Is the Earth the domain of Satan?

[Vinnie]

@RichardG

As I understand it, the nature of the Classical Theism is not based upon any relationship or revelation God may or may not have made and as such hold no value. It is a purely human construct.

I don’t find this line of response helpful. First, I think we can label anything we want a human construct. Science, religion, morality, countries, stamps, the devil, history, money, your model of revelation…. It is all construct vs construct. This is dismissive shorthand. Second, The book of nature itself is revelation (Romans 1, Psalm 19). Theologians historically understand it as General Revelation. Our Scripture is considered Special Revelation and itself attests to General revelation. It is all simply revelation from God–as is all truth ultimately-- that we place into various constructs. Third and finally, classical theism is argued via logic and metaphysics. This means dismissing it as a construct commits the genetic fallacy.

What is the basis for your special relationship and revelation from God? Personal experience? I won’t disagree but as you know, various religious constructs all claim to come with personal experiences and revelation. Such fideistic faith is nothing new under the sun and is quite easy for outsiders to dismiss as mere human construct (not that I think there is any force to that label as the preceding paragraphs demonstrate).

Vinnie

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Vinnie

classical theism is argued via logic and metaphysics.

And?

Human Logic? You have read Scripture’s view of human logic and understanding?

Metaphysics! Oh dear. Sounds like Scientism.

@Vinnie

, The book of nature itself is revelation (Romans 1, Psalm 19). Theologians historically understand it as General Revelation. Our Scripture is considered Special Revelation

And it is that “Special Revelation” that is the point.

My personal experience and understanding is underpinned by Scripture. It would be meaningless without it.

The whole reason I dispute ToE is because of Scripture..

Classical Theism takes no Notice of the existence of a real God, it just postulate what God must be from a human perspective. It is no better than the Pantheons of Roman, Greek or Norse mythology.

Scripture shows again and again that the human perception and construct of God is false. The majority of the OT is about nothing else..

I am sorry if I offended your scientific background, but science has little of nothing to do with Theology. Understanding God’s Creation is nothing more than a phrase of comfort and self importance. Without Scripture it is meaningless.

@Vinnie

What is the basis for your special relationship and revelation from God? Personal experience?

Scripture;

Everything else is secondary.

Richard

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RichardG

@Vinnie

classical theism is argued via logic and metaphysics.

And?

Human Logic? You have read Scripture’s view of human logic and understanding?

Metaphysics! Oh dear. Sounds like Scientism.

I ought to invest in keyboard manufacturing.

(edit by moderator-Phil)

[Vinnie]

@RichardG

And?

Human Logic? You have read Scripture’s view of human logic and understanding?

Metaphysics! Oh dear. Sounds like Scientism.

You say human logic but that is just repeating the same problem. Your whole response is an exercise in human logic. Logic and metaphysics form the base of all rational discourse. You are sawing off the branch you are sitting in.

@RichardG

And it is that “Special Revelation” that is the point.

My personal experience and understanding is underpinned by Scripture. It would be meaningless without it.

So is mine. But I accept the truth of special and general revelation. All truth is God’s truth. That includes, scriptural, philosophical and scientific truths. This is underpinned by Scripture which speaks of general revelation and God’s eternal nature and divine qualities being capable of being known from that which was created. They all work together. You seem to think of them as enemies.

@RichardG

The whole reason I dispute ToE is because of Scripture..

The reason I accept a literal, genealogical Adam and Eve is due to scripture, Church teaching and historic Christianity. I understand. For me, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming (abiogenesis is still a work in progress) but what I reject is modern philosohy that thinks efficient and material causes are an exhaustive description of anything. Evolution raises questions but once you bring form and final causality back into the equation, most of our difficulties go away. We have a discussion on this (extrinsic vs intrinsic teleology) in another thread.

@RichardG

Classical Theism takes no Notice of the existence of a real God, it just postulate what God must be from a human perspective. It is no better than the Pantheons of Roman, Greek or Norse mythology.

This is reversible to you and again, the genetic fallacy. You assert as opposed to dealing with what it presented. Classical theism yields metaphysical truth.

@RichardG

Scripture shows again and again that the human perception and construct of God is false. The majority of the OT is about nothing else..

Of course scripture shows this. Scripture also has an inconsistent and sometimes faulty perception of God as well.

God walking in the garden, wondering where Adam and Eve are. God parading the animals before Adam in hopes to find him a suitable mate (did he not know beforehand). Smelling the pleasing aroma of burnt animal flesh (as a meat smoker I can’t say I blame him). Needing a rainbow to remind him of his covenant. Being “refreshed” on a sabbath. God repents or relents several times but other verses indicate God never changes his mind. The Biblical books are written through their own cultural lenses and diverse philosophical conceptions of God.

You seem to think there is a singular image of God in the Bible constant across all verses and stories. I disagree. I think major themes emerge and my goal is to show how they connect to classical theism. The Bible is no more a philosophy text than a scientific one. We let the scientists do their job. Let the philosophers do the same.

@RichardG

I am sorry if I offended your scientific background, but science has little of nothing to do with Theology. Understanding God’s Creation is nothing more than a phrase of comfort and self importance. Without Scripture it is meaningless.

Why are we talking about science now? This is also reversible. It can be said that the model of scripture you assert “ is nothing more than a phrase of comfort and self importance.” You certainly don’t defend your view or respond to what is presented. You default to your view and reassert it rejecting everything else as constructs or meaningless. That is a weird way to have a discussion.

@RichardG

Scripture;

Everything else is secondary.

We can agree scripture is important and being inspired by God has truth that will lead us to salvation. However, you seem to have this “the Bible fell from heaven in the language I read it in” mentality. If not, your responses are highly inconsistent with themselves. As an example;

• Scripture had to be written by men through their own cultural lenses and worldview. Understanding their limitations helps us understand the truth of scripture.
• Scripture has to be copied by hand for centuries.
• Scripture had to be canonized and agreed upon by the Church. Why these books why not those? Lots of logic and reasoning here.
• A team of scholars has to reconstruct the original text of the books the councils chose as scripture. They have to dig through thousands of manuscripts and tens and hundreds of thousand of variants and use human logic and the rules of textual criticism to come up with a critical text that was like the autographs (assuming the authors didn’t publish multiple drafts in stages of their own works!)
• A team of scholars has to translate that critical text into a modern language. All translation is also an act of interpretation to some degree.
• Now we all get to read and try to understand what scripture is teaching and saying using logic and human constructs. Do we have the absolute truth of scripture (a direct line to what God) or do we have our interpretation of what we think the truth of scripture is?

So all the while you are dismissing everything as human logic and constructs and defaulting to the Book that fell from heaven into your arms (that you and your human mind still have to interpret in light of your own specific experiences and life setting), I see a heck of a lot of human constructs, logic and steps that come with the word “scripture.”

You saw off the branch you sit in and whether or not it is the prerogative of any individual Christian or the Church proper to be the arbiters of Scripture is debatable. I know where I stand here. On a shoreline looking at 40,000 plus denominations arguing their human construct and interpretation is scripture is the correct one over all the others.

The bottom line is you have to interpret scripture (after all the other steps taken to get there). One would think that instead of putting scripture vs science and philosophy, granted the wild diversity in interpretation, a more sober view is to use them to help you interpret scripture. Both special and general revelation are from God. Again, all truth is God’s truth.

Vinnie

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

It would appear that we are not communicating.

What you said bears little or no understanding of my position.

If you accept the Adam and Eve geniology then you accept Scripture differently from me.

You seem to cling to metaphysics as some sort of inerrant truth..

Scientific knowledge is human. It boasts human accomplishment and ingenuity/intelligence. As such it is self seeking and not of God. I am not saying that science is not about God’s creation, just that the knowledge contained is human and is seen as such, applauded as such, and therefore has nothing to do with God.

You (et al) place too much value on science (IMO).

However, if you had any concept of genetics you would know that the diversity and stability of the human race could not stem from a pair of humans.

Richard

[Vinnie]

@RichardG

It would appear that we are not communicating.

On this we at least agree.

@RichardG

What you said bears little or no understanding of my position.

I felt the same.

@RichardG

If you accept the Adam and Eve geniology then you accept Scripture differently from me.

Correct.

@RichardG

However, if you had any concept of genetics you would know that the diversity and stability of the human race could not stem from a pair of humans.

Incorrect. I accept a genealogical model, not a genetic one. It is tied directly into the concept of a soul. There are no scientific problems with the model I espouse

@RichardG

You seem to cling to metaphysics as some sort of inerrant truth..

I cling to truth as truth. I deem classical theism to be demonstrable via several metaphysical arguments. The same arguments that demonstrate God’s existence also lead to inevitable divine attributes. There is nothing inerrant about my understanding of classical theism, scripture, bunnies or growing grass. The concept of inerrancy just doesn’t apply to anything in my life.

@RichardG

Scientific knowledge is human.

I believe truth exists independent of the human mind. But to run with your statement. Religious knowledge is human. Scriptural interpretation is human. Moral values and views are human. Again, to call something human or a construct says absolutely nothing to me. It is trivial. It’s like one piece metal criticizing another one saying “Ha ha, you are made of atoms.” Welcome to the party I guess.

@RichardG

It boasts human accomplishment and ingenuity/intelligence.

Or it simply seeks truth. One can engage in either or both.

@RichardG

As such it is self seeking and not of God.

We are rational beings with souls. The purpose of the intellect is to seek truth. The highest truth is to know God.

@RichardG

I am not saying that science is not about God’s creation, just that the knowledge contained is human and is seen as such, applauded as such, and therefore has nothing to do with God.

I agree that an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist and Agnostic can all go into a lab and do the same experiment and get the same results without any recourse to God.

Of course, one can do none of those things without built in intrinsic teleology and the regularity of the universe. Science explains the efficient and material causes in God’s creation. That some people think God is not behind and upholding and sustaining the process and regularity observed is exactly that and nothing more.

@RichardG

You (et al) place too much value on science (IMO).

I place the appropriate value on it. It provides a skeleton view of reality that lacks color and seeks truths about the universe that can be mathematically modeled. It is not exhaustive. It generally limits itself to efficient and material causes. What is this and how did it come to be. Take a table. What is it? Wood and nails. How did it come to be? A carpenter banged the wood together with nails. But that does not tell me the fullness of what a table actually is. For that, formal and final causality are needed. All four types of causality are need to explain an artifact with imposed meaning like a table and a natural substance just the same. Science is wonderful at determining and describing efficient and material causes.

Vinnie

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Unfortunately because the Tetragramaton is used so often people have turned it into a name.

Well, it was given in answer to the question of “What is your name?”
Though that question, back then, was a way of asking who and what Elohim was, i.e. like asking, “What is the nature of your being?” and not merely “What vocable should we use to refer to you?” So Elohim gave an answer that cut to the core with a response that could be rendered, “I am the (only) one for whom existence is an intrinsic attribute” – Hebrew “I am that am”, Greek “I am the being-one”.
That said, the names of all deities back then served the same way; e.g. the infamous 'Ba’al" means “owner, lord, ruler” (“Moloch” is similar; “Ba’al” is Ugaritic/Canaanitic; “Moloch” is Babylonian). So Elohim’s answer was in tune with how deities were denoted.

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

Needing a rainbow to remind him of his covenant.

Nice to think of the rainbow as God’s “post-a-note”.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Scientific knowledge is human. It boasts human accomplishment and ingenuity/intelligence. As such it is self seeking and not of God. I am not saying that science is not about God’s creation, just that the knowledge contained is human and is seen as such, applauded as such, and therefore has nothing to do with God.

By this measure scripture has nothing to do with God: since it was written by humans it must be “self-seeking and not of God”.
As J.B. Philipps put it in the title of a book, your God is too small.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

By this measure scripture has nothing to do with God: since it was written by humans it must be “self-seeking and not of God”.

Not really. The human writers are reacting to God’s revelation and are humble about it. I am sure Paul would be surprised by the status he has obtained.

Perhaps you do not see the difference.

If I am a good preacher it is because of God. I am not convinced any scientist would say the same thing, in public at least.

Richard