Everything's Obvious to Dick
box191@iland.net box191@iland.net
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:06:28 -0600 (00891399988, 3.0.5.16.19980331150628.228fcbc8@mail.iland.net)
At 01:44 PM 3/31/98 -0500, D.R. Edwards wrote:
>EDWARDS
>Dick, you're at least one degree short. Have a look at the word "issue" -
>it is synonymous with "debate" or "controversy". The two words "omnipotence
>issue" are then equivalent to "omnipotence debate" or "omnipotence
>controversy" where, in each case, the word (English or otherwise)
>"omnipotence" is an adjective describing the following word "debate" or
>"controversy". The phrase follows common rules of English grammar, but I
>can send you some materials if you're interested.
If you believe there is any sort of debate about omnipotence,
then you're just not too bright. How about the pancake issue?
How about the automobile issue? You're far more than a degree
short. To apply the rules of English grammar, there must be
some understandable concept being communicated.
>DICK
>Let's see what you found from your Bible studies:
>
>"19 The LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the
> hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of
> the plain, because they had chariots of iron."
>
>Well, obviously this is not referring to God, the One who
>created the universe, but to Jehovah, the primitive tribal
>god of the Jews, yet another false religious belief.
>EDWARDS
>"Obviously"? To whom, excepting you, is it obvious? You really should be
>more parsimonious with your adverbs; their excessive use is the trademark of
>a weak argument. In any event, I'm sure the Jews would be interested in
>knowing that the god of Judah wasn't who they thought he was. Nobody beats
>a xian when it comes to interpreting hebrew scripture, right?
Obvious means to anyone who looks. I have no arguments not believing
in the silly things. If you see any argument, then you're imagining
a nonexistent. The god of the Hebrews was not the true God any more
than the Tooth Fairy is. Since I know few Xians, I have no idea how
well they compare to anyone else who understands the subject matter.
(Is it part of your Atheist religion to always emphasize the cross
in Xian fearing to use the name of the Christ? You believe that
makes Jesus deader?)
>DICK
>"21 I must go down and see whether they have done altogether
> according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I
> will know."
>
>Well, obviously this is not referring to God, the One who
>created the universe and is the universe being everywhere
>and knowing everything. This is poetry in this instance,
>not literal truth. It is putting God's actions into an
>understandable form for illiterate shepherds. Even you
>should have understood what was written here.
>EDWARDS
>The word "obviously" recurs. One might get the impression that everything's
>obvious, at least as far as you're concerned.
Many things that some of the fools and irrationals on this
can't see are obvious and that fact cannot be repeated too
often. Maybe it'll encourage some to look more acutely. If
you can't tell the difference between a primitive tribal
god and the Creator of the universe, then you're not ready
to consider any aspect of inerrancy or to recognize any of
the truth of the Bible.
>As far as "...putting God's
>actions into an understandable form for illiterate shepherds", it strikes me
>that far more complex matters were somehow conveyed to those "illiterate
>shepherds" without resort to "poetry."
Do things often strike you? Is this one of your sources of
knowledge? The majority of the Old Testament is poetry and
in most English editions is arranged and shown as the poetry
it was originally.
>Besides, you've only substituted one
>problem for another. Now, you have to possess the ability to discern
>"poetry" from allegory from figurative speech from literal intent, an
>ability that should be based on some articulable criteria. Of course, if
>everything's "obvious" to you, then I suppose that would be no problem.
It's also obvious to most serious Biblical scholars and all the
Biblical translators. If you're unfamiliar with it, then you
shouldn't be discussing it. It's also obvious to almost all who
hear it but then you fail to see the obvious.
>Your comment, "Even you should have understood ...", seems to have been
>rather gratuitous. Is there something in your personality that requires you
>to assume that all views contrary to yours are held by persons of inferior
>intellect and/or learning, or is this just an isolated instance?
My personality does require me to recognize that those in error
are in error. Not all views contrary to mine are held by the
stupid and ignorant although such does seem to be the case on
this list. Do you hold the contrary view in this case, that this
was a Supreme Being who went down to see what was going on? Just
which position are you taking here?
>You know, after reading your first answer, I thought you'd have said that
>the god of Gen 18:21 was the same as the god of Ju 1:19, but you didn't.
>I'm wondering now how one differentiates between the "primitive tribal god"
>and the "One who created the universe" when one encounters references to god
>in the OT. Oh, silly me, I guess that's "obvious", too.
In most cases, it's quite obvious. You first need to know more
about the two concepts, the supreme God and the god of the
Israelites who slowly progressed from an ancient volcano god to
become identified with the real God. Until you learn what the
Bible is talking about in various places, you're incapable of
understanding it, much less attempting to criticize it.
>DICK
>You have a lot to learn about God and about the Bible and
>about the meanings of some English words, including their
>scientific and philosophical implications, before you have
>any hope of discussing this intelligently or critically.
>EDWARDS
>Arrogance, pedantry and obliviousness, all rolled into one repulsive
>package. Congratulations on becoming the founding member of my kill-file
>(right after your Greek lesson) :-)
Many people find various aspects of reality repulsive. Those
who hide from reality find surprises. Running and hiding is an
excellent way to pretend you won an argument since you seem to
think you are engaging in arguments.
Dick Jones