Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Daniel Krispin on August 21, 2005, 09:32:31 pm
-
My apologies, I feel so greatly inclined to say something, and that I cannot remain silent when I know something of these issues. I have put this in another thread, though, so that it does not mangle your ‘Christian Game’ one. And, since I am replying to “teh Schala” as one Christian to another, it will obviously be steeped in Christian views and theses.
Chrono Trigger doesn't exactly walk all over Christianity; simply extolling the virtue of free will isn't enough to say that of it.
Somehow I *JUST* saw that post, Hadriel. =P Actually the free will thing isn't what i was referring to. I believe God extols the virtue of free will... It's why He gave us one! As my old pastor would say, "Love is borne out of choice, and it's meant to be given, not taken." God desires the love of His creations, but what good is it if they're not loving Him out of choice?
Interestingly enough, though, one cannot choose to believe in Jesus, or give ones self over to him. It is a gift that is already freely given, not to be accepted per say. It can only be rejected. In that manner, all glory of salvation is given to Jesus and God, not anything, not even the choice of belief, is left by which Man can glorify himself. I believe this is a difference in theology which my father has termed - after reading it in an article he thought quite highly of - the difference between the Theologians of Glory and the Theologians of the Cross... my father would belong to the second category.
What I meant by CT walking on Christianity was actually more in the age of the earth, along with the evolution concepts. Many Christians (though not all) believe that there never was a meteor that hit the earth in 65M BC and killed all the dinosaurs. And the ones who REALLY do their homework and study the Bible very closely can just about pinpoint the earth's time of creation, plus or minus about 200 years. (If my figures were correct, the current age is only 5,862 years.) That's not exactly a major thing; but it just bugs me that they approach evolution as fact and not theory. Conversely, I suppose it would bug them about the same if I made a game approaching Christianity as fact and not theory, eh? (Which of course I believe I have the right to do, as it IS fact to me.)
Now here is an interesting point, and one I was not even fully certain on, and so consulted my father - who enlightened me to the fact that most of Christendom actually believes it to be the scientific estimate. I would not have thought before. But anyway, first off I must maintain that I do not hold to evolutionary theory, not out of religious opposition but out of scientific disagreement. Indeed, it is still theory, and as a matter of interest, in the famed debate between the creationist and the evolutionist schoolteacher in the earlier part of the last century, it was actually the creationist that knew geological and evolutionary theory the best. But despite my disagreement with that theory - based upon several factors that, by scientific method, should cause its questioning if not outright dismissal - I am very much in favour of believing the Big Bang, of the meteor, and of the supposed 4 Billion year age of the earth, at least until a better comes along. I can quite comfortably do this because it does not in any manner contradict either my faith or Biblical teaching, and does not say anything about or depreciate from God.
Now, keep in mind that I am an ardent Christian. As I have said time and again before, the group to which I would claim to belong are called the Confessional Lutherans, who are considered conservative even by Lutheran standards. We stand by the old ceremonies of the liturgy and old hymnody, and quite disassociate ourselves from all manner of new-style service, especially the sort where the church is attempting to innovate itself to connect more to the world. My favourite hymns are those grim and serious sorts, and at best those which at Easter-tide joyfully but seriously proclaim the risen Lord. But never Praise Hymns. I do not see Jesus as a buddy, but as a mighty Prince who stands between us and the damning judgement of a wrath-filled King. I am against gay marriage, pro-life, and most other such things that seem to be the new way of the world. My Christian belief explained - and keep my old views on these things in mind in what follows - my treatise concerning the matter at hand now comes.
Now, being the son of both a pastor and theologian, I have a chance to hear things concerning the Bible, the forms and history of its literature and the like, which few others do. In fact, one of his colleagues at the university was one of the very few who has actually worked upon the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. But that as an argument is slightly flawed, I suppose, as in the strictest sense one cannot call into account the worth of a source in argument. I will attempt to hold my position through my own logic, rather.
Firstly, concerning the matter of the age of the earth in creation-time. Seven is a common number of completion and perfection. It does not usually hold literal significance in Biblical matters. Did the parables happen? Did a woman go looking for her coins? Does it matter if she did or not? When Jesus says one is to forgive a man seven times seven times, does he truly mean to forgive fourty-nine times? Of course not! What matters is the meaning that stands behind these. That Jesus seeks out the lost, and that one must fully forgive those who transgress against one. Likewise Genesis and creation. The literal number of days is as irrelevant as the literal number of times that one must forgive. What matters is what it is attempting to say: God, outside of creation, created the world PERFECT. That is what seven days means. The exact age... what does it matter? Does it say anything more about God? What are eons to Him? Years are a human measure, by the rotation of the earth about the sun. Should God measure by these things? To attempt to rationalize the years of God's actions so is almost a pagan practice. God is not accountable to the power of the sun, He is above and beyond it. Seven days, therefore, cannot have meaning beyond this, for danger of humanizing God overmuch, and making Him accountable to our perception.
Secondly, the genealogies, the New Testament first. It is true, what Hadriel says. I looked for myself at the genealogies of Christ, and it uses the word ‘egennesen’(phoenetically eh-gen-nay-sen) - I will look up the meaning, but I am near positive this means ‘sprung from’ or something akin, certainly not son. Okay, it means beget. That can be somewhat ambiguous in meaning. A chronicler, at a loss for a certain person in the bloodline, could easily have removed one or two or more, and simply connected them with this word, for it would hold true nonetheless. The genealogies from the Old Testament are yet more interesting. The fact of the matter - and there are few that actually know this - is that much of the form of the earlier parts of Genesis is, in fact, Babylonian. The list of the people bears significant resemblance to a history of kings, and simply follows the older forms. This is not to be wondered at. The writers of the Old Testament - especially if it was Moses - likely knew such stories as the Enuma Elish and other Middle-Eastern creation accounts. In writing the Bible, they simply borrowed from what people were familiar with. Of course, they threw in their own unique things. God existing outside of creation is a very radical idea, not even equalled in Akhenaten’s famed worship of the Sun-Disc Aten. But the flood? How many know the story of Ut-Napishtnim? He is the Babylonian counterpart to Noah and, in fact, is a far older story than the Biblical one. Returning to the list of ancestors, in such old accounts, telescoping the ages of people to make them fit certain metaphorical numbers, was a common practice in the region. There is no reason that the Bible would have been any different. In fact, people were often unsure of the ages of even their contemporaries as little as 500 years ago. The reason Guttenberg invented the printing press was to repay debtors, for he had thought to sell relics at a great meeting, yet missed it by a year, due to the inaccuracy of calendars. Yet more so in the ancient world. I think very few people actually knew their ages accurately even while they were yet living. It would have been impossible to know after the fact.
Remember, also, the various errors that still lie within even the Bible that you likely use. Does it still Jesus orders us to obey his words? For the word there in the NIV is mistranslated. It is rather keep and hold, which is a far cry from the law-based obey. Trust and faith, that is what keep means. Yet a small bad translation leads to great error. Or what of the word ‘meaningless’ in Ecclesiastes? I found great confusion in this, but upon asking my father, found that it is grievously mis-spoken. Read rather an old version, and it will use the word ‘vanity’. In the old sense, this is transience, passing away. Thus it does not descry the things of the world, wisdom or power or knowledge, to be meaningless, but rather passing away, dust in the wind. And hearing that, the book, before a confusion to me, became far clearer and plainer. So even within the Bible itself, there are many things that are misunderstood. My father would even take issue with many pastors, for he, as a scholar, actually has a greater understanding of the theological points than many do.
Another interesting point: why are you portraying angels as you do? When are they given such representation? In much of the Old Testament they simply appear as humans, alike in semblance to us. Did any recognize those who went to Sodom to be angels? Not by their appearance. Now and again there are greater displays, say, the angel of death, or the armies of God about the city where Elisha is. But often, angels are what their Greek name means: Aggelos (pronounced Angelos), a messenger. Where-from are the wings? Isaiah? Why? Because the Jews in exile saw the grand depictions upon the temples of Babylon, saw the gods of these foreigners depicted with wings and as winged warriors. Look:
(http://secretebase.free.fr/civilisations/sumeriens/dieux/ninurta_petit.jpg)
That is Ninurta, a Babylonian warrior-god, often mistaken for Marduk (upon the left is a dragon, whence the supposedly mistaken idea of Tiamat as a dragon springs.) But here, then, are the winged angels! Now this here is just my own guess, but I think that the Jews, surrounded by these pagan gods, in an attempt to keep their God foremost in their minds, took these foreign gods to be not other gods, but things under the feet and footstool of god. These all are things that are often overlooked in the understanding and study of the Bible.
And lastly, remember that what is important in the Bible is not the literal accuracy, but what it is saying. After all, in your tradition and mine, Bel and the Dragon no longer exists as a book. We consider it part of the Apocrypha and heretical. Yet once it was in there, and people took it to be absolute fact as well. James almost - and I think should have - suffered the same fate as a near-heretical book. So here is a dilemma: what to believe? The literal words, or the overall message? Just because the number is not right, does not make the Bible a lie, and does not de-value the rest of scripture, remember. The purpose must be analysed, and the meaning behind things. If one does that, not all the science in the world can counter one’s faith, for it lies not in the realm of the physical, but spiritual.
And since I have a feeling either Hadriel or Daniel will ask, the number comes from using the various genealogies found throughout the Bible to create a timeline... One genealogy traces Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam, so we know how many generations there were. Another genealogy traces the lineage of some people in the 12 tribes of Israel, but also conveniently includes people's ages at the time they had children, and the children's ages at the time they had children. There are some estimates involved, however, as for some people we must figure the average age when people had kids during that era. See how it goes there? Anyway, it's by no means precise, but it's a pretty good indicator.
I know this well, I have little need to ask. It was Archbishop Usher who calculated these. As I have said, it is rather a poor indicator, as such things in that year were never historical accounts - or at least rarely so - and rather spoke of prominent people in the bloodline.
By the way, I also read that when the Apollo missions landed on the moon, they had figured the rate at which moon-dust accumulates. They expected 65M years worth of dust on the moon, which is why they had those huge footpads put on the lunar module (to keep the vehicle from sinking into the dust and just disappearing)...then when Apollo 11 landed, of course we know it was a pretty rocky landing. They took dust samples and compared it with the rate at which dust accumulates, and I am told they came up with a number around 6000 years. Can anyone confirm that finding? It sure does match close with my figures from the Bible...and is even within the 200-year margin of error.
If, you believe, Apollo truly landed. There are many other issues with that lander, whether shadow-direction or burn-marks below the lander that, for some, call into question the validity of the occurrence. Even if they did do so, dust and its layering is far more inaccurate than either sedimentary layers of rock, or the measuring of radioactive decay. Both of these testament otherwise about the age of these things, and are far more a reliable source, as they are largely untouched by volcanic activity and the like.
To be honestly, I find my faith far more unshakeable when it is not accountable to the dictates of science. When I can think through any new theory, and consider it for what it is, under God’s hand, and not worry about if it literally contradicts with writing in His Book. Remember, after all: there was a time when people thought the sun went about the earth. Yet now... who believes this? It was heresy to think otherwise once, a direct challenge to the authority of God. But is this a challenge? Does this contradict? Yet this is not unlike the theories of the age of the earth, in many ways.
To be honest, I find several occurrences within the Church a far greater danger than anything that science throws against it. For if a man believes this or that of science, yet still holds God to be lord above all, saviour of his soul, and looks first and foremost to him, and that all these things of science are but matters under His hand... does this not obey both the Law, which we are no longer under, and stand in accordance with the belief of the Gospel, which is now our free gift? Does it stand against the Creed of Nicea? The Athanasian Creed? But here are what I see as the true dangers. Pastors not in vestment, thus humanizing the authority of God: pastors are thus no longer the servants of God, granted as his ministers to forgive sins in that faculty, but rather reduced to ‘one of us’, a buddy and a friend. Praise songs, wherein the focus of the service is turned to worship is yet worse. ‘Worship’ - at least in the sense that it is now used in - is not something Christians should do. What need does God have of this? Pagans worship their gods, for they think that in their limited power they need the strength of man, or the praise of man. No, the service of the Word is rather what God and Jesus does for us, rather than what we do for Him. If we do the latter, we are attempting to do works toward salvation, thus attempting to save ourselves by our own power, believing that Jesus alone was not good enough to atone for the whole world. But does not Jesus tell us merely to believe? Where is it written that we must worship or glorify him? So, by praise and worship services, we turn the focus from what God does for us, to what we do for God: focus upon Man, upon our power, and our works. Is this not sinful? And yet more dire, when praise songs instill within us a feeling of joy and elation, we are no longer clinging to the words and deeds of God, nor even on salvation, but upon our own temporal, mortal feelings. We have diminished God and the Cross into a form of entertainment! This I hold to be the truest danger to the Church, not some scientific theory.
Now, through this all, I find that to know the scholarly matters behind the Bible make all the more real my faith. To believe that the Big Bang happened, that the universe is 12 billion years old - and to not have it matter! - gives great awe and majesty to the name of God. Certainly, this is a wondrous plan of his, this world and fate!
-
Daniel, I'm going to disagree about your point about Worship. Do I worship God? Yes. My church has plays lots of worship songs and such, and we sing them with all our hearts. But we are not trying to do anything but express our love of God. Is that sinful?
-
Daniel, I'm going to disagree about your point about Worship. Do I worship God? Yes. My church has plays lots of worship songs and such, and we sing them with all our hearts. But we are not trying to do anything but express our love of God. Is that sinful?
Not sinful, but only dangerous. It depends where the focus rests. So long as the focus rests on God, and does not depend on our own feelings and happiness, I suppose it is admissable. However, there is a slight problem even with this. The point of Church is and has always been forgiveness of sins. The focus of forgiveness is what God does for us, not what we do for God. We praise God simply by repenting and giving him our sins in exchange for forgiveness. That saving work speaks of the glory of God far more than our songs can. So I would personally consider it not so much sinful as misguided - praise and worship is not the most important point of Church.
But remember as I said at the beginning: I'm a confessional Lutheran. We're considered quite conservative and archaic by most.
-
I personally like the more contemorary Church style myself, as I tend to figit sitting in the same place for long periods of time, being preached or taught to. My mind beings to wander.
I agree that the focus of the Church should stay on what God does for us, not what we do for God. But I believe worship does the former. It shows our love for him, our thankfulness for what he has done. A love song for our savior.
I also agree that worship does plail in comparision to repentance, in terms of how much it pleases God. But I also believe that it shouldn't stop with repentance, as I believe the Christian faith is active, like a relationship between lovers.
-
You know not what you have unleashed!
-
What, you mean I released something? Show me your worst! :)
-
I just wanna reply on two things: the appearance of angels, and the issue of worship.
On angels:
Yes, angels are described as appearing like humans in most Scripture. Only one "type" of angel (if there are different "species" or "kinds" of them) has wings, and that would be the awe-inspiring six-winged Seraphim that cover their eyes with two wings, cover their feet with two, and fly with the other two. The appearance I use for angels in my book is used for familiarity, and is only a slight modification from the traditional appearance of angels you'd be used to seeing in paintings and the like.
On worship:
God sees beyond the outward actions themselves and into the heart. The actions and intentions of the heart are what matter above everything else to Him. Singing these beautiful songs that give a feeling of elation, as you put it, is essentially my way of telling God I love Him. It's the heart that He sees... I could be singing or I could be on my knees in prayer...but if my heart is bored, or is somewhere else, then it doens't matter. Likewise, if my heart is just searching for a way to effectively scream out what God means to me, then that intention, that declaration of love is what I believe God is looking at.
-
What, you mean I released something? Show me your worst! :)
Not you, him.
-
teh Schala: In the other thread, I was not attempting to start a tangent or a debate. You made mention of the age of the moon, and asked for clarification on the issue. I was seeking to provide that clarification. Sorry if there was any misconception. If you don't want to trust the site because it is a pro-evolution site, that's up to you.
-
It's cool, R_D. Thanks. :)
-
You know not what you have unleashed!
Why is this? Do you think that I cannot hold my own theological ground? Forget not that I have a theologian in my house: what I lack for in knowledge, he can no doubt enlighten me to. I have no fear of your fury. Bluster on your fiery onslaught, I will not be moved.
-
You know not what you have unleashed!
Why is this? Do you think that I cannot hold my own theological ground? Forget not that I have a theologian in my house: what I lack for in knowledge, he can no doubt enlighten me to. I have no fear of your fury. Bluster on your fiery onslaught, I will not be moved.
I guess it would have been helpful if I'd put an emote after it... :oops:
-
You know not what you have unleashed!
Why is this? Do you think that I cannot hold my own theological ground? Forget not that I have a theologian in my house: what I lack for in knowledge, he can no doubt enlighten me to. I have no fear of your fury. Bluster on your fiery onslaught, I will not be moved.
I guess it would have been helpful if I'd put an emote after it... :oops:
Ah, I knew it well enough. Come, it was little more than a joke on my part. If I had been serious, I should have used a measure less of such flowery language.
-
You know not what you have unleashed!
Why is this? Do you think that I cannot hold my own theological ground? Forget not that I have a theologian in my house: what I lack for in knowledge, he can no doubt enlighten me to. I have no fear of your fury. Bluster on your fiery onslaught, I will not be moved.
I guess it would have been helpful if I'd put an emote after it... :oops:
Ah, I knew it well enough. Come, it was little more than a joke on my part. If I had been serious, I should have used a measure less of such flowery language.
Ouch, double sarcasm. Me = pwned.
-
Perhaps Hadriel was subtly referring to blokes like me with his “unleashed” remark...
If I were a few years younger, I would have relished getting my hands dirty in this topic. But it never ends; there’s always another devout Christian. I have to start all over again with each one. I have to have the same conversations, turn the same corners, and make the same points, before we can come to an amicable understanding and a mutual respect for the sincerity, if not necessarily the veracity, of one another’s thoughts. It is always an enriching experience, but it gets more tedious and more redundant each time. I decided at some point…that I would move on. Changing the world one person at a time…is a waste, of ambition, of time, of material.
I certainly don’t like your pompousness on these forums, Daniel…perhaps because I used to be somewhat the same way—all intellect and no discretion—or also perhaps because I see a lot of blinding pride in you, and it irks me when people are like that. Some say that it takes a proud person to be bothered by a proud person. I say…it would have been interesting to go head to head against your 50 caliber ideological certitude. If only this compendium had been around five years ago, or even three, eh? I won’t pretend that I would have made you “come around,” but I guarantee you’d have ended up with a better understanding of what, to you, must be a very distant mindset.
I commend the thought you put into your work, like this topic. It’s the only compliment I can genuinely offer, and it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, but it’s the best I can do short of giving you the ideological counterpoint you so sorely crave.
-
Perhaps Hadriel was subtly referring to blokes like me with his “unleashed” remark...
If I were a few years younger, I would have relished getting my hands dirty in this topic. But it never ends; there’s always another devout Christian. I have to start all over again with each one. I have to have the same conversations, turn the same corners, and make the same points, before we can come to an amicable understanding and a mutual respect for the sincerity, if not necessarily the veracity, of one another’s thoughts. It is always an enriching experience, but it gets more tedious and more redundant each time. I decided at some point…that I would move on. Changing the world one person at a time…is a waste, of ambition, of time, of material.
I certainly don’t like your pompousness on these forums, Daniel…perhaps because I used to be somewhat the same way—all intellect and no discretion—or also perhaps because I see a lot of blinding pride in you, and it irks me when people are like that. Some say that it takes a proud person to be bothered by a proud person. I say…it would have been interesting to go head to head against your 50 caliber ideological certitude. If only this compendium had been around five years ago, or even three, eh? I won’t pretend that I would have made you “come around,” but I guarantee you’d have ended up with a better understanding of what, to you, must be a very distant mindset.
I commend the thought you put into your work, like this topic. It’s the only compliment I can genuinely offer, and it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, but it’s the best I can do short of giving you the ideological counterpoint you so sorely crave.
Well... this certainly distresses me. First and foremost, this was meant as a direct comment to 'teh Schala', and I only kept it off a PM so that some such as Hadriel might respond if they so wished. I'm not certain how or why you would wish to give an ideological counterpoint, though. My primary thesis - did you read it? - was the rationale as to why the Bible needn't be interpreted literally all the time, and why, for that reason, certain theories such as the Big Bang, extinction of the Dinosaurs, and the like, needn't neccessarially contradict with Christian canon. I should think that, as you are a proponent of these theories, you would rather have sided with what I said, rather than wishing for a counterpoint. My adamant stance as a Christian was meant to assure that I am not speaking as someone who has a foot in both camps, so to speak, but that I am ardent in faith, yet believe these things. Only at the end do I make a direct theological point - and this because I do indeed see it as a grave danger to the Church, a more dire issue than the theories of science post. I'm not sure in what all of this you would disagree with, actually.
But most distressing of all is your comment regarding my pompousness on these forums. I am at a loss to understand what you mean. I certainly have a more formal fashion of speech, but that then would be ad hominem, as it is not a purposed thing, but merely natural to me to speak so. If you are referring to what I said to Hadriel... that was a joke. We long since had it out theolgically on the Chronicles forums, and I think we understand each others doctinal stances well enough that we needn't argue them more. It was an empty wordy threat, really. Apolgies if you took that one the wrong way. If you speak of this thread... as I have said, it was meant as a theolgocial and scholarly counterpoint to 'teh Schala', and I felt I approached the manner, on the whole, by citing actual logical data to support my hypothesis. It is true that I stood a little more proudly in this instance, but in matters of theology, one cannot but stand ardent and with absolute prideful conviction. I would expect no less of anyone else, otherwise it is not true faith. 'Blinding Pride' you say, though again, I am at a loss. Do you know me? Do you know how much I have thought on these matters, or how much I know of them? I speak truly when I say I know more of Christian theology than most, and there is nothing blind in what I say of it nor, for that matter, proud, come to think of it. Quite the contrary, my stance is always, rather, that the pride must be put in God. Do not make the mistake of thinking me blind for being a Christian: there are many of us that are intelligent and have through logically through our faith, and I am among them. And, if truth be told, I have always held that those who cling to evolution are likewise not doing so through logic, but through blindness and pride. And, if you must know, that irritates me exceptionally. But I let it slide as their belief, and think it not pompous, but rather a heartfelt confession of what they think.
But I am still wondering, since you said 'on these forums'. Please, tell me, where am I being pompous? Where else, save for here, have I spoken in blind pride? I speak of what I know, but do we not all? I speak with a certainess to my voice, that is for sure, but on most matters I hold myself to be near certain - often speaking on history or mythology, which I do indeed know well. I have been wrong on my facts several times, and each time gladly admit to it. The only matters I am ever absolutely ardent on is matters of religion. That I am bound to sterner than life and death, and cannot do otherwise, for I hold my soul to stand in the balance if I should deny what I believe. One must naturally hold what they believe to stand superior to all others. If you are offended by this, there is nothing I can do. And this is not pompous, this is the way of things, rather. If that was the measure of pompousness, I could say likewise regarding your comments on evolution, in the thread off which this sprung. But, the simple fact is, matters of religion come up rarely, and most often when they do I begin with a disclaimer, claiming that 'this is my belief' and the like. I remember, when I first joined near the origin of this site, I had a long-standing argument on certain matters... I left the forums for a year. On returning, I felt that these matters had been laid to rest, and never more spoke derisively of the Compendium. Is this, perhaps what you are referring to. To be frankly honest, I'm a little stung by this, and more than a little disconcerted and unsure, for I would not have expected this to be said of me so caustically, that this supposed attitude of mine is Compendium-wide. 'All intellect and no discresion' as well gives me cause for concern. In what manner do I not have discresion? Have I spoken out each time people have mentioned evolution? Have I cast down other theories? What is this thing? Have I claimed to be far best amongst us, ever to be greater than ZeaLitY or you or the other manifold scholars, or even Hadriel who coming later than I surpasses me in wit and scientific understanding? I know these things, and accept them, and make no secret of it. I have referred to ZeaLitY as the master of things Chrono, and pointed in the direction of these others, claiming their superior knowledge of it when occassion permits, and my own memory or understanding is lacking. Where and with what have I so greatly offended you? What has driven a wedge of enmity for I, for my part, have borne no ill will towards you. What in these things is pompous? For that title to befit me, I should need be so prideful that I cannot accept correction. Yet this has never been the case.
So I beg you, tell me: where is the offence? Name these instances, tell me, I wish to know. I sincerely hope this was a misunderstanding or misreading of what I had written. If not, I challenge you to place evidence before me, in the manner of a court. I throw this out to all that I know on the forums: do you think likewise of me? Let this be a judgement of peers.
-
Allow me to rest your fears. I speak only for myself, not for the Compendium. And yet I would expect that you are held in high regard by most if not everyone else here—for your intelligence, for your style, and for your dedication to these boards. However, you cannot expect to earn the admiration of everybody, and we all have our own reasons for feeling the way we do. Do you really need to impose upon others by asking for their vote of confidence because of my words? I should like it if my opinion legitimately carried such weight to all the four corners of the Earth, but in fact it does not. Gird yourself with their opinions as you like—but also know that their opinions have no relevancy with respect to mine, and mine was the one that drove you to invite them to judge me on your behalf in the first place. Play not these senatorial games, Daniel Krispin, but instead take heart! You are among friends at the Compendium. I offer that concession to you here at the onset. It is not relevant.
My primary thesis - did you read it? - was the rationale as to why the Bible needn't be interpreted literally all the time, and why, for that reason, certain theories such as the Big Bang, extinction of the Dinosaurs, and the like, needn't neccessarially contradict with Christian canon. I should think that, as you are a proponent of these theories, you would rather have sided with what I said…
If I respond, I have read that which I am responding to.
And I would not dispute that there are many who hold—more rationally than the alternative, I should say—that Christianity does not have to be the enemy of scientific methods and empirical facts. So far we are in no disagreement; however, I can see already that you have taken my reply more locally than I had intended it. I do not believe I have ever spoken to you directly on the Compendium before; much of what I offered in my above post is not meant to directly address anything you have said in this topic. It is, instead, a general comment to you, on the occasion of this topic. I said that I do not plan to debate the issues herein with you. I said that I would have done so once upon a time, and implied that I almost did tonight, that you had piqued my interest to such a point. I won’t pretend that my post was flattering. It wasn’t. But sometimes you can find that praise is a subtle art. I don’t waste my time debating with just anybody. I don’t even waste my time considering a debate with just anybody. You flock too easily to the offenses you perceive against you, when you would do better to bring impartiality and confidence to the table.
I'm not sure in what all of this you would disagree with, actually.
Ah…you’re trying to goad me into having the debate I have committed not to having. Fear not! I would not be such a cad as to say “I disagree” on a point of substance and then offer no reason. Thus, I did not disagree aloud with anything you said in your initial post here. I certainly gave the impression that there are some things I disagree with, but because I made no specific claim, I have nothing in need of a supporting argument. There is no game of chess between us, because I have not sat down at the table. You must understand that. I withhold battle on this topic, for that was not my reason to visit.
And while I wish I could leave it at that, you do go on with so many of these personal questions, and I want to address at least a few of those inquiries.
'Blinding Pride' you say, though again, I am at a loss. Do you know me?
I thought you would have understood what it is I am talking about. Perhaps you may yet, someday…long after you have forgotten about me and anything I ever said.
You ask me if I know you. That would be quite a bold thing for me to claim…so I do not claim it.
And yet I claim this bit about “pride.” So why is that, you wonder. “Who is this Josh guy to waltz in here and call me a name? I’ll courteously ask him to back it up, and we’ll see if anything comes of it.” And I have no doubt that you would courteously hear me out, and perhaps even act on my advice. Well, I am not here to give you advice. I dropped in to read your post here, and then thought to say that you’re one of those people who isn’t hopeless—who, despite being a fanatical Christian, nonetheless possesses the sort of intelligence for amicability and understanding to arise between us. You see, I used to do that with people. I’ve made some fine friends over the years among the staunchest religious conservatives, and they in turn have felt a little bit better about those “damned liberals.” It’s a rewarding feeling to make amity from enmity. Perhaps, having decided not to join a full discussion, I should have kept my mouth shut entirely. But the box is open now, so we may as well get on with the reality we’ve got. You want lists of evidence to support my vague intuitions? I deny you your pride.
I am something of a lurker here on the Compendium. I have been here longer than almost everyone else. I rarely post. But I do read some of the topics that catch my eye, and I have had many opportunities to see your thoughts in the various topics in which you have written. That is where my opinions come from.
You ask me why I have those opinions. You are asking me to tell you about yourself. Well, that’s silly. You tell me. The self-reflection will be productive for you; it hardly matters if my perceptions are right or wrong.
Yes…perhaps “pride” is not the perfect word. A lack of confidence, but an excess of certitude…what is the word for that? I cannot find the word because I do not fully understand the idea. I had a roommate like you, once. Implacably stubborn. Loved to argue. Thought the word of himself, but not in the sort of way that would invite a term like “arrogance.” Depressed when no one was looking, but easygoing among company. And every little scrap of knowledge he knew, he treated as though it made him an expert. And because he was indeed a smart individual, and had more scraps than comprise most people’s finest collections, he could fool those people—even himself. I wish I could explain it to you in a few neat sentences…but I cannot. His personality type is one that I have yet to comprehend rationally. As yet, I only recognize it intuitively. But I recognize it in you. So you tell me, why that is.
And by all means, I invite your thoughts. Your conversation, directed straight at me, addressing you yourself, will give me an opportunity to learn about a type of personality that I find frustrating. We’re probably more similar than dissimilar, but this essential difference stands between us.
Lastly, I say “blinding,” because like my old roommate I truly believe you recognize none of this. Despite my three pages now, I cannot but hope that a single bit of the meaning I mean has found its way into your comprehension.
'All intellect and no discresion' as well gives me cause for concern. In what manner do I not have discresion?
I chose those words carefully, but apparently not carefully enough for my meaning to be clear. I would not make the mistake of contesting your intellect. You have demonstrated that it would take more energy than I care to invest in outwitting, outthinking, outmaneuvering, or outreasoning you on whatever topic—and so great is your intellect, that I cannot even claim to myself that I could outdo you in these things without some measure of audacity in my voice. I do hope this strokes your ego, because even though my concession may be conservative, I would not offer to just any mook that they could give me a run for my money intellectually. You’ve got to be a pretty sophisticated mook to do that! There. I’ve managed to pat both of us on the back. That’s win-win.
Your discretion, however, is a more interesting notion. The word that I had originally put in its place was “prudence.” But I wanted a connotation of “wisdom,” without subscribing to that damned cliché “smart but not wise,” which is not what I meant and was something I wanted to avoid implying. So I chose “discretion.” It stands for prudence, wisdom, maturity, good judgment.
I don’t know how old you are. Much as you do now, I too used to go out of my way to show off my intellect. I wrote in a very snobby style. And I’d nitpick in many of the same ways you do. As recently as four years ago, this was true. I would advance my agenda through the most cogent logic, the most impeccable reason…and with a vocabulary greater than that of anyone on the Compendium today, and the most sophisticated sentence structure. When I grew up a bit more, and became more comfortable with who I am, my confidence increased. I settled into my mature identity. As that happened, the snobbishness decreased. Discretion…is when your actions emanate rather than absorb satisfaction. Does that make any sense?
I just know there’s some crucial difference between us…maybe a letter on the temperament sorter. Perhaps you’re an F to my T, or an S to my N. Or both! Or perhaps it is that you are a pessimist to my optimist, or maybe you feel at odds with who you are whereas I relish what I am, or some other damned thing. The point is that we’re not similar enough that I can use my own example to explain you, and yet this is what I have tried because I can think of no other way to answer your concerns to my best ability. I again invite you not to ask me to tell you about who you are, but to look for it yourself. And if you find out, let me know.
Have I claimed to be far best amongst us, ever to be greater than ZeaLitY or you or the other manifold scholars, or even Hadriel who coming later than I surpasses me in wit and scientific understanding?
Is this false modesty, or rhetorical style? I’m not sure if you are trying to play an act of innocence or if you are trying to be dramatic.
Or could it be that you ask these genuinely? That’s what puzzles me about you. If you truly believe everything you are saying, and are playing no games of intention or style…if you are offering the plain and complete and unadulterated thoughts in your mind, without deception, without self-absorption, without any technique of insinuation, metaphor, or maneuvering…then how can I possibly offer any suitable reply? For I would be speaking to the most clueless man in the world—and I refuse to believe that of one so intelligent as you.
But now I have gone on for longer than I should. Already the hour is late, and I feel I have accomplished very little. I hope I have satisfied your curiosity, because I imagine with much certainty that I have not, and cannot, satisfy whatever threat you perceive in me—in both senses.