tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post8561850693028193542..comments2024-02-27T00:11:57.219+11:00Comments on Extra Nos: The only wise alternativeLPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-5870674845393167132009-05-31T15:30:37.740+10:002009-05-31T15:30:37.740+10:00Gentlemen,
This has been done to death. If you ar...Gentlemen,<br /><br />This has been done to death. If you are still at it, move it up to the latest post.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-46242672865501017162009-05-31T15:26:47.435+10:002009-05-31T15:26:47.435+10:00PE.
The issue is that one declares what is clear ...PE.<br /><br />The issue is that one declares what is clear to be vague.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-46742753262400395442009-05-31T15:24:44.491+10:002009-05-31T15:24:44.491+10:00Xan,
My post is far from attributing wisdom to th...Xan,<br /><br />My post is far from attributing wisdom to the atheist because they do not believe in 24.<br /><br />If Jesus did not rise from the dead then we are left with looking for another Messiah.<br /><br />Like those who believed in Jesus while he was here, I should ask, is this not the Mesiah or should we look for another.<br /><br />What would be your option if Jesus did not rise from the dead, be a Jew?<br /><br />As PE said (if he was correct), they won't let you join in the club.<br /><br />For me, being a Jew will not do, because I am still left with my sin.<br /><br />See 1 Cor 15:14, 17-19.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-25161437073393569432009-05-31T15:18:17.969+10:002009-05-31T15:18:17.969+10:00A.S.
Sawadee!
Salamat datang!
The backward proj...A.S.<br /><br />Sawadee!<br /><br />Salamat datang!<br /><br />The backward projection of Augustine's view down to Gen 1 is indeed anachronistic.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-71884286844108957722009-05-31T11:54:25.327+10:002009-05-31T11:54:25.327+10:00I think the "physicist Jew" was much more about pe...I think the "physicist Jew" was much more about people not rejecting, when encountering points of view that demand "day" must have been in God's mind rather than a condescension to what it is ours, a unit of time that does not exist apart from or outside of our rather small part of Creation, that Creation is indeed Creation at all and that there is a Creator who wills it into existence with a purpose.<br /><br />Everything does not have sharp values. That only becomes a problem when one insists that it does, rather than distinguish where they work and where they don't.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-36858464207583234832009-05-31T02:20:25.960+10:002009-05-31T02:20:25.960+10:00There's not much more "assinine" [sic] than going ...There's not much more "assinine" [sic] than going off on one sentence of somebody's, without even bothering to read the next two that explain it.<br /><br />Look, you don't have to agree with it, but at least <I>read it</I> before starting the name-calling.Xannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-31389707242873247302009-05-30T18:53:20.281+10:002009-05-30T18:53:20.281+10:00Greetings to you Kuya Lito, from University of Tha...Greetings to you Kuya Lito, from University of Thammasat, Bangkok!<br /><br />Xan said, "Augustine's instantaneous creation was exactly compatible with evolution." That'sl ike saying that 2+2=5 is compatible with 2+2=4. What an assinine statement that was.Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-43886145996872339982009-05-30T17:08:27.017+10:002009-05-30T17:08:27.017+10:00But that's you, Lito; that's the entire premise of...But that's <I>you</I>, Lito; that's the entire premise of your post here. Look at the title!Xannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-4281485694605549682009-05-30T16:40:38.373+10:002009-05-30T16:40:38.373+10:00Xan,
I am utterly surprised by your comment in sa...Xan,<br /><br />I am utterly surprised by your comment in saying ...<I>it leads adherents to conclude that without that particular belief, atheism is wiser than Christianity</I>How could you suggest that? You again contradicted the Bible.<br /><br />No Christian should say at that point an atheist is wiser than a Christian!<br /><br />Why? Because Scripture calls atheists fools!<br /><br />See Psalm 14:1.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-50269484200919922732009-05-30T16:37:02.936+10:002009-05-30T16:37:02.936+10:00PE.
Based on the BOC I will not deny the name Lut...PE.<br /><br />Based on the BOC I will not deny the name Lutheran to the one who holds an anti-24 hour day.<br /><br />However Lutherans as Christians can be, wrong and in error on other matters of Christian doctrine.<br /><br />For example, I think it is wrong to have a woman pastor to lead the congregation, I think abortion on demand is wrong etc.<br /><br />So someone who subscribes to the BoC who believes that women can be pastors is in my opinion wrong and so does, the one who do not believe in 24 hour days.<br /><br />I am not saying they are not Christians, I am not saying they are not saved. I am saying they are wrong at that point.<br /><br />Your position of 24 that CAN be validly held is non-sense. Either it is wrong or it is right (in the end). You are holding it at bay as tentative is ok if there are Scriptural evidence that you are not sure of. But that is not the case so being politically correct on this is adding to the confusion. <br /><br />If I have very good Scriptural backup with no less than 2 verses that clearly demonstrates it then your CAN becomes an OUGHT, it ought to be believed.<br /><br />Fair enough if you disagree with your famous dogmaticians such as Pieper and Mueller but between you and them, I think they have more scholarly work than you. Credibility wise I will cast my vote on their take on this because they are casting their vote on mine.<br /><br />That physicist Jew you spoke about should make you think why he could not let go of 24 and why he was trying to reconcile it with science. Because he knows darn well that 24 is steep in the tradition of Biblical interpretation.<br /><br />Science so called is against it (24) but there are quite a few passages in Scripture for it.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-70011335996527396622009-05-30T14:04:05.720+10:002009-05-30T14:04:05.720+10:00If we're going to blame ideas for their consequenc...If we're going to blame ideas for their consequences, perhaps we should reject 144-hour Creation on the basis that it leads adherents to conclude that without that particular belief, atheism is wiser than Christianity.Xannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-51374331086896138912009-05-30T03:34:28.516+10:002009-05-30T03:34:28.516+10:00One of the most interesting of these "harmonisatio...One of the most interesting of these "harmonisations" of the Bible and science I have read is from an Israeli physicist who is Orthodox (Jew of course, not Christian) who worked out something along the lines of a backward look at a forward motion in time where "day" could accurately describe eons of millions of years when the temporal aspects of Relativity are considered. This is not at all to say I endorse it, hell I can't even remember the author's name, just to say it is the best of such things where day in the 24 hour sense, and day in the sense of a period of time are combined, that I have heard about.<br /><br />As to the two points, I contest the first as argued from the Sabbath in Genesis. Revisionist elements in Judaism soften the Sabbath along with everything else and they are not a part of what I mean by "Judaism", but in all the many things written in praise of the command and gift of the Sabbath from God to Israel, that it falls apart if the 7th day of creation is not a 24 hour human day is just not found, anywhere.<br /><br />As to the second point, there indeed has been a progression of doubt from one thing to another to another, and the sorry state of most church bodies is ample evidence of that, including parts of my own. However, many of those who uphold "the 24" in particular and a literal reading across the board also fail to see in that reading things I believe are quite clear, for example the Means of Grace as we confess, particularly Communion, or the Office of Holy Ministry. Wobbly in their case does not result in atheism of course, but it does result in false doctrine, and is not prevented by "the 24" or the literal throughout approach.<br /><br />So I maintain "the 24" is a position which can be validly held, but holding it is not necessary to, of itself neither leads from or to, the faith of the Bible as summarised in the Creeds and presented in the BOC, documents much closer in nature to a set in propositional logic than the Bible.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-21886070123454291892009-05-29T17:30:54.766+10:002009-05-29T17:30:54.766+10:00PE.
Good, this is a better comment and a fair one...PE.<br /><br />Good, this is a better comment and a fair one.<br /><br />Here are my points.<br /><br />1. If as I argued that 24 is clearly taught in Scripture as proven by other parts, what reasons are there to reject it? So far I have read, a non literal reading of Gen 1 with science being used as a hermeneutic to adjust the meaning of the text. <br /><br />2. If Gen 1 is non literal as is claimed, then what warrant is there to also not attach non literal meanings to Adam and Eve? If Adam and Eve are not grown developed human beings when God created them, then Jesus being the second Adam makes no sense. There is the domino.<br /><br />In fact I can cite you a fellow who is teaching that Adam was actually the first single cell, not a human but the single cell of evolution. <br /><br />http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Genesis2v7.html<br /><br />Now read it and watch how he coerces the text. I am not saying you are doing that, no I am not accusing you of those, what I am pointing out is that when eisegesis using Science is used over the text, this is what happenes.<br /><br />You get an assinine theory as shown there.<br /><br />This fellow is teaching how science as he sees it complies with the Bible. But note, he adjusted the meaning of the text to accomodate science.<br /><br />If you look in the other combo boxes like the recent one of Jim Pierce, he articulated the connection for me of what I wanted to say.<br /><br />We are not discussing here if Mary remained a virgin like a pious opinion etc. The case for Gen 1's 24 is supported by text by 2 passages.<br /><br />The Scriptures are connected, that is my point. So if the text teaches 24 there is no otherway but to teach it that way to no ifs nor buts. Unfortunately J.E. Mueller and I are at one here if you read his p.181.<br /><br />Ideas have consequences.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-39036486197116120522009-05-29T16:53:05.162+10:002009-05-29T16:53:05.162+10:00Lito, it is not "the 24" that is the object of my ...Lito, it is not "the 24" that is the object of my comments, it is your insistence that it must be so understood or else everything else gets woobly at best and heretical or atheistic at worst.<br /><br />It is this kind of fundamentalism that is the recent phenomenon, roughly 100 years old now, as an hysterical reaction to Darwin, Higher Criticism and other things.<br /><br />It is characteristic of no point in Judaism, not was it characteristin of the proverbial early church. And it contributes nothing to our time but countering the bad theology of some scientists with the bad science of some theologians that has nothing particularly scientific or theological to recommend it.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-71266572393776267692009-05-29T15:08:22.144+10:002009-05-29T15:08:22.144+10:00PE.
Trouble is you keep on projecing your Rabbini...PE.<br /><br />Trouble is you keep on projecing your Rabbinic Judaism that you learned to Moses's time. This is anachronistic which was what Acroamaticus pointed to Xan when the latter pointed to Augustine as if he believed like you moderns do with regards to 24.<br /><br />You seem to suggest I am a genius for using Ex 20:11, I like to claim the complement but in actuality mine was not original. Where did you think the early Christians who believed in 24 got it? They believed in 24 long before we came on the scene. As I said, only did some Christians change when Darwin came along.<br /><br />For a knowledgeable bloke like you, I would have expected for you not to have been surprized like this. Your agnostic view on 24 is pretty recent.<br /><br />You are an LC-MS guy right? Why not read one of your late dogmaticians like Pieper and J.E. Mueller on the subject, on the latter I refer you to p.181 of his Christian Dogmatics book. I understand these 2 dudes are pretty reliable in most parts of Christian doctrine.<br /><br />However though, I arrived at my Ex 20:11 before I opened up my copy of Mueller's (which was 2 days ago) . And had I found he thought differently on 24, I would have used its pages as toilet paper to wipe my a.. with it (joke only).<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-65931274741315538402009-05-29T13:55:37.746+10:002009-05-29T13:55:37.746+10:00Well, it's amazing that in 20 years of study with ...Well, it's amazing that in 20 years of study with those for whom Hebrew is not only studied but is their first language, nothing like your connexion between EX20:11 and Genesis 1, or your reading of yom, or your regarding of such readings as normative, at least before Darwin, or especially your idea that such a reading is necessary for any of the rest to retain its integrity at any time, is found. <br /><br />That being the case, you must be getting these ideas from somewhere else. I posit it is from trying to make Hebrew Scripture function like Greek logic.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-89861428447078904212009-05-29T09:17:20.004+10:002009-05-29T09:17:20.004+10:00btw, atheists know there is a God, they just refus...btw, atheists know there is a God, they just refuse to acknowledge him because what Scripture says in Rom 1:18-21 is true about them, such that they import their antagonism towards him using their discipline.<br /><br />The reverse is true, for believers, they acknowledge him and they see his handy work in their discipline which is also sovereignly indirectly created by God himself.<br /><br />Case in point - Leibnitz, Godel, Euler.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-6771720853033267812009-05-29T09:11:47.393+10:002009-05-29T09:11:47.393+10:00PE
Recall that my reading of Genesis 1 was suppor...PE<br /><br />Recall that my reading of Genesis 1 was supported by Ex 20:11.<br /><br />My maths did not come into play here. As I said it was purely from linguistic and philosophical grounds. The analysis was on the Hebrew use of 'yom', explained by Ex 20:11.<br /><br />No offense, but I noticed those who deny 24 on a popular level have not studied the Hebrew language side of this, so will not be aware of the argument. But a more literal translation using Scripture interpeting Scripture even bears the meaning out.<br /><br />The agnosticism I allude to here is your position that Gen 1 is obscure, you are neither pro nor anti (IIRC) 24, where in fact I argued by Scripture interpreting Scripture that it is clear.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-21488823144274881932009-05-29T04:42:35.310+10:002009-05-29T04:42:35.310+10:00Romans 1:18-21 speaks of the natural knowledge of ...Romans 1:18-21 speaks of the natural knowledge of God and the nature of the origin of idolatry.<br /><br />It nowhere assumes or states your reading of Genesis in that. Nor do I anywhere espose an agnosticism re God as Creator of Heaven and Earth as stated in the creed.<br /><br />If all this has been done to death, it is because it has not been done at all. My comments have not been about God as Creator of Heaven and Earth, but the necessity of your reading of Genesis, which, since you insist that it is necessary conclude that anything toward a negation of that is a negation of the knowability of revelation and apparently natural knowledge of God too.<br /><br />Genesis does not need to be made into a mathematical style proof of God.<br /><br />Ditto SM's latest comment in the other combox re this too.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-44873155171882091662009-05-29T01:16:09.755+10:002009-05-29T01:16:09.755+10:00btw to anyone listening...
Leibnitz and Godel wer...btw to anyone listening...<br /><br />Leibnitz and Godel were Lutherans.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-84172068190137678892009-05-29T01:03:42.157+10:002009-05-29T01:03:42.157+10:00Discipline has nothing to do with it.
Proposition...Discipline has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Propositional logic is not exactly a discipline it is part of human language, it can be made keen but it is part of human language. It is part of reasonable sense, self evident truth such as creation which points to God.<br /><br />The problem with atheists is not intellectual it is moral.<br /><br />Do a bit or reading on the Bible and a bit of familiarity of its contents. <br /><br />The way you argue you appear not to be familiar with Rom 1:18-21. I suggest you read it instead of making speculations that espouses Chritian Agnosticism which not Christian at all.<br /><br />For the case of mathematicians who proved the existence of God using mathematics Google Liebnitz and Godel.<br /><br />Hope this helps, but I think we have done this to death. I have no time for your pontifications anymore.<br /><br />Have a good life, mate.<br /><br />LPC<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-17624035718046498922009-05-28T22:11:07.072+10:002009-05-28T22:11:07.072+10:00Leaping, jumping and flying Judas.
Over several c...Leaping, jumping and flying Judas.<br /><br />Over several comboxes now we have been discussing people in various fields of science -- the biologist Dawkins has come up -- who apply the norms of their disciplines to theology and Revelation and become atheists, and I have been saying that you as a mathematician are doing the same thing, applying the norms of your discipline to theology and Revelation and believe, and you ask for examples of the effort to approach theology and Revelation by the application of the norms of a human discipline to it?Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-30337984970158482492009-05-28T18:24:12.496+10:002009-05-28T18:24:12.496+10:00PE.
You may continue the analogy but any reasonab...PE.<br /><br />You may continue the analogy but any reasonable mind will see that your analogy does not work. You continue with your opinion without facts.<br /><br />Let me refresh you again...<br /><br />Did you not say this and I quote you verbatim...<br /><br /><I>I am pointing out that if you want to confine God within human modes of wisdom, one creates all sorts of problems, to which one can either shut one's eye and call it faith, or open one's eye and become agnostic or atheist, either result based on confining God to human modes of thinking -- to which Scripture says he is not confined...</I>....<br /><br />I replied with...<br /><br />Me:Give me an example.<br /><br />What is so unreasonable with my requests? I used your assertions, and I simply asked for an example of what you claim.<br /><br />You come back and cry foul and claim this is a "wife beating" question.<br /><br />This is weird, I quote your own statements, I ask for an example that illustrate your statements, and you cry foul. More evasions. <br />The above were no my words, they were yours.<br /><br />I do not know why, since you brought it up surely you must have a case in point for such assertions.<br /><br /><br />Proverbs 18:2 ESV<br /><br />Proverbs 18:7 ESV.<br /><br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-9931075238879977982009-05-28T17:24:05.022+10:002009-05-28T17:24:05.022+10:00There is no "corner" other than within the mindset...There is no "corner" other than within the mindset out of which you will not step.<br /><br />To continue the analogy, should I answer, out of your only two possible answers allowed, that Yes I have stopped beating my wife, I cannot state that I never started, or that I have no wife, but if I state No I have not stopped beating my wife, I cannot state that I never beat my wife or that I have no wife to beat -- the paradigm does not allow for the situation in which there is no beating ever or there is no wife, it imposes that there is a wife and at some point she was beaten.<br /><br />And that imposition, in particular, is that Genesis must be an exact literal account of the manner of Creation and if it is not the remainder of Genesis and the Bible itself falls apart, and in general, that Biblical documents as we have them now are only understood when studied as if they were mathematics, or a propositional set in classic logic, or a legal brief.<br /><br />You no less than the biologist, archaeologist or geologist apply your discipline outside your discipline, the one not believing when he does not find Scripture crammable into his discipline, the other believing when he does so find Scripture.<br /><br />Or to return to the analogy, I have neither stopped beating my wife nor not stopped beating my wife as there is neither beating nor wife other than your assumption that there is or was.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15967712.post-74951376606052386162009-05-28T16:37:37.793+10:002009-05-28T16:37:37.793+10:00PE.
The point is that you also hold the same copy...PE.<br /><br />The point is that you also hold the same copy as mine, so the arguments you put on me are also an argument against yours.<br /><br />Your analogy of "beating your wife" is despiration and an evasion. You are simply trying to weasle yourself out from the corner from which you painted yourself.<br /><br />I used your own words to ask the question and to clarify your point.<br /><br />Godness gracious, I even asked for an example from your own assertions to clarify your point and yet you run away and cry foul claiming my form of argumentation is like that of the "beating the wife" fallacy.<br /><br />Since I used your words to ask a question and you claim that is the "beating the wife" frame of question, you got nobody to blame but yourself.<br /><br />So I conclude that since you do not answer reasonable questions about your assertions neither you provide examples to back up your assertions, you are into pontifications.<br /><br />Proverbs 18:2 ESV.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.com