posted
Even if the bible is "the word of God", it was written down by limited and imperfect humans. With an imperfect understanding. Could it be that the humans who developed this story may have misconstrued the idea?
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shockingly, I agree with Dagonee on this one.
And Bob, you're refusing to believe that to God, the "natural" and the "miraculous" are one. That is your right.
Don't belittle others because we do. You are right that there are some religious people who accept the Bible as literally true out of unquestioning ignorance. I am not one of them, and neither is Dagonee or Jalopenoman (from what I've seen of him). Stop being insulting.
Tom, I believe it is a shame that you have closed your eyes and heart to the signs of the divine all around you. *shrug* Every person chooses his own prison, neh?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
How in God's name would ANYONE know what to expect in such a case?
Well, that’s kind of my point. How do you know what to expect? My point is, if something happened that was unusual, then we shouldn’t be surprised when unusual results occur.
quote:I don't mind arguing speculative Science with people, I mean, after all, there's a hope that someday we could uncover archaeological evidence or figure out the genetics of closely related species (even extinct ones) and have some reasonable certainty.
But to say that: 1) We're less divine today 2) We're more involved with "nature" 3) That would have consequences 4) That those consequences would be ANOMALOUS and show up as something that DIDN'T match our genetics.
I mean, this line of reasoning doesn't even make sense in the fallacious and amateurish brand of logic that passes for theological thinking in the Evangelical churches.
I didn’t say we were “more involved with nature.” I said that humans, as the only dual-natured beings in existence that we know about (spirit and physical in the Judeo-Christian tradition) lost some of the direct connection to the spiritual side, exposing us to the physical (which scientists have described as the “natural” aspect).
quote:It doesn't even rise to the level of speculation.
It's just muddle-headed nonsense.
Well, thank God you’re here to straighten us all out.
quote:Look, if God made everything, he made Genetics. So...what? Then he goes and violates this neat little thing he developed that explains ALL life on the planet, except the past 6,000 years or so when Humans were plunked down?
It's just hammering the Bible into your preconceived notions of what MUST be true because some authority told you it was.
Funny, I thought that’s what you were doing by insisting they were hyperbole – those ages must be false because of “genetics and anthropology.”
And you’re insistence that it would be a violation of genetics is ludicrous. First, we understand very little of the genetic limitations on lifespan. We’ve just recently discovered that at least some of the “junk” DNA probably conveys very meaningful information.
Secondly, and more important, you consider these lifespans to be a violation of some law which we can’t even begin to articulate. At least one person has lived to be 120 years old. I doubt that science can indefinitely extend human lifespan, namely because efficient evolution seems to suggest that multiple human systems will have roughly the same lifespan. But I’m not convinced it’s impossible. And if it is possible with science, might it be possible for someone with a source of knowledge better than any we have access to directly?
Imagine if someone knew exactly the healthiest way to eat (which we don’t know now), the right amount of exercise, avoided bad habits, and was never threatened by accident, predation, or sickness. 120 years might be extended by a lot. I don’t think such an extension would happen within the normal physical laws of nature. BUT, I think that’s the point of the story.
quote:And it only exists BECAUSE people insist on taking the Bible to be literally true.
And to what purpose? Are the stories more meaningful because you can fake up some back-story to explain how it was that the patriarchs lived a lot longer than we do?
No, because I believe this might be true and certainly do not believe the entire Bible to be literally true. But I do believe that God incarnated as a human being, voluntarily suffered crucifixion, and rose from the dead. That’s a lot harder to believe than some people living longer than we do now.
I believe this kind of speculation is EXACTLY why such stories are included in the Bible – to encourage people to think, and to try to reason out why something might be so.
quote:And, of course, it has to involve some sort of moral decay on our part.
Since most of Genesis is about moral decay, this shouldn’t surprise you.
quote:It's just a bunch of made up stories for no good purpose.
You're adding to the Bible for no good reason that I can see.
And you’re subtracting from it to no good purpose. We have no way of knowing if these people lived that long. We have some texts that say they did. We have NOTHING telling us they didn’t except our rather mediocre understanding of life.
quote:You want to believe it, I have no problem with that. But to insist that there's a logical explanation for it is just not going to work. At best, it's a mystery.
At worst, it's hyperbole used to make a better more engaging story.
You’re the one insisting that something is true, not me.
quote:Not a big deal.
You seem to think it is.
quote:Until someone insists on the veracity of it all and tries to invent wildly illogical mechanisms by which it might have come to pass.
Again, you’re the one insisting it’s false. And you haven’t even begun to show why it’s “wildly illogical.”
Look, there’s no part of my faith that’s bound up in these ages being accurate. But a very large part of my faith is bound up in the idea that these ages could be accurate, and that they convey some aspect of truth that God thinks we should contemplate at some point.
quote:rivka said: Shockingly, I agree with Dagonee on this one.
Why shockingly?
Dagonee
Edit:
quote:TomDavidson said: That's a genuine shame. I imagine it would get very tiring to have to consistently ignore observed reality to conform to the demands of a four-thousand-year-old oral history.
You haven’t observed enough reality to know that’s impossible.
posted
I can totally see why it makes sense to take the bible literally. Why would you believe in the bible at all if you believed some of the things said in it are false? I guess what I am trying to say is, where do you draw the line at what you are supposed to believe and what is just nonsense? If you do that, then you are making the Bible extremely subjective to human interpretation, and then really what good is that? You can just say at any time that such and such isnt true whenever it fits your lifestyle or situation. I know that the Bible must be open to interpretation somewhat but taking it literally makes sense to me, I can see why people would.
Tom or Bob, I think one or both of you said it was an oral history passed down. But, it is a common belief that moses actually wrote the first four books of the old testament. I wonder how much error was written by a man who supposedly spoke with God?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can totally see why it makes sense to take the bible literally. Why would you believe in the bible at all if you believed some of the things said in it are false?
Because there's a huge difference between false and not literally true.
quote: Tom, I believe it is a shame that you have closed your eyes and heart to the signs of the divine all around you. *shrug* Every person chooses his own prison, neh?
Tom never said that he had. You just assume that you cannot find the divine in what is offered in observed reality, or so it seems from your post.
Couldn't observed reality be a message from the divine? Isn't the divine all around us?
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that it proves the divine. It's that it's a reflection of one aspect of the divine. I think the objection is to the assumption that mankind is capable of obeserving enough of the universe to understand how it works in every situation. It's hubris on an enormous level.
posted
I never said it proved anything. In fact, I think a big part of the issue here is the different perspectives each of us are coming from.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You haven’t observed enough reality to know that’s impossible."
And in a tiny, secluded valley in darkest Africa, unicorns and yetis frolic with 900-year-old men and reporters from the Enquirer. You've never SEEN Bat-Boy, so you can't say he doesn't exist.
posted
You're right, I can't say he doesn't exist. I just live my life as if he doesn't until some greater proof comes along and reserve judgment.
On one side, we have written accounts which some people say are absolutely accurate, some people say could be accurate but are nonetheless providing some kind of enlightenment about God's plan for us, some people think might be true, and some people know as a ridiculous and obvious lie.
Tell me again how you have proof of your position?
I am purposefully insulting only one group of people. Those who believe they should make up "just so" stories to explain whatever mysteries there are in the Bible.
If something is miraculous to you, then fine. Believe it, I'm fine with that too.
But when people try to make up a story to EXPLAIN it using quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo -- usually getting the science part of it horribly and stupidly wrong, then I think I should at least try to disabuse them of their stupidity, lest they lead others down the same path.
It's crummy science and crummy theology. It has no place I can discern in religion or logic.
It's just idle speculation that, if anything, takes away from scripture and adds nothing of value that I can discern?
What? The air was thicker and humans were somehow "better" in those early days? What is that?
First off, we can easily prove the air WASN'T appreciably thicker, or more oxygenated, or what have you. Look at the studies of bubbles trapped in polar ice. Plus, there were birds, right? Things that fly in our current atmosphere would have a hard time in a thick atmosphere.
Besides, the adaptations required to go from thick to thin air would be pretty impressive. Chances are we'd have evidence of a mass extinction at about the right time frame. And I do mean a MAJOR one.
Oh wait, God made a miracle right?
Well, fine, then we're back to my saying "look, just take it on faith, call it a miracle and leave the rest of us out of your little bending and hammering on Scripture."
What is the point of this exercise?
At least if you want to have scientific curiosity, study the science that illuminates God in a far better way than these silly made up explanations that have no basis in anything and are usually untestable (and thus not at all scientific).
I am not trying to insult ANYONE's faith. But if this jumbled up illogical nonsense explanations are a cornerstone of your faith, then you have blatantly left off from Scripture and started just making junk up on your own.
And so, that offends MY faith, and MY rational thought, AND all the long history of human progress in science too.
Again, for no good reason, because you end up saying "it's a miracle" anyway.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
-- Romans 1:20 (NIV)
quote: For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 1:25 (NIV)
And that's all I have to say about that.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know much about the bible. But here's my biological reasoning on aging.
- The average human being right now, can't live to 200, or 300, or 900 years old. It's simply impossible. Telomeres, which are the end pieces of chromosomes, are the cause of finite cell division. While telomerase exists in nature to elongate telomeres, normal human cells still exhibit finite cell division. - It's feasible that there are people out there with an elongated set of telomeres that can live longer than ~120 years. But they're more likely than not to die for some other reason, due to malnutrition, cigarette smoking, obesity, or cancer. - It's possible that cancer was less of a risk in the past when correlated to age because many cancer risks are products of a modern age: less ozone, more burned meats, cigarettes, obesity...
I don't know how many people lived to be X-hundred years old in the bible. If there were only a few, it's vaaaaguely conceivable that they had a way around telomere-shortening. But with such a huge genetic advantage, they should have multiplied and become increasingly more common in the population. If this were a recessive trait, we would have been able to do a pedigree on the bible pedigrees to show this. And considering there are people who believe humans have only been on the Earth for ~6000 years, we should have heard of these people at other points in history. If the entire human population at that time could live for hundreds of years, it's even more likely that that 'genetic predisposition' would have remained. But as I said before, it's genetically impossible to live that long, no matter what foods you eat and how much sunscreen you put on.
So it seems you either have to 1) make unfounded claims as to how telomeres/genetics/inheritance played a part,
or, 2) wave your hands and do a deus ex machina. Which is what it sounds that Bob would rather you do.
edit: And I really really doubt that telomerase activity would have been helpful in producing longer-lived humans. Too much telomerase activity is pretty closely tied to cancer. You'd have to be able to prove (like with an experiment) that more widespread telomerase activity wouldn't be deadly.
posted
Actually, there's a book left out of Scripture right before Genesis. It recounts the trip from the homeworld and how the ship crash landed and the only survivors were left with some working devices (including a fully functional sickbay). But the devices gradually broke down and ran out of power until, basically, the people and their offspring lost all knowledge of the previous advanced technology that had kept them going so long.
That and breeding with the locals...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I am purposefully insulting only one group of people. Those who believe they should make up "just so" stories to explain whatever mysteries there are in the Bible.
If something is miraculous to you, then fine. Believe it, I'm fine with that too.
But when people try to make up a story to EXPLAIN it using quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo -- usually getting the science part of it horribly and stupidly wrong, then I think I should at least try to disabuse them of their stupidity, lest they lead others down the same path.
Explain where I had any science in my posts that was wrong, or even where any of my posts depended on science.
quote:It's crummy science and crummy theology. It has no place I can discern in religion or logic.
Well, if you can’t discern it, I guess it’s worthless.
quote:It's just idle speculation that, if anything, takes away from scripture and adds nothing of value that I can discern?
What? The air was thicker and humans were somehow "better" in those early days? What is that?
First off, we can easily prove the air WASN'T appreciably thicker, or more oxygenated, or what have you. Look at the studies of bubbles trapped in polar ice. Plus, there were birds, right? Things that fly in our current atmosphere would have a hard time in a thick atmosphere.
Besides, the adaptations required to go from thick to thin air would be pretty impressive. Chances are we'd have evidence of a mass extinction at about the right time frame. And I do mean a MAJOR one.
Maybe you need to be clearer in your posts as to whom your ridiculing. The major rant of yours that got me involved with this thread started with a direct response to my post, and then threw some pretty insulting remarks out there. If they weren’t directed at me, your post is not at all clear on that point. If they were, and this is a follow-up, then I have to ask exactly what have I posted that this is remotely relevant to?
quote:Oh wait, God made a miracle right?
Well, fine, then we're back to my saying "look, just take it on faith, call it a miracle and leave the rest of us out of your little bending and hammering on Scripture."
What is the point of this exercise?
Curiosity? Because it’s fun? I think the real questions are why does this upset you so much, and why do you feel the need to make broad sweeping generalizations about people’s education who feel like speculating?
quote:At least if you want to have scientific curiosity, study the science that illuminates God in a far better way than these silly made up explanations that have no basis in anything and are usually untestable (and thus not at all scientific).
None of it’s testable. Whatever happened happened over 5,000 years ago.
quote:I am not trying to insult ANYONE's faith. But if this jumbled up illogical nonsense explanations are a cornerstone of your faith, then you have blatantly left off from Scripture and started just making junk up on your own.
Did you read my posts at all? A, this isn’t a cornerstone. It’s a relatively small part of scripture with no direct bearing on the central tenets of my faith, except that it’s found in what I believe to be divinely inspired scripture. B, I haven’t made anything up, nor has anyone offered their speculations as the truth. They’ve offered them as possibilities.
quote:And so, that offends MY faith, and MY rational thought, AND all the long history of human progress in science too.
The long history of human progress in science has nothing to do with this, except for the insane speculation that newly discovered scientific facts have somehow made it less likely that people lived a very long time a long time ago. Do you think people just now noticed that those guys’ recorded lifespans are a bit longer than ours? Your faith in the human progress of science must be pretty shaky if Sunday afternoon metaphysical discussions can threaten it. You’ve made appeals to anthropology and genetics, but haven’t applied them to anything except the thick air theory.
quote:Again, for no good reason, because you end up saying "it's a miracle" anyway.
The means of a miracle is as much up for speculation as the existence of the miracle. If you don’t like speculation on it, don’t speculate.
posted
"Well, if you can’t discern it, I guess it’s worthless."
I'll go even farther: if you can't discern it under any conditions, for any reasons, it doesn't matter at all whether it exists or not, and may as well be assumed to not exist.
There MIGHT be an invisible spirit floating through my house creating gumdrops that only he can eat, and only he can see, but I'm just going to have to go out on a limb here and say that he doesn't exist.
Heck, we're talking about something that can't even be discerned by its effect on the things around it; it's not like Pluto, where we can figure out that it has to exist by the orbit of other planets. In this case, you're asking people to believe that there's an invisible planet out there despite the fact that none of the other planets have odd orbits. It's not just that we can't see it; it's that what we CAN see makes it even less likely. We're talking about an invisible planet surrounded by a weird gravity field, in other words.
So, yeah, this planet could exist. But if you walk into an astronomy lab and say that a giant invisible man told you to look for his invisible, massless planet, they'd probably call you a kook.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Tom, reread my post. The "thing" being discerned is the place of these speculations in science and logic. Not any physical phenomenon. If you're going to scan posts and cherry-pick comments you think are easy targets, take an extra minute to establish context first.
quote:I am purposefully insulting only one group of people. Those who believe they should make up "just so" stories to explain whatever mysteries there are in the Bible.
me
I admit I was insulting. If you fit the above category, I was insulting you. If not, then I wasn't.
You decide. I've lost track.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole purpose of this thread was to speculate about why those people lived so long. It was not meant to be 100 percent factual in any way. Nobody was supposed to get offended about anything. And people were definitely not supposed to jump in and say X theory is wrong or X theory is right. Fun speculation thats all I wanted. I didnt really think anyone would have a true scientific reason that could be backed up, just something interesting that they had heard or even thought of.
And I also wondered if it ever addressed longevity elsewhere in the Bible. And Farmgirl so kindly posted the answer to that question.
I'm sorry I abused your thread. It is fun to speculate on such things.
I'm leaning toward the aliens as my favorite explanation for longevity of the patriarchs.
Although, I could probably construct a theory based on: 1) Earth's years lengthening. 2) A new species being relatively immune to diseases until such time as it became numerous enough to become a ready target for pathogens 3) The patriarchs being genetic mutants whose longevity genes were ultimately selected AGAINST because they just weren't very prolific. And through mixing with dominant genes that doom us to a shorter lifespan, their genetic contribution was lost. 4) Stem cell research.
rivka, Dagonee and others:
I owe you an apology for my snotty comments. I should have been more precise and less inciteful (as opposed to "insightful") in my previous posts.
My accusing tone was unwarranted and I certainly shouldn't have been so deliberately insulting.
I have no excuse. But I do offer the following explanation:
I really do think that Scriptural literalism is incorrect. But I don't really want to get into more of an argument over it. it's one of those issus that really sets me off because I feel like I understand the situations well, but when I try to communicate what I think is a better approach, it never really comes out right.
Again, not an exuse. And I'm sorry I was so unclear and so nasty about it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've studied anthropology, evolutionary biology, modern physics, cosmology, and geology. I'm not a biblical literalist. Yet I feel that God knows a lot more about this universe than we do. Bob, did you not read what I said about the huge lengthening of life by the simple expedient of lowering caloric intake? This is stuff right out of Scientific American. Why could not someone with divine intelligence communicate to someone how and what exactly to eat and do in order to increase that by another factor of 5 or so? To me that's totally within the realm of reasonable possibility. There's no need to get insulting at all. I expect I know more about many of those subjects than do you.
I don't know whom you were intending to insult but it certainly felt like you meant me when I read your post. And that seems odd, and not like you. But I agree with what rivka said. The difference is in what one believes about God's intelligence and communications and the purpose and meaning of the miraculous.
(edit to accept apology with thanks )
[ June 21, 2004, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Or, it could be they really felt that old, their lives being sort of boring and miserable. At least I would think that time hangs heavy on shepherds in the desert. After all that time in the sun, I bet they looked like they'd lived to be 900.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak, but seriously, one could just compare the dietary rules listed in the Mosaic laws to what your nutrition scientists have claimed would result in greatly elongated lifespan to see if there's any correlation.
Because that stuff is fairly prescriptive, no? If God gave his chosen people a set of dietary laws, one would have to assume that they were perfect, right? So, if those are the perfect rules for eating, then they should result in the longest life possible for modern humans.
Unless of course God gave advice based on some other criterion and actually shortened the lives of his chosen people. Not really likely, is it?
So, why not just look there and see.
Seems like your theory is at least somewhat testable against both science and scripture.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the apologizing. In the purely speculating mood, a person with a direct connection to God could get personalized dietary advice, while the kosher laws that came later had to be generalized to a whole population.
On a more serious note, my belief on this is that a closer connection to God is the reason for any longevity increase; physical explanations are mere speculation as to how that connection worked.
The thing that confused me about the whole conversation is that many of the people arguing for longevity are known to not be biblical literalists, although all of them take some parts of the Bible very literally.
posted
"The 'thing' being discerned is the place of these speculations in science and logic."
Nope. The claim that is being made is that a handful of people lived in excess -- often great excess -- of 500 years. No proof, besides the claim of one oral history, is presented. No sound mechanism is suggested.
In response, I say that it's flatly impossible.
Your response, of course, is that it COULD be possible, based on our limited knowledge of everything that's ever gone on in the entire universe.
To which MY response is that, yes, invisible planets that have no mass at all, thus violating several known "rules" of physics, COULD exist -- but it's silly to say so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you're looking sillier and sillier here.
Bob said the following:
quote:But when people try to make up a story to EXPLAIN it using quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo -- usually getting the science part of it horribly and stupidly wrong, then I think I should at least try to disabuse them of their stupidity, lest they lead others down the same path.
It's crummy science and crummy theology. It has no place I can discern in religion or logic.
The thing to be discerned was the place of the "crummy science and crummy theology" in "religion or logic."
You're argument might be valid about some other part of this discussion, but not the quote it was in direct response to.
Technically, no one can discern the appropriateness of any philosophical statement in science or logic, at least by the standards you supplied.
You're response was flat out wrong when you made it, and your defense of it isn't any more correct now.
posted
Dag, when you wrote your response, you were CLEARLY being sarcastic; you were, in fact, suggesting that not all things which cannot be discerned by Bob are worthless.
I disagreed, specifically within the context of the larger conversation.
If you wish to argue whether or not things that cannot be discerned have value, that's one thing; if you wish to argue that Bob is simply not talented enough to discern these things, but that they CAN be discerned by someone with the ability, that's another.
I assumed the first, because the second is frankly insulting. If you're saying that you meant the second, I'll gladly go back and address the comment from that perspective.
posted
i have heard that it is not the environment that alters our ability to live long lives. Some will say, that after the flood, the environment was way different than prior. But if this was the case, Noah, who was 500 or so years old, would have died shortly after the flood but instead lived to over 900 years old.
Here is an article that explains how genetics plays a very big role in how long we will live. I know some of you will dismiss it right away, but at least read it to see what they have to say:long agePosts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, do those of you who believe in the Biblical ancients ALSO believe in Chinese claims of mystics who have routinely lived 1000 years or more, often said to be due to diet, chi, and genetics?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you wish to argue whether or not things that cannot be discerned have value, that's one thing; if you wish to argue that Bob is simply not talented enough to discern these things, but that they CAN be discerned by someone with the ability, that's another.
I assumed the first, because the second is frankly insulting. If you're saying that you meant the second, I'll gladly go back and address the comment from that perspective.
My response was to the assertion by Bob that the only areas of worthwhile speculation were in areas where he discerned the value. I don't wish to belabor the point with Bob, because he's since apologized and we've moved on.
Look, the use of the word discern clearly did not mean with the use of the 5 senses (augmented or not), or inferences based on those 5 senses. Which means your response was non-sensical, since it is based only on physical discernment. The discussion Bob and I were having was akin to whether opera has any value, with one person saying he can't discern any and the other saying that one person's non-discernment of the value of opera doesn't make it non-valuable.
The refutation you posted was about an entirely different topic.
posted
But it's a much more INTERESTING topic, I thought, than whether or not Bob's opinion matters to everyone. And as my take on it was directly relevant to the discussion you and I were having about experience being necessary for verification, I found it a useful digression. Don't you agree?
posted
Since we're never going to agree whether discernment through means other than the 5 physical senses can produce useful knowledge, I'm not sure how useful it is. In this case, the evidence on one side is oral history. I believe it's the inspired word of God. You don't. On the other side is basically a set of norms that we've observed through the scientific method. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method. I just don't believe it's the only way to confirm truth.
By confirm truth, I mean to decide something is likely enough so as to act as if it's true. I have a high enough confidence (faith, if you will) that the Bible is the indpired word of God that I make many important life decisions based on it. As to whether people literally lived 1000 years, I don't need to decide that, since I don't plan to model my life on Methuseleh in order to live that long. BUT, I do believe those stories are there for a reason, that in some essential way they are true, and that speculating on the how and why is a useful exercise.
Dagonee Edit: In other words, as interesting as it might be, it's not a refutation of any point I made in the thread or any point I'm likely to make.
posted
I want to say something that this thread makes me think about. Here at hatrack we're able to discuss religious things with great respect for all views. I think that's the only way to discuss things like that. AJ's friend's comments made me think about this. And then this morning as I was reading in "The Brothers Karamazov" Dmitri's impassioned description of the human condition, I was struck again with how wise and brilliant was Dostoyevsky, who was first an atheist and then later a devout believer.
Back when I was an atheist, my dad once started to jump down my throat about it, and my mom interrupted him and said, "plenty of people a whole lot smarter than you have believed that through the years". And she meant it was true for all sides. Whenever anyone is tempted to have contempt or disdain for a different religious viewpoint than their own, they can with a few minute's research turn up people who believed that, who were far more intelligent, deeper thinkers, greater artists, with more understanding of life, the world and the human soul than they.
Any follower of Christ, in any case, ought never to have disdain or contempt for others, or be quick to ascribe to them bad or unworthy motives.
Yet we tend to do that (all of us, I think) again and again. We have this tendency to slip back into thinking we are right and everybody else is wrong and that's the end of the question.
Ceasing to question, failing to seek and try to learn more, in itself, seems to me to be an unwise course. Closing our minds to outside thoughts. At the very least, gaining a more appreciative understanding of another viewpoint is always worthwhile.
That's why I think hatrack is great, and why I'm grateful for hatrack. It's one of the very few places in which religious differences can be discussed with this sort of respect.
[ June 22, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any follower of Christ, in any case, ought never to have disdain or contempt for others, or be quick to ascribe to them bad or unworthy motives.
Yet we tend to do that (all of us, I think) again and again. We have this tendency to slip back into thinking we are right and everybody else is wrong and that's the end of the question.
Ceasing to question, failing to seek and try to learn more, in itself, seems to me to be an unwise course. Closing our minds to outside thoughts. At the very least, gaining a more appreciative understanding of another viewpoint is always worthwhile.
This is great! It is also true for everyone, not just Christians. Wonderful post!
Thanks!
Back to the topic at hand, I think, Dag, that you have been doing a bit of deliberate misconstruing. If your biggest problem with what I said was about my use of the word discernment, then I do think you missed my point.
My point was, really, that these made up explanations don't add anything of value to scripture. I personally find this kind of thing offensive, but I've already apologized for taking offense and I'm not going to go down that road again. I'll just state calmly (I hope) that the problem with all of these attempts is that they ignore the real beauty of the scripture in order to "figure it out."
I'm not averse to speculation, however. As ak so rightly pointed out, we should never close our minds to alternative ways of thinking about a topic.
And it is rather fun to try to come up with plausible explanations for something weird like this.
I just wish to add that one of the alternatives that should be considered is that the stories are not to be taken literally and that the use of the bizarre longevity figures is actually an explicit invitation by the authors to look for a deeper and more spiritual meaning. It's like a fantasy story, you suspend disbelief to get at the deeper truth. Same thing here. We don't have to pick it apart to make it make sense given our imperfect knowledge of the universe, science and theology.
We can just accept it and look for the deeper meaning.
Anyway, let's call that one way to look at it and not argue about whether I'm personally right or wrong.
Special to Mabus -- interesting selection. I wasn't going to go there because it perhaps implies some very troubling things about God's love. If the Mosaic laws are not for the good of the people God gave them to, well...let's just say I choose not to believe that God is perverse and COMPLETELY inscrutable from a human frame of reference.
I'm sure there's a lot of commentary in the Jewish tradition that might enlighten us on this topic. Rivka? Anyone?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, ak, go back and read sun's post in this thread. It's a pretty solid argument against people having that life span.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
