Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Wakboth2001@yahoo.com (Wakboth)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: A short account of the possible history of human languages fromBabel (was Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 139
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <7e6336d4.0401290714.7f3e928a@posting.google.com>
References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com> <Xns947A9BD5F8270ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.119> <buuvmq$cpc$0@pita.alt.net> <Xns947AAACC86676ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.121> <bv0jsq$6uk$2@news.onet.pl> <Xns947B7CBC12A9Cericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119> <bv13qe$7ej$1@news.onet.pl> <47c45a21.0401252152.227d4c19@posting.google.com> <bv3eev$7lr$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <lgORb.414$F23.408@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <b9b3de8.0401290006.6ad78a56@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075389290 59993 128.100.83.246 (29 Jan 2004 15:14:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.230.95.46
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1961
branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in message news:<b9b3de8.0401290006.6ad78a56@posting.google.com>...
> Pithecanthropus Erectus <tuibguy1@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<lgORb.414$F23.408@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > The way I see it is that everyone received their own language at Babel.
> >
> >
> > Why was this a good solution in the first place? God was worried that
> > Man was learning how to engineer, so he took away the common language,
> > isn't that the story?
> >
> > Engineers communicate using mathematics and mathematical concepts. Why
> > didn't he confuse mathematics as well? So your whole discussion that I
> > snipped really is pointless because the whole story of the Tower Of
> > Babel is implausible in itself.
>
> It is not so much about engineering in itself. Termites perform
> spectacular feats of engineering, but they don't appear to incur wrath
> for doing so.
>
> It is actually about the history of salvation. We cannot understand
> any of these major events properly unless we understand them in the
> context of salvation history, and the predestination of the elect.
>
> Had mankind come to a full technological civilisation early, then
> mankind would have killed itself with nuclear weapons already prior to
> when enough people were here to please God. The point was to make
> people go forth and multiply, and when there would be enough people,
> then to go forward with the technology that God has made available to
> us.
>
So say you. But to assume that God's plans would so easily be thwarted
by humans does require a rather weak and feeble god. I prefer my God
as someone who can plan on the scale of gigayears and cosmic
distances, and accommodate for the human free will.
Apparently you like a pettier God than I.
> >
> > This also brings into question why such an omnipotent god was so worried
> > in the first place. It also begs the question of why Jehovah, and the
> > Elohim were so worried about man's curiosity? Why would a god be so
> > jealous as to destroy man's ability to accomplish great things? Isn't
> > the Tower of Babel telling, in the sense that the fable instructs us not
> > to try too hard?
> >
> > Indeed, the Apple, or the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
> > Evil is another fable that teaches the same moral. Jehovah wanted us
> > to be his herders. He wanted us to be
> > gardeners, and yet he laid out temptation for us, the temptation to go
> > beyond a pastoral existence. When we experimented - and tried to go
> > beyond that existence, we were punished. We were separated not only
> > from Him, but from each other.
> >
> > In light of this, the Creationist viewpoint is finally starting to make
> > a little more sense. In a desire to refute the facts of nature and
> > evolution that we discover in fits and starts, they are trying to shove
> > is back to the Garden of Eden; back to a peaceful, happy existence where
> > there is no death, no destruction, no murder, no thieving, no idolatry,
> > no adultery, no bad things that come from being real people.
> >
> > By stopping scientific inquiry, we can be free to loll in our faith that
> > we will be provided for. That the universe was made just for us, and
> > we are the earthly masters of it. Science is a bad thing because it
> > shows us that even though we are the most intelligent of all the
> > animals, we are indeed animals and not the exalted herders that God
> > intended.
> >
> > This is why Lenny will never get the answer to his question - there will
> > never be a serious scientific theory of creation. This is why Lilith
> > will never get a real debate from NWM. This is why McNameless will
> > never give up in his quest for the real Ark. And this is why the ICR is
> > so comfortable in believing that there is no science that can contradict
> > the bible. Once we are all, worldwide convinced that science is futile,
> > then the Apocalypse can begin and the Garden can be started fresh, the
> > New Jerusalem will be planted (possibly next to Ediacara, who knows?)
> > and we can return to our true nature as God's happy slaves.
>
Possibly the best summation of the creationist position I've read;
thank you!
>
> So, having attained to certain understandings, whose side are you
> gonna be on?
>
> God's? or science's?
>
You know, you say that as if they were contradictory.
>
> If you don't really believe in God, then obviously you will choose
> science.
>
I believe in God and choose science over superstition any day.
>
> If you do, but have doubts, then you might still believe in science
> more.
>
> But salvation is from faith. Science is the opposite of faith, and
> therefore a scientific mindset is the opposite to accepting salvation.
>
NO NO NO NO NO!!!
Science is not the opposite of faith.
Science is a method of studying the world, and the collective body of
knowledge gained through that method.
The opposite of faith is unbelief, which you seem to be intent on
spreading by posting assertions like this.
>
> We don't need to ape this mindset. We don't need to find a scientific
> theory of Creationism. I am not interested in whether what I believe
> about the creation of the world pleases so-called scientific method or
> not.
>
Yes, but are you interested in whether what you believe about creation
is true or not?
Of all the methods we have for analyzing the universe around us,
science has proved to be most successful in terms of solutions and
explanations.
And the sum of human knowledge and understanding of the world shows us
that the world was not created in six days six thousand years ago,
that all life stems from a common source, that there never was a
global flood, that the Babel myth is a myth, and so on.
-- Wakboth (I hate when some ignoramus tells me to choose between God
and science...)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|