Good and Evil

[Jeremy E Walker]

You think an antiquarian (a person who studies and knows about very old things) is the same as antiquarian history (a history which is old and not actual).

That is incorrect.

If you will notice, the definition I supplied and referenced states, "More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts. The essence of antiquarianism is a focus on the empirical evidence of the past.

The definition I supplied and referenced does not support your conclusion that antiquarian history not "actual". You have yet to supply a definition, an argument, reason, or reference that shows that antiquarian history is not actual history. You just kind of assert it. This is called a bare assertion and as Christopher Hitchens once stated, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

How old are you, Jeremy?

This is a red herring. My age has nothing to do with whether or not antiquarian history is a viable element of historiography.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hi goldenboy89,......God in His love created YOU in His image, not to be a God like Him, but a being in His image to love and provide for, how is that sadistic?

God created a beautiful place, Eden, for you and I to live, how is that sadistic?

God did not create us to be robots, but created us to love Him freely, not forcefully.

The threat of eternal damnation sounds pretty forceful.

Eve and Adam chose to obey a fallen angel called Lucifer, disguised as a serpent Eve and Adam believing God did not really know what was best for them, and was deceived by evil temptation.

Adam and Eve didn't know any better. They had no concept of right and wrong.

And sense that time God has always provided a way out of our sinful nature, how sadistic is that? It's not sadistic......its pure Love, pure grace, pure mercy.

He provided the solution to a problem he created in the first place.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If God created you, and you then create evil... is that on you? Or should God be blamed for the sins of man, as well as the sins of Satan?

Shouldn't the ultimate authority bear ultimate responsibility?

 

[BL2KTN]

That is incorrect.

If you will notice, the definition I supplied and referenced states, "More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts. The essence of antiquarianism is a focus on the empirical evidence of the past.

Okay, well let me see if I can help you out. An "antiquarian" is a noun that refers to someone who studies very old things. They study old things factually. The term "antiquarian history" that you used to as the name for the genre of Genesis is not a real term that people use, and it isn't a genre anybody recognizes. However, I think you found somebody who used the term, and you cited them without doing any research whatsoever - you were probably trying to seem intelligent about it by doing a quick Google rather than know what you were talking about. When the person said that Genesis is antiquarian history, they were saying that Genesis' telling of history is antique or antiquated. Let's look up "antiquated":

1. continued from, resembling, or adhering to the past; old-fashioned: antiquated attitudes.
2. no longer used; obsolete or obsolescent: The spinning wheel is an antiquated machine.
3. aged; old:

So when you said that Genesis' history is "antiquated history" genre, I had to grin because you were unknowingly calling Genesis "old-fashioned, obsolete, not really used anymore."

The definition I supplied and referenced does not support your conclusion that antiquarian history not "actual". You have yet to supply a definition, an argument, reason, or reference that shows that antiquarian history is not actual history. You just kind of assert it. This is called a bare assertion and as Christopher Hitchens once stated, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

That's because you supplied a definition for a person who studies old things, not the definition for the old thing. =)

This is a red herring. My age has nothing to do with whether or not antiquarian history is a viable element of historiography.

No, but it sure makes you want to use terms like "historiography" to impress. No need to be a sesquipadelian, Jeremy... points are given for precision, not syllables.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

An "antiquarian" is a noun that refers to someone who studies very old things.

The word "antiquarian" when it is a noun can refer to more than just someone who studies very old things.

The term "antiquarian history" that you used to as the name for the genre of Genesis is not a real term that people use, and it isn't a genre anybody recognizes. However, I think you found somebody who used the term,

You just contradicted yourself. First you said that "antiquarian history" is not a real term that people use, and then in your last sentence quoted above, you stated that I had found somebody who used the term.

Which is it?

Secondly, what reasons do you give for maintaining that it is not a genre that anyone "recognizes"?

When the person said that Genesis is antiquarian history, they were saying that Genesis' telling of history is antique or antiquated. Let's look up "antiquated":

1. continued from, resembling, or adhering to the past; old-fashioned: antiquated attitudes.
2. no longer used; obsolete or obsolescent: The spinning wheel is an antiquated machine.
3. aged; old:

So when you said that Genesis' history is "antiquated history" genre, I had to grin because you were unknowingly calling Genesis "old-fashioned, obsolete, not really used anymore."

Your argument is based upon a redefinition of antiquarian to mean "antiquated". What reasons or arguments or references do you give to warrant such a redefinition?

 

[BL2KTN]

The word "antiquarian" when it is a noun can refer to more than just someone who studies very old things.

I'm not aware of any. Do you have an example?

You just contradicted yourself. First you said that "antiquarian history" is not a real term that people use, and then in your last sentence quoted above, you stated that I had found somebody who used the term.

People is plural, somebody is singular. People don't use it, some guy you found did. If I can't google it and pull it up anywhere on the net, people aren't using it.

Which is it?

Secondly, what reasons do you give for maintaining that it is not a genre that anyone "recognizes"?

Because I searched for it and can't find it anywhere. As a person who has a degree in biblical studies, I can tell you that Genesis has many different genres. I'm aware of them and their purposes. There is no such thing as "antiquarian history", though I do like the invented term the guy came up with. It's a very positive way of saying "history that is old-fashioned, obsolete, and not to be taken seriously" without offending others.

Your argument is based upon a redefinition of antiquarian to mean "antiquated". What reasons or arguments or references do you give to warrant such a redefinition?

In the term "antiquarian history," the word "antiquarian" is being used as an adjective. It modifies the noun "history" to mean "antique-like" or "of antiquity." All these words (antiquarian, antique, antiquity, antiquated) come from the base word "antique". What does "antique" mean?

"of or belonging to the past; not modern."

It is not a history we would use or accept modernly. It is a history that is out-dated, old-fashioned, obsolete, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Have you ever noticed when you take a "o" away from "good" it makes "God" and when you add a "D" to "Evil " it makes "Devil"

Freaky huh

Only works in English.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you have a reference for this definition? Perhaps from a philosophy of religion encyclopedia or something similar?

omnipotent literally means can do anything. There aren't more definitions for the word really, just different ways of saying the same thing. Do I really need to google the definition for you?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

omnipotent literally means can do anything. There aren't more definitions for the word really, just different ways of saying the same thing. Do I really need to google the definition for you?

I wanted you to provide a citation found in a philosophy of religion reference work.

I want you to type in the word omnipotent in google and then read the wikipedia article on the term.

You will find that the term is NOT used by theologians and philosophers of religion primarily in the sense you think, but rather, as having the potential to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible.

So you are wrong.

For example read this taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

In recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs, understood as propositional entities which either obtain or fail to obtain (Rosenkrantz & Hoffman 1980; Flint & Freddoso 1983; and Wierenga 1989). Because we believe that it can yield an adequate analysis of omnipotence, we take this latter approach in what follows.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm not aware of any. Do you have an example?



People is plural, somebody is singular. People don't use it, some guy you found did. If I can't google it and pull it up anywhere on the net, people aren't using it.



Because I searched for it and can't find it anywhere. As a person who has a degree in biblical studies, I can tell you that Genesis has many different genres. I'm aware of them and their purposes. There is no such thing as "antiquarian history", though I do like the invented term the guy came up with. It's a very positive way of saying "history that is old-fashioned, obsolete, and not to be taken seriously" without offending others.



In the term "antiquarian history," the word "antiquarian" is being used as an adjective. It modifies the noun "history" to mean "antique-like" or "of antiquity." All these words (antiquarian, antique, antiquity, antiquated) come from the base word "antique". What does "antique" mean?

"of or belonging to the past; not modern."

It is not a history we would use or accept modernly. It is a history that is out-dated, old-fashioned, obsolete, etc.

Genesis is not a science textbook, nor is it a textbook on cosmology or human anatomy or biology. That was my point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I wanted you to provide a citation found in a philosophy of religion reference work.

I want you to type in the word omnipotent in google and then read the wikipedia article on the term.

You will find that the term is NOT used by theologians and philosophers of religion primarily in the sense you think, but rather, as having the potential to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible.

So you are wrong.

For example read this taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

In recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs, understood as propositional entities which either obtain or fail to obtain (Rosenkrantz & Hoffman 1980; Flint & Freddoso 1983; and Wierenga 1989). Because we believe that it can yield an adequate analysis of omnipotence, we take this latter approach in what follows.

Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Omnipotent - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I personally don't care if people try to use a word with a definition it does not have, it will be them using it as a slang term, not me being wrong, and if you are going to use a word to mean something is doesn't, you have to clarify.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Omnipotent - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I personally don't care if people try to use a word with a definition it does not have, it will be them using it as a slang term, not me being wrong, and if you are going to use a word to mean something is doesn't, you have to clarify.

Words can be used in different ways Sarah.

I gave you two references to review that demonstrate that when myself or any other Christian philosopher uses the term, they are using it in a specific sense to signify one of God's attributes, namely, being able to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Words can be used in different ways Sarah.

I gave you two references to review that demonstrate that when myself or any other Christian philosopher uses the term, they are using it in a specific sense to signify one of God's attributes, namely, being able to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible.

Then you are suggesting that impossible exists. Also, I don't see how making people with free will without suffering is impossible, our options in our lives will always be limited, I can't flap my arms and fly even if I desire to do so, thus if you consider making rape or murder not an option as a violation of free will, then the fact I can't flap my arms and fly despite wanting to is a violation of my free will to fly.

 

[Faith Unites]

We have free will but we are not omnipotent. It is logically impossible to create free will and remove the ability to private the good. However, once a creature with free will understands how much better it is to live inside the will of God rather than to live outside of it, they will not perverse the good (at least in a perfect world). Unfortunately, we live in no such place. The good news (in Christianity anyways) is that we don't have to struggle to live a perfect life because Christ lived it for us. Once you let go of trying to achieve perfection, perfection naturally follows (sanctification). The idea is to let go and let God. However, our egos don't go down without a fight. That's where grace comes in. And thank God for it. Sin is its own punishment. We reap what we sow. It's not Gods anger punishing us, it's the natural world. Thankfully, we have the love of God to pick us up when we fall on our own and when we get hurt by others. Just my two cents. Feel free to dissect and destroy it now haha

 

[BL2KTN]

Genesis is not a science textbook, nor is it a textbook on cosmology or human anatomy or biology. That was my point.

Is the Genesis account of human history fact or fiction?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Is the Genesis account of human history fact or fiction?

I believe it is a fact that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Empirical observations from science bear out the assertion that the universe came into being at some point in the past.

There are also two separate philosophical arguments against the notion that the universe has always existed.

So verses like Genesis 1:1 are reporting facts about reality that can be verified or falsified.

Genesis 1:1 was written thousands of years ago. It was not until the last half century that scientists discovered the evidence that indicates that the universe began to exist.

So the author of Genesis knew this thousands of years ago.

 

[BL2KTN]

I believe it is a fact that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Please watch this video to see what God created:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

Empirical observations from science bear out the assertion that the universe came into being at some point in the past.

That is unnecessarily vague. Empirical observations from science bear out that the universe came into being through incredibly rapid expansion from a dense singularity around 13 billion years ago.

There are also two separate philosophical arguments against the notion that the universe has always existed.

No serious scientist currently posits that the universe has always existed. The big crunch is dead, and with it the idea of a cycling universe. Also, crossing an infinite past is generally accepted as impossible since you can never cross an infinite number of moments to reach the present.

So verses like Genesis 1:1 are reporting facts about reality that can be verified or falsified.

No it isn't. We cannot verify that an ancient Canaanite god named El did it.

Genesis 1:1 was written thousands of years ago. It was not until the last half century that scientists discovered the evidence that indicates that the universe began to exist.

Yes. And wouldn't you know that the evidence indicates a radically different story than the thousand-year old story.

So the author of Genesis knew this thousands of years ago.

There's a reason you're only posting the very first verse. Stop playing around and start actually searching for the truth.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Stop playing around and start actually searching for the truth.

When the author of Genesis speaks on matters that are subject to verification or falsification, we see that the author speaks in accordance with what the evidence indicates, i.e that the universe began to exist at some point in the past.

That is my point. Now if you would like to debate me then I would be glad to.

 

[BL2KTN]

When the author of Genesis speaks on matters that are subject to verification or falsification, we see that the author speaks in accordance with what the evidence indicates, i.e that the universe began to exist at some point in the past.

That is my point. Now if you would like to debate me then I would be glad to.

That is silly. You're limiting the debate to the first verse of a chapter full of ridiculous statements. The next linen is "and the Earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep." You want to defend that the Earth was once just water?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That is silly. You're limiting the debate to the first verse of a chapter full of ridiculous statements. The next linen is "and the Earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep." You want to defend that the Earth was once just water?

I will debate you on whatever you want to debate on. Does not really matter to me.