspiration may convey principles to the hearts of men but their ability to comprehend, relate and accurately reproduce this information to others, especially on matters of any complexity I call in doubt. That is why I am leery of literal interpretations of the Bible, especially the OT.
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 08 2008,03:32) If God created the universe, life, mankind, etc., and the events were related to the author/authors of Genesis through some sort of divine inspiration, how was it done? If we look at the universe as created it is a complex system that modern science has barely scratched the surface thereof. Even on our own planet there is much to know and greater yet to analyze and understand. How then would you explain such to men of stone to bronze age technology, where all but a tiny handful of people had no education and were illiterate? Then how would those thoughts even divinely sent or influenced be recorded much less preserved from person to person when the connection to any divine inspiration becomes ever more remote, when the very language used to express these thoughts or images has no words or vocabulary to convey them? Which leads me to my next thought, how today do we as parents explain complex issues to preschoolers? We dummy it down to what we perceive as their level of comprehension, usually by oversimplifying. Try explaining a simple everday device like a telephone to a 3 year old, in the end its all magic; analog, digital, encoding, modulation, frequency, the concepts are meaningless to them, so if we were to write a manual for them we would skip over how it works and if they ask, we'd give them something grossly oversimplified to fill the gap and satisfy them.
Just something to think about, I do not doubt that divine inspiration may convey principles to the hearts of men but their ability to comprehend, relate and accurately reproduce this information to others, especially on matters of any complexity I call in doubt. That is why I am leery of literal interpretations of the Bible, especially the OT.
Not sure about dumbing things down, but if you were to explain something that took a long time in one paragraph, then you would be brief and give the outline.Often being brief is not because someone is stupid or uneducated, but because the detail is of no benefit (at that time). Sometimes books when getting into the story may briefly cover something that preceded to frame the context.
It is often said that scripture could not have explained complex ideas to people not ready for them. If ancient religious writings could have conveyed simply the idea that invisibly small living things cause some diseases, and washing your hands could save your life, then it would have been simple and truly a divine revelation. We read that pigs were not to be eaten but it was already known that there are good health reasons not to eat uncured pork, so why was the equivalent statement about washing hands not included? Is it because the scriptures reflected the human knowledge of the time and do not contain anything factual that was not already known?
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 14 2008,18:16) Hi Stu,
We are only servants.
Please go directly to the Author.
Isn't that authors, plural?Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 14 2008,19:09) Hi Stu,
You yet lack any useful foundation.
We have begun to build
Try Author.
At least 5 wrote that attrubuted to Moses. 'Author' fails all reason. What use is a foundation that cannot deal with obseved reality?Stuart
Nick,
The whole point of my thread is that God did not write the group of works referred to as the Bible. Now I am open to idea that some of it may have been divinely inspired but humanly interpreted, reproduced, and edited and to the immediate purpose of the thread, these individuals were of mostly of bronze age technology with limited if any education and even language, so any inspiration derived would be interpreted and explained according to their level of understanding. That is why it is dangerous to base so much of our views on literal interpretations of such without careful examination. I am not saying there is no value or wisdom therein, but quite frankly it is not the unalterable, immutable word of God. It is a group of men's view of such, based on their understanding, seen through the lens of their time and capabilities.So what then is the special content provided by the divine dictation? Most of the mythology in Judeo-christian scripture is reworked material from past mythologies.
Stuart
Quote (Cato @ Feb. 15 2008,02:59) Nick,
The whole point of my thread is that God did not write the group of works referred to as the Bible. Now I am open to idea that some of it may have been divinely inspired but humanly interpreted, reproduced, and edited and to the immediate purpose of the thread, these individuals were of mostly of bronze age technology with limited if any education and even language, so any inspiration derived would be interpreted and explained according to their level of understanding. That is why it is dangerous to base so much of our views on literal interpretations of such without careful examination. I am not saying there is no value or wisdom therein, but quite frankly it is not the unalterable, immutable word of God. It is a group of men's view of such, based on their understanding, seen through the lens of their time and capabilities.
Hi cato,
It is characteristic of humanistic religion to rate the effects of the human filteras being greater than the abilities of the divine source.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2008,05:11) So what then is the special content provided by the divine dictation? Most of the mythology in Judeo-christian scripture is reworked material from past mythologies. Stuart
That Stuart is the question and why scripture and myth need to be examined, not to be blindly followed or thrown out en masse. If there is enough smoke maybe there is a fire somewhere, and these tales so pervasive and believed by many may have some basis in truth or at least what passed for truth in the minds of the ancients who wrote such. Also that much is undoubtedly allegory or symbolic, the same message could be repeated with different settings and names yet still convey the same basic idea. The repetition of material my be interpreted as forgery or copy, or it can imply a basic truth that finds its expression in many forms. If God was the creator of the Universe one would think he'd have sent his message out to more then just the jews of the desert. He would have been more then just the God of Abraham and Moses but of all creation.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,05:28) [/quote]
Hi cato,
It is characteristic of humanistic religion to rate the effects of the human filteras being greater than the abilities of the divine source.
Greater no, but just because something can happen doesn't mean it did. I suppose God could have sent his word directly or willed perfect understanding of his will to the Bible's authors etc. Yet from the results it appears unlikely. If it happened that way I think God's truth would then be apparent to all and we wouldn't have so much disagreement on scripture. Just look at this website and all the various views from self professed Christians, much less others. No I think the imperfections and ambiguities of humanity are involved in scripture.Quote (Cato @ Feb. 15 2008,05:44) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2008,05:11) So what then is the special content provided by the divine dictation? Most of the mythology in Judeo-christian scripture is reworked material from past mythologies. Stuart
That Stuart is the question and why scripture and myth need to be examined, not to be blindly followed or thrown out en masse. If there is enough smoke maybe there is a fire somewhere, and these tales so pervasive and believed by many may have some basis in truth or at least what passed for truth in the minds of the ancients who wrote such. Also that much is undoubtedly allegory or symbolic, the same message could be repeated with different settings and names yet still convey the same basic idea. The repetition of material my be interpreted as forgery or copy, or it can imply a basic truth that finds its expression in many forms. If God was the creator of the Universe one would think he'd have sent his message out to more then just the jews of the desert. He would have been more then just the God of Abraham and Moses but of all creation.
Hi cato,
Then who should examine these things for us and clarify what is truth?
Surely not someone beset with so many doubts as yourself?
Those doubts would introduce a negative bias.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,06:30) Then who should examine these things for us and clarify what is truth?
Surely not someone beset with so many doubts as yourself?
Those doubts would introduce a negative bias.
What is negative about having doubts? Only one who desparately needs the security of knowing he has a book containing 100% truth could fail to see the great strength there is in appreciating uncertainty.Stuart
Hi Stu,
So pig headed self reliance is the key.
Is this not akin to selfishness?“I am angered by people whose pig-headed and selfish addiction to an ideology causes needless death.”
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,18:32) Hi Stu,
So pig headed self reliance is the key.
Is this not akin to selfishness?“I am angered by people whose pig-headed and selfish addiction to an ideology causes needless death.”
Did you mean to post this here?Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,06:30) [/quote]
Hi cato,
Then who should examine these things for us and clarify what is truth?
Surely not someone beset with so many doubts as yourself?
Those doubts would introduce a negative bias.
It is incumbent for each of us to look for truth, no one can do it for us, others can help but in the end we are responsible.I do not ever recall telling people I know the truth, on the contrary I recall saying I have beliefs but fully admit that my understanding of such is limited and I often adapt and evolve my views as I gain in knowledge and maturity. Doubts are questions unanswered and not always a lack of faith or some sign of weakness. I have faith in those areas where knowledge and logic are useless and my inner compass tells me something is so, where this is not the case yes I have doubts. Doubts are morally neutral and any bias therein are perceived rather then inherent.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,18:32) Hi Stu,
So pig headed self reliance is the key.
Is this not akin to selfishness?“I am angered by people whose pig-headed and selfish addiction to an ideology causes needless death.”
Nick,Here you fall into the trap of the fanatic, pointing out faults in others without seeing same in themselves. Your quote is far more applicable to those of a religious mindset then a sceptic like Stuart. Look at the Crusades and the Inquisition for Christianity and Jihadist Islam for examples. While this also applies to the non-religous like Stalinists etc. I don't see Stuart having any overarching ideology other then his delight in trying to refute others views here which he feels are unsupportable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
