Page 4 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 May 2009, 12:26 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, it is completely without reference to the text. Augustine took the text as an allegory rather than something to be treated literally.

The reformers were strongly Biblicist, even to the point of anti-rationalist.


If I remember correctly, Augustine also tried to typify Noah's ship as a type of Christ, which is basically to say that those who were on the Ark were saved and those who weren't on the Ark were so out of luck.

With the events of creation being instantaneous and Noah's Ark being a representation of Christ, it wouldn't surprise me if an author of the same type as him were to say the Table Of Nations was a phonebook.

Wasn't Francis Bacon reformed? I don't think they were anti-reason per se, more like anti-rationalism. A lot of the people calling themselves "rational" were anti-God, so it would of course put a bad flavor in the mouths of those who loved God back then, though by association mostly. The logic of the Greeks was still a prevalent item in learning in the Trivium though.


Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Hmm... I have my doubts. Usually belief pulls itself, and most scientists consider a Young Earth to be fully discredited. Not to outright slam you at all that is


Most "evolutionists" don't know the modern stances of Creationists though, similar to how many Creationist organizations pick on the lies and frauds which evolutionism stated with (such as Haekel's diagrams of embryos or all the missing links that were frauds). Basically, each side distrusts the other and neither delves more than surface deep into the others' pool.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I don't think that this part of Peter is prophetic though in naming a specific belief, but rather is providing a reference belief to affirm this belief and place it against other beliefs. I don't think more is necessary to make it this call, particularly given that all times have had people who were not Christian and thus rejected the Christian creation belief, so Peter's comment seems odd if you bestow it special purpose.


Even among non-Christians and non-Jews, there was a belief about a Flood in Greek mythology as well, which would be known and mostly accepted by the people in the Roman empire in that time and area where Peter was writing. Also, the Mayans' calendar starts after the end of the Flood. Aborigines of Australia too. Belief in a flood would seem nearly common in the mythologies of the pagans, so it would not be a quite a difficult thing back then to, say, ask a random Greek person to accept that a major/global flood occurred.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
I think that choice for people after death, if existent, would be for those prior to Christ or for those who have never heard the Gospel. I'm not sure of this though, and my stance would be exclusivism by default since it is more Scripturally sound as opposed to just sounding nice.

But we don't need to get into that.

We don't need to get into this mess.

Thank you.



CanyonWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,656
Location: West of the Great Divide

08 May 2009, 12:32 am

richardbenson wrote:
oh shut up. you have a mouse to click off of, to click off you know

..to not reply

...dare i say idiots?


Ahhh...You got a fire agate for a brain and a rookie sports card for a face.


_________________
They murdered boys in Mississippi. They shot Medgar in the back.
Did you say that wasn't proper? Did you march out on the track?
You were quiet, just like mice. And now you say that we're not nice.
Well thank you buddy for your advice...
-Malvina


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

08 May 2009, 1:20 am

fire agate is indeed rare, and almost always covers a small part of chalcedoneys surface, so i will attribute that to my brain, and yes its true.
and my face wich never really loses value, although im shure the poperatize will tell you hasnt seem older than your garbage hasnt lost value either
so. in conclusion and i hope your getting this all down, scroll up a few and hit your own advice,

have a nice day.

omg



CanyonWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,656
Location: West of the Great Divide

08 May 2009, 1:28 am

I hope you were writing poetry, and that wasn't supposed to make any sense.


_________________
They murdered boys in Mississippi. They shot Medgar in the back.
Did you say that wasn't proper? Did you march out on the track?
You were quiet, just like mice. And now you say that we're not nice.
Well thank you buddy for your advice...
-Malvina


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 May 2009, 12:20 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If I remember correctly, Augustine also tried to typify Noah's ship as a type of Christ, which is basically to say that those who were on the Ark were saved and those who weren't on the Ark were so out of luck.

With the events of creation being instantaneous and Noah's Ark being a representation of Christ, it wouldn't surprise me if an author of the same type as him were to say the Table Of Nations was a phonebook.

Wasn't Francis Bacon reformed? I don't think they were anti-reason per se, more like anti-rationalism. A lot of the people calling themselves "rational" were anti-God, so it would of course put a bad flavor in the mouths of those who loved God back then, though by association mostly. The logic of the Greeks was still a prevalent item in learning in the Trivium though.

Augustine was definitely a rationalist, and I am not surprised if Augustine makes that claim.

Well, I lumped the 2 things together, as they were acting in opposition to Catholic theology for a promotion of Biblical notions. I think that both Catholics and Protestants were anti-rationalist in the sense that you speak of, but Catholic theology is built upon a Greek philosophical body that the Protestants tried to avoid bringing into such a great importance. In any case, I don't think that atheist rationalism really appeared in great numbers until the Enlightenment, which was after the Reformation, correct?

In any case, I would not lump Francis Bacon in with the rationalists, as he was more of an empiricist, and he was British, so he wasn't Catholic but rather would have been Anglican, a combination of Catholicism and the Reformed tradition.

Quote:
Most "evolutionists" don't know the modern stances of Creationists though, similar to how many Creationist organizations pick on the lies and frauds which evolutionism stated with (such as Haekel's diagrams of embryos or all the missing links that were frauds). Basically, each side distrusts the other and neither delves more than surface deep into the others' pool.

That is very true.

Quote:
Even among non-Christians and non-Jews, there was a belief about a Flood in Greek mythology as well, which would be known and mostly accepted by the people in the Roman empire in that time and area where Peter was writing. Also, the Mayans' calendar starts after the end of the Flood. Aborigines of Australia too. Belief in a flood would seem nearly common in the mythologies of the pagans, so it would not be a quite a difficult thing back then to, say, ask a random Greek person to accept that a major/global flood occurred.

Well, I know that flood beliefs are common. I did not think they were out and out universal. I suppose to be fair, I am not fully versed in Greek mythology. Nor would I think the image of the flood that Peter talks about, is likely the Greek conception.