Good and Evil, Towb and Ra

Faith & Science Conversation
62

I do think all true science is because of God. However, I’m not sure why modern science would help us to understand God any more than the ancients. It certainly helps us to appreciate Him more because we can see details about creation the ANE couldn’t see.

I general, I actually think the ANE understood God better than the modern West. They understood the spiritual world in a way that most moderns don’t. The moderns West pretty much ignores the existence of a spiritual world, and that largely due to a side effect of our science, namely, that if we can’t measure and weigh it, it doesn’t exist. Hence the devil and his minions have free reign to do things such as mass shootings and sexual perversions. Not sure how science could help there. Prayer and Christians exercising their God given authority is the only cure for much of evil we see going on in the world.

Jesus could heal a man born blind. I suppose there is a case or two where science has given the blind vision, but I’d bet the vision Jesus restored was light years ahead of what science has done so far. Noting at all wrong with science (it helps us keep bus schedules and such), but I believe the spiritual has way more power than science.

63

There are certainly timeless truths about both God and man taught in the Bible, OT and New.

1 Like
64

Here I must respond with something from modern mathematics that I’ve said before somewhere in this for. God is infinite; if applying this adjective to God as a whole is difficult, consider that God’s love is infinite. As some have noted, “infinite” as a specific numerical value might not be valid, but in the other sense of being “unlimited” we can still use the term with valid meaning. We can also apply some mathematical analysis that has been around for over 100 years, to note that any finite knowledge of God’s infinite love (or any other unlimited characteristic of God) is mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the total. This does not mean that our finite knowledge is meaningless; without any knowledge, we could not have a real relationship with God. What it does mean is that God is so large, so unlimited, that my finite knowledge can be true, and yet can also be completely non-overlapping with someone else’s finite knowledge which can also be completely true.
So your claim that ANE understood God better than the modern West seems shaky at best; are you comparing the average ANE with the average modern person, or the best ANE with the best modern person, or the worst ANE with the worst modern person? Or are you comparing the best from ANE (because that’s what has been preserved) with a general perception of modern?
As for the modern West ignoring the existence of a spiritual world, are you taking this as a general fact, or is the modern world on a much better track, focussing most of our efforts on things we can do something about, and trying to figure out what will make a real difference in this world, which is what we can observe and have at least some meaningful influence over what we do, and what happens as a result of what we do?
Science could help with mass shootings, if we really allowed good science to work on the problem. Science also can help with sexual perversions. In both of these, good science will recognize the complexity of the problem, evaluate risks and uncertainties, gather information to help understand what might be causing or influencing these problems, and, over some timeframe, provide rationale for trying some actions that have potential for improving the situation along with identifying measurements that will demonstrate whether the actions are having the expected results. No, I am not sure in detail how science would help, but not trying is evil. And how can Christians exerting their God given authority cure evil? Do you mean that we Christians can legislate morality? I promise you, 100%, that is not what God wants us Christians to do in this world! We rather should be using our best scientific efforts to help us identify causes and solutions to problems in a manner that we can actually decide what to do, and determine whether we were right, and adjust our actions based on real observation of effects.
This is what strikes me as correctly applying everything we know in today’s world, including our understanding of what ancient people believed about God, what we believe about God today, and our observation of opportunities to improve our current world.

65

And there are many things written in the bible that were specifically intended for a particular audience at a particular time, which have been taken out of context and grossly misinterpreted to justify evil positions, such as the antebellum southern ministers justifying slavery. It is often not trivial to determine how something written thousands of years ago applies to me today. And I am certain that I have no right to tell anyone else what he or she must do based on what I believe. I only have the obligation to witness to what I believe, what I “know” about God, and leave it to every other person to work out how, or even whether, what I say means for him or her and their relationship with God. I do note that my understanding of twentieth century physics and mathematics strongly influences how I interpret anything I read or hear.

66

I have no argument with that at all (and incredibly, some of it persists!).

Sure, but there are some about which there is no question at all, or shouldn’t be. Some of the basic moral ‘laws of love’ are among them and encapsulated in the Ten Commandments, about covetousness, lying, stealing and committing adultery for instance. (We could talk about esoteric exceptions, like civil disobedience under the Third Reich of course, but that is beside the point.)

We do have a responsibility to inform and encourage other Christians by testifying to God’s loving and faithful sovereignty in our lives as well as others that we know of, let alone those in scripture. I’m not going to dig for them now, but I’m sure there is more than the one place in the epistles where we are so instructed. Your not accepting those accounts and that mandate is on you.

Of course, and me too. I wonder where we might differ in that.

67

I just wanted to add one more thing, @rrobs . Thank you for your thoughtful notes. I have to say, that based on my own actions, atheists and folks of other religions often do much better than I do in terms of loving others and doing what God wants them to do. With James noting that can often happen (those who have works and don’t rely only on faith), wow, I have a lot to introspect.

Have a good morning!

1 Like
68

How did Jesus do it? He did it by the authority God gave him over the spiritual realm, which authority was in turn granted to all who confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead. Peter used that authority to heal the crippled man, knowing nothing about human anatomy or QM.

I know you wrote a lot more and I read all of it carefully, but I think the crux of the matter is whether or not one believes in a spiritual realm filled with spiritual beings, angels and demons. Neither Jesus nor Peter did not cure people of diseases or cast out devil spirits by the laws of physical nature. They did it by operating within the spiritual realm. I think the ANE had a much greater awareness of that spiritual realm than we of the modern West. I think an unfortunate side affect of science is that it does tend to dull our awareness of spirits and how the affect our physical world.

Even a cursory study of the ANE will show that they were in fact much more in tuned with the spiritual world than we in the modern West. When their crops failed they didn’t go to Monsanto for an answer. They went to the gods. Every minor event in their lives was thought of as having a spiritual meaning. It’s axiomatic; not having the knowledge of science we have today, they had to look to the spiritual realm for answers. Whether that is for the better or worse is another matter, but I do see them as having been light years ahead of the modern West in spirituality.

School shootings, sexual perversions, wars, etc. are spiritual problems and thus require spiritual solutions. Anyway, that’s how I understand this crazy world or ours.

69

It is true that many Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. appear to do better than many Christians. However, the key word is “appear” in this case. But appearances are not the standard of truth. The final judge of everything is the scriptures. What do they say about good works?

1Cor 13:1-3,

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

The word “charity” is the Greek word “agape” which is the love that only God has and can give to those who confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10).

Without that charity any act of apparent good is somewhat hollow. There is no profit without the love of God behind the action. Not everybody has that love of God in their hearts though. Only those who are born again have it. One kind act by a born again Christians has more everlasting value than a 1,000 kind acts performed by an Atheist.

Rom 5:1-5,

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only [so], but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

Without that gift of holy spirit which is given to all born again Christians, it is simply not available to operate in this world with the genuine love of God as a motivating power.

70

Excellent point. We all understand the necessity of translation when it comes to language. But of equal importance is the necessity of translating cultures. It’s not so much what I see when reading Genesis. The real question is what did the original audience see. Once that is ascertained I can “translate” it into terms that I can understand as a modern Western man. They didn’t see QM or gravity and so I believe it becomes fruitless to look for hints that God was talking about either one of those physical laws.

The whole point of Genesis was not so much how the natural world came to be. The thing God wanted to communicate in Genesis is that it was God, specifically Yahweh, and He alone, who ordered the heavens and the land, as opposed to a plethora of gods mentioned in all other ANE creation accounts.

A case in point; the slavery, indeed, the very cause of slavery, in the OT was nothing at all like the slavery we saw in 19th century America.

71

I’m surprised you can accept that. If it is you who judge the scriptures to be the final judge then aren’t you yourself the final judge. Everyone is forced to decide what they can count on which will constitute the grounds of their faith. You seem to want everyone to accept your standard as universal. Do you have any justification for that stance that isn’t similarly dependent on the way you in particular judge things?

Is there any good or purpose in looking to enthrone one culture’s standard as the measure of them all? Should everyone look to do the same, turning the search for wisdom into a king of the hill interaction? Or perhaps it is better to hope for everyone to be improved so far as possible and therefore honor their choice?

3 Likes
72

Yet another example of the imprecision of language in trying to communicate complex abstract ideas. I do accept responsibility to WITNESS to what I believe, but also I believe very strongly that I have the obligation to be very careful how I state my witness. That is what I mean by my certainty that I do not have the right to tell you twhat to do, because I believe something. I am to tell you what I believe, and why I believe it. I have been explicitly instructed (and I’m sure you know this, too) not to judge you. I agree with the sentiment that seems to underly “inform and encourage” in your response here. But all too many Christians are quick to claim that they know what God’s judgement will be on anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of what something written thousands of years ago to different audiences in very different circumstances means for us today.

73

Witness to non-Christians is not the same as encouragement to Christian siblings in Jesus. That’s not too abstract.

74

People can choose whatever they want as their standard of truth. What is yours?
The scriptures declare that they contain all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3). The only judging I do is to accept that for what it says. I also did not write 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. Do you understand those verses in a way that does not say the love of God is the key to genuine good works?

Well, God did not communicate His will last year to people from New York or LA. If that were the case, I’d guess they’d read quite a bit differently than they do. The fact is He communicated to an ancient people in a radically different culture than our own. He used their worldview, nor ours, as a basis for what He told them and I think it does a world of good to understand them in that light. Not only must we in the USA interpret the languages of the original scriptures, but we must also interpret the culture. That’s pretty basic if we want to understand any ANE text.

75

You make my point. I use the term “witness” as meaning telling anyone, Christian or not, what I believe. You seem to take the word to be only applicable to non-Christians, and interpret what I said using your understanding of the word, and come up with something quite different from what I was intending to say. As a point proving my intended use of the word, I am witnessing to you that you are doing something in this exchange that strikes me as improper judging. I am trying to do so in a way that does not include me expressing anything other than a warning to you based on how your words come across to me. I am intending that this be my witness to you, for you to evaluate, not as something that I insist you must believe exactly as I do. Another aspect of my point is that there is much disagreement between and among Christians, and the way we (mis)handle this disagreement does get in the way of non-Christians understanding of what being Christian really means.

1 Like
76

I most strongly disagree with this claim. God did not communicate openly, to the whole of either city. God does continue to communicate with individuals and with groups. As I understand it, Jesus is present at every single Christian church service, where two or more are gathered together in His name. And I always take it as a communication from God, even if somewhat indirectly, when, in those services, the bible is read, and the reading is closed with a statement that this is God’s Word. And I believe most sermons are given by ministers who are intending to properly represent what they feel God would like us, His people of today, to understand. The churches I attend are heavily focused on not just what God said to ancient people, but much more concern with the question of what does God want us to do today, even though this requires serious intellectual effort to understand how the things that were said thousands of years ago might apply in a different context today.

1 Like
77

Thank you, you make my point – you use it wrong? ‘Witness’ in my septuagenarian years has always typically meant Christians speaking to non-Christians about their faith. (Maybe it’s just semantics sepersontics. :grin:) ‘Testimony’, on the other hand, can be addressed to either, frequently used in a meeting or group environment, often a church service.

78

Considering what I originally wrote, you are absolutely correct. We also hear from God at fellowship meetings. It is possible to hear from God pretty much anytime someone wants to hear from Him.

Instead of saying, “God did not communicate His will last year to people from New York or LA,” I should have said, “God did not communicate the scriptures last year to people from New York or LA.” By “scriptures” I mean Genesis, Exodus, etc.Thanks for the heads up on that! Words do have meaning!

79

Dale, I think it would be good for you to stop using your youthful inpression of what you know as being absolute truth, and start showing more respect for your elders, even those who are not quite ten years older than you, especially since you might join the really older crowd in another 20 years or so ;>)
On the meaning of the word “witness”: I don’t see anything in any dictionary that I can find that uses witness only for speaking with non-Christians. I was taught a different flavor, that even the early Christians were witnessing to each other.

1 Like
80

“Witness”

81

Ha! :grin: I characterize myself as being in my mid-geezerhood. Now we know what that says about you! :grin: