Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[Assyrian]

Well, it sounds like I am not communicating the point. I have not advocated that we stop anything in particular. I think many technologies are going to end in disaster because they are not pursued with Godly guidance. Is that speculative? Sure. Its based uopn my religious beliefs. I understand that for many its a lot to swallow, but I am not shy. I do have scripture to rely upon for the point however.

Neat switch from knowledge to technology

 

[gluadys]

Well, agreed. People generally misuse knowledge. People even more generally put the use of knowledge over seeking the Lord for direction in how to use it.

Neither of which is a problem with knowledge itself. Or a reason not to seek knowledge.

Knowledge may indeed be neutral, but not in certain hands. Like political power.

I think you are conflating two things: knowledge and the use (political or whatever) of knowledge. I think we can certainly agree that the use of knowledge is not neutral.

The question is whether that is sufficient reason to avoid seeking knowledge or to prevent others from seeking knowledge.

I think you would also agree that knowledge can be used for good ends as well as bad. Even if that is the rarer case, it is still reason enough to seek knowledge. And if the godly do not have knowledge, they are at the mercy of those who do and who will not use it for godly ends.

The point is [] whether knowledge is something people can handle, or how much they can handle.

I don't think there is really any limit on how much knowledge people can handle. Knowledge is suppressed and hidden not because people cannot understand and handle it, but because the possessors of the knowledge fear people will understand it all too well, and in that understanding will deprive the current holders of power of their privileged position.

Lily Tomlin, in her one-woman play, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe, gives a line to Trudy, the bag lady who communicates with extra-terrestrial aliens:

"I refuse to be intimidated by reality anynore. What's reality anyway? Nothing but a collective hunch. My space chums think that reality was once a primitive method of crowd control that got out of hand."

Crowd control. That is what the political manipulation of access to knowledge is about. And that is good and sufficient reason to reject the idea that knowledge itself is suspect.

The more we know, the freer we are to resist such manipulation and to use knowledge as God intends it to be used.

Does that mean that no one will misuse the same knowledge? Of course not. But we cannot resist the misuse of knowledge if we ourselves remain ignorant.

What is the practical consequence? If the entire world would just listen to me (yes, I am being tongue in cheek), no technology would be pursued apart from the desire to glorify God. There would be no cross-contamination by genetically engineered seeds, no weather modification, no experimentation on aborted children, no economic enslavement by market manipulation, no nuclear war.

Commendable. But not knowing the information which allows for genetic modification of seeds also means not having the information to pursue treatments for genetically-caused diseases. The information which led to nuclear weapons came from the same information that gave us E=mc2.

If you are saying is that all knowledge is a two-edged sword with capacities for good and evil, that is just stating a truism.

The question is what do we do about it? Ruthlessly suppress natural human curiosity and the desire to know? Or seek knowledge and pray for wisdom to use it aright?

The point is simple enough that this a corporate problem for humanity as a species.

I agree. It is a problem we do have to deal with, and stated so, it is a problem to which Christians can contribute meaningfully. But to contribute meaningfully, we ourselves also need knowledge.

The fact is that more technology is more capability to destroy all life on this planet, create famines, etc., etc.

It is also more capability to use resources more wisely---to switch, for example , from fossil fuels to solar power and take other measures to lessen the disastrous impact of humanity on terrestrial climate and ecology. To prevent famines, cure disease, eliminate war and the need for war.

How we use knowledge, individually and corporately, is definitely a matter where faith and prayer play a big role.

But let us not confuse that with the project of acquiring knowledge in the first place as if it was the character of the information that led it to be used for good or ill.

Derrida discusses knowledge as 'pharmakon', the Greek word that means both medicine and poison.

 

[busterdog]

Neither of which is a problem with knowledge itself. Or a reason not to seek knowledge.

If knowledge falls in the forest and there is no one there to think it ....

(Thank you, thank you for all that one-handed applause I hear.)

 

[busterdog]

If you are saying is that all knowledge is a two-edged sword with capacities for good and evil, that is just stating a truism.

* * *

But let us not confuse that with the project of acquiring knowledge in the first place as if it was the character of the information that led it to be used for good or ill.

No, they should not be confused.

Yes, it is in many ways a truism.

Biblically, however, there is nothing "neutral."

1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Why? Why not just be a brilliant scientist and forget about God, or ignore him six days a week? Isn't that just as valid if you are brilliant enough?

Cr 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
The notion that some knowledge is "neutral" is the notion that it has intrinsic significance apart from God. There is no such thing, but only vain imagination of such things. Knowledge is not per se good. It has no intrinsic value in and of itself.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

I've only heard the word "cud" used to refer to regurgitated food in ruminants.

As in ruminate on one's words.

 

[Mallon]

The fact is that more technology is more capability to destroy all life on this planet, create famines, etc., etc.

Not to mention cure cancer, eradicate infectious disease, and increase quality of life.

Sure, some people may use the knowledge they have gained to do evil. But the problem isn't with knowledge itself -- it's with the people who abuse it. Do you not agree?

Advocating the supression of knowledge, as you and HypoTypoSis appear to be doing but won't admit to, would put an end to even good advancements like the ones listed above. You may argue that this is not what you are advocating, in which case, I would ask: What are you then disagreeing with the rest of us about???

 

[champuru]

Not to mention cure cancer, eradicate infectious disease, and increase quality of life.

Sure, some people may use the knowledge they have gained to do evil. But the problem isn't with knowledge itself -- it's with the people who abuse it. Do you not agree?

Advocating the supression of knowledge, as you and HypoTypoSis appear to be doing but won't admit to, would put an end to even good advancements like the ones listed above. You may argue that this is not what you are advocating, in which case, I would ask: What are you then disagreeing with the rest of us about???

with good technology comes bad. And some seemingly evil technology can be used for good if you are resourceful enough

 

[HypoTypoSis]

the problem isn't with knowledge itself -- it's with the people who abuse it. Do you not agree?

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it

God would seem to disagree with you. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Mallon]

God would seem to disagree with you. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Because (once again) the verse you cited doesn't support your point that knowledge is necessarily a bad thing. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a bad thing, but not knowledge itself. If knowledge is inherently bad, then you must also think that God created a bad thing by planting that tree in the Garden.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Advocating the supression of knowledge, as you and HypoTypoSis appear to be doing but won't admit to, would put an end to even good advancements like the ones listed above. You may argue that this is not what you are advocating, in which case, I would ask: What are you then disagreeing with the rest of us about???

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it

That's as much of an admission as you're going to hear. Let's face it, Hypo hates knowledge.

 

[gluadys]

God would seem to disagree with you. Wouldn't you agree?

See, I have called by name Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah and I have filled him with divine spirit, with ability, intelligence and knowledge in every kind of craft....
Exodus 31:2-3

God answered Solomon, "Because this was in your heart and you have not asked for possessions, wealth, honour or the life of those who hate you or even for long life, but have asked for wisdom and knowledge....wisdom and knowledge are granted to you...
2 Chronicles 1:11-12


Teach me good judgment and knowledge...
Psalm 119:66

The wise lay up knowledge...
Proverbs 10:14

by knowledge the righteous are delivered
Proverbs 11:9


Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge
Proverbs 12:1

An intelligent mind acquires knowledge and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
Proverbs 18:15

For to the one who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and joy.
Ecclesiastes 2:26

The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
Isaiah 11:2

I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.
Jeremiah 3:15


My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge I reject you from being a priest to me.
Hosea 4:6

For this reason you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge...
2 Peter 1:5-6


No, I don't think I agree. btw, here is a verse especially for you:

It is not good to have zeal without knowledge.
Proverbs 19:2

 

[Mallon]

Thanks, gluadys. QED.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

obviously, we have proof positive that it is far too easy for the scripturally unlearned to post verses and not know the first thing of wherein or why they speak. How can anyone take all the ways of the world and mix it with God's Word and say they know the heart and mind of God when scripture plainly states the temple of God has no fellowship with the temple of idiots?

 

[Mallon]

obviously, we have proof positive that it is far too easy for the scripturally unlearned to post verses and not know the first thing of wherein or why they speak.

I'll say! Thank goodness gluadys was here to correct you!

 

[HypoTypoSis]

I'll say! Thank goodness gluadys was here to correct you!

Spoken like a true a 25 year old teenager.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

knowledge.

It doesn't change the fact that it was a decision by default since His original command was NO-do NOT eat.

 

[Scotishfury09]

It doesn't change the fact that it was a decision by default since His original command was NO-do NOT eat.

Hypo, my brother in Christ, you have lost your mind.

Very nicely stated, gluadys.
Especially Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge.

The Word of God has slapped you in the face, Hypo.

 

[Assyrian]

It doesn't change the fact that it was a decision by default

You are not being very clear there HypoTypoSis. What was a decision by default, whose decision was it, why was it by default, and why do you see that as significant?

His original command was NO-do NOT eat.

You are going way beyond the meaning of that passage. God did not forbid Adam from knowledge, he was forbidden from eating from a specific tree in the garden, the tree of knowledge. Interesting that you take a metaphorical interpretation of eating from the tree, but unfortunately it is a metaphorical interpretation that contradicts everything God says about knowledge in the rest of the bible as glaudys has poited out to you.

You also ignore the fact that it does not simply the tree of 'knowledge', it is 'the knowledge of good and evil'. Science is the knowledge of the material world and how the universe works. It cannot really tell us anything about moral absolutes.

However your condemnation of knowledge is itself a claim to know what is good and what is evil. Not that I believe it is wrong to know the difference between right and wrong, just that your interpretation is self contradictory.

Then you are assuming you know why God forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the tree and that there is still something intrinsically wrong with knowledge. God does not say why they were forbidden. Perhaps it was simply a rule like kosher and no more applies to us than eating pork, perhaps it was a test for Adam and Eve, or simply a metaphor. Perhaps it was because the time wasn't right. However you read it, God now says that knowing the difference between right and wrong is a good thing, something we should learn.

Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

If you think the knowledge of the difference between good and evil is wrong, you contradict God. If you think a verse that tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil means we can learn about good and evil, but should not learn science, then you have taken the verse completely out of context.

 

[theFijian]

obviously, we have proof positive that it is far too easy for the scripturally unlearned to post verses and not know the first thing of wherein or why they speak.

You owe me a new ironometer!

How can anyone take all the ways of the world and mix it with God's Word and say they know the heart and mind of God when scripture plainly states the temple of God has no fellowship with the temple of idiots?

You mean we are required to know of the heart and mind of God? How then can knowledge be a bad thing. And if you see your way to answering my questiong regarding Paul in Acts 17 that would be great.

 

[shernren]

You know, when I see posts like this, I wonder if "creationists" really believe that God created the world.

No, they should not be confused.

Yes, it is in many ways a truism.

Biblically, however, there is nothing "neutral."

1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Why? Why not just be a brilliant scientist and forget about God, or ignore him six days a week? Isn't that just as valid if you are brilliant enough?

Cr 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
The notion that some knowledge is "neutral" is the notion that it has intrinsic significance apart from God. There is no such thing, but only vain imagination of such things. Knowledge is not per se good. It has no intrinsic value in and of itself.

And let us be clear that we seem to be speaking specifically of scientific knowledge here, given that a few posts ago you blasted off about technology you didn't like.

Of course knowledge has no intrinsic value. And that is a point the atheists should take. If the material world just happens to be, and has no ontological purpose higher than what it contains, then what purpose can our study of the world have? Either we study the world for clues that will help us survive it, or we study the world because we are following evolutionarily hard-wired curiosity that served us better in the dim past when curiosity brought man fire and food and agriculture. These are pertinent motives, and they motivate me as well - but they pale in comparison to the Christian view of science.

Knowledge has no intrinsic value apart from God, but that doesn't mean that knowledge is not good. On the contrary, I say scientific knowledge must always be good, precisely because there is no scientific knowledge whatsoever about the universe that exists apart from God willing it to exist, and God must be a good God. All I am saying, really, is that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" - a statement that is often surprisingly lacking (in truth if not in name) from the philosophy of many creationists.

You caricature our position as "Why not just be a brilliant scientist and forget about God, or ignore him six days a week? Isn't that just as valid if you are brilliant enough?" Is it any surprise that the only Christian "scientists" you listen to are lousy scientists? The Christian endeavor of science embraces human brilliance in all its glory, without ever forgetting the God who made it all possible in the first place.

God made the universe. And He made its physical features uniformly accessible to all intelligent observers, and He then made intelligent observers. That is clearly a significant coincidence. He did not need to make a "fair" universe, as His frequent miracles hint towards - nor did He need to make intelligent observers that value science, as His relationship with the pre-scientific peoples of ages past prove. I can only conclude therefore that God made the world amenable to scientific investigation because He intended scientific investigation to be a part of humanity and its intellectual life.

There can be nothing bad to discover in discovering what a good God has done. Even the Fall and its curse (assuming those are historical, scientifically significant events) flow intrinsically from God's goodness; even if the Fall was caused by man, its terms were not created by man, but by a good God. So science must be good. The God who wrote nature is the same God who wrote the Bible, and searching out mysteries in one must go hand in hand with searching out mysteries in the other.