in spite of any similarities, it appears my start was actually quite different. Not in always have a love for science (which I did from a VERY young age... and still do), but rather, in when it (forever) took a back seat (so to speak) to learning about God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Suffice it to say, it was most certainly before I ever knew or heard anything of the Way Ministry.
(SNIP)...
So, like I said previously... science has (and will forever) take a back seat to something which I know in my heart is true beyond any and all doubt. While it may not be said of many things, on that, I suppose one might say that I am "fully persuaded." Yet, from a purely "scientific" perspective, I am well aware that it is quite "impossible" to prove it, or perhaps, even more logically explain it.
What is unfortunate, is that it appears you (and some untold number of others) may have muddled this... how should I say it... fundamental aspect of Christianity with something learned or associated with TWI, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Or maybe I just misunderstood something written in your post that only made it seem like you were putting science back in the drivers seat . If so, perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your position on it.
Yeah I guess it does sound like I’m putting science back in the driver’s seat – however, I might add that in this analogy you suggest I have my faith as an onboard GPS Navigation System…I think that is what gives me what the direction to go in if I am pursuing more details on some aspect of science – and now more than ever I am concerned with my faith not distorting the science…
when I spoke of giving priority or precedence to science over religion – I meant that in terms of where the deference should go – so basically I ask myself if the Bible fails to hold true to fact or what science has already proven – then I adjust my interpretation of the Bible accordingly – which sometimes means making accommodations for the cultural mindset or intellectual limitations of that time . I will return to this point further down – but for now - I hope I’m not detracting from the main purpose of this thread – so I’ll try to be as brief as possible in my attempt at clarification ( please bear with me for a few minutes...I do apologize in advance – obviously by the length that follows you can see I still have not thought all this out – but I’m working on it.)
Usually a fundamentalist interpretation takes the Bible as literally true…as wierwille said in PFAL the Bible doesn’t contain the word of God - it IS the word of God – and thus is perfect on any subject it mentions…that’s where I now disagree. I believe the Bible CONTAINS the word of God – an inspired book, yes – but clearly written by imperfect humans – exhibiting “warts and all”, the shortcomings and foibles of people, and even contradictions, factual, historical and scientific errors.
Ok – let’s pause for a sec – I know what I just said might freak out some folks – so let me walk you through how I got there…I think there’s an assumption by some folks (and I was one of them) that when God inspired or gave revelation with a specific message – that it was something almost like a document drafted by top notch lawyers – in that every angle was covered – no loopholes or inaccuracies – that could come back later and bite an author in the a$$ ...Some folks are willing to go part way and say “yeah God inspired these writers but they used their own vocabulary and writing style” – but why do we assume the limitations of knowledge back then or the shortcomings of human nature do not come into play also?
And what if God was only concerned with a certain type of message – information of a spiritual nature…I mean after all God mandated that humans should rule the earth back in Genesis 1 – one should ask how that might be realized. I believe the march of time from the beginning of recorded history will show that humans have been very busy in carrying out God’s directive to rule the earth – the constant advances in science, technology, medicine, “noble” experiments in government, etc. … Genesis 1 says that humans were made in the image of God to rule…yes that image is tainted because of sin – so you have the good and bad side of people reflected in the misuse of science, technology, government, etc…
I remember certain wierwille teachings that emphasized all inventions come by revelation – that type of thinking totally disregards AND disrespects the potential of people who are social, creative and constructive beings made in the image of God. Why does God have to hold our hands every step of the way in progress? If God is anything like human parents – maybe he wanted us to grow up and stand on our own two feet. What if God’s laissez-faire policy is merely been holding up his end of the deal in Genesis 1 – when he said humans should dominate the earth…
I will not even attempt to address God’s sovereignty in all this…something I do believe but understand so little about…which is how God works behind the scenes…God’s sovereignty and our freedom of will is indeed one of the toughest conundrums of the Christian faith…But let me be clear on this – I’m not one of those folks who thinks God is on my side and is pulling strings for me all the time – I don’t think there’s any scripture to support that kind of thinking…but there is something to following the moral dictates of your conscience…and I believe God created a moral universe and justice will prevail…but how God…or some higher power will work all that out is beyond me.
== == == ==
Now back to a point in the first paragraph. Contrary to my former fundamentalist mindset of taking everything so literally in the Bible – I did a “180 degree” on what I think of evolution. Considering all the evidence and the research that is constantly being updated I now think it is a distinct possibility that God has guided the evolutionary process. The message I think that the ancient writers were trying to convey had nothing to do with scientific accuracy – but simply that God in the beginning created.
I must say – loving science and being raised in a Christian home – my “a priori” has been the wonder of the universe suffused with faith…of seeing the mind and hand of God in the cosmos…and in trying to get back on track with that – there is perhaps the “a posteriori” of interpreting an ancient book with a modern mind…perhaps if anything has been muddled it’s the forcing-of-a-square-peg-in-a-round-hole mentality of fundamentalists who argue for the “scientific accuracy” of the Bible…not sure if I used those terms properly – I’m new at this – thought I ‘d give it a try...and do bear in mind what I've said elsewhere about my thought process - I'm shooting for a synthesis...which means I'm assuming that a harmony of science and faith is possible...
...well TLC - I don't know if all that clarified anything but I do feel a whole lot better now that I got all that off my chest
... of course, this is all just my opinion I could be wrong.
Usually a fundamentalist interpretation takes the Bible as literally true…as wierwille said in PFAL the Bible doesn’t contain the word of God - it IS the word of God – and thus is perfect on any subject it mentions…that’s where I now disagree. I believe the Bible CONTAINS the word of God – an inspired book, yes – but clearly written by imperfect humans – exhibiting “warts and all”, the shortcomings and foibles of people, and even contradictions, factual, historical and scientific errors.
This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up...
Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.) I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God." Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that: 1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God; 2.) is perfect; 3.) is spiritual; and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.)
Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.)
On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.)
Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.) The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere. Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible.
when I spoke of giving priority or precedence to science over religion – I meant that in terms of where the deference should go – so basically I ask myself if the Bible fails to hold true to fact or what science has already proven – then I adjust my interpretation of the Bible accordingly – which sometimes means making accommodations for the cultural mindset or intellectual limitations of that time .
So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible? Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death?
And what if God was only concerned with a certain type of message – information of a spiritual nature…I mean after all God mandated that humans should rule the earth back in Genesis 1 – one should ask how that might be realized.
That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth. When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill. So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.
This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up...
Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.) I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God." Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that: 1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God; 2.) is perfect; 3.) is spiritual; and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.)
Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.)
On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.)
Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.) The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere. Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible.
Yes I apologize to all for this major detour I have introduced - so I’ll try to be very brief - perhaps if anyone wants to discuss anything in further detail you can start another thread -
anyway my reply to this post is simply the point I was trying to make - that there are numerous historical and scientific errors in the Bible , texts or whatever is still in existence ...
...I was not attempting to split hairs on what’s inspired versus what’s given by revelation...either way - what I was suggesting is that the important content of the message speaks of spiritual matters - which by the way there is no way to verify if it has errors (there is no fact-checker for the spiritual realm ) - and so that is the part my faith latches onto.
i believe the Bible is very much a product of the times - that also has a timeless message .
So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible? Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death?
I’m not aware of any scientific proof that indicates there is no life after death
That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth. When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill. So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.
I think those are assumptions on your part... the directive was to man made in the image of God - and there’s scriptural support to suggest men and women have not lost that image - and so I believe the mandate still stands and in fact is being fulfilled.
Science has not proven there is life after death nor has science proven there is not life after death. I think this might be a more correct mathematical assessment.
I would think proving there is no life after death is a logical fallacy?
TLC did describe the realm of what is known, and what we don't know. There's a boundary between the two which we are constantly expanding onward, likely forever. Science helps with articulating the known from the unknown. Religion helps us face the unknown?
If I'm understand this thread correctly it's about definitions. Is atheism a non-belief in gods or a belief there is no gods? How do we define gods?
You're thinking of a conundrum -- in order to prove there's life after death, one would have to die. But once you have died, you can't come back to report your results.
A logical fallacy is when you draw a conclusion from premises using a methodology that is flawed.
"You can't prove there's no life after death, so it's just as likely to be true as false." This is a logical fallacy. Propositions do not have 50-50 probabilities. So you can make an evidence-based argument that one probability is, in fact, much higher than the other.
I’m not aware of any scientific proof that indicates there is no life after death
Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked. I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is. Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth. Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven.
Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?
I think those are assumptions on your part... the directive was to man made in the image of God - and there’s scriptural support to suggest men and women have not lost that image - and so I believe the mandate still stands and in fact is being fulfilled.
Perhaps they are (on my part.) However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?
Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked. I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is. Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth. Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven.
Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?
Maybe a good question might be “how do you define a religion?”
Short answer is I'd look at the functional aspect first, next historical, and possibly political. I take it to be a natural phenomena. I find this word to be somewhat of a moving target.
(Is The Way a religion? No, any system can be hijacked :biglaugh:)
Perhaps they are (on my part.) However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?
I never said anything about choosing or replacing any other directives...I'm just saying I'm not aware of any scripture that revokes or replaces the mandate of Genesis 1
Short answer is I'd look at the functional aspect first, next historical, and possibly political. I take it to be a natural phenomena. I find this word to be somewhat of a moving target.
(Is The Way a religion? No, any system can be hijacked :biglaugh:)
I never said anything about choosing or replacing any other directives...I'm just saying I'm not aware of any scripture that revokes or replaces the mandate of Genesis 1
Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
I don't see anything in that verse that would suggest the mandate of Genesis 1 was revoked - banished from Eden is perhaps one small specific location - upon this entire earth wherein humans would rule Genesis 1
...so currently humans cannot rule in the garden of Eden - it's off limits to their jurisdiction, authority...whatever
Yes if we set up or vary definitions we get different answers. TWI perhaps was good about making definitions strict, to keep one in a logic box. If we agree on definitions we could set up a bit of logic, but do we really get to the heart of the questions or understand one another? Maybe I don't know. Just thinking.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
15
19
15
Popular Days
Apr 17
25
Feb 8
11
May 4
11
Feb 9
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 25 posts
T-Bone 15 posts
Bolshevik 19 posts
TLC 15 posts
Popular Days
Apr 17 2018
25 posts
Feb 8 2016
11 posts
May 4 2018
11 posts
Feb 9 2016
10 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
So if we get to the place where we decide atheism IS a religion, then do we also have to go down the road of deciding whether it is an ORGANIZED religion or not? aka Dana Carvey's routine - "la, la,
Raf
I used to think that atheism was an overreaction to leaving The Way. In my case, it was a good long time between leaving TWI and rejecting theism, so I doubt very much that it can be categorized
So_crates
Or, as they used to say at the university: You spend four years in to the School of Engineering learning to ask the question, How can we make it? You spend four years in the School of Manage
T-Bone
Yeah I guess it does sound like I’m putting science back in the driver’s seat – however, I might add that in this analogy you suggest I have my faith as an onboard GPS Navigation System…I think that is what gives me what the direction to go in if I am pursuing more details on some aspect of science – and now more than ever I am concerned with my faith not distorting the science…
when I spoke of giving priority or precedence to science over religion – I meant that in terms of where the deference should go – so basically I ask myself if the Bible fails to hold true to fact or what science has already proven – then I adjust my interpretation of the Bible accordingly – which sometimes means making accommodations for the cultural mindset or intellectual limitations of that time . I will return to this point further down – but for now - I hope I’m not detracting from the main purpose of this thread – so I’ll try to be as brief as possible in my attempt at clarification ( please bear with me for a few minutes...I do apologize in advance – obviously by the length that follows you can see I still have not thought all this out – but I’m working on it.)
Usually a fundamentalist interpretation takes the Bible as literally true…as wierwille said in PFAL the Bible doesn’t contain the word of God - it IS the word of God – and thus is perfect on any subject it mentions…that’s where I now disagree. I believe the Bible CONTAINS the word of God – an inspired book, yes – but clearly written by imperfect humans – exhibiting “warts and all”, the shortcomings and foibles of people, and even contradictions, factual, historical and scientific errors.
Ok – let’s pause for a sec – I know what I just said might freak out some folks – so let me walk you through how I got there…I think there’s an assumption by some folks (and I was one of them) that when God inspired or gave revelation with a specific message – that it was something almost like a document drafted by top notch lawyers – in that every angle was covered – no loopholes or inaccuracies – that could come back later and bite an author in the a$$
...Some folks are willing to go part way and say “yeah God inspired these writers but they used their own vocabulary and writing style” – but why do we assume the limitations of knowledge back then or the shortcomings of human nature do not come into play also?
And what if God was only concerned with a certain type of message – information of a spiritual nature…I mean after all God mandated that humans should rule the earth back in Genesis 1 – one should ask how that might be realized. I believe the march of time from the beginning of recorded history will show that humans have been very busy in carrying out God’s directive to rule the earth – the constant advances in science, technology, medicine, “noble” experiments in government, etc. … Genesis 1 says that humans were made in the image of God to rule…yes that image is tainted because of sin – so you have the good and bad side of people reflected in the misuse of science, technology, government, etc…
I remember certain wierwille teachings that emphasized all inventions come by revelation – that type of thinking totally disregards AND disrespects the potential of people who are social, creative and constructive beings made in the image of God. Why does God have to hold our hands every step of the way in progress? If God is anything like human parents – maybe he wanted us to grow up and stand on our own two feet. What if God’s laissez-faire policy is merely been holding up his end of the deal in Genesis 1 – when he said humans should dominate the earth…
I will not even attempt to address God’s sovereignty in all this…something I do believe but understand so little about…which is how God works behind the scenes…God’s sovereignty and our freedom of will is indeed one of the toughest conundrums of the Christian faith…But let me be clear on this – I’m not one of those folks who thinks God is on my side and is pulling strings for me all the time – I don’t think there’s any scripture to support that kind of thinking…but there is something to following the moral dictates of your conscience…and I believe God created a moral universe and justice will prevail…but how God…or some higher power will work all that out is beyond me.
== == == ==
Now back to a point in the first paragraph. Contrary to my former fundamentalist mindset of taking everything so literally in the Bible – I did a “180 degree” on what I think of evolution. Considering all the evidence and the research that is constantly being updated I now think it is a distinct possibility that God has guided the evolutionary process. The message I think that the ancient writers were trying to convey had nothing to do with scientific accuracy – but simply that God in the beginning created.
I must say – loving science and being raised in a Christian home – my “a priori” has been the wonder of the universe suffused with faith…of seeing the mind and hand of God in the cosmos…and in trying to get back on track with that – there is perhaps the “a posteriori” of interpreting an ancient book with a modern mind…perhaps if anything has been muddled it’s the forcing-of-a-square-peg-in-a-round-hole mentality of fundamentalists who argue for the “scientific accuracy” of the Bible…not sure if I used those terms properly – I’m new at this – thought I ‘d give it a try...and do bear in mind what I've said elsewhere about my thought process - I'm shooting for a synthesis...which means I'm assuming that a harmony of science and faith is possible...
...well TLC - I don't know if all that clarified anything but I do feel a whole lot better now that I got all that off my chest
... of course, this is all just my opinion I could be wrong.
what's the diff ?
Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy
Edited by T-Boneformatting...and I'm truly sorry for this atrocity of verbosity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
This undoubtedly strays from "the topic" of the thread (which will invariably offend some,)... so, I guess I either ignore the entirety of your post, or respond in snippets and endure the rebuffs they stir up...
Actually, I don't recall that exact thing being said or taught in PFAL. (If so, my memory must be bad.) I have (for longer than I care to remember) always made a very precise distinction in my mind between "the Bible" and "the Word of God." Enough of a distinction, that I when I see or think "the Word of God," it is (in my mind) relegated to something that: 1.) is of (i.e., originates from) God; 2.) is perfect; 3.) is spiritual; and 4.) is invisible (and therefore, unknown to the senses.)
Perhaps in other words, it is "the breath of God." (...which is a figure of speech, obviously.)
On the other hand, I see and think of the Bible as being "the revealed Word and Will of God." (which also happens to match how I recall it being taught in PFAL.)
Furthermore, taking it one step further (and I know not all agree this perspective), I think of the Bible as a collection of scripture -- things which "can not be broken." Regardless of the fact they were written by less than perfect men (who may indeed have some of those "warts and all" that you speak of.) The difference between what was/is given by revelation (which is perfect) and that which results from inspiration (which isn't always perfect), I've spoken on elsewhere. Simply put, I think that difference allows for a certain (and often times rather distinct) perfection being evidenced within various imperfect versions of the Bible.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So when do you decide when to, or when not to, apply this particular formula to your interpretation of the Bible? Because.... hasn't all the evidence of science proven to you that there is no life after death?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That particular directive was given to Adam, at a time when Adam was properly equipped and able to have dominion over all the earth. When Adam failed to maintain his original state of mind, such a directive was impossible to fulfill. So anyone's effort to do so afterward is... well, like relieving one's bladder in the wind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes I apologize to all for this major detour I have introduced - so I’ll try to be very brief - perhaps if anyone wants to discuss anything in further detail you can start another thread -
anyway my reply to this post is simply the point I was trying to make - that there are numerous historical and scientific errors in the Bible , texts or whatever is still in existence ...
...I was not attempting to split hairs on what’s inspired versus what’s given by revelation...either way - what I was suggesting is that the important content of the message speaks of spiritual matters - which by the way there is no way to verify if it has errors (there is no fact-checker for the spiritual realm
) - and so that is the part my faith latches onto.
i believe the Bible is very much a product of the times - that also has a timeless message .
Edited by T-BoneRevision for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m not aware of any scientific proof that indicates there is no life after death
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think those are assumptions on your part... the directive was to man made in the image of God - and there’s scriptural support to suggest men and women have not lost that image - and so I believe the mandate still stands and in fact is being fulfilled.
Edited by T-BoneRevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Science has not proven there is life after death nor has science proven there is not life after death. I think this might be a more correct mathematical assessment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would think proving there is no life after death is a logical fallacy?
TLC did describe the realm of what is known, and what we don't know. There's a boundary between the two which we are constantly expanding onward, likely forever. Science helps with articulating the known from the unknown. Religion helps us face the unknown?
If I'm understand this thread correctly it's about definitions. Is atheism a non-belief in gods or a belief there is no gods? How do we define gods?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's not what a logical fallacy is.
You're thinking of a conundrum -- in order to prove there's life after death, one would have to die. But once you have died, you can't come back to report your results.
A logical fallacy is when you draw a conclusion from premises using a methodology that is flawed.
"You can't prove there's no life after death, so it's just as likely to be true as false." This is a logical fallacy. Propositions do not have 50-50 probabilities. So you can make an evidence-based argument that one probability is, in fact, much higher than the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was thinking proving a negative, since we don't have proof there's no life after death, you can't prove their isn't.
I can see my mistake, thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe a good question might be “how do you define a religion?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Look a bit more carefully at exactly what I had asked. I didn't actually claim there was "scientific proof" for it, as I'm aware that it's rather debatable what scientific proof of anything really is. Some will contend that "science" can't really prove or disprove anything, and say that scientific proof is a myth. Yet, based on some great abundance of empirical evidence, it seems there arrives a point where enough of a majority will agree on that there is "enough" of a constant or consistency in the evidence to say that something is (scientifically) proven.
Now, if all of that is true (perhaps you can convince me that it's not true... but, I doubt it... lol), then why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps they are (on my part.) However, in light of there having been quite different directives given to man at different points in history, on what basis do you chose which ones to keep and which ones to replace?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm sorry - but I don't understand your point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Short answer is I'd look at the functional aspect first, next historical, and possibly political. I take it to be a natural phenomena. I find this word to be somewhat of a moving target.
(Is The Way a religion? No, any system can be hijacked :biglaugh:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I never said anything about choosing or replacing any other directives...I'm just saying I'm not aware of any scripture that revokes or replaces the mandate of Genesis 1
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'd probably look first at some reference on line
Wikipedia
merriam webster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Genesis 3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, I'll drop it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don't see anything in that verse that would suggest the mandate of Genesis 1 was revoked - banished from Eden is perhaps one small specific location - upon this entire earth wherein humans would rule Genesis 1
...so currently humans cannot rule in the garden of Eden - it's off limits to their jurisdiction, authority...whatever
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The truth is, there are a LOT of good questions here.
How do you define atheism?
How do you define religion?
How do you define god?
All need answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps you'll allow me to say that is an assumption on your part. But you're not alone, by any means. It's just not my view of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I see those, thanks.
Yes if we set up or vary definitions we get different answers. TWI perhaps was good about making definitions strict, to keep one in a logic box. If we agree on definitions we could set up a bit of logic, but do we really get to the heart of the questions or understand one another? Maybe I don't know. Just thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.