hs - Bravo!! A succinct, reasoned, polite answer to a rambling, wordy, hostile question.
Jousting with the usual suspects on this site is an exercise in frustration, but you couldn’t say it much better than you did. That some people dispute there is a metaphysical realm puzzles me, but they are content to believe nothing exists outside the physical world. Science is wholly inadequate for explaining anything but physical phenomena, so those who scoff at others’ faith will always delight themselves with their little “gotcha” moments. My question will always be: Why do some people - especially those who apparently deem themselves intellectual titans - so zealously bait and nettle others for their faith? I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t care if they believe or not, they’ve made their choice. May they live happily in their guilt-free, no-conscience world.

Joe, Thanks. Actually, most of the time I enjoy these interactions, because they force me to focus and really consider how to express my faith…which is always a good thing, no?

I do not believe that God knows the “hour” of our death any more than we do. I believe that as it is, God knows it, as we do.

Knowing is in truth and fact, and exist only in the realm of the present. The future, what is possible, is available to us all including God.

I believe prediction of future events in time is not Godly.

When God asked Adam not to eat the apple, I do not believe God did so believing Adam would. That is inauthentic. I believe God believes in the possibility of our obedience and love of God. That God has faith. That God has given this to us.

Can’t wait! It will be something new.

Ooops, too funny. That was meant for the TV show post. I’ll go put it there.

Hello ‘hs’,

Thanks for the favor of a reply with post#9, page#6 at 2:53pm July 5.

You protested, again, that you are not a Biblical Literalist. I understood that from your earlier post (post#4, page#4 at 10:12pm June 27) and that’s why I replied with a several (heretofore unaddressed) questions (parg#5, post#8, page#4 at 12:48pm June28), such as “I wonder what evidence you use to dismiss the literal truth of the Old Testament?” and observed “you contradict the Bible Literalists” and “Your ‘God’, then, is materially different from theirs…” (parg#3, post#3, page#6, at 12:12pm July4). Your point is, and already was, duly noted. (By the way, I keep track of earlier posts with a limited memory and a few browser bookmarks.) Reminders are useful, though.

Thanks for agreeing with the premise of Psalm 139:16, whether you regard it as support or not. The important question is “Can you change it?” “God” knows the hour (thus, presumably, the year, day, minute, place, method, and all other circumstances, right?), so, can you forestall it by bringing a gun to church? Can you forestall it by possessing a gun at all? Can you change the time, manner, or place by any means whatsoever? The answer to that question interests me!

Some posters seem to think that they can affect the time of their death by being prepared to take action. But given the definitions of “God” (”He” is real, “He” is omniscient, and “He” is infallible), I do not think so. In fact, that was the premise of my original post addressed to Ms. Dolan (post#1, page#4 at 7:10pm June 27). What do you think, “hs”? Can we do anything to affect the day, or hour, of our own death?

STP: let me try to answer the question about affecting the hour of our death…

We, as humans, have free will. So, through deliberate acts, I can interfere with the natural sequence of events, and so I can either bring about my own death (or that of others) OR lengthen it past the norm. There is an argument that I recently had where a person suggested that all medicine has done for us is this: by treating things like pneumonia and the flu, we’ve made it possible to die of cancer. And, is this really the will of God?

A knotty question, to be sure, and one that we may never resolve. My answer stands: God KNOWS the hour of our death, but God does not DETERMINE it. Events and situations HERE determine it. So, in that sense, no we cannot change it, it is a known (to God, not us). This is, in my opinion, what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 13 when he talks about seeing in a mirror dimly. There are mysteries, and we just have to accept that.

On the subject of Biblical interpretation, allow me a brief statement that is liable to rile up the hard core literalists:

First, the “Ancient History” books, Genesis through Judges: Archeological evidence tells us that these books were not written in their current form until at least as late as the pre-exile Kingdom of David and Solomon, probably later. They are the written version of oral history that was passed down for thousands of years before writing existed. That does not make them fable at all. It just means that they are not word for word “literal”.

Second, the “State History” books pre-exile, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles: These are as sound history as anything we have. After all, there are regular references in Chronicles in particular where statements like, “and all the other deeds of King ___ are written in the books of the Kings of Israel”

Third, the “Poetry” books, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon: These are books, obviously, of poems, songs, etc. I’d put Ruth in here as well. These are personal statements by the authors, and can be read, enjoyed, and studied as very personal expressions of many of the things we talk about. The cries of the heart in the Psalms resonate loudly for many today. They are universal. By the way, I reject the watered down interpretation of Song of Solomon as being about the relationship of God and the Church. Read it as an erotic reverie, and blush.

Fourth, the late history, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: Again, these are useful as historical documents that were probably actually written as history near to the time the events took place.

Job is a special case. There are so many different ways to look at Job that we could spend all day there.

Then we come to the prophets (the rest of the Old Testament): For the most part, these are valuable for many reasons, and I accept that the writers actually had the visions and mystical experiences they describe. Again, however, to interpret them requires a great deal of care and study. This is not to say they are not TRUE, but they are descriptions of things that are frequently metaphysical in nature, so language is always a problem.

And that’s just the old testament

My point is that it is possible to study and learn from the Bible, which is a remarkable document in many ways, because it is has survived more or less for thousands of years. One can study, learn, and apply the lessons to ones self and one’s own condition without being a verbatim literalist (which requires one to be able to read the text in ancient Hebrew, Chaldee, and Aramaic), and to see the many layers of meaning that are there.

Have a nice day.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#7, page#7 at 5:49am July 9.

There certainly is a “mystery” in paragraphs two and three of your post, alright, but I think it’s easy to resolve.

Maybe an example would serve to help shed light on it, and perhaps lead to a resolution? Let’s suppose that “God” KNOWS that I am going to die on Sunday, in Church, at the hands of a machete-wielding migrant illegal when I try to prevent him from repeatedly slashing the preacher. Whether “God” DETEMERMINED this scenario is irrelevant, it is merely sufficient that “God” KNOWS, and knows with infallible, unconditional certainty. By “definition”, “God’s” possesses complete and infallible knowledge about all future events, therefore, they are all going to occur with absolute certainty. And so it is with my fate on Sunday.

What can I possibly do to to avoid this destiny? I could exercise my free will and oversleep, go fishing (”The Creator does not deduct from man’s allotted time those hours spent fishing” - anon.), work at home, attend a later (or earlier) service, attend a different church, attend no church, carry my gun and shoot the attacker, sit in a balcony pew for a better view, let someone else attempt to subdue the attacker, run from the church, or cower like a stunned sheep and pray for “God” to spare me. Probably every one of these exercises of free will would alter my destiny (already known to “God”) and prevent my death on Sunday, in Church, at the hands of the machete-wielding migrant illegal.

But if so, then “God” would have been wrong! On Monday, “God” would look down and suddenly notice that “Hey, StirringThePot is still alive and, well, stirring! But I just KNEW StirringThePot would be sitting in judgment today! There is a mystery here! How could I have been WRONG?!” So, how could I have exercised free will and done any of these things? How could I have done anything to alter events already known with absolute and infallible certainty to “God”?

The “mystery” is simply a contradiction created by mutually exclusive definitions. The difficulty in resolving it lies solely within our ability to determine which definition(s) is(are) incorrect. Personally, I observe that there is ample evidence for free will; I, we, seem to exercise it myriad times each and every day. There is no evidence that “God” meets the definitions of being real, being omniscient, or being infallible, except by, well, “definition”. While you may have “faith” (which, by definition, eschews evidence) that these definitions are accurate, that does not make them accurate; “faith” only makes them speculative. If you accept (by all observable and repeatable evidence) that we humans possess and exercise free will, then one or more of definition regarding “God” is incorrect. Thus “God” is not real, “God” is not omniscient, and/or “God” is not infallible.

Of course, I could be mistaken. If you think so, please refer to my error and resolve this contradiction differently. (Joe L.: Please participate, especially if you have something (anything!) intelligent or substantive to contribute!)

Thanks for the invite, Stirring the Pot.
I’ve gone down this road with you before, and the result would be no different this time because you persist with the same questions, knowing full well you can only receive a philosophical rather an empirical response.
I doubt this will meet your lofty standards of intelligence or substance, but feel free to put it in your bong and smoke it:
I hope you will continue championing your aggresive agnosticism with your usual condescension. Your superior tone and presumptive insults aren’t likely to make you or your puffed-up intellectualism very appealing to others who read these blogs. (That, and the fact your tedious writing style reads like a pre-1960 textbook most people wouldn’t want to waste time with.)
I seldom agree with hs, D. Walker, another and others, but I admire the intelligent yet open-handed manner in which they express their thoughts. They know how to present their ideas in a civil manner that keeps communication flowing. You apparently do not.
So please, keep on being the poster child for book-learned fops the rest of us like to laugh at.
(This may not be substantive or intelligent, but it is definitive. Over and out.)

Hello “Joe. L”,

Perhaps we have “been down this road before”. I don’t actually recall, but then, I usually only remember substantive exchanges. Evidently, the road was the same, with nothing memorable or thoughtful in your remarks; only pointless criticism. I know I toss out a few myself, but they often subtend a point. You, on the otherhand, just seem to take offense with anyone a “liberal” sounding voice, or lacking your distorted version the Lutheran “share the Good News of Jesus Christ” vision.

Personally, I think you lack the intellect to either address issues or defend your thoughts. Maybe you fear exposure as an incompetent? But since you are careful to reveal little (at least not regarding the issues that interest me), no one can really know for sure. Good strategy; it seems to work for you. Plus, you are having great fun!

Fling poo all you want; you are laughable making a mess! (See, it’s fun for me, too!) Someday I’ll ask a question regarding any substantive point you make (if such a day ever comes)… particularly if I think you will make a fool of yourself by either answering or flinging more poo. I like it when a guy who grew up reading pre-1960’s textbooks can’t manage either the talk or the walk. All he ends up doing is (metaphorically speaking) shooting off his mouth and shooting off his foot.