Proof that even God has to pick his battles.D1B wrote:
God intervenes (poorly) in an early wwi battle, yet utterly fails to do anything to stop the next 4 years' unparalleled violence, killing and suffering. Also does nothing to ensure this brutal war doesn't become the catalyst for another one.
No, what I was saying was that our understanding of how God operates has become more nuanced and tolerant of subtly.Chizzang wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:First, there are claims of angels appearing today. There was a great article in Time magazine some years ago about it. And then there are the accounts of the Battle of Mons in 1914 -- if St. Michael and an army of angels did not intervene, then this incident represents a serious case of collective delusion, given how many English troops claim to have witnessed the intervention. Granted, the whole incident can be viewed as fictitious, but still, it is a legend which has certainly taken on a life of its own with many witnesses insisting they saw the intervention.
Second, miracles occur every day. In fact, I know someone who is experiencing a rather miraculous recovery from a surgical procedure after receiving the Anointing of the Sick from a priest -- a priest who had previously performed the Anointing of the Sick on a brain cancer patient. Immediately, her cancer went into remission and disappeared. In the more recent case, the patient's doctors are saying his recovery from an intrusive intestinal surgery seems "inexplicable" in that he is demonstrating digestive functionality the doctors deemed nearly impossible. The prior case was widely reported when it occurred some years back.
Keep in mind there is likely a rational explanation for what is called a "miracle" -- it is just that our learning and knowledge has progressed to the point of explaining the cause or reason of the cure. For example, just as we don't know what the "trigger" is which causes many illnesses or diseases, we don't know whether there is a "trigger" which might cause a cure. The cancer patient mentioned above was immediately placed on a multi-hour flight, flying in excess of 35,000 feet for several hours, to undergo ground-breaking treatment being performed at a highly specialized hospital. Did the flight "trigger" a cause? If it did, we don't know why. However, perhaps the miracle was that God placed her in circumstances which -- unknown to man -- trigger a remission of brain cancer.
You are the best Joe... Thank you
So you would agree that God has changed his tactics of parting seas and turning humans into pillars of salt and is moving to a more subtle approach - more nuanced...
Uh, wrong lesson.D1B wrote:So god is more concerned about Joe's friend than he is about the thousands being slaughtered in wars right now.JoltinJoe wrote:First, there are claims of angels appearing today. There was a great article in Time magazine some years ago about it. And then there are the accounts of the Battle of Mons in 1914 -- if St. Michael and an army of angels did not intervene, then this incident represents a serious case of collective delusion, given how many English troops claim to have witnessed the intervention. Granted, the whole incident can be viewed as fictitious, but still, it is a legend which has certainly taken on a life of its own with many witnesses insisting they saw the intervention.
Second, miracles occur every day. In fact, I know someone who is experiencing a rather miraculous recovery from a surgical procedure after receiving the Anointing of the Sick from a priest -- a priest who had previously performed the Anointing of the Sick on a brain cancer patient. Immediately, her cancer went into remission and disappeared. In the more recent case, the patient's doctors are saying his recovery from an intrusive intestinal surgery seems "inexplicable" in that he is demonstrating digestive functionality the doctors deemed nearly impossible. The prior case was widely reported when it occurred some years back.
Keep in mind there is likely a rational explanation for what is called a "miracle" -- it is just that our learning and knowledge has progressed to the point of explaining the cause or reason of the cure. For example, just as we don't know what the "trigger" is which causes many illnesses or diseases, we don't know whether there is a "trigger" which might cause a cure. The cancer patient mentioned above was immediately placed on a multi-hour flight, flying in excess of 35,000 feet for several hours, to undergo ground-breaking treatment being performed at a highly specialized hospital. Did the flight "trigger" a cause? If it did, we don't know why. However, perhaps the miracle was that God placed her in circumstances which -- unknown to man -- trigger a remission of brain cancer.
So you're admitting ^ that the Bible is a highly flawed and inaccurate account of "The Nature of God"...JoltinJoe wrote:No, what I was saying was that our understanding of how God operates has become more nuanced and tolerant of subtly.Chizzang wrote:
So you would agree that God has changed his tactics of parting seas and turning humans into pillars of salt and is moving to a more subtle approach - more nuanced...
This shouldn't be surprising.
Our knowledge of how biology operates is more nuanced and subtle than 4,000 years ago.
Our knowledge of how physics operates is more nuanced and subtle than 4,000 years ago.
Our knowledge of every academic and intellectual study or inquiry is more nuanced and subtle than 4,000 years ago.
So why should it be a problem that our knowledge of who God operates is more nuanced and subtle than so long ago? I would hope that this would be true -- but for some reason you see that as a problem.
Like any other discipline, our knowledge and beliefs about God evolves and grows over time -- just as in any relationship, the relationship must evolve over time in order to succeed.
And that's what the Bible is. It is a story about an evolving relationship, in which there is a history of revelation and discernment. For The Bible to make sense, you have to approach it with the understanding that the stories recorded in the Old Testament were recorded not because they were literally true (in fact, there is an interesting debate among theologians concerning to what extent the ancient Jews accepted the stories as literally true), but because they pertained to some revelation and to some effort to discern the meaning of that revelation. Thus, the stories of those "great miracles" in which God acted out through nature to punish -- some call it the angry, short-tempered God -- have to be read in conjunction with the Psalms which discuss God as "slow to anger, rich in kindness." What happened in the many centuries between the two texts such that the depiction of God became much richer and deeper? That's the pertinent question. In fact, it is a far more fascinating question than because the effort to understand God is also the effort to understand man (and that remains true even if you do not believe in God).
You seem to be fixated on the notion that if the story, let's say, about Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt is not true, than the Bible has no value. But many people do not have a problem with that these days, and they move past to the more pressing questions. Their faith does not depend on the literal truth about "miracles" -- in fact, their faith does not depend in the slightest about whether miracles happen. However, it does raise a good question about why, in ancient times, God was depicted as performing mind-bending miracles while, today, miracles are less evident or less obvious. Obviously in times past, God was seen as a major miracle worker, and we have evolved past seeing God's hand in acts of nature, etc. Now I'm not saying that miracles don't happen. I actually think they do. What I'm saying is that focusing on the need for miracles, as a condition of faith, is a distraction from far more important questions.
So you say that, in order to have a discussion about God, we need to start all over again. I say that the discussion you want to have about God has been going on for a long time -- it is even evident in the Old Testament.
JoltinJoe wrote:First, there are claims of angels appearing today. There was a great article in Time magazine some years ago about it. And then there are the accounts of the Battle of Mons in 1914 -- if St. Michael and an army of angels did not intervene, then this incident represents a serious case of collective delusion, given how many English troops claim to have witnessed the intervention. Granted, the whole incident can be viewed as fictitious, but still, it is a legend which has certainly taken on a life of its own with many witnesses insisting they saw the intervention.
Yes, I am aware of this. However, even Machen's claim to have invented the story were challenged in his day. It's not possible for us today to know exactly how this story came to be.dbackjon wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:First, there are claims of angels appearing today. There was a great article in Time magazine some years ago about it. And then there are the accounts of the Battle of Mons in 1914 -- if St. Michael and an army of angels did not intervene, then this incident represents a serious case of collective delusion, given how many English troops claim to have witnessed the intervention. Granted, the whole incident can be viewed as fictitious, but still, it is a legend which has certainly taken on a life of its own with many witnesses insisting they saw the intervention.
A month or two later Machen received requests from the editors of parish magazines to reprint the story, which were granted.[1] In the introduction to The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War (1915) Machen relates that an unnamed priest, the editor of one of these magazines, subsequently wrote to him asking if he would allow the story to be reprinted in pamphlet form, and if he would write a short preface giving sources for the story. Machen replied that they were welcome to reprint but he could not give any sources for the story since he had none. The priest replied that Machen must be mistaken, that the "facts" of the story must be true, and that Machen had just elaborated on a true account. As Machen later said:
It seemed that my light fiction had been accepted by the congregation of this particular church as the solidest of facts; and it was then that it began to dawn on me that if I had failed in the art of letters, I had succeeded, unwittingly, in the art of deceit. This happened, I should think, some time in April, and the snowball of rumour that was then set rolling has been rolling ever since, growing bigger and bigger, till it is now swollen to a monstrous size.
—Arthur Machen, Introduction to The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War[1]
No, I did not say that.Chizzang wrote:So you're admitting ^ that the Bible is a highly flawed and inaccurate account of "The Nature of God"...JoltinJoe wrote:
No, what I was saying was that our understanding of how God operates has become more nuanced and tolerant of subtly.
This shouldn't be surprising.
Our knowledge of how biology operates is more nuanced and subtle than 4,000 years ago.
Our knowledge of how physics operates is more nuanced and subtle than 4,000 years ago.
Our knowledge of every academic and intellectual study or inquiry is more nuanced and subtle than 4,000 years ago.
So why should it be a problem that our knowledge of who God operates is more nuanced and subtle than so long ago? I would hope that this would be true -- but for some reason you see that as a problem.
Like any other discipline, our knowledge and beliefs about God evolves and grows over time -- just as in any relationship, the relationship must evolve over time in order to succeed.
And that's what the Bible is. It is a story about an evolving relationship, in which there is a history of revelation and discernment. For The Bible to make sense, you have to approach it with the understanding that the stories recorded in the Old Testament were recorded not because they were literally true (in fact, there is an interesting debate among theologians concerning to what extent the ancient Jews accepted the stories as literally true), but because they pertained to some revelation and to some effort to discern the meaning of that revelation. Thus, the stories of those "great miracles" in which God acted out through nature to punish -- some call it the angry, short-tempered God -- have to be read in conjunction with the Psalms which discuss God as "slow to anger, rich in kindness." What happened in the many centuries between the two texts such that the depiction of God became much richer and deeper? That's the pertinent question. In fact, it is a far more fascinating question than because the effort to understand God is also the effort to understand man (and that remains true even if you do not believe in God).
You seem to be fixated on the notion that if the story, let's say, about Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt is not true, than the Bible has no value. But many people do not have a problem with that these days, and they move past to the more pressing questions. Their faith does not depend on the literal truth about "miracles" -- in fact, their faith does not depend in the slightest about whether miracles happen. However, it does raise a good question about why, in ancient times, God was depicted as performing mind-bending miracles while, today, miracles are less evident or less obvious. Obviously in times past, God was seen as a major miracle worker, and we have evolved past seeing God's hand in acts of nature, etc. Now I'm not saying that miracles don't happen. I actually think they do. What I'm saying is that focusing on the need for miracles, as a condition of faith, is a distraction from far more important questions.
So you say that, in order to have a discussion about God, we need to start all over again. I say that the discussion you want to have about God has been going on for a long time -- it is even evident in the Old Testament.
I think we're making headway Joe
Thank you again
Can he be omnipotent and not?JoltinJoe wrote:No, I did not say that.Chizzang wrote:
So you're admitting ^ that the Bible is a highly flawed and inaccurate account of "The Nature of God"...
I think we're making headway Joe
Thank you again
But if we're going to play that game, I see that you admitted your need for an old-time, angry vengeful God as a condition of your belief.
Why is that?
I guess I'll never understand how silly questions like this have such great import to non-believers. If you want to play games with our limited ability to rationalize about how it is that God can be all powerful, and yet not be capable of "not being," go ahead and do it.kalm wrote:Can he be omnipotent and not?JoltinJoe wrote:
No, I did not say that.
But if we're going to play that game, I see that you admitted your need for an old-time, angry vengeful God as a condition of your belief.
Why is that?
JoltinJoe wrote:Yes, I am aware of this. However, even Machen's claim to have invented the story were challenged in his day. It's not possible for us today to know exactly how this story came to be.dbackjon wrote:
A month or two later Machen received requests from the editors of parish magazines to reprint the story, which were granted.[1] In the introduction to The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War (1915) Machen relates that an unnamed priest, the editor of one of these magazines, subsequently wrote to him asking if he would allow the story to be reprinted in pamphlet form, and if he would write a short preface giving sources for the story. Machen replied that they were welcome to reprint but he could not give any sources for the story since he had none. The priest replied that Machen must be mistaken, that the "facts" of the story must be true, and that Machen had just elaborated on a true account. As Machen later said:
It seemed that my light fiction had been accepted by the congregation of this particular church as the solidest of facts; and it was then that it began to dawn on me that if I had failed in the art of letters, I had succeeded, unwittingly, in the art of deceit. This happened, I should think, some time in April, and the snowball of rumour that was then set rolling has been rolling ever since, growing bigger and bigger, till it is now swollen to a monstrous size.
—Arthur Machen, Introduction to The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War[1]
I don't think you understood the question then.JoltinJoe wrote:I guess I'll never understand how silly questions like this have such great import to non-believers. If you want to play games with our limited ability to rationalize about how it is that God can be all powerful, and yet not be capable of "not being," go ahead and do it.kalm wrote:
Can he be omnipotent and not?
Perhaps God possesses the power to choose not to be, but the nature of a God which "is not" would be a relevant question only if God chooses that course.
Given our understanding of God, we would not exist if God did not exist, so not only is the question irrelevant, it is OUR existence which actually renders the question moot.
I think the traditional question asked by non-believers is whether an omnipotent God can choose to not exist -- isn't that what you meant? They say "how can he be omnipotent?" if he cannot choose to "not exist" and "how can he be omnipotent?" if he MUST be.kalm wrote:I don't think you understood the question then.JoltinJoe wrote:
I guess I'll never understand how silly questions like this have such great import to non-believers. If you want to play games with our limited ability to rationalize about how it is that God can be all powerful, and yet not be capable of "not being," go ahead and do it.
Perhaps God possesses the power to choose not to be, but the nature of a God which "is not" would be a relevant question only if God chooses that course.
Given our understanding of God, we would not exist if God did not exist, so not only is the question irrelevant, it is OUR existence which actually renders the question moot.
JoltinJoe wrote:
Second, miracles occur every day. In fact, I know someone who is experiencing a rather miraculous recovery from a surgical procedure after receiving the Anointing of the Sick from a priest -- a priest who had previously performed the Anointing of the Sick on a brain cancer patient. Immediately, her cancer went into remission and disappeared. In the more recent case, the patient's doctors are saying his recovery from an intrusive intestinal surgery seems "inexplicable" in that he is demonstrating digestive functionality the doctors deemed nearly impossible. The prior case was widely reported when it occurred some years back.
Keep in mind there is likely a rational explanation for what is called a "miracle" -- it is just that our learning and knowledge has progressed to the point of explaining the cause or reason of the cure. For example, just as we don't know what the "trigger" is which causes many illnesses or diseases, we don't know whether there is a "trigger" which might cause a cure. The cancer patient mentioned above was immediately placed on a multi-hour flight, flying in excess of 35,000 feet for several hours, to undergo ground-breaking treatment being performed at a highly specialized hospital. Did the flight "trigger" a cause? If it did, we don't know why. However, perhaps the miracle was that God placed her in circumstances which -- unknown to man -- trigger a remission of brain cancer.
He's more into import/exports.CAA Flagship wrote:Grizalltheway wrote:
I look forward to many years with the triangles.
And YOU want to be my latex salesman.
I don't disagree with a word you said. I wouldn't call this a miracle; I'd call it an answered prayer and a blessing, perhaps.dbackjon wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:
Second, miracles occur every day. In fact, I know someone who is experiencing a rather miraculous recovery from a surgical procedure after receiving the Anointing of the Sick from a priest -- a priest who had previously performed the Anointing of the Sick on a brain cancer patient. Immediately, her cancer went into remission and disappeared. In the more recent case, the patient's doctors are saying his recovery from an intrusive intestinal surgery seems "inexplicable" in that he is demonstrating digestive functionality the doctors deemed nearly impossible. The prior case was widely reported when it occurred some years back.
Keep in mind there is likely a rational explanation for what is called a "miracle" -- it is just that our learning and knowledge has progressed to the point of explaining the cause or reason of the cure. For example, just as we don't know what the "trigger" is which causes many illnesses or diseases, we don't know whether there is a "trigger" which might cause a cure. The cancer patient mentioned above was immediately placed on a multi-hour flight, flying in excess of 35,000 feet for several hours, to undergo ground-breaking treatment being performed at a highly specialized hospital. Did the flight "trigger" a cause? If it did, we don't know why. However, perhaps the miracle was that God placed her in circumstances which -- unknown to man -- trigger a remission of brain cancer.
There is so much we don't know about the human body and the self-healing potential (as well as misdiagnosis in the first place). Those that want to see a miracle, will.
Case in point - last January, when I had my heart scare, the day before the procedure, Alex's mom insisted we drive to Tucson and go to the Mission at San Xavier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_San_Xavier_del_Bac" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which is a pilgrimage site for local Catholics. We did the circuit of the church, then a nearby hill that is also a pilgrimage site. the next day, no blockage was found during the angiogram (which was one of the possibilities I was told could happen) - that I had a false reading from the earlier tests.
Some might say I experienced a miracle, others, just that I never had the blockage to begin with.
JoltinJoe wrote:I don't disagree with a word you said. I wouldn't call this a miracle; I'd call it an answered prayer and a blessing, perhaps.dbackjon wrote:
There is so much we don't know about the human body and the self-healing potential (as well as misdiagnosis in the first place). Those that want to see a miracle, will.
Case in point - last January, when I had my heart scare, the day before the procedure, Alex's mom insisted we drive to Tucson and go to the Mission at San Xavier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_San_Xavier_del_Bac" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which is a pilgrimage site for local Catholics. We did the circuit of the church, then a nearby hill that is also a pilgrimage site. the next day, no blockage was found during the angiogram (which was one of the possibilities I was told could happen) - that I had a false reading from the earlier tests.
Some might say I experienced a miracle, others, just that I never had the blockage to begin with.
But if they found a blockage, then you went to the Mission, and then the blockage disappeared and doctors could not tell you why ...
dbackjon wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:
I don't disagree with a word you said. I wouldn't call this a miracle; I'd call it an answered prayer and a blessing, perhaps.
But if they found a blockage, then you went to the Mission, and then the blockage disappeared and doctors could not tell you why ...
Tests indicated they THOUGHT there was one - but couldn't be for sure until they went in and looked. Doctor even said there was a good chance they'd find nothing.
Thousands of people dying every day from cancer, yet god felt compelled to intervene in joes friends case.JoltinJoe wrote:Uh, wrong lesson.D1B wrote:
So god is more concerned about Joe's friend than he is about the thousands being slaughtered in wars right now.
If someone were to walk into my friend's house tonight and shoot him full of bullets, he would die.
Get it?
I'll let God know you don't approve and that he should run his next idea past you before he acts.D1B wrote:Thousands of people dying every day from cancer, yet god felt compelled to intervene in joes friends case.JoltinJoe wrote:
Uh, wrong lesson.
If someone were to walk into my friend's house tonight and shoot him full of bullets, he would die.
Get it?
I didn't ask that question at. If god is angry, vengeful, and omnipotent...JoltinJoe wrote:I think the traditional question asked by non-believers is whether an omnipotent God can choose to not exist -- isn't that what you meant? They say "how can he be omnipotent?" if he cannot choose to "not exist" and "how can he be omnipotent?" if he MUST be.kalm wrote:
I don't think you understood the question then.
