Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:We all claim our interpretations are better than someone else's. Otherwise we wouldn't hold to our interpretation, would we?

I like that (!) and yes it's true; I do think my interpretation is better than Crotchet's (sorry, Crotchet!). However, I'm also aware that that judgement itself is very subjective, so I won't claim that it is better than Crotchet's, only that it is at least as good. Is that fair?

Kurieuo wrote:You can have your interpretation of Scripture Hugh, it's all irrelevant anyway if the words of Scripture are merely human.

Who thinks that? Have you forgotten all my posts as soon as you read them?

I don't believe the RCC has the same view of Scripture, considering it is considered inspired as a source of divine revelation.

Quite true, neither I nor the Catholic Church think "it's all irrelevant anyway if the words of Scripture are merely human."

Not sure how you pair that to your naturalised God-neutering beliefs?

I suggest a few days reading the Catechism, and then you'll find out!

Interpretation of scripture is a fascinating thing.
Some like to leave it to others because the bible is "too hard" to understand ( of course IF you believe your salvation is based on what the bible says and means then you are leaving your salvation in the hands of others).
Some view the bible as important enough for THEM try and understand it for themselves and NOT leave it in the hands of others.
Others believe they are to allow the HS to guide them and reveal all to them ( with or without the bible).

If you think about it with a truly open mind you can see some merit in ALL those ways.

Of course it is not an either/or proposition so we can ( and should) use every possible to understand the written word Of God BUT never at the expense of His LIVING word and Son and the HS.

One thing theology classes taught me is that there are MANY interpretations and MANY doctrines and many possibilities in regards to interpretations BUT only ONE path to salvation and that is belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

PaulSacramento wrote:Interpretation of scripture is a fascinating thing.
Some like to leave it to others because the bible is "too hard" to understand ( of course IF you believe your salvation is based on what the bible says and means then you are leaving your salvation in the hands of others).
Some view the bible as important enough for THEM try and understand it for themselves and NOT leave it in the hands of others.
Others believe they are to allow the HS to guide them and reveal all to them ( with or without the bible).

If you think about it with a truly open mind you can see some merit in ALL those ways.

Of course it is not an either/or proposition so we can ( and should) use every possible to understand the written word Of God BUT never at the expense of His LIVING word and Son and the HS.

One thing theology classes taught me is that there are MANY interpretations and MANY doctrines and many possibilities in regards to interpretations BUT only ONE path to salvation and that is belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I gather from this that you think I find the bible too hard to understand, and like to leave it to others. And I gather from that that you haven't read anything I have written. No point in writing a lot more then!

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Interpretation of scripture is a fascinating thing.
Some like to leave it to others because the bible is "too hard" to understand ( of course IF you believe your salvation is based on what the bible says and means then you are leaving your salvation in the hands of others).
Some view the bible as important enough for THEM try and understand it for themselves and NOT leave it in the hands of others.
Others believe they are to allow the HS to guide them and reveal all to them ( with or without the bible).

If you think about it with a truly open mind you can see some merit in ALL those ways.

Of course it is not an either/or proposition so we can ( and should) use every possible to understand the written word Of God BUT never at the expense of His LIVING word and Son and the HS.

One thing theology classes taught me is that there are MANY interpretations and MANY doctrines and many possibilities in regards to interpretations BUT only ONE path to salvation and that is belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I gather from this that you think I find the bible too hard to understand, and like to leave it to others. And I gather from that that you haven't read anything I have written. No point in writing a lot more then!

The underlined is the most logical sentence you've written!

I haven't look at this thread in forever, but really . . . it turned into a Catholic v non-Catholic thread?

Jac3510 wrote:I haven't look at this thread in forever, but really . . . it turned into a Catholic v non-Catholic thread?

Certainly not. It has become a literal v non-literal thread, and even a logical v non-logical thread. It has also become a whose interpretation? thread. The fact that my personal interpretation happens to coincide with the Catholic Church is just that - coincidental; although it does mean I can offer more detailed explanations and derivations of theological concepts by referring to the Catechism.

Two thousand years of scholarship can of course be just as wrong as a bloke in a chair thinking he must be right.

Sure . . . because the debate about purgatory and degrees of happiness in Catholic teaching is just a discussion of literal v non-literal teaching.

Jac3510 wrote:Sure . . . because the debate about purgatory and degrees of happiness in Catholic teaching is just a discussion of literal v non-literal teaching.

Do you know I have this strange vision? That many of the contributors to this site have thrown their English dictionaries in the trash, saying; "Huh! So this book thinks all English words begin with the letter A." Frankly, for people who profess quite a knowledge of the bible, I'm amazed that you managed to get past Exodus before making up your minds that you'd read enough and knew it all. May I respectfully suggest, only suggest, mind, and very respectfully, that if you want to comment on my posts you read more than just the first ten words? Bless you all.

Your an idiot. And a presumptuous one at that. Somehow you assumed "this thread" referred in totality to your conversation alone, and then preceded to attack me for not reading you correctly. And before you fuss about the personal attack in calling you an idiot--and yes, it's a personal attack, and I reaffirm it here: you're an idiot--note that I am intentionally responding in kind to the personal attack in your post to "many of the contributors" here.

Go away.

Jac3510 wrote:Your an idiot. And a presumptuous one at that. Somehow you assumed "this thread" referred in totality to your conversation alone, and then preceded to attack me for not reading you correctly. And before you fuss about the personal attack in calling you an idiot--and yes, it's a personal attack, and I reaffirm it here: you're an idiot--note that I am intentionally responding in kind to the personal attack in your post to "many of the contributors" here.

Go away.

Jac, per the underlined, this is your last warning....its "you're" not "your"!!!!! We cannot tolerate bad grammar, while making personal attacks!!!

Jac,

If you're going to give out personal attacks then I hope you are consistent in not minding receiving them.

Nessa wrote:Jac,

If you're going to give out personal attacks then I hope you are consistent in not minding receiving them.

Nessa,

The men are having a conversation here.

That's quite all right. I'm often called an idiot, mostly by people who only read the first ten words of anything I say, which may indeed give that impression. The discussion about purgatory was based, of course, as do many of the conversations here, with a consideration of whether a personal literal reading of the bible was the only authority by which we may try to understand God. The trouble with that is that any individual's understanding, and conviction that he has been blessed with the guidance of Spirit or whatever, may be very different from everybody else's. The most vehement discussions on this site are not between believers and non-believers, but between all the different believers, who firmly believe that everybody except themselves is misguided.

There are several ways out of the conundrum. The first is to attempt not to "interpret" the bible at all, but to accept that every word must be taken in its literal meaning. There is a certain honesty in this approach, but it leads to a frank refusal to accept so much ordinary everyday modern understanding of the world as to appear absurd to almost everybody. Six literal days. Plants before the moon. A literal rib. A talking serpent. And so on. And in fact, even among these there is considerable contention as to what, exactly, the literal meaning is; and we're back to the primacy of individual conscience.

The second is to accept that God's creation, as discovered and understood by science, can also be thought of as a way of understanding him. Coeli enarrant gloriam dei, as Psalm 19 has it. But then, any personal understanding of Science, particularly the more fringe aspects of it, can also be very individual, and not agreed with by anybody else, which again leads back to the primacy of individual conscience.

A few posts back, somebody suggested that it doesn't really matter how any individual interprets the bible, as long as he believes that salvation comes through Christ, or something like that, which makes most of the discussions on this site merely academic.

Another way of attempting to establish some kind of authority is for people of similar views to group together in a fellowship, gaining strength from community. Reasons To Believe, The Institute For Creation Research, Answers In Genesis, KJVBible, EvoGenesis, and similar groups of more or less like-minded individuals all have numbers of adherents, who no doubt find some confidence in their own beliefs by knowing that many others agree with them. Scientists, Christian or not, find similar confidence by adhering to a University, or the reliability of various specialist Journals in their academic fields.

If Crotchet or Abel or Philip or me or anybody wants their own personal, deeply-held, spiritually-guided views to become more widely accepted - and the bible insists that its readers "spread my word" - then they may use their own biblical scholarship, their understanding of the universe, and their powers of persuasion to the best they can, and good luck to us all, but we must all accept that we have no authority other than ourselves to do so. No authority. It is presumptuous to claim that we have "biblical" or worse "God's" authority, just because we use the bible as one of our foundations, because so much depends on our personal interpretations. But I believe that communities are stronger than individuals at spreading their ideas and persuading others to their view. Even here, people call themselves Day-Agers, or Gap Theorists, or Young Earth Creationists or whatever, which at least provides some kind of support for their views.

I do not find support for my personal beliefs in the communities mentioned above. I might be very shy, and nervous that in the face of all the scholarship on this site my views are laughable. But I do find that there is a community, albeit not much regarded here, whose views almost exactly coincide with my own, and from whom I derive some support. I hope that's OK.

You seem confused Hugh, over Evangelical biblical scholarship, that is really all I can say.

Kurieuo wrote:You seem confused Hugh, over Evangelical biblical scholarship, that is really all I can say.

Possibly. I don't feel confused.... um...