This is in response to ScottR's "Road Not Taken" comment.
I know. I didn't study it in school, but had heard as much.
I discovered "the truth" while singing an arranged musical in choir. I was interested to discover that the lyrics didn't specifically advocate that the outcome was necessarily better than the other.
"I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence. Two roads diverged in a wood and I I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference."
I think there is an implication of it being a slightly better decision, maybe. But because it's spoken from shortly after having taken the path, there's no way of knowing.
Also, it says specifically in the poem that there really wasn't that much difference between the paths.
Additionally, the speaker wants to take both, but obviously can only take one. He says that he would like to come back, but "knowing how way leads on to way, It was likely that I would never come back."
I merely meant that we were taking different paths on this topic.
posted
You framed your previous reply with happy faces. I thought they were incongruous, so I made a joke.
EDIT: Oh, that was a joke too!
quote:See, not all of us consider "walk your own path" to be particularly beneficial from an eternal standpoint.
Nevertheless, everyone walks their own path. You'd be hard pressed to find people who walk exactly the same path. We are all fundamentally egotistical, we'd all like to believe that we are right.
posted
If it's any consolation, I edited before you posted... I'm mostly innocent.
For those who didn't see it, I posted something like, "Yes, but you're all going to hell. Congratulations-- at least you're thinking for yourself."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those to whom it is applicable, what do we think about NT literalism? For me, this is the stuff that matters.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need a better definition of what you're thinking about when you say NT literalism...
I do think we, as Christians, need to live more simply, giving more to the poor, and taking a good look at where we can cut finances to enable us to do so-- and then doing it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yesterday's gospel lesson was John the Baptist:
And the crowds asked him, "What then should we do?" In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."
How literally do we take this? How many of us have more than one coat? If we are to take this literally, that means we should be getting rid of coats and food. On the other hand, does a literal translation mean only coats? Do we go back to the original greek (I think) and figure out what "coat" actually meant? Should we feel okay about, say, hoarding jackets or sweaters? I can just imagine the doctrinal split over whether jackets count as coats...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that John the Baptist was probably just giving an example of what you should do using coats and food as important things that the poor may not be able to get enough of themselves.
Basically, donate what you don't need to charity.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...that's what I think, too. Get serious about what your really need and what you should really be giving.
But that isn't a literal translation. It is a reasonable interpretation. I think that you and I (hippy inclusivists, that we are) are pretty much on the same page. I am curious about how literalists understand these passages.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would imagine that the NT would be particularly problematic since J.C. himself so often spoke in parables that he then would explain. Where would you draw the line as to what was parable and what wasn't and/or if we were to take the parables literally as well as symbolically... good question kmbboots
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well...that's what I think, too. Get serious about what your really need and what you should really be giving.
But that isn't a literal translation. It is a reasonable interpretation. I think that you and I (hippy inclusivists, that we are) are pretty much on the same page. I am curious about how literalists understand these passages.
About the same as when Jesus answered Peter's "7 times Lord?" in regards to forgiveness with "Seventy Times Seven." I imagine Peter thought 7 was a good number and being from a Law background an exact number would be important. Jesus did indeed say, "70 X 70" and it would NOT suprise me if I encountered Christians who said, "We can only forgive somebody 4900 times!" but I think they would have ironically missed the entire point of the statement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Because he claims to have been convinced by evidence; that makes him a rational person, capable of having his mind changed by being shown better evidence. You, however, "choose to believe". This is an irrational act changeable only by superior force. Since I cannot apply superior force through the Internet (nor in person, US law being unfortunately irrational on the subject of what is justifiable grounds for violence), there is no use in debating with you.
You think superior force would change it? Hmmm...might. I hope not. Anyway, chalk one up for faith that is not dependent on evidence - though I miss out on the fun of debating KoM.
I think superior force can make you sit still for a combination of brainwashing and torture that will make you believe anything, 1984-style, yes. I also think it would be a lot more cost-effective to just shoot you, and then you won't believe anything at all, so your belief will have been changed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: About the same as when Jesus answered Peter's "7 times Lord?" in regards to forgiveness with "Seventy Times Seven." I imagine Peter thought 7 was a good number and being from a Law background an exact number would be important. Jesus did indeed say, "70 X 70" and it would NOT suprise me if I encountered Christians who said, "We can only forgive somebody 4900 times!" but I think they would have ironically missed the entire point of the statement.
Heh. Two script titles I encountered while working with church drama: "Seventy Times Sixty-nine is Close Enough" and "Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-Nine and then POW!!"
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my scripture study this morning, I came across an interesting passage in 2 Nephi 28. (This is in the Book of Mormon) It made me think of this discussion, and how seriously we are to take charitable giving and simplistic living.
quote:13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.
It's an interesting concept, and one that I find to be very true-- that the poor are made poorer by the excesses of the rich. In this case, Nephi is talking about the corrupted church of Christ-- those who should know better, who have been taught and who should understand Christ's gospel, but who neglect the practical doctrine in favor of material wealth.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:those who should know better, who have been taught and who should understand Christ's gospel, but who neglect the practical doctrine in favor of material wealth.
I'd add or temporal power so I can ask "Is there another kind?"
We've been waiting for a couple of thousand years (or at least since Constantine) for mainstream Christianity to actually do some of the hard things that Jesus said. Some of us are getting tired of holding our breath.
On the other hand, I think the God of the Old Testament is more or less happy with the way things have gone.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've been waiting for a couple of thousand years (or at least since Constantine) for mainstream Christianity to actually do some of the hard things that Jesus said.
It has done many of the hard things Christ said.
The problem is it hasn't done them enough and it's done other things as well.
But it's definitely done them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the God of the Old Testament is more or less happy with the way things have gone.
Can you explain why you think this?
The "God of the Old Testament" that I'm familiar with was a big fan of giving to the poor, supporting widows and orphans, helping the destitute... that's where Jesus learned his schtick from, anyway.
Or at least that's what Jesus claimed.
Whenever this topic is brought up, I'm reminded of the end of the movie, "Chocolat." Alfred Molina has taken his dive through the chocolatier's window, and succumbed to the power of Cocoa; everyone's gathered together to hear the young, newly emancipated priest's sermon on Easter morning. And the young priest says something along the lines of, "I don't want to talk about Jesus' ressurrection; I want to talk about Jesus' message of tolerance and blah blah blah."
It's a cheat of a device. Philosophically, Jesus brought very little new to the table. The principles of giving and mercy and love are already covered in the Old Testament-- it's one of the reasons Jews have a wonderful culture of helping the poor.
The reason for the gospel, and for Jesus' presence on the earth, was to redeem man from his fallen, sinful state, and to break death so that we could return to God. The message on charity is as old as human history-- the Good News Jesus effected is only 2000 years old.
So when I hear critiscisms about how Christianity hasn't lived up to its message, I smile. Because it's not CHRISTIANITY's message, even though Christianity contains the message. Even though it's an important part of really being Christian.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
What I'm shooting for is the idea that there is no significant difference between the principles of charity and mercy Jehovah taught through/to the Israelites, and the principles espoused by Christ during his mortal ministry. This to offset the idea that the "God of the Old Testament" was unconditionally bloody-handed in comparison.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I think the big difference is that the OT is the record of one people's relationship with God. Jesus (via the apostles) made this a less tribal idea. God wasn't just for one people anymore. We had to realize that God was not just for us anymore.
I also believe that there was a shift to a deeper understanding. The shift I am talking about is a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" kind of thing - although that doesn't really describe it perfectly. A sort of "you're old enough now to know why you need to be careful crossing the street instead of, 'Never cross the street because I said so!'" kind of shift.
I know that I am putting this badly... And I'm sure some of this impression is an uninformed view of the OT. It may always have been there - I just don't read it that way.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Does belief in YEC mean you also believe that humans are respobsible for Global Climate Change.
Most if not all of the evironmentalist critics have admitted evidence shows we are in a period of drastic climate change. These critics deny that Man has had any influence on what is a millenial pattern of weather change. Our smoke and SUV's are not the problem, but the 10,000 year old cycle of cold age/warm age is.
Of course, if the Universe is less than 10,000 years old, such a cycle does not exist.
I see only 4 options open to YECs:
1) Global Warming doesn't exist. The science, like much other science, despite the weight of obvious changes, is wrong.
2) We are the cause of Global Climate Change as the Scientists say, and we need to work on reducing our green house gas emissions.
3)God is the cause of Global Warming. They are a prelude to the coming tribulations. It will be just one of the ways plagues, famine, death, and war will be sprung on the world. It is our duty to aid in God's plans so the more greenhouse gasses we produce, the sooner will be the coming of the Lord.
4) Our Sins are the cause of Global Warming. They will lead to the coming tribulations of which Global Warming is part of. Global Warming will lead to some of the plagues, famines, wars, and deaths that will be sprung on the world. Yet it is our duty to fight these sins. By denying our own greed and sloth we will emit fewer greenhouse gasses. If the tribulations at the end of times must come, then let it be despite our faith, not because of it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the evidence for global warming, Dan, relies on an old Earth. I'd imagine that people who are YECs either believe that global warming isn't happening at all, or that it's all part of the End Times.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The YEC point of view is that many of the postulated cycles in climate extremes may have taken place, but did so not over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years; but rather over the course of only decades or at most centuries, as the earth settled down from having its "bell rung" during the global catastrophe of the Flood (which may have involved multiple large meteorite strikes).
Change the level of the sea, or the positions of the continents, both of which which YEC believe occurred in the decades and centuries following the Flood, and you drastically alter the flow of oceanic currects. Were it not for the Gulf Stream flowing as far north as it does, Europe would be in an ice age now. Spain is on the same latitude as New York, and Britain is on the same latitude as Hudson Bay.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand how human languages could have become this diverse in 6,000 years. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but...under what conditions, exactly, could that happen?
I'm also not clear on exactly where Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law came from, if there were supposedly no other humans around other than Adam's children.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I understand how human languages could have become this diverse in 6,000 years. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but...under what conditions, exactly, could that happen?
I think there are pretty good studies on this that suggest they could (and this is from non-YEC scientists). I think I read about them first in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Don't remember the details, and the time frame they were working on was more like 10,000 years. If you're interested I'll see if I can find the references over the weekend.
Edit: what I didn't mention is that the process (inferred) is described. There have been studies of modern linguistic drift that apparently match with the findings.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go ahead, Dag. I may go ahead and read that book tonight. I'd still be interested in any references.
I don't see how you could get Finnish, Sanskrit, and the native american language families from a common mother language in anything like 10,000 years. AfAIK, linguists have found absolutely no common links from many primitive languages to each other or to Sanskrit, Hindi, any Indo-european languages, or any Sino-Tibetan language families. Linguists spend decades studying possible links, and don't find them.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, how do you measure language drift if two languages show absolutely no relationship to each other? Aren't you completely guessing in that case?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I don't remember the details. (BTW, Hindi and Sanskrit are both Indo-European languages - I couldn't tell if you knew that from your list of non-connected languages.)
There's no particular naturalistic reason that language arose only one time, so it may not be necessary to demonstrate drift amongst language families.
From a biblical YEC perspective, this is explained by supernatural intervention at a specific point in time, of course.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm not sure I understand how human languages could have become this diverse in 6,000 years. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but...under what conditions, exactly, could that happen?
I'm also not clear on exactly where Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law came from, if there were supposedly no other humans around other than Adam's children.
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Incest. Obviously. "
I...there....what?
If there are only two people on the earth and they have children, their children would have to have sex with each other or a parent in order to reproduce.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
