wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> easy >> Riddle from bible...(math)
        
(Message started by: icon on Apr 28th, 2007, 10:11pm)
Title: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by icon on Apr 28th, 2007, 10:11pm
(i searched, but couldn't find this on the forum, maybe i'm blind)?

anyway, oldie but goodie:)

this answer appeared in bible (when you find it, you can tell me where)


what is the only number that if you CUBE each of it's digits, the SUM of those digits will equal that number

0,1,-1 are not allowed:)

this has 4 possible answers but only 1 qualifies for bible part
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on Apr 29th, 2007, 1:44am
[hide]13 + 53 + 33 = 153 [/hide]  

Cubits? No:
"Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, [hide]an hundred and fifty and three:[/hide] and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken". -King James Bible, John 21:11
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Grimbal on Apr 29th, 2007, 3:40am
I found 2 others with pencil and paper: [hide] 407 and 370 [/hide]

My computer revealed one more: [hide] 371 [/hide].  Silly, I should have found that one.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by icon on Apr 29th, 2007, 9:01am
good, i told ya it was easy:)
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on Apr 29th, 2007, 10:00am
The reference to the number of fish is quite interesting. In the passage John is recounting an event after Jesus' resurrection. A group of disciples that were professional fishermen, including Peter, had been out fishing all night and caught nothing. As they were returning a stranger stood on the shore and told them to cast their nets over the right side of the boat. After a little persuasion they obliged and immediately the nets filled to overflowing: one-hundred and fifty-three fish in all.

Lots of people have speculated on the reason that John goes on to mention the number 153, and why not just leave it as a net full of large fish?

One interesting interpretation relates to the fact that 153 is the 17th triangle number. Today many people fear 13, but have no knowledge of why. The origin is thought to relate back to there being thirteen people at the table at the last supper, one of which was a betrayer. Hence it became unlucky to entertain with thirteen people, and over time an irrational, and often foundationless, aversion to thirteen has developed; Friday 13th probably stems from this combined with Friday being the day that Jesus was crucified: ironically, Good Friday.

However, during Jesus' days the number 17 evoked feelings of dread, awe, and wonder among citizens. The origin, which was undoubtedly lost on the average pleb, related to 17 lying midway between the only two integral values for which the perimeter and area of a rectangle are equal: 4 by 4 square and 3 by 6 oblong. Given the disciples knew a thing or two about fishing and they had failed all night to catch anything, you could imagine their initial reaction to a stranger telling them to throw the nets in the sea so close to shore. Yet imagine their reaction when the nets filled almost to bursting. John goes on in verse 12 to explain that they immediately recognised Jesus. I suspect they would have been filled with feelings that were associated with 17 and quite possibly John was wishing to communicate this subtly.


On this note, and I'd *really* appreciate any knowledge that anyone might have in this respect. I recall many years ago seeing a painting of a boat hauling a triangle arrangement of fish from the sea below; one-hundred and fifty-three fish in all. Does anyone know the artist or have any links/references to it?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2007, 1:23pm
Wikiepedia has a bit more on the subject.. No mention of a painting though..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Slartibartfast on Apr 29th, 2007, 3:25pm

on 04/29/07 at 10:00:54, Sir Col wrote:
Friday 13th probably stems from this combined with Friday being the day that Jesus was crucified: ironically, Good Friday.


I once read in an article about th Knights Templar that superstitions about the number 13 stem from Philip IV surprising and massacring them on Friday, October 13, 1307. It could be wrong, just thought I'd give my two cents.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on Apr 29th, 2007, 3:32pm
Can we say "Much ado about nothing"?

A much simpler reason for John to mention the number is that he was a fisherman, and wanted his audience to understand that this was a phenomenal catch, so he reports the actual size. Like most people skilled in a particular trade, he doesn't consider that this number is nearly meaningless to those who were not familiar with the fishing profession - particularly as practiced on the Sea of Galilee in the first century.

Luke, who mentions the other phenomenal catch in the New Testament, was a physician and scholar. To him, the number of fish in the catch had not much more meaning than it does for you and I, so he relies on other means to indicate how large that one was. Also, Luke is reporting his incident 2nd or 3rd hand, while John is was present for his. Luke's incident takes place early in the ministry of Jesus, when even his followers were still unsure of who he was and what he was about. John's takes place after the resurrection of Jesus. It is possible that Luke was never even given a number, while John has strong reasons to have his incident sketched indelibly on his mind.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on Apr 30th, 2007, 12:09am

on 04/29/07 at 15:32:32, Icarus wrote:
Can we say "Much ado about nothing"?

Quite possibly, and I am certainly not a numerologist. However, of all the New Testament writers I could believe it with John. Between his "kata" (according to), his three letters, and the Apocolypse it is among his writings that the most subtle constructs (from a Greek translation perspective) and use of "esoteric" numbers are observed (seven heads with ten horns, the one-hundred and forty-four thousand, the number of the beast, and so on). I agree with your point about him being a fisherman, but he could have just said over one-hundred or about one-hundred and fifty fish, yet he was quite specific. He certainly wouldn't have mentioned that number precisely if it were not the actual number of fish. Is there anything in it? We beleive that the scriptures are God breathed, so if there is anything in it did John even know? Or, as you say, is it much ado about nothing?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on Apr 30th, 2007, 1:40am

on 04/30/07 at 00:09:30, Sir Col wrote:
He certainly wouldn't have mentioned that number precisely if it were not the actual number of fish.
Why not? If it is symbolism for something, it makes a lot of sense he would. If there were only, say, 132 fish, and the actual number isn't important, wouldn't it make sense to put in 153 instead if that adds an extra layer of meaning for those that know the symbolism?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on Apr 30th, 2007, 2:14am
Sorry, I was indulging my own beliefs: the Bible is the infallible inerrant word of God. Consequently I believe that if a specific number is mentioned then it was either accurate but has no further significance or it is accurate and has some additional significance. I don't believe that any of the writers would intentionally invent facts, even if it were to convey some deeper symbolism. I believe that God would have ensured that nature complied; anything else would undermine my beliefs in the authority of the word and the sovereignty of God. And as mentioned in my previous post I personally doubt that there is absolutely no extra significance as I don't believe that any part of the Bible is unnecessarily redundant. However, I do concede that the extent of the significance of the number is unclear, and perhaps will remain so.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on Apr 30th, 2007, 2:48am
Erm, not to get argumentative, but isn't "infallible inerrant word of god" taking it a bit far, in general at least, considering the bible makes pi out to be 3? And nevermind genesis. It has to allow for some approximation, and importantly the understanding of people at that time.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 30th, 2007, 4:14am

on 04/30/07 at 02:48:55, towr wrote:
Erm, not to get argumentative, but isn't "infallible inerrant word of god" taking it a bit far, in general at least, considering the bible makes pi out to be 3?


So, towr, you're saying you don't believe the Bible as the infallible inerrant word of god ? I just wanted to make sure, since I have yet to meet a Christian who confess to that..

On another note, since we are talking about numbers from the Bible, how many days did Jesus spent in his sepulchre, before his resurrection ?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Grimbal on Apr 30th, 2007, 4:18am
Maybe the numerous copyists and translators who brought the infallible word of God to us can be blamed for a few inconsistencies.  Maybe the 153 was originally just a page number that was included in the text by mistake.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 30th, 2007, 4:32am

on 04/30/07 at 04:18:32, Grimbal wrote:
 Maybe the 153 was originally just a page number that was included in the text by mistake.


You don't seriously believe that, do you Grimby ?? I refuse to believe God would let His word be played around like that..
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on Apr 30th, 2007, 4:51am

on 04/30/07 at 04:32:25, JiNbOtAk wrote:
I refuse to believe God would let His word be played around like that..

But it's a useful get-out-of-jail card if the infallible, inerrant, unimpeachable, apodictic Word appears to claim, for example, that http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/pi.gif = 3 or the world was created 77 generations before Jesus.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on Apr 30th, 2007, 5:43am

on 04/30/07 at 04:14:12, JiNbOtAk wrote:
So, towr, you're saying you don't believe the Bible as the infallible inerrant word of god ? I just wanted to make sure, since I have yet to meet a Christian who confess to that..
In as much as I consider myself a Christian, I'd say the red line throughout the bible is god-inspired. However, the devil is in the detail (pun intended); I don't think it should overall be taken literally.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Miles on Apr 30th, 2007, 6:20am
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that 153 is also equal to 5! + 4! + 3! + 2! + 1!

Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on Apr 30th, 2007, 6:27am
JiNbOtAk, even among those of us who accept that the Bible is indeed the inerrant, infallible Word of God, there is considerable difference of opinion as to exactly what that means and how it is applied.  Almost all Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in its essential message -- "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." [Acts 16:31]  Beyond that, Christian belief runs the full spectrum, from people who believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days a little over 6000 years ago, to those who believe that the whole Bible is little more than a parable -- a story to illustrate a point, whose literal truth or otherwise is beside the point entirely.

For myself, I tend to fall somewhere near the middle.  Jesus himself taught extensively using parables, and it seems to me that to insist that every word of the Bible represents literal historical truth seems a bit questionable.  I'm perfectly comfortable viewing Genesis and Revelation and the early portions of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, etc. in that light -- they needn't be literally true to make their point.  On the other hand, I also believe something is lost if Jesus is seen as anything less than an actual historical literal man who was: "conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died and was buried," [Apostle's Creed] and was then bodily resurrected by God on the third day (of his death, not since his death).

I guess my personal view doesn't speak to whether the count of 153 fish is a literal truth or merely a convenient, illustrative figure -- I don't have a problem with either interpretation.  As for pi, I'd just like to note that 3 is indeed a reasonable approximation to pi -- within better than 5% -- probably at least as accurate as the (completely non-standardized) cubits and rods and spans and handsbreadths used for measurements at the time...

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on Apr 30th, 2007, 12:22pm

on 04/30/07 at 06:20:39, Miles wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that 153 is also equal to 5! + 4! + 3! + 2! + 1!

Well, there are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who cannot.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by AllThatRemains on Apr 30th, 2007, 1:26pm

on 04/30/07 at 12:22:33, ThudanBlunder wrote:
Well, there are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who cannot.

and the third?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on Apr 30th, 2007, 1:31pm

on 04/30/07 at 13:26:21, AllThatRemains wrote:
and the third?
The third kind are those that miss the punchlines to jokes  ::)
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by AllThatRemains on Apr 30th, 2007, 1:51pm

on 04/30/07 at 13:31:49, towr wrote:
The third kind are those that miss the punchlines to jokes  ::)

LOL i just got that  ;D

Shucks i feel stoopyd
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on Apr 30th, 2007, 6:42pm
Wow. Another theological discussion already. Usually we don't delve into religion so much around here.

(Sir Col - I didn't mean to imply that I thought you personally were making a big deal out of nothing, but that the article in towr's link has entire castles built on nothing but hot air. I really should of been more careful is specifying what I was replying to.)

While I agree, in my religious faith, with Sir Col that the Bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God, I also agree with towr, at least as far as needing to approach this concept with skepticism. There are a number of issues that tend to be overlooked when christians make this claim. Foremost of all is:

"Which Bible?"

By this, I do not mean which ancient writings should be considered part of the canon (the books of the Bible). That is well-enough answered by the various denominations - though the answer differs depending on who you talk to. (Almost everyone agrees on the New Testament. There is some disagreement between Orthodox, Catholic, and most Protestant groups about whether certain books and book portions should be included in the Old Testament. The disputed writings deal almost entirely with the time between the Babylonian captivity and the coming of Christ. Generally, everyone accepts them as mostly historical, but they disagree on whether they are inspired and should be considered scripture.)

What I mean by "which Bible?" is the fact that for any chosen canon, there are many different variations of the Bible. There are multitudes of translations, both modern and ancient. Even within the same translation there are texts with different readings of the same verses. Oddly, there are a significant number of people in the U.S.A. that think that the King James Bible is the inspired word of God, and all other translations are the work of the devil :o. To me this idea is completely indefensible, yet I have had to deal with people who have been confused by others making this claim (a mentally handicapped friend, recently). I interpret the idea of "infallible inerrancy" to apply only to the documents as originally written. Any other interpretation has to explain the variations, or why a particular variation, such as the KJV, should be considered inerrant. I have yet to hear any advocates of other positions make an attempt at explaining this.

So then, accept if you will the idea that the original documents were inspired by God, that they in that original form were entirely accurate. How close is what we have today to the original? For the New Testament, we can answer this to good accuracy. The N.T. is far and again the most thoroughly attested of all ancient documents. There are only about 300 verses whose authentic reading is in any reasonable doubt, and none of those is the sole source for any doctrine. For the Old Testament, things are not nearly as well established, but we can be reasonably sure that we know how it read in the first century AD. Earlier than that, though, and the evidence dries up. There is strong internal evidence though that the book of Genesis really was written at the time of Abraham - it describes cultural practices that were no longer known 300 years later (and were only rediscovered by archaeologists in the last century or two). But to what extent our current versions match that original ancient version, we have no way of telling.

So jews, christians, and muslims must trust in God that the versions of the Old Testament we have now are sufficient underpinnings for our beliefs.

Once we get past the question of veracity of the modern manuscripts to the originals, we next run into the issue of translation. No translation is ever capable of being completely accurate. Every translation will lose connotations that were in the original, and will gain unintended ones in the translated versions. This applies not only to translations between different languages, but also to differences within the language between that as used by the original author, and that used by the reader. Anyone who has read the King James Version knows that the English language has undergone significant changes since it was created.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on Apr 30th, 2007, 7:35pm
Finally, we arrive at the question of how to interpret the wording. There are some who will look at the most poetic of images and demand they be literally true. In addition to violating common sense, this often leads to Bible verses being in direct contradiction to each other. Yet flat-earthers, and those who believe that the sun revolves around the earth exist. I have actually met an educated person who beleived the latter (I never found out if he was a flat-earther as well).

Towr's example of "http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/pi.gif= 3" is an excellent counter to those who would attempt such a strict interpretation. For those who are not familiar with it, in two places in the Bible a round bronze basin in the Temple courtyard is described as being "10 cubits in diameter, and 30 cubits in circumference". Since the ratio of circumference to diameter is http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/pi.gif, this provides a value of 3 for http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/pi.gif.

I see five approaches to explaining this:
  • A traditional one is that 30 cubits is the inside circumference, while 10 cubits is the outside diameter. I have never found this one satisfying. The inside circumference is a hard measure to take. The outside circumference can be measured simply by taking a rope around the thing and then measuring the rope, but the inside circumference requires much greater care. To me this just makes the inside circumference an unnatural choice. Still, they may have chosen it to get nice numbers.
  • The numbers are rounded to the nearest full cubit. Instead 10 cubits, the diameter was actually something closer to 9.7 cubits, say. Then the circumference would be about 30.47 cubits, which rounds down to 30. This idea of "going to the nearest whole value" is as old as measurement itself, as it is intrinsic in any measurement of a continuous quantity. The weakness in this idea is that they had smaller units than cubits available, and other measurements in the same text make use of them, mixed with cubits. There seems to be no reason for them not to be used here.
  • Cubits are an inexact measurement. By definition, a cubit is the distance from your elbow to the tip of your middle finger when hand and fingers are outstretched straight with the arm. Obviously this distance differs from person to person. Maybe somebody with a longer arm measured the circumference while a shorter arm measured the diameter. The problem with this explanation is that ancient people were not imbeciles. They were great architects. They had to know about the problems of differing measures. While they didn't have a universally defined cubit, you can bet that each building project had a well-defined one that was used by everyone involved.
  • The value was rounded to 3 because 3 is a religiously significant number. The problem with this idea is that they don't say "3". They say "10" and "30". 3 is only an inference logic geeks pull out of the verse. Also, there are other measurements around that do not seem to have been adjusted to give desired ratios. Why mess with this one only?
  • Someone made up the whole thing, and was not educated enough to know that the circumference isn't 3 times the diameter. Again, this one assumes that ancient people are imbecilic. 22/7 as a value for http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/pi.gifhad been in use for hundreds of years in the middle east by the time that the Temple was built. Anyone with enough education to pull off the rest of this passage is unlikely to have been so ignorant as to make this mistake. Besides which, there is sufficient archaeological evidence to say that the temple existed, and if it existed, then so should its furnishings, including the basin. While lie about its size?


Which one, if any, is accurate? I don't know. I am sure there are other possibilities, as well, but these are the ones I am aware of.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by icon on May 1st, 2007, 12:54am
oh, what did i start!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it was a simply riddle i heard a math professor tell another during lunch while i was taking a test in the next room
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 1st, 2007, 2:54am

on 05/01/07 at 00:54:21, icon wrote:
oh, what did i start!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, perhaps the discussion should be continued elsewhere (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=truth;action=display;num=1074532038;start=69#69).
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on May 1st, 2007, 4:41pm
Actually, since the riddle itself is answered, I see no reason why the discussion shouldn't be allowed to go wherever it will.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 1st, 2007, 4:56pm

on 05/01/07 at 16:41:18, Icarus wrote:
Actually, since the riddle itself is answered, I see no reason why the discussion shouldn't be allowed to go wherever it will.

Even in Easy?   :)
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on May 2nd, 2007, 12:18am
I would agree with Icarus. Along with his point that this riddle has been solved and anything else we add is not disturbing the flow, the other thread is a more "religious" debate. This, on the other hand, has evolved into a discussion relating to the integrity of the Bible.

On the question of the accuracy of pi, I would like to make another suggestion...

The reference appears twice in the Bible: 1 Kings 7 and 2 Chronickles 4. I'll quote the Kings version (verse 23):

"It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference."

However, if we read on a little you will note in verse 26:

"Its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily."

So the container is cylinderical with a brim extending outwards like the skirt of a bell or, as the verse actually says, like a lily. In other words, the main section had a circumference of 30 cubits, but the rim, which is wider than the main section, has a width of 10 cubits. It works for me.

As for creation, and I expect both mockery and loss of any morsels of crediblity I might have previously held, but I do believe in the literal creation in six days; plus the creation of the day of rest. I also believe in the age of mankind as chronicled in the genealogy of Jesus.
*places can/tin opener down and squirms as the first worm wiggles free*
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by BNC on May 2nd, 2007, 1:51am
I wonder, Sir Col: What is your position with regards to the scientific explanations / theorems / measurements? I mean things (which I'm sure you're very familiar with) like carbon dating, size of the universe, fossils etc., that seem to contradict the biblical timeline.

Some religious explanations I have previously heard go something like "a god who could create the world in six days could easily craft things to look like they're much older. We cannot, with our feeble human mind, fathom the reason." But to me, it seems less than satisfactory (given my own views of the matter, of course).

I just wonder how you stand on it.

<Carefully sidesteps to avoid crushing the wiggling worms>
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 2nd, 2007, 2:06am

on 05/02/07 at 00:18:59, Sir Col wrote:
As for creation, and I expect both mockery and loss of any morsels of crediblity I might have previously held, but I do believe in the literal creation in six days; plus the creation of the day of rest. I also believe in the age of mankind as chronicled in the genealogy of Jesus.

Thus neatly demonstating the difference between 'verifiable' and 'certifiable'.  ;D
~ cruelly crushing underfoot half of the first worm ~
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 2nd, 2007, 6:17am
No mockery from me, Sir Col, despite my ... strong ... disagreement.  Apart from occasional teasing, I reserve my mockery for those who hold their beliefs and opinions unthinkingly and unexamined, and from what I've read from you here and elsewhere (http://projecteuler.net/), I would find it difficult to put you in that camp.  Anyone who has taken the time and effort to come to their own conclusions and is willing to state those conclusions publicly has my respect, no matter my disagreement.

That said, I find I follow in the steps of my grandfather -- a geologist and co-author of a book on Christian understanding of evolution -- who said: both the Creation and the Bible are God's revelation to his people -- different forms of the same message.  If both are understood correctly there should be no conflict.

In that context I find it much more consistent with my understanding of the rest of God's revelation of himself to us to believe that the Bible is informing us through parable in Genesis, than that God would create a universe which appears on every scale to be much older than He tells us it is.  Nowhere in the Bible do I find any evidence of God being deceitful, or even intentionally ambiguous.  As I've said elsewhere, I approach the Bible with the assumption that God is trying to be clear, not esoteric.  On the other side, I'm willing to admit that it's possible that there's some gross human misunderstanding of the universe, but I find myself convinced that the preponderance of evidence is against a misunderstanding sufficiently fundamental to allow the reconciliation of scientific understanding and a 6000-year old Earth.

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by azalia on May 2nd, 2007, 6:53am
I, too, believe Genesis to be literal history
1. Because it's presented as history
2. Because Jesus cited it as history (Matt 19:4)
3.  Because, theologically, to discard creation is to discard the fall into sin. Then sickness, suffering and death are not, as the Bible teaches, the result and the curse of sin but natural.

As for God being deceitful by making the earth look old, it only fools those who don't trust God.
Hebrews 11 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
God didn't want to give us proof that he's our Father; he says Trust me. And he gave us a world that doesn't scream "Creation" but it does whisper it.
As for God never being "deceitful or intentionally ambiguous," God put a lying spirit in the mouths of Zedekiah's prophets to lead him astray (I kings 22:23). Or how about 2 Kings 3, where God told Elisha to dig ditches around the city; God filled the ditches with water so that when the sun rose the water would look red like blood, and the enemy army would assume everyone was dead. God is not deceitful, but sometimes his purposes are served when those who don't trust him believe a lie.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 2nd, 2007, 7:38am
That's that settled then.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by BNC on May 2nd, 2007, 7:46am

on 05/02/07 at 06:53:31, azalia wrote:
I, too, believe Genesis to be literal history
1. Because it's presented as history
2. Because Jesus cited it as history (Matt 19:4)
3.  Because, theologically, to discard creation is to discard the fall into sin. Then sickness, suffering and death are not, as the Bible teaches, the result and the curse of sin but natural.


Errr....
So, you beleive the bible as literal truth because:
1. It says so itself
2. It says so even twice
3. It's more comforting for you to believe so.

Hmmmm....  :-X
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by azalia on May 2nd, 2007, 8:16am
No, I was only responding to the question of whether Genesis is history or parable.
I have one set of reasons why I believe in God.
I have another set of reasons why I believe the Bible is God's Word.
I have another set of reasons why I interpret the Bible in the way that I do.
And I have another set of reasons why I'm not going to go into any of my reasons in this forum.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 2nd, 2007, 8:29am

on 05/02/07 at 08:16:20, azalia wrote:
I have one set of reasons why I believe in God.
I have another set of reasons why I believe the Bible is God's Word.
I have another set of reasons why I interpret the Bible in the way that I do.

I suspect they are sets that contain themselves.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 2nd, 2007, 8:30am

on 05/02/07 at 06:53:31, azalia wrote:
1. Because it's presented as history

No, it's presented as a story.  One with a striking similarity to many other stories of how the world began, some of which were already ancient (and well-known) by the time of Moses.  It seems very likely that the Israelites would have understood -- and been intended to understand -- the Creation story in that context.  The important part to them would have been the what, not the how of the story: that God created everything, and created us specially to have a relationship with Him; that when He created the world it was good; that, with Satan's help, we chose the "knowledge of good and evil" over the continuing presence of God.


Quote:
2. Because Jesus cited it as history (Matt 19:4)

Jesus cited the fact that God created us with gender in the context of a discussion on marriage.  He cited creation as fact, not the account as literal history.  Do you also believe that when Jesus said "There was a man who had two sons" in Matthew 21:28 that there actually was a historical man who had those two sons?


Quote:
3.  Because, theologically, to discard creation is to discard the fall into sin. Then sickness, suffering and death are not, as the Bible teaches, the result and the curse of sin but natural.

I agree -- the what of Genesis is one of the irreducible pillars of my faith -- but I don't see that viewing the creation account in Genesis as a story meant to make the important points memorable, rather than as a literal historical documentary, takes anything away from it theologically.  It doesn't matter to me how God created the universe and us within it, just that He did.


Quote:
Hebrews 11 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

Again, I agree with you, but don't see that my reading of Genesis takes anything away.


Quote:
God didn't want to give us proof that he's our Father; he says Trust me. And he gave us a world that doesn't scream "Creation" but it does whisper it.

But it "screams" age to anyone with a rational understanding of geology, chemistry, physics, climatology, astronomy -- hundreds, thousands of more specialized fields -- any basic understanding of scientific practice.  There are literally millions of experimental results which only make logical sense in the context of a universe multiple-billions of years old; and millions of predictions based on that theory which have been born out by experiment.

I've been told before by other believers in a literal Genesis that my faith in God needs to be stronger than my faith in science. I actually think that's a true statement, but I don't feel that they need necessarily be in conflict!  As Galileo famously stated: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Grimbal on May 2nd, 2007, 9:54am

on 05/02/07 at 06:53:31, azalia wrote:
3.  Because, theologically, to discard creation is to discard the fall into sin. Then sickness, suffering and death are not, as the Bible teaches, the result and the curse of sin but natural.

And what's wrong with the idea that sickness, suffering and death are natural?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on May 2nd, 2007, 3:49pm
Interestingly, Grimbal, this point is precisely why I have to take the stand I do. I believe that the fall of man, the original sin, was a key turning point in the history of mankind. It was at that moment that death entered the world. Prior to it there was no death, suffering, pain, disease, or bloodshed; these things are the consequence of the original sin. Now if Adam evolved from other lifeforms then it would mean that death and suffering existed before man first sinned. This seems to be a contradiction and I cannot find a consistent or coherent escape from this; other version of events seem to require some compromise in the essential truths of the drama of redeeming history.

I believe that I do hold plausible arguments on the contested issues I face in taking a creationist stance, and if anyone is interested I will gladly share them as and when they arise. I certainly would not do them justice by trying to summarise them all in one post.

Also I am absolutely not dogmatic in my views and I am always open to having my ideas refined by critical thinkers. So to start with I'd be interested to know if any of the Christians here have managed to find a way of explaining the apparent paradox of death existing before death existed.

Here is an amusing illustration I found that communicates the point...
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 2nd, 2007, 5:39pm
If (literal, physical) death (of animals, at least -- plants were explicitly given as food) was absent from the Creation prior to the Fall, what, then, was the purpose of the tree of life?  Even apart from its name, Gen. 3:22 clearly says that eating of its fruit would cause one to live forever -- and without eating?  And if, as Gen. 2:19 says, God had already, before creating Eve, created all the birds and fish and animals, what of carnivores?

In general, I don't, myself, have a problem viewing the "natural" cycle of life, death and renewal as still being "very good" pre-Fall.  Genesis makes it clear that we humans are specially set apart in the eyes of God -- I tend to feel that perhaps we only brought about our own literal, physical death in the Fall, and destroyed the perfect balance of the rest of Creation, and perhaps most importantly mucked up our relationships with God.

I guess when pressed I view the "drama of redeeming history" as primarily about our relationship, personally and as a people, to God, and eternal bodily life as being secondary -- a nice consequence of an eternal relationship. And I fully realize that view has its own problems and inconsistencies -- but when the Scripture itself appears to be internally inconsistent in places (Cain's wife has to come into this discussion at some point, right? ;)), I'm OK with eventually getting to a point where I have to say "I just don't know what that verse is trying to say, but taken as a whole this way makes more sense to me."

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on May 2nd, 2007, 7:50pm
Where do I stand in this?

Shall I join Sir Col and azalia in a bold statement of faith in Biblical infallibility, as most in my church do?

Shall I join SMQ and others who claim that the first chapters of Genesis are a parable, not a history, where I have the support of so much scientific activity?

Here is my view: I don't know. I have issues with both positions. There is so much - beyond any evolutionary concerns - that suggests an age of more than 6000 years that I am hard-pressed to accept such a short period. (Though I do hold a number of reservations about the basis for the longer times of evolutionary theory as well.) On the other hand, Genesis is not offered in the Bible as a story. It reads like a history, and it is treated throughout in exactly that fashion. To consider it only a story requires certain accommodations of my faith that do not align with my personal experience. One way I try to address this issue is to look for other interpretations than just these two. But I do not have one that I favor.

But in the end, I also believe that it does not truly matter what I think or what you think about how this universe and humanity came to be. Even if I were to solve this riddle and discover irrefutably the truth of creation, I would stand before God a sinner, saved only by the grace of his Son Jesus. And my salvation requires only my trust in Him, not that I have all my doctrinal ponies in a row.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by BNC on May 3rd, 2007, 12:02am

on 05/02/07 at 15:49:22, Sir Col wrote:
Now if Adam evolved from other lifeforms then it would mean that death and suffering existed before man first sinned. This seems to be a contradiction and I cannot find a consistent or coherent escape from this;

Sir Col, do you mind expanding on the issue of this contradiction?
The only contradiction I can see is that if you have an a-priori assumption that the bible (as you beleive in it) is true, than it condradicts a view that condradicts the bibilical story...
But, in my book, that's circular reasoning. I assume you have a different view, which I will be glad to learn.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by BNC on May 3rd, 2007, 12:05am

on 05/02/07 at 19:50:34, Icarus wrote:
And my salvation requires only my trust in Him, not that I have all my doctrinal ponies in a row.


A bit of a highjack... does it mean you beleive a person's actions mean nothing at all, only that person's strust in god / Jesus?

Because, if you do, your version of heaven just may be a place I'd rather avoid.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 3rd, 2007, 6:52am

on 05/03/07 at 00:05:09, BNC wrote:
A bit of a highjack... does it mean you beleive a person's actions mean nothing at all, only that person's strust in god / Jesus?

I of course wouldn't attempt to answer for Icarus, but for myself: essentially yes.  To seriously oversimplify a vast body of theology and tradition: a person's actions are reflective of their faith (Galatians 5:22-23, et al.), and in the end we will all be held accountable for what we've done in this life (Revelation 20:12, et al.); but the only standard of a perfect God is perfection, and we will all fall far short of that mark (Romans 3:23, et al.).  It is only through our acceptance of Jesus' payment of that debt on our behalf that we can be made right with God (Ephesians 2:8, et al.). The flip-side being that if we truly believe ourselves in Jesus' debt for our very lives, we owe Him our best effort at living those lives the way He asks -- faith without works is dead (James 2:26, et al.).

For a more in-depth treatment see for instance the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/pccujnt4.htm) prepared by the Lutheran and Catholic Churches.

As to the question of Genesis as history or just story, I admit I don't find "my" position entirely satisfying -- I, too, as still looking for a better reconciliation of what the scientific evidence appears to be telling us with what Scripture appears to be telling us -- but so far I have found the idea of Genesis as a cultural creation story (similar to and drawing from the creation stories of other contemporary cultures, but divinely inspired by God for His people to teach them the essential truths of His purpose in creation and redemption) more resonant with my experience of God, His scripture, and His creation than any alternative I've examined.

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by rmsgrey on May 3rd, 2007, 7:30am
Is death bad?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on May 3rd, 2007, 8:52am
I cry for God. And I don't even always believe in Him.
My image of God is one of Fairness and Love. I cannot reconcile that with eternal damnation and inherited sin; and I need not.
I don't think God would punish someone for something they did before they could tell right from wrong; let alone punish every generation to come. Nor do I believe that God would care much whether one believed in something that can easily be perceived as nothing but a story. Much moreso I believe that he cares about the character, and behaviour, of us, his Children. And that he hopes for us to be the best we can be -- but at the same time does not require more of us than we can be.
And so on.

And in case you're wondering where 'sickness, suffering and death' leaves a fair, loving God; I would say that, with sadness in his heart, it is because we need it to be human. We'd have few redeeming qualities if not for how we deal with adversity; kittens beat us paws down on cuteness.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 3rd, 2007, 9:58am

on 05/03/07 at 08:52:10, towr wrote:
And in case you're wondering where 'sickness, suffering and death' leaves a fair, loving God; I would say that, with sadness in his heart, it is because we need it to be human. We'd have few redeeming qualities if not for how we deal with adversity; kittens beat us paws down on cuteness.

I believe that suffering, sickness, etc. have no more absolute reality than a bad dream. Just as when we experience such a dream, suffer in a sense, and wake to realize it wasn't real, so, when our hearts are pure, our minds are still, and we have enough grace to experience 'Godness', all such questions melt away before His transcendental majesty.  
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 3rd, 2007, 10:57am
Well, as a recovering Calvinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism), I'll take a stab at explaining (no, there is too much; let me sum up) my understanding of the "big picture," with the caveat that I'm speaking for no one but myself and am probably wrong on several points, some of them important...


God has a plan for a perfect creation: one in which suffering and pain and death -- at least for those creatures with the capacity to make moral decisions and have a meaningful relationship with God -- is unnecessary.  Since He wants to have a meaningful relationship with us, he can't just make us mindless automatons, we have to have free will (in some form) for it to count.  That means that God's perfect plan relies on us not screwing it up.

He tried it once the easy way -- put us in a perfect creation and said: "just trust me."  We failed, breaking our relationship with God and destroying the delicate balance of the rest of the world through our selfishness.  The sorry state of the world -- the fallenness of all creation -- is our own dang fault.  And before judging Adam and Eve harshly or complaining that we're bearing the consequences of their choice, we need to ask ourselves honestly if we would have done any better in their place.  I know that I wouldn't have.

Every one of us has, at some point in our lives, done something to further the brokenness of the world, to make it a worse place rather than a better one, even when we knew better.  That means that, as we are, we can't be a part of God's perfect plan -- we've proven that we'll just screw it up again.  That's the price God demands for our imperfection: exclusion from the perfect plan, separation from Him -- death.

That leaves the hard way.  

In order that there might be an opportunity for us, his children, to participate in the perfect plan, God sent his Son, a part of himself, to become one of us, to pay the price of death and separation from God in full for each and every one of us, to be the first and only human to never, not once, make the world worse instead of better -- even knowing that we would kill him, painfully, for his trouble.

By choosing to die in our place, even though he was wholly innocent, Jesus took all the crap in the world onto himself, and took it to the grave with him.  And because the price was now paid, God released Jesus from death, took him back into a relationship, gave him a place in the perfect plan, and promised he would do the same for any one of us who was willing to accept the debt, and to try to trust Him.

And there's the catch -- there's where eternal damnation, separation from God forever comes in -- some, perhaps even most people would rather do without God in their lives than be in His debt.  They would rather do things their way than trust that His perfect plan really is perfect.  I feel that those who end up in Hell will be there of their free will and informed choice, deciding that the price of perfection -- putting God's plan ahead of their own desire in everything -- is more than they're willing to pay.  God offers salvation freely to everyone, but you have to be willing to accept the terms of the debt -- otherwise you'll just screw up the perfect plan ... again.

Incidentally, that also gives my answer to why a loving God allows the present suffering of the world to continue: so that once we're accepted into the perfect plan we'll have a sufficient understanding of the consequences of our choices not to screw it up again.  That as many as possible might be saved.


... but maybe that's just me. :)

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on May 3rd, 2007, 11:24am
But isn't God supposedly omniscient? He would have known the 'perfect plan' would go awry; he knew we'd screw up. (Besides, everyone knows any plan relying on people not screwing up is doomed to fail ;))
It seems to me the whole path must have been planned (or foreseen, at least) and must have had its purpose. If the creation was perfect, it must still be.


It might be interesting to delve further into people's idea of hell and damnation. Is it 'merely' separation from God (which is self-inflicted, and something you can in principle redeem yourself from by turning back to God) Or do fire and brimstone, and devils poking you with sharp sticks, and eternal off-the-scale suffering, come in anywhere?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on May 3rd, 2007, 2:34pm
As a subscriber to reformed theology my beliefs are complex and could not even be fully outlined in several posts, but I shall make a brave, and maybe foolish, attempt to summarise some fundamental beliefs here. I'm sorry if it sounds a little like I'm preaching a "sermon", but there's no other way of communicating these key ideas in the traditional Christian faith. I suspect also that most of what I say will fail to address the deeply difficult questions already posed, but I hope you find it of some interest.


God is perfect in every way and in no other is found such beauty, splendour, power, grace, et cetera.
God delights in Himself more than anything else; otherwise something else would be more perfect and He would not be God.
God created mankind not out of any deficiency or need for fulfilment, rather an outpouring of His love.
We are created in His image, as a perfect God is only capable of creating something which reflects His glory. Hence man could not have been created any more perfectly.
This means, like it or not, we have a responsibility to reflect those magnificent attributes.
The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever; to place our desires elsewhere is idolatrous and a sin.
Adam was the most perfect man and is referred to as the ambassador. In other words, if any human was capable of getting it right, Adam was that man.
He rebelled against his design and delighted in something else. By entertaining other pleasures he chose death. It was pure free choice.
Augustine argued that Adam was posse peccare (capable of sinning) or posse non peccare (capable of not sinning).
The seed of man was from that first Adam infected with sin and we are now non posse non peccare (not capable of not sinning).
The "drama of redeeming history", which I mentioned before, and SMQ laid out beautifully, is the story leading to God's solution to the "problem".
God was never going to give up on us, otherwise, in His infinite knowledge, He would never have begun. He foreknew and planned the events of our history from all time. His escape plan was hatched from the beginning of time.
Jesus, sometimes referred to as the second Adam, lived that perfect sinless life and yet He chose to bear the sins of the world: past, present, and future. Like a sponge He absorbed everything that could be held against us and took it upon Himself.
The price of sin is death and Jesus paid that price.
Yet death could not hold Him, and He rose from the dead. If there were no resurrection then everything we believe would be worthless.
But Christ did rise and has laid hope before us so that whoever believes will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
That is, for those in Christ they are holy and blameless as all their sin was accounted for on the cross.
We look forward to the purging of this world when we shall rise with our new bodies into the new heaven and the new earth and we shall be non posse peccare (not capable of sinning).

This final restoration, marking the final chapter in the "drama of redeeming history", is the reason I believe that no sin could have existed before Adam. Otherwise I would have to believe that the future glory is marked with shadows of death and suffering. Yet in Revelation 21: 1-4, John writes:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."


To answer part of towr's question, most people object to Hell because they think that the punishment is disproportionate. However it has been suggested by a teacher and theologian, John Piper, that when we stand before God, He could ask three simple questions:

Was it not plain in nature that everything you had was a gift and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything?
Did not the judicial sentiment in your own heart always hold other people guilty when they lacked gratitude they should have had in response to a kindness you performed?
Has your life been filled with gratitude and trust towards Me in proportion to My generosity and authority?
Case closed.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on May 3rd, 2007, 3:07pm

on 05/03/07 at 14:34:57, Sir Col wrote:
To answer part of towr's question, most people object to Hell because they think that the punishment is disproportionate. However it has been suggested by a teacher and theologian, John Piper, that when we stand before God, He could ask three simple questions:

Was it not plain in nature that everything you had was a gift and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything?
Nope. Not really.
Besides, if it's a gift, why are there strings attached? And why does it suck so much so often?


Quote:
Did not the judicial sentiment in your own heart always hold other people guilty when they lacked gratitude they should have had in response to a kindness you performed?
Guilty of disappointing me, p[erhaps. Guilty to the point of deserving torture or even a beating; or anything beyond a stern talking to? No.
And if they can't recognize a kindness for what it is because they are in no fit mental state to do so, then, knowing that: how can I blame them at all?


Quote:
Has your life been filled with gratitude and trust towards Me in proportion to My generosity and authority?
Perhaps not; perhaps not even in proportion to the generosity and authority I perceived. But ever considered why?
Why do we feel so neglected?


Quote:
Case closed.
But what's the point in endless suffering without the possibility of redemption? Why not just remove the offenders from existence? That would be the merciful thing to do. And certainly God is more merciful than me.
He'd have every right to be disappointed, but that doesn't open the door for Child abuse. I'd be sorely disappointed in a God like that, and obviously I can't belief in a God I'd be disappointed in.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on May 3rd, 2007, 3:25pm

on 05/03/07 at 14:34:57, Sir Col wrote:
God delights in Himself more than anything else
That sounds ... rather vain. Not a pefect quality in people, and not imo in gods either.
Although it also make sense to delight in that which is most perfect, and if that's Him, then I find myself facing a paradox.
It'd be funny if God was self-depricating though :P I'd so love him for that. Gotta have a sense of humor and relativization.


Quote:
Hence man could not have been created any more perfectly.
Not more perfectly as man, but if man was created as God he'd be more perfect (but no longer man), right?


Well, overall I can see where you're coming from. Although it conflicts a bit with my own views, of course.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 3rd, 2007, 3:52pm

on 05/03/07 at 14:34:57, Sir Col wrote:
As a subscriber to reformed theology my beliefs are complex and could not even be fully outlined in several posts

Wonderful!  Brother, we really must get together sometime and have a schism! ;D

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on May 3rd, 2007, 3:56pm

on 05/03/07 at 15:25:00, towr wrote:
That sounds ... rather vain. Not a pefect quality in people, and not imo in gods either.

The word vanity comes from the Latin, vanitas, meaning untruthfulness, foolishness, empty pride. As a human, delighting purely in oneself or anythinig apart from God is the folly of a proud and deluded person; it is sinful. However, God is perfect and God is truth, so He must know His own perfection and must therefore delight in Himself. He is the source of all things perfect and He would be untrue to Himself to delight in anything apart from Himself. There is certainly no vanity (untruthfulness or foolishness) in this. And from this it is clear why God does not delight in us except when we reflect His own glory.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on May 3rd, 2007, 4:15pm

on 05/03/07 at 15:52:36, SMQ wrote:
Wonderful!  Brother, we really must get together sometime and have a schism! ;D

--SMQ

Indeed the "thinking man's Christianity" (a.k.a. reformed theology) rooted in a passion to  know and delight in God is a waning tradition. I weep at the sentimental, "God's my mate", self-seeking, "feel the truth" Christianity that has become mainstream today.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 3rd, 2007, 5:21pm
The downside being: you put three Reformed theologians in a room together, you'll have six new Reformed denominations -- at least one of which will have its own parochial school system, university and seminary -- by the time they come out...

Don't get me wrong, I've very much appreciated and benefited from the well-reasoned doctrinal rigor of growing up in a Reformed tradition, but the seemingly-inherent tendency to fragment drives me up a wall.  (From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches): A 1999 survey found 746 Reformed denominations worldwide.)

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on May 3rd, 2007, 7:31pm

on 05/03/07 at 00:05:09, BNC wrote:
A bit of a highjack... does it mean you beleive a person's actions mean nothing at all, only that person's strust in god / Jesus?

Because, if you do, your version of heaven just may be a place I'd rather avoid.


I'll go along pretty much with SMQ here. The christian is not saved because he is good. A christian is good because he is saved. We are sinners, lost until we accept God's salvation. The first and most important part of that salvation is forgiveness for the sins we have committed. His salvation is offered freely to any who will accept it. Once we have accepted it, then out of gratitude and love for God, we seek to change our lives with his help, to make our lives something pleasing to him.

Our salvation was earned entirely by Jesus, not by our own efforts. We do not need to become good to be saved. But once we have been saved, we will desire to become good (or increase in desire). And we will have his guidance and power to help.


on 05/03/07 at 08:52:10, towr wrote:
My image of God is one of Fairness and Love. I cannot reconcile that with eternal damnation and inherited sin; and I need not.


I don't believe in inherited sin either, not even the "original sin".  My beliefs on this put me in a minority of christians, I admit, but I do not see that the bible requires this idea. We suffer the ongoing consequences of that sin (i.e., death), but God does not hold us guilty of the sin itself. Rather, it is like the case of a man who sets fire to his house without realizing his son is inside. The son lives, but must live the rest of his life with the scars, though he is innocent of the crime.

Ezekiel 18 is a diatribe against the idea of inherited sin.


Quote:
I don't think God would punish someone for something they did before they could tell right from wrong; let alone punish every generation to come.


That is just it, isn't it? "Where there is no Law, there is no sin" Romans 4:15. God does not impugn sin to the ignorant. However, the bible also says that everyone has a conscience that guides them in knowing right from wrong, so no one of age can claim to be innocent of everything by way of ignorance.


Quote:
Nor do I believe that God would care much whether one believed in something that can easily be perceived as nothing but a story.


Thus my comment about it not mattering in the end what interpretation one follows for Genesis. This is a side issue which does not destroy my relationship with God if I get it wrong.


Quote:
Much moreso I believe that he cares about the character, and behaviour, of us, his Children. And that he hopes for us to be the best we can be -- but at the same time does not require more of us than we can be.


Indeed. But he loves us even when we don't have that character and accepts us before we develop it, in order that we may use his strength to help us in developing a good character. In the parable of the prodigal son, the father runs to greet the returning wayward son as soon as he sees him, and celebrates his return, even though the son has done nothing to redeem himself - other than returning. He does not require that the son first work off his debt. He does not require that the son do acts of penance. He has his son back, and that is all the father wants.

But I cannot agree with you on eternal damnation. Jesus was very plain in his teachings on the subject (which were quite extensive). God is a god of justice as well as love. He must punish those who reject goodness and choose to sin. And his perspective is different from ours. What may seem small to us is big in his eyes, and vice versa. Without the sacrifice of Jesus, we would all be lost.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Sir Col on May 4th, 2007, 12:09am
SQM, I agree - it is a tragedy that such divisions are found in a religion founded on unity. However, I make a distinction between my theology and denomination. That is, I subscribe to reformed theology but I was raised in the Anglican church, of which I still faithfully attend.

Icarus, in my understanding of original sin it is not so much that we're born guilty of a particular sin, rather we are born incapable of not sinning; we are born to rebel against our proper design and our hearts are hardened against God. To coin a slogan: "We're not sinners because we sin, we sin because we're sinners."
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by towr on May 4th, 2007, 3:31am

on 05/03/07 at 15:56:42, Sir Col wrote:
The word vanity comes from the Latin, vanitas, meaning untruthfulness, foolishness, empty pride.
Unsurprisingly I meant the modern meaning of the word ::) But luckily that hardly affects the rest of your argument. I'll ponder on it.


on 05/04/07 at 00:09:49, Sir Col wrote:
we are born to rebel against our proper design
But rebelling is part of our design..?  
(I suppose it's nicely recursive; we only need to rebel against our rebellious nature and we're back on track)



on 05/03/07 at 19:31:33, Icarus wrote:
But I cannot agree with you on eternal damnation.
What kind of damnation, though? The fire-and-brimstone kind, or the being-away-from-God kind? (Or some other option)
As for eternity, the parable of the prodigal son tells me God wants us to return to him, no matter when. If he wants us to return, it doesn't make sense He'd banish us forever.


Quote:
God is a god of justice as well as love. He must punish those who reject goodness and choose to sin.
I tend towards the view that God doesn't need to punish us, because we punish ourselves. He only has to allow us free will (allow us to make our own mistakes). When we turn from God, that is our punishment; God needn't add to that burden one bit.
And when we return Home our punishment ends.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by BNC on May 4th, 2007, 4:54am

on 05/03/07 at 19:31:33, Icarus wrote:
I'll go along pretty much with SMQ here. The christian is not saved because he is good. A christian is good because he is saved. We are sinners, lost until we accept God's salvation. The first and most important part of that salvation is forgiveness for the sins we have committed. His salvation is offered freely to any who will accept it. Once we have accepted it, then out of gratitude and love for God, we seek to change our lives with his help, to make our lives something pleasing to him.

Our salvation was earned entirely by Jesus, not by our own efforts. We do not need to become good to be saved. But once we have been saved, we will desire to become good (or increase in desire). And we will have his guidance and power to help.


But we are still human beings, flawed and imperfect. Thus, even a true Christian, who excepted god and had his guidance, can be wrong, can sin, can even fall down to the point of doing horrible (unchristian) deeds.

On the other hand, we were created in god's image. Therefore, we all have a godly streak in us. Thus (I believe) a person can do right, can be kind and gentle and loving, can act in a godly manner, even if he is not a Christian. Some may call it divine guidance. OK with me -- I don't believe only Christians are able to do right.

But! Your version of heaven will admit the bad (child-molester / serial killer / kitten torturer / whatever) Christian, but will send the good (charity doing / people-in-need helper / putting others in front of himself / whatever) non-Christian to Hell.

That, my friend, in my book, is twisted.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by SMQ on May 4th, 2007, 5:54am

on 05/04/07 at 03:31:48, towr wrote:
What kind of damnation, though? The fire-and-brimstone kind, or the being-away-from-God kind? (Or some other option)

Again, speaking only for myself: imagine this world, but without most of the people who are capable of consistently putting the good of others/society ahead of their own.  Now imagine it forever.  Seems to me there would be plenty of suffering to go around. (And I certainly wouldn't put it past humanity to create their own "lake of fire and brimstone" -- maybe that's less a punishment and more a foreknowledge of what we'll do to this place left to our own devices.  But that's just wild speculation, even for me. :))


Quote:
As for eternity, the parable of the prodigal son tells me God wants us to return to him, no matter when. If he wants us to return, it doesn't make sense He'd banish us forever.

Again, my own view is that exile will be self-imposed: that there will always be the option to sincerely repent, but few will take it, valuing their pride more, even (or especially) in the face of great suffering.


Quote:
When we turn from God, that is our punishment; God needn't add to that burden one bit.  And when we return Home our punishment ends.

I think you and I are mostly in agreement there.

--SMQ
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on May 4th, 2007, 8:44pm

on 05/04/07 at 04:54:46, BNC wrote:
But we are still human beings, flawed and imperfect. Thus, even a true Christian, who excepted god and had his guidance, can be wrong, can sin, can even fall down to the point of doing horrible (unchristian) deeds.


Can, and do. Becoming christian does not make us perfect. It does give us much assistance in the struggle, though.


Quote:
On the other hand, we were created in god's image. Therefore, we all have a godly streak in us. Thus (I believe) a person can do right, can be kind and gentle and loving, can act in a godly manner, even if he is not a Christian. Some may call it divine guidance. OK with me -- I don't believe only Christians are able to do right.


Neither do I. It is exactly because non-christians are not without guidance, and are capable of knowing and doing good, that they are without excuse when they fail to do good. And everyone fails and does evil on occasion. Contrary to what so many think, God has no balance scale. He does not weigh the good against the evil. Evil is evil in his book, and any of it not acceptable.

Christians also are without excuse when we fail to good. The only difference is that we accept God's mercy. Mercy is by definition unearnable. If it were earned, it would be your wages, not mercy. But perhaps I and the others have not been clear here. God's mercy is not available to everyone who just believes in Jesus. As James says, "Even the demons believe, and shudder". Rather, you must repent of your sin: reject it, turn away from it, and purpose never to do it again. You may fail in that purpose repeatedly, but it must be your intent. Only then is God's mercy available.


Quote:
But! Your version of heaven will admit the bad (child-molester / serial killer / kitten torturer / whatever) Christian, but will send the good (charity doing / people-in-need helper / putting others in front of himself / whatever) non-Christian to Hell.


No. My version of heaven will admit the former child-molester, former serial killer, former kitten torturer who becomes christian. This is the great glory of christianity: It is the religion of the second chance. Just because you've blown it doesn't mean that all hope is gone, no matter how awful you've been.

That child-molester/serial killer/kitten torturer was once an innocent child. God has not forgotten that child, even though you have. If the evil man recognizes his evil, rejects that evil, humbles himself and chooses Christ instead, then God is willing to show mercy and forgive him. Of course the man does not deserve the mercy. If it were deserved, then it would not be mercy. This is a great glory, and it provides great hope. For I am no better than such a man. He fell into his depravity by making bad choices. I too have made bad choices. If I have not done those same things, it is because I have been luckier in my bad choices, not because I am in some way better than him. And while my sins may seem less horrible to me, God has a different perspective, and to him all sin is evil. Therefore I rejoice that God has mercy on evil men! Because I am one, and without his mercy I am lost.

Now consider your flip side: the good non-christian. How good? Without sin? If so, then God plainly says such a one needs no salvation. He was never lost. But only one adult person has ever lived without sin: Jesus. So the good non-christian is not perfectly good. Now why does he not accept God's forgiveness? Because he does not know of it? Jesus said that the servant who doesn't do his master's will because he was ignorant of it will receive few lashes. Such a man is subject to God's Judgement. Whether he will be condemned or forgiven, I do not know.

But suppose he does know of God's forgiveness. Then why has he not accepted it? Multitudinous excuses may be found, but in the end, they all boil down to pride. Accepting God's forgiveness means accepting that you are guilty, and accepting that you cannot overcome your sin by your own efforts. Pride may seem a small thing to us, but it is huge in God's eyes. Pride was the source from which all evil sprang. If you desire heaven, you cannot get there while holding on to a self-centered pride.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Barukh on May 4th, 2007, 10:41pm
Hmm...

Is it still math?
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 5th, 2007, 1:31am

on 05/04/07 at 22:41:12, Barukh wrote:
Hmm...

Is it still math?

Is it not http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/pi.gif in the Sky? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pie+in+the+sky)

But perhaps it would be better in 'What Am I?' or 'What Happened?'

Or we could just create a new thread called 'Us and Them: The Saved and The UnSaved'.  
And if we subtitled it 'The Great Divide' we could even sneak it into Putnam.  

::)
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by Icarus on May 6th, 2007, 2:31pm
Or possibly, you could just accept that there are people who disagree with you and that they have the right to politely express their opinions too, and explain and correct when other respondents twist those ideas to be something other than they are.
Title: Re: Riddle from bible...(math)
Post by ThudanBlunder on May 13th, 2007, 8:57am

on 05/06/07 at 14:31:59, Icarus wrote:
Or possibly, you could just accept that there are people who disagree with you and that they have the right to politely express their opinions too, and explain and correct when other respondents twist those ideas to be something other than they are.

Or I could accept that the difference between your viewpoint and mine is probably best explained by our respective avatar sigs.



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board