(May 5, 2012 at 4:31 am)Ryft Wrote: Sorry, who easily dismissed what forebears and their beliefs? Are you raising some kind of criticism of Walton and his work? I am lost here.
That depends. Are you claiming that Walton's view of the creation of a temple is what was understood by those most intimately associated with the writing of genesis.
The distinction between function and material seems to be a new interpretation which discards all previous christian theology over the last 1000 years. It seems remarkably simple to dismiss the christian scholars with "They're wrong, this is how it SHOULD be interpreted". Its a book.. not quantum mechanics, it shouldn't be this difficult, especially if we consider that most people consider that the deity wants to be believed in.
It appears, to the casual observer, that this is merely a wide ranging interpretation of Genesis, in order to exempt the ancient myth from scientific mockery.
(May 5, 2012 at 4:31 am)Ryft Wrote: Sorry, what heresy? What scientific advances? Could you give me a page reference if you are addressing either of Walton's books? If you are not addressing Walton or his thesis, then why was this addressed to me?
The "ancients" to give them a broad description, knew nothing about the cosmos, the age of the earth, geology, and the wide range of information which tells us how mind-blowingly old this universe and world really is. Each and every step towards a knowledge of this world set the bible further and further away from reality.
Walton's views take into account all these advances once considered heresy. You're erudite enough to recognise at least Galileo's "heresies" but great number of things we know about the universe was considered heresy at some time, now absorbed by apologists.
At least they are taking into account, that if the natural world contradicts your faith, you should amend your faith, because the natural world is not for changing.
But on a certain level, its seems to cheapen, and dismiss some great christian thinkers through the ages.
While I'm sure its an impressive work, it can more or less be summarised by the old "It's symbolic" point of view, rather than claims of biblical literalism.
(May 5, 2012 at 4:31 am)Ryft Wrote: Where did Walton say that God had a need which ceremony gratified?
You did. If you are representing Waltons view, I can only respond to your own statements of clarity regarding them.
Ryft Wrote:...the ceremony ushers in the creation of the cosmos as temple over a seven-day period culminating with God coming to rest in it
The usage of the word Ceremony leads inevitably to gratification through ritual.
You will have to bear in mind, that I am not in a position to interpret ceremony in any other way than a formal dictionary way, it confuses me when christian apologists start using well known words in ways that don't conform to standard definition.
Ceremony itself is a prescribed function, created by ritual or convention, which would create the question, whom prescribed it, and if the obvious answer is God, then we come to self-gratification inevitably.
(May 5, 2012 at 4:31 am)Ryft Wrote: Um... how so? Evolution happens at the level of species populations, not individuals. It's one thing to say there is no scientific evidence for 900-year-old men, but you said evolution does not allow it.
I assume we are working from the same premise that man evolved in the way that is at least partially understood.
The claim for ancient men must therefore be taken in context of the lifespan of the human species.
While I'm willing to accept the possibility that a mutation could maybe alter an "anti-aging" gene, the possibility seems remote given modern understanding of how aging works, and why we die of old age.
Its not a question of no evidence, but evolutionary theory does not take into (unlike what creationists seem to spout) instant macro-evolution.
We know from investigations into fossilized proto-human teeth that early man lived a "live fast and die young" type existence.
The existence of a modern man whom could live for hundreds of years would be a substantial blow to the theory of evolution.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
