Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[shernren]

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis
Please, pre-consider your words' cud.



I didn't. How's you understanding of English grammar?

Actually, if you really want to be a grammar Nazi, it is my understanding (although I may well be wrong) that one does not use the apostrophe + "s" to signify possession by inanimate nouns. Thus one does not say "the table's legs" or "the computer's screen", except colloquially; one either compresses the phrase where understandable ("the computer screen"), or uses the far less awkward construction "the legs of the table".

 

[Mallon]

I didn't. How's you [sic] understanding of English grammar?

Almost as good as my understanding of situational irony.

Odd, indeed; but, then, that popular humanistic approach is always easier for those just starting out than it is for them to right-off-the-bat steadfastly live in that unquestioningly leap-off-the-cliff state of faith Kierkegaard wrote of; then, again, too, that's, hopefully, exactly what a lifetime is for-learning to live solely on faith.

So what did you mean by "Please, pre-consider your words' cud"? I've only heard the word "cud" used to refer to regurgitated food in ruminants.

 

[Mallon]

As for the truth of your statement, yes, there are blessings in human knowledge. But are all blessings an unqualified good? Witness the brazen serpent of Moses -- a type of the Christ and a vehicle for healing that later had to be destroyed.

In many ways, Solomon is a type of too much of a good thing. Too many wives was one issue.

...

There is a issue here for those who believe in an inerrant Word. The point is that the Word is far superior to the theological rehashing of the Word.

In some ways your comment really begs the question about the circumstances under which human knowledge can glorify God, without qualification or exception. I don't see that happening until the Lord returns as the kind of King that Solomon utlimately failed at being. In short, we are not capable of reliably wielding even a good thing.

The jist of your post seems to be about knowledge being "too much of a good thing." Do you think it is possible to have too much knowledge? And if so, where do we draw the line? At what point should we, as Christians, say "I dare not learn any more, lest I fall away from God"?
I don't see why it is not possible for a Christian to be both knowledgeable and humble before God.

Wisdom is good for shelter and preserves life. But, it is not salvation, though the Word is.

Agreed. Therefore, I don't expect to find wisdom (small 'w') in the Bible.

 

[busterdog]

The jist of your post seems to be about knowledge being "too much of a good thing." Do you think it is possible to have too much knowledge? And if so, where do we draw the line? At what point should we, as Christians, say "I dare not learn any more, lest I fall away from God"?
I don't see why it is not possible for a Christian to be both knowledgeable and humble before God.

Do I know where to draw the line? Indeed not. Certainly, we are directed to "abide in" Him and we are not instructed to eschew knowledge. But Hypo's point is a good one, though implied, that until you can really, really abide with Him all the time, how can you be sure that you will know where to draw the line or how to use knowledge properly?

You want me to tell you where to draw the line. Let me challenge you with a different question. How closely can we or should we abide with Christ? Not having found the upper limit for that latter boundary, how do presume to draw the former?

Scientists will assume that knowledge is neutral. But, why isn't it like other things:
Can you love your life here too much?
Can you have too much power?
Can you work too hard?
Can you be too optimistic?
Obviously, these become qualitative issues at the extreme. But, for fallen humans, the quantitative inevitably involves the qualitative.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Question: How do you know when you abide in Christ "enough"?

Knowledge is neutral.

You are correct. Those questions are all qualitative. The difference is that science deals in the quantitative. That is why it isn't like other things.

 

[Assyrian]

Do I know where to draw the line? Indeed not. Certainly, we are directed to "abide in" Him and we are not instructed to eschew knowledge. But Hypo's point is a good one, though implied,

So you are saying in all that there is a good point, a point that wasn't even made?

that until you can really, really abide with Him all the time, how can you be sure that you will know where to draw the line or how to use knowledge properly?

That wasn't Hypo's point at all. Hypo does draw a line and I am amazed the way someone who loves to understand the working of the universe God created can defend it. It is not just that people can go to far, or be overbalanced in our priorities, You are defending someone who hate all philosophy and science. To Hypo, any appreciation of knowledge is bad. "The love of knowledge is antithetical to the love of Jesus Christ".

You want me to tell you where to draw the line. Let me challenge you with a different question. How closely can we or should we abide with Christ? Not having found the upper limit for that latter boundary, how do presume to draw the former?

Scientists will assume that knowledge is neutral. But, why isn't it like other things:
Can you love your life here too much?
Can you have too much power?
Can you work too hard?
Can you be too optimistic?
Obviously, these become qualitative issues at the extreme. But, for fallen humans, the quantitative inevitably involves the qualitative.

It is not the TEs who are drawing the lines here.

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by Assyrian
...[]...

Interest fell woefully lacking as soon as you brought up the prince of humanists, you'll have to do a lot better than that.

And you cannot see the irony in insisting the KJV is the best translation based on the best manuscripts, when it was based on the Greek text produced by the 'prince of humanists'.

Try scripture, not human reasoning.

We were discussing scripture before you sidetracked into condemning philosophy, science, knowledge and modern translations. I asked you questions about scripture in my last post and you made an excuse not to answer. You avoided answering theFijian's question about scripture too.

You'll get a lot further a lot quicker. And don't bother with the medieval English wording, that's even worse.

lets see:

I Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

I Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

The verse you love to quote talking about 'science' dates back to Tyndale in 1534 O Timothe save that which is geve ye to kepe and avoyde vngostly vanities of voyces and opposicios of sciece falsly so called

And don't bother with the medieval English wording, that's even worse.

I couldn't agree more. That is what I have been trying to tell you. You proof text against science is misunderstood medieval English wording.

 

[gluadys]

God created everything complete and whole without any evolvement according to the scriptures.

Not according to the Scriptures, but according to your preferred interpretation of the Scriptures.

Nowhere does scripture say that everything was created whole and complete. And that idea was disputed as early as Augustine who held that God initially created "seeds" which unfolded through time. (You might say that Augustine was an early evolutionary creationist.)

Now, why should I accept your theology over Augustine's?

How be you show me why I should read the creation story your way instead of Augustine's way?

our position is, by definition, questionably in opposition to God's position as it implies more than one position.

Of course there is more than one position. Christians have always had more than one position about many things.

That doesn't tell us which position (if any) agrees with God's position. Quite probably none do completely.

 

[Mallon]

Do I know where to draw the line? Indeed not. Certainly, we are directed to "abide in" Him and we are not instructed to eschew knowledge. But Hypo's point is a good one, though implied, that until you can really, really abide with Him all the time, how can you be sure that you will know where to draw the line or how to use knowledge properly?

This sounds like an excuse for anti-intellectualism. All people are sinners. Ergo, all people fall short of abiding with God "all the times". Should we therefore quit trying to expand the same minds God gave us until we become fully like Jesus? Is this really something God advocates in the Bible?

You want me to tell you where to draw the line. Let me challenge you with a different question. How closely can we or should we abide with Christ? Not having found the upper limit for that latter boundary, how do presume to draw the former?

We should abide with Christ like Christ abided with the Father. But your question is besides the point and only serves to distract from the issue, which is this: Does the Bible truly espouse the kind of anti-intellectualism you and HypoTypoSis are advocating? Must we become fully like Christ before we can know anything? Or is the Bible simply warning us against using knowledge as a substitute for an intimacy with God? I would advocate that the latter case is more in line with what the Bible teaches concerning knowledge. Again, there is nothing wrong with knowledge in itself if we use that knowledge to bring glory to God, rather than to ourselves.

 

[busterdog]

Question: How do you know when you abide in Christ "enough"?

Knowledge is neutral.

You are correct. Those questions are all qualitative. The difference is that science deals in the quantitative. That is why it isn't like other things.

Knowledge may indeed be neutral, but not in certain hands. Like political power. The point is not whether knowledge is something people can handle, or how much they can handle. There is no "quantitive" issue that can be divorced from the qualitative.

 

[Scotishfury09]

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

1. False. Knowledge is tied to facts and truth.

2. Knowledge and political power are nowhere near analogous.

 

[gluadys]

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

The relation between knowledge and power doesn't lie so much in what the knowledge is as in who has access to it. Power can be exerted by not making knowledge available or by releasing it at a critical time for certain effects.

The point is not whether knowledge is something people can handle, or how much they can handle.

ok, so what is the point?

 

[theFijian]

In both instances you display a lack of wisdom and understanding. That's ok, all things in their proper time and place.

As to your other-demanding-question, I'll answer that when you tell me the dispensational significance of Acts 28:28 and its Old Testament prophetical implications. Go figger. Remember what Jesus said (and why) when they acted the same way towards Him. Again, wisdom, understanding--and spiritual maturity--are paramount in such.

What relevance you think Acts 28:28 has on my question regarding ch17 I've no idea. Since I don't go in for such theological innovations as Dispensationalism I doubt we have the same view on that portion of scripture (salvation has been offered to gentiles from all ages by the way).

Instead of trying to be smug and supercillious you could just answer the original question. If Paul didn't use scripture to reason with the Greeks, what was he using?

 

[busterdog]

1. False. Knowledge is tied to facts and truth.

2. Knowledge and political power are nowhere near analogous.

The leading secular philosophers of our time say otherwise.

 

[busterdog]

The relation between knowledge and power doesn't lie so much in what the knowledge is as in who has access to it. Power can be exerted by not making knowledge available or by releasing it at a critical time for certain effects.

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.

ok, so what is the point?

Lack of literacy, I suppose. Let's try this in English:

Knowledge may indeed be neutral, but not in certain hands. Like political power. The point is [] whether knowledge is something people can handle, or how much they can handle. There is no "quantitive" issue that can be divorced from the qualitative.

 

[busterdog]

This sounds like an excuse for anti-intellectualism. All people are sinners. Ergo, all people fall short of abiding with God "all the times". Should we therefore quit trying to expand the same minds God gave us until we become fully like Jesus? Is this really something God advocates in the Bible?

How did this get confusing? The Word clearly says "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God." The first consideration is that our priorities are generally wrong. In fact, they are so wrong that this hypothetical "neutrality" of human knowledge is meaningless.

We should abide with Christ like Christ abided with the Father. But your question is besides the point and only serves to distract from the issue, which is this: Does the Bible truly espouse the kind of anti-intellectualism you and HypoTypoSis are advocating? Must we become fully like Christ before we can know anything? Or is the Bible simply warning us against using knowledge as a substitute for an intimacy with God? I would advocate that the latter case is more in line with what the Bible teaches concerning knowledge. Again, there is nothing wrong with knowledge in itself if we use that knowledge to bring glory to God, rather than to ourselves.

I guess it sounds like that to you. I still think it is the issue. You presume the pursuit of knowledge (by people) to be neutral. I say that is disastrously misguided, because people with knowledge are mostly misguided. I provided ample scripture on the point. Does that make you suspicious? Well, that is your prerogative.

 

[Mallon]

How did this get confusing? The Word clearly says "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God." The first consideration is that our priorities are generally wrong. In fact, they are so wrong that this hypothetical "neutrality" of human knowledge is meaningless.

I agree that we should seek the kingdom of God first. But so what? Why should that stop us from seeking knowledge second, third, or even fourth? Are they really mutually exclusive? You have lots of say, but I'm having a hard time gauging the practical consequences of what you're advocating.

I guess it sounds like that to you. I still think it is the issue. You presume the pursuit of knowledge (by people) to be neutral. I say that is disastrously misguided, because people with knowledge are mostly misguided.

I agree that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Look at the way that some atheists like Dawkins tout evolution as a replacement for God. But unless you're willing to stand up and say "We need to put a stop to the acquisition of knowledge and start praying harder", your words come across as little more than rhetoric.

 

[shernren]

I guess it sounds like that to you. I still think it is the issue. You presume the pursuit of knowledge (by people) to be neutral. I say that is disastrously misguided, because people with knowledge are mostly misguided. I provided ample scripture on the point. Does that make you suspicious? Well, that is your prerogative.

No, you did not provide ample Scripture on the point. You quoted verses, for sure, but they don't prove the point that you are trying to twist them to prove. For example, you quoted Solomon as if the quest for knowledge somehow makes people more susceptible to idolatry. But I pointed out that Solomon fell not when he pursued more knowledge, but when he rejected the knowledge he had already found.

I also directly quoted 2 Peter where we are exhorted to add knowledge to our other virtues and strengths. You did not respond to that.

And let us not forget the context of what has happened before in this thread. Remember the vomeronasal organ? Remember digging up information about snakes and their forked tongues and how their sense of smell works? For someone who loves digging out knowledge and twisting it to make it look like it supports you, you sure change your tune really fast.

 

[busterdog]

I agree that we should seek the kingdom of God first. But so what? Why should that stop us from seeking knowledge second, third, or even fourth? Are they really mutually exclusive? You have lots of say, but I'm having a hard time gauging the practical consequences of what you're advocating.

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.

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.

The suggestion here seems to me that scientists are simply generating neutral wealth for humanity. Scientists don't even believe that. They freely admit they are generating awesome technologies that are ripe for abuse.

The point is simple enough that this a corporate problem for humanity as a species. Maybe that is where we are getting hung up. Is that a practical observation? Well, its biblical. I am not blaming scientists in particular. The fact is that more technology is more capability to destroy all life on this planet, create famines, etc., etc.

"We need to put a stop to the acquisition of knowledge and start praying harder", your words come across as little more than rhetoric

We will find out soon enough how impractical the alternative to prayer is. I believe the future has been prophesied.

 

[Scotishfury09]

The leading secular philosophers of our time say otherwise.

Can you name some and their views?