Calzaer

You know, nobody's ever disproven the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn...

Magus55

Nobody makes the positive assertion that the IPU exists either. Atheists don't even believe in it. If you claim that you saw the IPU and it performed miracles, then you converted thousands and thousands of people to IPUanity, and then got executed for claiming it was real, I might believe in it.

Philosoft

What about your assertion that individuals are making "assumptions based on misinterpretation"? Is your own interpretation also correct until proven otherwise?

No one said your beliefs require defense. But you're making an epistemological claim about the nature of true knowledge.

That's funny. The Bible contains descriptions of things that are physically impossible. It is no assumption on my part to say water cannot "turn into" wine. The macroscopic laws of physics make that essentially a zero probability outcome. Thus, it is now your assumption that a zero probability outcome can obtain.

That's a proof that a written work is fiction? "Because the writer stated so"? You have clearly not thought this through, Magus.
The Bible has words, phrases and clauses. If the concepts and ideas represented therein align with reality, then, and only then, you have segments of non-fiction. Individual facts like the existence of Bethlehem do not prove the validity of the Bible.

Calzaer

Alright, how about this:

Nobody has ever disproved the existence of the Native Hawaiian pantheon. Thousands of people saw Pele, and many were sacrificed to her. She did miracles, like building a sea wall overnight. Therefore, she exists until you can prove she doesn't.

Christian

Lori,

2CO 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Your interpretation: That could not have been what Paul meant, because it would contradict his argument.

Paul is in defensive mode here: someone at the Corinthian church was questioning his authority as an apostle, and the rest of this letter (and at several points beforehand) Paul is defending his authority. He is not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles.” (11:1-16) He employs biting sarcasm in comparing himself to them. (11:17-21) He has endured more hardships and persecutions than they have (11:22-33). He got a personal tour of heaven where he heard inexpressible things. In fact the revelation given to him at that event was so great that God gave him a “thorn in the flesh” just so it wouldn’t go to his head. (12:1-10) He reminds the Corinthians that he worked many signs, wonders and miracles that they were witness to. (12:11-12) And he didn’t even take any money from them when he was there preaching (12:13). Etc., etc., etc. through the end of the letter. You get the idea.

And if all that doesn’t prove he’s an apostle, he also makes forced and irrational arguments!

See what I mean? Your interpretation doesn’t fit the context.

Paul’s all out rant about why he IS an apostle starts in chapter 10. He starts by telling them that he can be every bit as confrontational in person as his letters make him sound, despite his more gentle approach last time he was there in person. (all of ch 10) What Paul is anticipating is a “show down” with some of these super-apostles when he comes to visit shortly. (11:12) This is because some of them are really false apostles. (11:13-15) They are spreading falsehood and Paul is quite willing to confront them in his full authority as an apostle to counter their false teachings with the truth. These false apostles were very well spoken compared to Paul. (11:5-6) And even though Paul wasn’t as articulate he was right. He preached the truth as a first century apostle, which was basically the New Testament equivalent of an Old Testament Prophet.

It is in that context that we find 2 Cor 10:5. Look at this verse in its immediate context, keeping in mind that Paul was anticipating a showdown with the super-slick false apostles at Corinth.

2CO 10:1 By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you--I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away! 2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

Paul’s point in verse 5 is basically “Let me at ‘em, I’m going to kick their theological butt!”

A forced, irrational, square peg in a round hole type argument is not what scholar Paul is implying here. He’s implying that the plainspoken truth he has been supernaturally inspired with as an apostle (vs. 4) is about to go head to head with the polished pretty boys who have been spreading their lies, and the certain end result is that the slickster’s arguments are going to be destroyed. All their false pretensions will be demolished. And when Paul get’s through with the them he’s perfectly willing to confront anyone who was led into disobedience by the false apostles slick arguments. (vs 6)

Even if there were not all that context, your interpretation does not fit the words of that verse. A forced, ill fitting and desperate rebuttal has never demolished any argument. What Paul is talking about is here is something with the ability to demolish an argument. What you described cannot do that. Only a rational argument could.

This verse does not forbid questioning God. It encourages it’s recipients to question their current teachers and join Paul in defeating any falsehood intellectually. It is not forbidding wisdom and intellect, it is throwing down the gauntlet of divinely inspired wisdom and intellect. Rhea’s assertions are not supported here.

ECC 1:16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. 18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

Ecclesiastes is a depressing book, isn’t it? Solomon’s counterbalance to Proverbs. Solomon was the smartest and richest king who ever lived. His life was a case study in excess (read the first 2 chapters of Ecc and that will become clear). In this case, he was over dosing on philosophy and education. He expected to discover happiness down that road, but found that ultimately intellect does not satisfy. With great knowledge comes great sadness.

This passage does cast a negative light on wisdom and intellect. But in context it is an unbalanced excess of learning that Solomon is talking about. The smartest guy who ever lived throwing all of his energy into pursing knowledge and wisdom with single minded focus. To the exclusion of everything else. Yep – that’s bad.

But this passage does not affirm Rhea’s assertions. Knowledge and wisdom are not forbidden. There excess is warned against … that’s something different.

ECC 8:17 then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

No human can understand all the mysteries of the world. And an omnipotent omniscient Creator would be able to understand all the mysteries of the world. That’s all this verse is saying. It seems odd to me to fault the Bible for stating such an obvious truth.

FWIW – I think the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old. But that’s a whole thread to itself.

LOL!

1 CO19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1CO 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"

These verses come closest to making Rhea’s points. God really doesn’t like pride, so he often brings people to know him in a humbling manner. His intellect really is that much greater than ours, of course. And He insists that we realize that. We must see ourselves as a “fool” in comparison to Him.

The point of the passage is contrast between us and God. He wants us to tap into His resources rather than our own. God also highlights the difference between His intellect and ours by causing brilliant people to miss the mark entirely while regular old guys like me stumble into His revealed truth. (Matt 11:25-26) Not that He always works that way (1 Co 1:26), but it is a preferred method of His.

That said, these passages still don’t say confirm Rhea’s assertion. Questioning of God or the Bible is not addressed. And using wisdom and intellect is not forbidden either explicitly or implicitly … it is just contrasted with the wisdom and intellect of God. Neither are those things referred to as sin.

That is not what Paul meant, as I describe above. His emphasis is on contrast and wonder, he is not laying down any moral law or forbidding anything. This passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.

1TI 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge

You interpret this to be a prohibition on avoiding everything of knowledge outside the Bible.

That is not what the text says. The verse says to guard scripture and turn away from anything that opposes scripture. Note the difference:

1) Avoid all sources of knowledge other than the Bible.
2) Avoid all sources of knowledge that oppose the Bible.

Assertion #1 must be read into the text. Assertion #2 is present in the text.

And it even gives us the reason why. Because it is falsely called “knowledge.” If something can be falsely called knowledge, then it is wrong. This verse says to avoid anything that contradicts scripture because it is incorrect information. This is just another verse saying that anything which contradicts scripture is not true.

Since no actual evidence has been found which contradicts scripture this verse is a recipe for increasing your level of knowledge. Basically you test everything against scripture.

As far as Rhea’s assertions: Only a very small section of human wisdom and intellect is rejected. Wisdom and intellect in themselves are not condemned.

I do have to admit, though, that an implied command not to question scripture is consistent with this passage. It’s certainly not the main point, but I can’t rule it out.

Thanks for the interesting post.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Calzaer,

Yes. What He desires (as in emotions) is not the same thing as the perfect plan He is bringing about. Luke 13:34 for example.

Fortunate in the sense that God pursued me until I listened.

God is the only being in the universe for whom self adoration is a virtue. He is the infinitely desirable object. Desiring anything more than God is a character flaw ... even for God.

Respectfully,

Christian

Calzaer

That doesn't make any sense. God desires alot more than himself. He desires us, in a sort of angry abusive-spouse kinda way (First commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the father unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me").

That doesn't make any sense either. You're basically saying that it's his "perfect plan" to SEND PEOPLE TO HELL.