I would imagine that if you were to believe that knowledge and wisdom at its highest worldly levels is irredeemably corrupt, you would want to avoid it as ungodly. The trick would be to recognize when you've crossed the line from genuine empirical knowledge to opinions that mask themselves as advanced knowledge. No?
I got into a spat with Johniam about this some months back.
Some worldly wisdom is just that. Wisdom. It's unwise to cross the road without looking both ways. Should we deny that? (See you in the hospital!!)
God gave us "common sense" and a brain to think with. It's certainly not spiritual wisdom to deny our God-given thinking powers, our common sense.
If you read Proverbs, you'll see that a lot of that is just "common sense" - how to live nicely with other people. How to behave in a socially responsible manner. And yet, Proverbs is often accepted as a collection of helpful sayings that were common at the time. Even though "common sense," does that confirm or negate that the sayings in Proverbs are also Godly wisdom?
What about the wisdom of a surgeon operating on a human body?
The wisdom of a non-Christian parent tenderly teaching a young child how to live - not to hit other kids, not to tell lies and so on?
Now philosphies of men, wordly wisdom about the meaning of life and the existence of karma, nirvana, re-birth, reincarnation, dog-eat-dog approaches to life, etc - those are a different matter.
Quite interesting that the refs are all in Corinthians and not in other books of the Bible (now somebody will try to contradict that!) - where the inhabitants loved to argue.
VPW made a bigger deal of "wisdom of the world" than it ought to have been, as a control issue, so that people ended up taking in what VPW said the Bible said, and disputing what is or is not wisdom, rather than simply focusing on getting to know what God really wants and imbibing God's wisdom.
I think the disturbing part of this is how they label "world wisdom" without precisely defining what it is. Is it.. philosophy, art, psychology, science and chemistry, physics, mathematics..
Again, world wisdom is that which is contrary to God's wisdom. Evolution vs creation. Gay rights vs Romans 1. Once a "recognized authority" in the world reaches a conclusion which contradicts God's word, that's the wisdom that's bad.
It's like love. There's God's love and there's brotherly love. Brotherly love isn't bad, it's just limited.
Trying to get a grasp here of how you define "world wisdom."
So, if something does not contradict Scripture,
it is neither "world wisdom" (as used in this discussion)
or "bad", then?
And thus open for discussion free of condemnation
that it is actually "world wisdom", then?
Yes. remember that in pfal VP said he was dynamically concerned for the field of philosophy. That's world wisdom which doesn't always contradict scripture. God's word is totally pure, but us mortals have to individually use our brains to get to that conclusion. We all have the free will to conclude things other than God's word. The whole book of Ecclesiastes illustrates that journey. Nothing wrong with considering what world wisdom says; nothing wrong with concluding that THIS is God's word and THAT is not.
Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that "night" and "day" preceded the origin of the sun.
Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that the sky was a gigantic glass dome (the firmament) keeping "the waters above" from crashing down on us.
Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the stars are little lights IN the firmament.
Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the earth does not move, but the sun moves relative to the earth. Joshua cries out "sun, stand still," not "earth, stop rotating."
We accept the wisdom of the world that none of those things is so. And we do so only after persecuting the worldly wisdom that sought to correct the error.
So now we say with confidence that evolution and homosexuality are line crossers: that no matter that the vast majority of biologists accept evolution as fact, including the evolution leading to modern man, that no matter that every scientific inquiry into homosexuality is leading researchers to the conclusion that these people are born that way and do not choose their orientation any more than straight people choose their orientation, THIS is the world wisdom that must be rejected in favor of scripture?
I just want to know where the line is between accepting science for what it demonstrates by the evidence and rejecting it as "worldly wisdom." Contradicting scripture can't be it, because if that's the standard, then we have to profess a flat earth under a glass dome holding back an oceanic sky, with the sun, moon and stars all located inside the dome. We DO reject that, right? So contradicting scripture can't be the line.
Again, world wisdom is that which contradicts God's word. That's exactly what Paul meant when he said the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
quote: Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that "night" and "day" preceded the origin of the sun.
They did! So what?
quote: Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that the sky was a gigantic glass dome (the firmament) keeping "the waters above" from crashing down on us.
Where do you see a glass dome? The firmament is heaven; above the earth. The devil spirits who caused the flood are now imprisoned by those waters above the firmament. Wonder if Lucifer or any of the other fallen angels ever visit those spirits. Somehow, I don't think it would help them very much if they gave them a cake with a hacksaw in it.
quote: Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the stars are little lights IN the firmament.
They are! Again, the firmament is heaven.
quote: Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the earth does not move, but the sun moves relative to the earth. Joshua cries out "sun, stand still," not "earth, stop rotating."
From Joshua's pov, it looked like the sun DID move around the earth. God doesn't care if His people don't know everything; He will still help us.
One situation in twi which involved world wisdom is that our bigoted critics were always saying that anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed. That's world wisdom. That's foolishness with God.
Raf, if you believe that a bunch of egotistical scientists with manmade educations are more credible than those filled with holy spirit,,,enjoy.
You're very much mistaken about the Biblical meaning of the word "firmament," John. I suggest you do some research in the matter. Here: I'll give you a head start. The firmament is not another word for "heaven" in the sense of the vastness of the universe. It was a FIRM ament, not an etherealament. And the water it was holding back was not perceived as being waaaaay out there beyond the observable universe. It was right up there.
In truth, the stars are not IN the firmament as described in the Bible, unless you change the Biblical sense to mean something it is not saying. Change "firmament" to "universe" and all your problems are solved, except the pesky little problem that you're no longer preaching what the Bible says: you're changing your Biblical interpretation to suit what we know to be true from those egotistical scientists with manmade educations.
Read through the Bible when it comes to stars, without bringing any preconceived notions to the table, and you do NOT get the sense that they are these humongous balls of gas and heat burning billions of miles away. Rather, you get the impression that they're little set decorations that were added as an afterthought, AFTER the formation/making/creation of the sun (even though we KNOW many stars are quite a bit older than the sun).
Without the sun, there is no night and day on earth. The experience of light on earth during the day and darkness at night is entirely dependent on our rotation relative to where the sun is. There could be no day and night on earth without the sun, no evening or morning.
This, of course, completely ignores the question of WHERE it was night and day on the first day, considering that on a spherical earth, it's always evening and morning SOMEWHERE. Now, on a flat earth, which the Bible does absolutely nothing to contradict, it's conceivable that it could be evening and morning throughout the earth all at once. But we reject a flat earth, right? Because the Bible doesn't teach it? Wrong: at best, the Bible doesn't address it; at worst, the Bible assumes it and does nothing to contradict it. In step those egotistical scientists with their manmade educations.
Plus, the earth did not precede the sun in its formation/making/creation. The sun came first, then the earth. The Bible lists it backward (and depending on whether you hold to "gap theory" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, the Bible lists the earth as being older by a longshot). Why?
I agree with you about Joshua's perception of the sun moving as opposed to the earth. The issue is not that he was wrong. The issue is that the Bible gives no indication, anywhere, that the truth is the other way around, relatively speaking. Egotistical scientists with their manmade educations taught you that, not the Bible.
By the way, when the sun "stood still" for Joshua, what actually happened?
Raf, if you believe that a bunch of egotistical scientists with manmade educations are more credible than those filled with holy spirit,,,enjoy.
I ask you again: if you are willing to reject the clear teaching of scripture when it comes to the age of the earth relative to the sun (earth is older in scripture), the relative age of the sun in relation to other stars (sun is a tiny bit older, but all are the same age according to scripture), the fact that there's no glass dome over the earth (look it up, that's what the firmament is, not your revisionist explanation), the fact that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around (scripture gives NO indication that the earth revolves and every indication that it's fixed in place with all the stars and planets moving in relation), then where do you draw the line separating world wisdom from acceptable science.
I submit that you have rejected God's Word countless times in favor of "world wisdom" and don't even recognize it.
P.S. You said the devil spirits who caused the flood are being held in the waters beyond the firmament... assuming such silliness to be true, why do spirit beings need a physical holding place?
Once a "recognized authority" in the world reaches a conclusion which contradicts God's word, that's the wisdom that's bad.
Westboro Baptist Church members seem to run into this type of contradiction all the time, what with wisdom and behavior they feel others are engaged in that "contradicts God's Word". They run into this type of contradiction a whole lot more than your average Christian.
Saying something "contradicts God's Word" usually means it contradicts someone's narrow-minded doctrine and view.
One situation in twi which involved world wisdom is that our bigoted critics were always saying that anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed. That's world wisdom. That's foolishness with God.
Critics lumped in VPW with other contemporaries like Jim Jones and other cult leaders, who all shared the same characteristic that they could pontificate on "God's Word" for hours and hours on end. Was it really "God's Word" they were teaching? When you analyze content it seems they all had in common convincing followers that they were the savior on earth somehow, confirmed by visions like snow on gas pumps. Calling themselves prophets, they took advantage of followers in immoral and criminal ways. This is not "God's Word", this is "Their words". There is a big difference, and one mark of brainwashing is the inability to distinguish the difference.
Am I glad that I spent more time in the Bible in TWI? Yes I am. Do I see the doctrine taught as evidenced over years in the development of the fruit it produced? Yes I do. And that fruit is putrid. You tell me how Jesus told us to evaluate men's teachings and words if you want to talk about "God's Word".
Chockfull, you left out the fact that John's statement there is classic straw man fallacy at work. Are you aware of ANY TWI critic who said "anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed"? I'm not. I heard criticism that the class WAS brainwashing, but not that anyone who consented to sit through it "must be" brainwashed. The distinction is not subtle. Is anyone who signs up for a college course on Shakespeare "brainwashed"? Those classes are generally longer than PFAL, in terms of class time.
Chockfull, you left out the fact that John's statement there is classic straw man fallacy at work. Are you aware of ANY TWI critic who said "anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed"? I'm not. I heard criticism that the class WAS brainwashing, but not that anyone who consented to sit through it "must be" brainwashed. The distinction is not subtle. Is anyone who signs up for a college course on Shakespeare "brainwashed"? Those classes are generally longer than PFAL, in terms of class time.
Not personally aware of that exact statement but it sounds contextually like something Ted Patrick would say as brainwashing was a common criticism. I mean I may have heard a relative mutter that semi under their breath at one point while I was in. Yes it's a big distinction but it could be someone stating that just for dramatic effect rather than literally meaning ALL vs. really thinking it's the potential to be brainwashed.
And yes, yes anyone who signs up for a college course on Shakespeare is brainwashed. They either get over it or start talking in Elizabethan English, move to southern Cali, and work in the food service industry. Sorry I'm stereotyping again.
I guess what I'm saying is, in previous areas of scientific advancement, when science has conflicted with the understanding of the Bible at the time, it's the understanding of the Bible that gave way, not the science [eg, the firmament became the expanse, despite the absence of a shred of evidence justifying the latter translation]. Yet John comes here and says when "worldly wisdom" conflicts with the Bible, we should jettison worldly wisdom in favor of the scriptures. He cites two examples that are entirely scientific in nature: evolution and homosexuality. On evolution, the vast majority of biologists and scientists stand squarely against Genesis. Homosexuality as an area of scientific investigation appears headed in the same direction (that is, the consensus of science is that this is not a choice or rebellion but an orientation that is very much natural).
If we are to conclude that science is wrong about evolution and homosexuality, and the Bible is right, I am asking what standard we apply when deciding when to alter our understanding of the scripture, as we NO DOUBT have done many times in the past, and when to hold firm in the face scientific consensus to the contrary.
What's the line? Is there one? Or are these two examples obvious in a way that the issues raised earlier were not?
I am entirely not ready to take on evolution and homosexuality as a serious discussion and addition to this thread. Hence, I kind of avoided those two topics. Also, I think johniam uses things like that to expand the scope of the discussion to get everyone arguing.
I mean I personally subscribe to what I feel is a healthy blend of science and spirituality. I don't want to personally always take one over the other. Science is amazing and true and the discovery of the world we live in and how to understand what God has created. Spirituality (I'm using that term to encompass an understanding of the Bible as well as a relationship with the Creator and JC) enriches life, allows you to live by faith, gives you a firm compass. I can't live without either.
If you only subscribe to science you have no idea how small the entire knowledge of man is. And it's easy to mistakenly get so attached to it we don't realize maybe Thomas Edison hasn't invented the light bulb yet in the particular field we are looking into. (Actually I think you do realize this regarding our SIT topic - that more science needs to happen - I realize this too).
If you only subscribe to spirituality (and I'm lumping this together) - meaning your interpretation of the Bible, prayer, JC. and totally disregard the laws of science, you become nothing more than driven by feelings. As we've evidenced in this thread, it's easy to be duped, dupe yourself, others. And there is no consistency and standard.
I'm sure this topic was debated in one of Dan Brown's novels between the Illuminati and the Jesuits.
Can I respect that response and the heart behind it while noting that it doesn't really answer the question?
I respect it primarily because "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" is an honest response.
On SIT, you and I differ in our opinion as to what the evidence shows so far and what we anticipate further evidence will show or even CAN show. That doesn't quite apply here. John draws a very clear line in the sand, and I've attempted to question just how clear that line is. It sounds like a no-brainer on the surface, but when you look at what we've learned so far about the world and the universe, certain things in the Bible can no longer be taken literally or at face value. The firmament, an undeniably solid object, HAS to be God giving a great big "no comment" about the nature of the sky [considering the irrelevance of that subject to the overall story arc of scripture] or the Bible is wrong. So we allow that there are things stated as fact in the Bible that are not actually true in scientific terms, because those "facts" are irrelevant to the Bible's overall tale.
My question remains unanswered, which is fine and acceptable, until one starts drawing lines and saying worldly wisdom MUST be rejected if it conflicts with the Bible. The history of Christianity does not live up to that standard. We have allowed our understanding to grow and approached the Bible differently because of that understanding (what we deride as world wisdom).
If there's a line, at what Biblical teaching do we draw it? The order of the cosmos? Nope. Homosexuality and evolution? Many will say yep. So the line is somewhere between those two extremes. But does anyone have the arrogance to declare exactly where that line is? Is anyone even capable of such an achievement?
Recommended Posts
OldSkool
Perhaps it was said to be bad because world wisdom should keep people from getting sucked in by an abusive cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Because then there would be no distinguishing difference between "life wisdom" and "over 100 years of collective spiritual wisdom on the BOD" ???
Somehow I don't think years of kissing bootie, playing politics, and throwing people under a bus do a whole lot for building wisdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I would imagine that if you were to believe that knowledge and wisdom at its highest worldly levels is irredeemably corrupt, you would want to avoid it as ungodly. The trick would be to recognize when you've crossed the line from genuine empirical knowledge to opinions that mask themselves as advanced knowledge. No?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I got into a spat with Johniam about this some months back.
Some worldly wisdom is just that. Wisdom. It's unwise to cross the road without looking both ways. Should we deny that? (See you in the hospital!!)
God gave us "common sense" and a brain to think with. It's certainly not spiritual wisdom to deny our God-given thinking powers, our common sense.
If you read Proverbs, you'll see that a lot of that is just "common sense" - how to live nicely with other people. How to behave in a socially responsible manner. And yet, Proverbs is often accepted as a collection of helpful sayings that were common at the time. Even though "common sense," does that confirm or negate that the sayings in Proverbs are also Godly wisdom?
What about the wisdom of a surgeon operating on a human body?
The wisdom of a non-Christian parent tenderly teaching a young child how to live - not to hit other kids, not to tell lies and so on?
Now philosphies of men, wordly wisdom about the meaning of life and the existence of karma, nirvana, re-birth, reincarnation, dog-eat-dog approaches to life, etc - those are a different matter.
These are the references to wisdom of the world:
1 Corinthians 1:20 KJV
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Read 1 Corinthians 1 | View in parallel | Compare Translations
1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe . Read 1 Corinthians 1 | View in parallel | Compare Translations
1 Corinthians 2:6 KJV
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought : Read 1 Corinthians 2 | View in parallel | Compare Translations
1 Corinthians 3:19 KJV
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written , He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. Read 1 Corinthians 3 | View in parallel | Compare Translations
2 Corinthians 1:12 KJV
For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward. Read 2 Corinthians 1 | View in parallel | Compare Translations
Quite interesting that the refs are all in Corinthians and not in other books of the Bible (now somebody will try to contradict that!) - where the inhabitants loved to argue.
VPW made a bigger deal of "wisdom of the world" than it ought to have been, as a control issue, so that people ended up taking in what VPW said the Bible said, and disputing what is or is not wisdom, rather than simply focusing on getting to know what God really wants and imbibing God's wisdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh yeah, I forgot about the collective wisdom of the Board of Dummies. Actually, that's concept thrown about amongst those goons is laughable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the disturbing part of this is how they label "world wisdom" without precisely defining what it is. Is it.. philosophy, art, psychology, science and chemistry, physics, mathematics..
maybe religions which differ in their belief?
Maybe "all of the above" is implied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Again, world wisdom is that which is contrary to God's wisdom. Evolution vs creation. Gay rights vs Romans 1. Once a "recognized authority" in the world reaches a conclusion which contradicts God's word, that's the wisdom that's bad.
It's like love. There's God's love and there's brotherly love. Brotherly love isn't bad, it's just limited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Trying to get a grasp here of how you define "world wisdom."
So, if something does not contradict Scripture,
it is neither "world wisdom" (as used in this discussion)
or "bad", then?
And thus open for discussion free of condemnation
that it is actually "world wisdom", then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
World wisdom is anything that is not in alignment with the "teachings" of VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Yes. remember that in pfal VP said he was dynamically concerned for the field of philosophy. That's world wisdom which doesn't always contradict scripture. God's word is totally pure, but us mortals have to individually use our brains to get to that conclusion. We all have the free will to conclude things other than God's word. The whole book of Ecclesiastes illustrates that journey. Nothing wrong with considering what world wisdom says; nothing wrong with concluding that THIS is God's word and THAT is not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Curious to know where you draw the line, John.
Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that "night" and "day" preceded the origin of the sun.
Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that the sky was a gigantic glass dome (the firmament) keeping "the waters above" from crashing down on us.
Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the stars are little lights IN the firmament.
Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the earth does not move, but the sun moves relative to the earth. Joshua cries out "sun, stand still," not "earth, stop rotating."
We accept the wisdom of the world that none of those things is so. And we do so only after persecuting the worldly wisdom that sought to correct the error.
So now we say with confidence that evolution and homosexuality are line crossers: that no matter that the vast majority of biologists accept evolution as fact, including the evolution leading to modern man, that no matter that every scientific inquiry into homosexuality is leading researchers to the conclusion that these people are born that way and do not choose their orientation any more than straight people choose their orientation, THIS is the world wisdom that must be rejected in favor of scripture?
I just want to know where the line is between accepting science for what it demonstrates by the evidence and rejecting it as "worldly wisdom." Contradicting scripture can't be it, because if that's the standard, then we have to profess a flat earth under a glass dome holding back an oceanic sky, with the sun, moon and stars all located inside the dome. We DO reject that, right? So contradicting scripture can't be the line.
So what is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Again, world wisdom is that which contradicts God's word. That's exactly what Paul meant when he said the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
quote: Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that "night" and "day" preceded the origin of the sun.
They did! So what?
quote: Left on its own, the Bible does give the impression that the sky was a gigantic glass dome (the firmament) keeping "the waters above" from crashing down on us.
Where do you see a glass dome? The firmament is heaven; above the earth. The devil spirits who caused the flood are now imprisoned by those waters above the firmament. Wonder if Lucifer or any of the other fallen angels ever visit those spirits. Somehow, I don't think it would help them very much if they gave them a cake with a hacksaw in it.
quote: Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the stars are little lights IN the firmament.
They are! Again, the firmament is heaven.
quote: Left on its own, the Bible gives the impression that the earth does not move, but the sun moves relative to the earth. Joshua cries out "sun, stand still," not "earth, stop rotating."
From Joshua's pov, it looked like the sun DID move around the earth. God doesn't care if His people don't know everything; He will still help us.
One situation in twi which involved world wisdom is that our bigoted critics were always saying that anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed. That's world wisdom. That's foolishness with God.
Raf, if you believe that a bunch of egotistical scientists with manmade educations are more credible than those filled with holy spirit,,,enjoy.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Raf never said that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You're very much mistaken about the Biblical meaning of the word "firmament," John. I suggest you do some research in the matter. Here: I'll give you a head start. The firmament is not another word for "heaven" in the sense of the vastness of the universe. It was a FIRM ament, not an etherealament. And the water it was holding back was not perceived as being waaaaay out there beyond the observable universe. It was right up there.
In truth, the stars are not IN the firmament as described in the Bible, unless you change the Biblical sense to mean something it is not saying. Change "firmament" to "universe" and all your problems are solved, except the pesky little problem that you're no longer preaching what the Bible says: you're changing your Biblical interpretation to suit what we know to be true from those egotistical scientists with manmade educations.
Read through the Bible when it comes to stars, without bringing any preconceived notions to the table, and you do NOT get the sense that they are these humongous balls of gas and heat burning billions of miles away. Rather, you get the impression that they're little set decorations that were added as an afterthought, AFTER the formation/making/creation of the sun (even though we KNOW many stars are quite a bit older than the sun).
Without the sun, there is no night and day on earth. The experience of light on earth during the day and darkness at night is entirely dependent on our rotation relative to where the sun is. There could be no day and night on earth without the sun, no evening or morning.
This, of course, completely ignores the question of WHERE it was night and day on the first day, considering that on a spherical earth, it's always evening and morning SOMEWHERE. Now, on a flat earth, which the Bible does absolutely nothing to contradict, it's conceivable that it could be evening and morning throughout the earth all at once. But we reject a flat earth, right? Because the Bible doesn't teach it? Wrong: at best, the Bible doesn't address it; at worst, the Bible assumes it and does nothing to contradict it. In step those egotistical scientists with their manmade educations.
Plus, the earth did not precede the sun in its formation/making/creation. The sun came first, then the earth. The Bible lists it backward (and depending on whether you hold to "gap theory" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, the Bible lists the earth as being older by a longshot). Why?
I agree with you about Joshua's perception of the sun moving as opposed to the earth. The issue is not that he was wrong. The issue is that the Bible gives no indication, anywhere, that the truth is the other way around, relatively speaking. Egotistical scientists with their manmade educations taught you that, not the Bible.
By the way, when the sun "stood still" for Joshua, what actually happened?
I ask you again: if you are willing to reject the clear teaching of scripture when it comes to the age of the earth relative to the sun (earth is older in scripture), the relative age of the sun in relation to other stars (sun is a tiny bit older, but all are the same age according to scripture), the fact that there's no glass dome over the earth (look it up, that's what the firmament is, not your revisionist explanation), the fact that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around (scripture gives NO indication that the earth revolves and every indication that it's fixed in place with all the stars and planets moving in relation), then where do you draw the line separating world wisdom from acceptable science.
I submit that you have rejected God's Word countless times in favor of "world wisdom" and don't even recognize it.
P.S. You said the devil spirits who caused the flood are being held in the waters beyond the firmament... assuming such silliness to be true, why do spirit beings need a physical holding place?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Westboro Baptist Church members seem to run into this type of contradiction all the time, what with wisdom and behavior they feel others are engaged in that "contradicts God's Word". They run into this type of contradiction a whole lot more than your average Christian.
Saying something "contradicts God's Word" usually means it contradicts someone's narrow-minded doctrine and view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BINGO.
I do not claim that happens everywhere, every time.
However, it happens quite a bit.
=========================
To illustrate the point, more specifically....
John,
According to the Bible,
when concerning the prenatal development of children,
to the best of our abilities to know,
when does the Bible say that we're dealing with a baby
and not the potential FOR a baby anymore?
This is not a trick question.
There is an easy-to-document answer that can be quoted and understood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Critics lumped in VPW with other contemporaries like Jim Jones and other cult leaders, who all shared the same characteristic that they could pontificate on "God's Word" for hours and hours on end. Was it really "God's Word" they were teaching? When you analyze content it seems they all had in common convincing followers that they were the savior on earth somehow, confirmed by visions like snow on gas pumps. Calling themselves prophets, they took advantage of followers in immoral and criminal ways. This is not "God's Word", this is "Their words". There is a big difference, and one mark of brainwashing is the inability to distinguish the difference.
Am I glad that I spent more time in the Bible in TWI? Yes I am. Do I see the doctrine taught as evidenced over years in the development of the fruit it produced? Yes I do. And that fruit is putrid. You tell me how Jesus told us to evaluate men's teachings and words if you want to talk about "God's Word".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull, you left out the fact that John's statement there is classic straw man fallacy at work. Are you aware of ANY TWI critic who said "anyone who would consent to listening to someone teach the bible for 34 hours over 3 weeks MUST be brainwashed"? I'm not. I heard criticism that the class WAS brainwashing, but not that anyone who consented to sit through it "must be" brainwashed. The distinction is not subtle. Is anyone who signs up for a college course on Shakespeare "brainwashed"? Those classes are generally longer than PFAL, in terms of class time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Not personally aware of that exact statement but it sounds contextually like something Ted Patrick would say as brainwashing was a common criticism. I mean I may have heard a relative mutter that semi under their breath at one point while I was in. Yes it's a big distinction but it could be someone stating that just for dramatic effect rather than literally meaning ALL vs. really thinking it's the potential to be brainwashed.
And yes, yes anyone who signs up for a college course on Shakespeare is brainwashed. They either get over it or start talking in Elizabethan English, move to southern Cali, and work in the food service industry.
Sorry I'm stereotyping again. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I guess what I'm saying is, in previous areas of scientific advancement, when science has conflicted with the understanding of the Bible at the time, it's the understanding of the Bible that gave way, not the science [eg, the firmament became the expanse, despite the absence of a shred of evidence justifying the latter translation]. Yet John comes here and says when "worldly wisdom" conflicts with the Bible, we should jettison worldly wisdom in favor of the scriptures. He cites two examples that are entirely scientific in nature: evolution and homosexuality. On evolution, the vast majority of biologists and scientists stand squarely against Genesis. Homosexuality as an area of scientific investigation appears headed in the same direction (that is, the consensus of science is that this is not a choice or rebellion but an orientation that is very much natural).
If we are to conclude that science is wrong about evolution and homosexuality, and the Bible is right, I am asking what standard we apply when deciding when to alter our understanding of the scripture, as we NO DOUBT have done many times in the past, and when to hold firm in the face scientific consensus to the contrary.
What's the line? Is there one? Or are these two examples obvious in a way that the issues raised earlier were not?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I am entirely not ready to take on evolution and homosexuality as a serious discussion and addition to this thread. Hence, I kind of avoided those two topics. Also, I think johniam uses things like that to expand the scope of the discussion to get everyone arguing.
I mean I personally subscribe to what I feel is a healthy blend of science and spirituality. I don't want to personally always take one over the other. Science is amazing and true and the discovery of the world we live in and how to understand what God has created. Spirituality (I'm using that term to encompass an understanding of the Bible as well as a relationship with the Creator and JC) enriches life, allows you to live by faith, gives you a firm compass. I can't live without either.
If you only subscribe to science you have no idea how small the entire knowledge of man is. And it's easy to mistakenly get so attached to it we don't realize maybe Thomas Edison hasn't invented the light bulb yet in the particular field we are looking into. (Actually I think you do realize this regarding our SIT topic - that more science needs to happen - I realize this too).
If you only subscribe to spirituality (and I'm lumping this together) - meaning your interpretation of the Bible, prayer, JC. and totally disregard the laws of science, you become nothing more than driven by feelings. As we've evidenced in this thread, it's easy to be duped, dupe yourself, others. And there is no consistency and standard.
I'm sure this topic was debated in one of Dan Brown's novels between the Illuminati and the Jesuits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can I respect that response and the heart behind it while noting that it doesn't really answer the question?
I respect it primarily because "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" is an honest response.
On SIT, you and I differ in our opinion as to what the evidence shows so far and what we anticipate further evidence will show or even CAN show. That doesn't quite apply here. John draws a very clear line in the sand, and I've attempted to question just how clear that line is. It sounds like a no-brainer on the surface, but when you look at what we've learned so far about the world and the universe, certain things in the Bible can no longer be taken literally or at face value. The firmament, an undeniably solid object, HAS to be God giving a great big "no comment" about the nature of the sky [considering the irrelevance of that subject to the overall story arc of scripture] or the Bible is wrong. So we allow that there are things stated as fact in the Bible that are not actually true in scientific terms, because those "facts" are irrelevant to the Bible's overall tale.
My question remains unanswered, which is fine and acceptable, until one starts drawing lines and saying worldly wisdom MUST be rejected if it conflicts with the Bible. The history of Christianity does not live up to that standard. We have allowed our understanding to grow and approached the Bible differently because of that understanding (what we deride as world wisdom).
If there's a line, at what Biblical teaching do we draw it? The order of the cosmos? Nope. Homosexuality and evolution? Many will say yep. So the line is somewhere between those two extremes. But does anyone have the arrogance to declare exactly where that line is? Is anyone even capable of such an achievement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Just write The Teacher at P.O. Box........"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm hoping he addresses this when he checks in again.
I intend to post the verses and explain-
right after he gives his answer to the best of his understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.