Discussion and DB (Sunday Forum)

by Warren , Monday, April 20, 2009, 14:14 (1521 days ago) @ Ian Elmer

James,

Many thanks for your reply. You say

I was not having a go at Ian for not responding. He usually does and does it very well, and indeed he has done so now to my query. I thought that this discussion had come to an end, but Brian resurrected it for his Sunday forum, and there did not appear to be any takers. So, I thought I would throw my query back in. It certainly had its effect.

My comment was not about Ian but a more general comment that there is often no response even when a particular person has been addressed in specific response to what they have specifically said.

I am quite happy to say again that it seems to me to be discourteous and if it is explained by some new form of etiquette peculiar to DB I would be happy to know about it.

My question to Ian was, if the petitionary form of prayer is now "evolving" into the contemplative or meditative form of prayer (which seems to be favored by many on this thread) how does this fit in with the idea that the Scriptures and particularly the Old Testament are inspired?

I am missing the point of what you say here because I am mindful of Psalm 46 which says Be still and know that I am God.

I have always understood this to mean that we should be contemplative from way back then and so I have a problem with the idea that contemplative prayer is dependent on Evolution in the usual sense of Evolution of the Universe and the whole human race.

The point I made is, isn't it more likely that if this development has been "inspired", it has come about by the evolutionary process itself...however that has occurred, and not through some books fixed in time, with, as you rightly point out, their own literary forms?

It seems to me that it can be said that it is both. “Some books fixed in time” are the starting point. So I think that Claude Shannon’s Communication Theory is very relevant here in saying but the message that is sent is not the message that it is received.

Most especially when the Transcendent is sending the message and it is the merely human that receives it. I then mentioned the specific role that Evolution might play.

So the point to stress about Evolution for me is that it is our understanding that is evolving so it is not the message that is evolving and getting better but our understanding of the message.

So the most important point for discussion seemed to me to be about whether or not there is a case for revising our understanding of what “inspired” might mean. Which has the expectation that there would be some response in the form of yes or no or maybe.

But I will be happy to learn that there is some DB definition of discussion that I am failing to comprehend.