Walls of Silence (Sunday Forum)

by Warren , Monday, April 20, 2009, 10:28 (1496 days ago) @ John O'Keefe

James,

You say

But isn't the whole of the Old Testament saturated with this absurdity and sacrilege? And if that is part of the inspired Word of God, what is the divine point of encouraging us gullible humans to behave in that way?

So far I have not received any response to this. Ian may be away, so perhaps someone else might let me know what the answer is..

I will attempt a response, James, so as to give you the example that you seem to need about what you should be doing before you can rightfully call it discussion.

You should respond to the comments that have been specifically addressed to you. How you respond is up to you but you should respond one way or another. It is astonishing for you to ask for response when you do not respond yourself!

I responded to your comments about groveling and toadying by saying that it is not toadying or groveling but part of human culture that is generally referred to as rites of passage.

Which says that we need to separate ourselves from our ordinary daily activity before engaging with the sacred. I then mentioned that it is also needs to be considered in the context of the relationship of love and it also about the body/mind relationship.

You have not responded to any of this and to compound the crime you continue to go on about groveling and toadying. I really do not know how you can do that because it is not fair play.

This is what you should do, James. You should respond by saying, in effect one way or another, “I am /am not convinced (whichever) because---.

If you prefer a more forceful response like “That is a load of rubbish because---” that is entirely acceptable provided you explain why it is a load of rubbish.

But then, while on this point, I must say it is common practice for individuals not to respond even to comments specifically addressed to them and in reply to what they have said previously.

So far as I can see it is remarkably discourteous but maybe I am missing some point about DB etiquette. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Now about the Old Testament. My response is to suggest that possibly it might be considered along the same lines as the response I gave (to you I do believe, James and there was no response) about the need to revise our understanding about the concept of the omnipotence of God.

Perhaps the same idea can be suggested as a basis for discussion about the Old Testament and also the New Testament. Perhaps we need to revise our understanding of what being inspired really means

Claude Shannon said in his Communication Theory that the message that is sent is not the message that is received and maybe that is very much the point here.

I can well understand (as a basis for discussion) that humans, especially at the beginning of Evolution, are extremely limited (by definition) in their understanding of the Transcendent.

This problem is compounded by the literary forms of the time. As the encyclical Dei Verbum says

“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.” (para. 12)

That is to say that God cannot do what is irrational and this should be considered in the context of the relationship between the human and the Divine.

In short, the argument is that human understanding of the Transcendent is necessarily and by definition defective and it would be irrational for God to replace it with what is beyond the human.

It needs to be understood in the context of Evolution which includes the Evolution of human understanding. Evolution is especially interesting because it seems to means that what is impossible at one time becomes possible, after much more Evolution, at another time.

Perhaps an overall idea of Evolution is that we are meant to get better at some glimmer of understanding of the Transcendent Mystery and what was impossible at one time becomes possible at a much later Evolutionary time.

Any chance that you, (or others- after all it is a DB) might respond? .Maybe you, or others, can see that it is perfectly obvious that it is a load of rubbish.

But then a courteous response would be to say “That is a load of rubbish because---.”

Because that would be real discussion. Are we to have any?

The Courteous Rules of Engagement are that it is optional for the rest of the DB but not for you because you asked the question and I have given an answer.

Courtesy demands that you give an answer. Any form of answer will do provided only that, one way or another, it includes because.