In article <2yZac.34093$Lq4.28435@twister.socal.rr.com>, "Ron Baker,
Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> writes:

"SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH" <cms@cygnus.dragon.com> wrote

message news:HZAI5FhcYjwj@cygnus.dragon.com...

<snip>

[snip]

The thesis is primarily about the Incarnation of the Logos within the
kosmos with respect to inhabitants of other worlds. I seem to
recall what I thought you would find interesting was the discussion on
the meanings of various Greek terms including kosmos, Logos, et al. as
well as their development over the centuries. In the appendices is a
discussion on Intelligent Design Theory.

We were defining kosmos/universe. I think we
covered it pretty well. In your chapter 3 you
argue that kosmos refers to the whole universe and
not just the earth. I'll accept that.

Okay. I think that the word kosmos can have different meanings
depending on the culture in which the word is used in writing. Since
the Bible often includes stories and ideas that have different
meanings to later generations, it's also possible that, because words
often change meanings over time, the word kosmos can be interpreted to
mean more than simply the original "earth and sky with all its
contents." Robert Newman, whom I cite in my thesis, argues that
Hebrew conceptions of the nature of the earth and sky are actually
consistent with modern science when translated properly. Of course,
I'm also fairly reliably informed that about half the Hebrew Bible is
essentially untranslatable since about half the words appear only in
the Hebrew Bible and nowhere else. This makes translating as much a
game of educated guessing as real translation. A Hebrew Bible scholar
named Carol Newsom said to me in an email that the Greek word kosmos
is a Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word 'tsaba. Generally, the
Septuagint is very important in translating the Hebrew Bible because
without that translation, we would have no idea what a very large
number of Hebrew words mean.

I include here my last post to which I have seen no
response from you:

Okay.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH" <cms@cygnus.dragon.com> wrote

message news:JPr$9hWuEkxH@cygnus.dragon.com...

In article <xks9c.23348$Lq4.5101@twister.socal.rr.com>, "Ron Baker,
Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> writes:

[snip]

[snip]

Note: I am snipping parts to which you simply seem to agree in order
to save bandwidth.

I believe
God created the kosmos because the Bible says so, and I believe the
Bible to be the Word of God.

All of it?

Yes.

How do you know it is the word of God?

I know the Bible is the Word of God because the Catholic Church has
the authority to declare the Scriptures the Word of God.

I believe it
was Augustine who said that, were it not for the authority of the
Church, I would not believe the Bible. Jesus did not found a Bible,
Jesus founded a Church,
and the Bible does not say that the Bible is
"the pillar and foundation of truth," rather, the Bible says that the
"Church...[is]...the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Could the Bhagvat Gita be the word of God?

the Bhagavad Ghita could be inspired but not the Word of God.

I also believe God created the kosmos
because I have reasoned, like Descartes, that, since I exist,
something must exist which created me.

Why don't you think it is Brahma that created you?

Have you ever read Arthur C. Clarke's "The Nine Billion Names of God"?
Do you think it's possible that God has many names but is badly
misunderstood by many of the world's religions?

Why don't you think that the universe/nature created you?

I believe that I am intelligently designed,

and being intelligently
designed requires an Intelligent Designer.

Some people theorize that God
exists based on the existence of the universe; others, like Descartes,
argue that the universe must exist based on the existence of God.
Care to have a go at epistemology?

Here's a little shot.
I believe there is absolute reality.
The problem is we only have our perception of
it and our perception is imperfect.
We can never know reality absolutely, but we can
reach a pretty good approximation.

"Wow -- reality -- what a concept!" -- Robin Williams

Plato's Shadow Cave comes to mind. Abbott's _Flatland_ comes to mind.
It is possible that our minds are incapable of grasping ultimate
reality because we aren't hardwired to understand what to us seems
absurd.

It seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
Do you mean to say that you have already given
your position by way of the Aquinas proofs?

We haven't really discussed the Thomistic proofs.

God, for example, is the Prime Mover. Newton's
idea was that, for every action, there is an equal an opposite
reaction. The universe is in motion. What force caused the
universe's contents to be put into motion?

This is basically Aquinas 1?

Aquinas 1.1, "Nothing can move itself", seems arbitrary,
ad hoc, and baseless. It seems to be based on a "common
sense" type observation similar to "Obviously the earth is
the center of the universe and doesn't move"
and "Things don't change mass
or dimensions just because they are in motion".

Aquinas 1 also contains special pleading.
Nothing can move itself..... except God.
Overall, it is quite a leap. Why couldn't Brahma,
Baal, or Flurkle be the Unmoved Mover.
In fact why postulate any Unmoved Mover
before the universe. Why can't the universe
(or the laws of nature plus matter/energy)
be the Unmoved Mover.

I think for a universe with immutable laws to exist requires an
intelligent creator.

(Which is Aquinas 5, right? No response to my comments
on Aquinas 1?)

This reminds me of math rings.

In a math ring, you are in a very
small universe. In a ring of numbers from 1 to 12, 11 + 3 = 2. In an
infinite number system, this statement would be untrue, but it is true
inside the ring because you are in a very small universe. In order
to answer the question what is 11 + 14, you are required to step
outside the ring to give the answer 11 + 14 = 1. Some would argue
that the first expression makes no sense because the number 14 does
not exist within the ring system. However, if you allow stepping
outside the ring, the equation does make sense. God both permeates
and transcends the kosmos, that is, he exists both within the ring and
outside the ring. Our scientific theories are limited to
within-the-ring equations. We can speculate about outside the ring
(or Dyson sphere, if the universe is a Dyson sphere), but we cannot
really understand it because we are limited to the numbers within the
ring.

Why does the universe require an intelligent creator?

The design of the universe doesn't seem all that intelligent.
There is much that is unfortunate and sub-optimal.
It doesn't look like the work of an omnipotent, omniscient
being. In addition there is much detail to the universe
that seems totally unnecessary wrt God's wishes
as described in the Bible.

Why couldn't Brahma be the creator?

As a scientist, I would answer that Brahma could be the creator, but
as a theologian, I would answer that the reason why Brahma cannot be

the creator is because Brahma is not the Hebrew/Christian God whom we
are commanded to love, worship, honor, and obey by the
Hebrew/Christian Bible and Tradition.

Where did God come from?

God is eternal.

Interesting. I view the universe/nature as eternal.

What about the red shift? What about the Big Bang Theory? Current
scientific opinion (at least among the majority of Earth's scientists)
believe that the universe had a beginning, both spatially and
temporally.

I don't think science has a firm concensus on what was
before the big bang.

Neither does Judeo-Christian theology. Strange bedfellows, eh?

Most cite it as the beginning of
the _currently_observable_ universe. Many believe that
the nature of the big bang is such that nothing can be
determined about a posible time before the big bang.
There is also the theory that the big bang and the origination
of the currently observable universe resulted from
a collision of branes (which might be eternal).

What do you mean by "branes" ? Do you mean "brains" ? Why do you
think they are eternal?

When did God create the universe?

"In the beginning."

Is that a serious answer?

Yes.

When was the beginning?

When was the beginning of time? The Big Bang.

Was that a finite time before now?

I think before time began there was eternity (where God exists).

Is that the beginning of God or the universe
or both?

The beginning of the universe. God has no beginning or ending because
God is eternal. In a real sense, God is "the Guardian of Forever."

What did he do before he created the universe?

He thought about creating the universe.

He created hell for people who ask that question (Augustine) :-).

How long did that take?

In eternity, time is not measured.

What did he do before that?

He thought about creating the universe.

A large number of Christians say that God
is also: omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and
bestower of free will.
Is that your view too?

Augustine would argue that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the
bestower of free will, but would disgree that God is omnibenevolent

the grounds that Yahweh is a God of justice as well as mercy.

I'll assume that is your view as well.
Interesting. It seems that the majority of Christian
hold on to all four of those properties.
Your relaxing of benevolence avoids some contradictions...
but leads to another. If God is not benevolent (or
omnibenevolent) then how can he be worthy of worship?
What is the point if he might screw you anyway?

Any comment?

You are asking me why God who is not omnibenovolent is worthy of
worship? I would say that God is worthy of worship because he created
the universe and all that is in it including us human beings.
God
commands us, "Honor your Father and your Mother that you may have a
long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you"
(haven't got the cite handy, but I think the quote is exact). We
don't worship our parents, per se, but show them honor because we came
from them. God is our Father and our Mother, and we owe God love
because love for one another and love for God covers a multitude of
sins. As for why we worship God, it is because God wants us to do so
out of reverence for his status as our creator and sustainer who knows
our hearts and minds better than we know them ourselves. Our parents,
while we come from them, do not know our hearts and minds as
intimately as God does.

Oh, and you imply that justice is not benevolent.
That doesn't sound good.

If courts were omnibenevolent, then judges would simply allow
wrongdoers back on the streets without punishment

where they might
commit the same crimes again -- do you think that that would be "good"
in the sense of benevolent for society? I don't think so. I wouldn't
call punishment "good," per se, but it does have good consequences,
that of protecting society from wrongdoers.

You believe that punishment of the wicked is good? Perhaps. Do you
believe that reward of the good is evil?

I believe in liberty, equality, and the rule of law (human laws).
Wickedness, good, and evil are often so subjective.
The Bible says it is evil (in fact, a capital offense)
to pick up sticks on the sabbath.

We are no longer bound by the ceremonial law. God gave the laws for a
purpose, to solidify Hebrew society into worshiping one God, but this
Law was our disciplinarian, and when we grew beyond the need for a
disciplinarian, we came to live under grace. We are still bound by
the moral law but not the ceremonial law. (This is a very Catholic
idea. I'm not sure what Protestants believe.)

Perhaps Hebrews will help
you in this case: "At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for
joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of
righeousness to those who are trained by it. So strengthen your
drooping hands and your weak knees. Make straight paths for your fee,
that what is lame may not be dislocated but healed. Strive for peace
with everyone, for that holiness wihtout which no one will see the
Lord" (12:11-14).

detailed description of the meaning of kosmos down through the

I

invite you to take a look at Chapter 3 of the latest version of

Masters thesis "Shadows of Things to Come: The Theological
Implications of Intelligent Life on Other Worlds." If you so

desire,

I will send you the Word file containing the thesis-in-progress.

Thanks for offering. Yes, I would be interested.
I'm a little reluctant to include my actual email
address. Do you have a web site?

There's an older version of my thesis on my website, but it doesn't
contain the kosmos discussion, which I added later. Send me an email,
if you don't want your email put on this newsgroup, and I will forward
you the latest incarnation of my thesis -- my address is
cms@RomanCatholic.org. My website is www.romancatholic.org.

I checked out the website. None of the links on it
worked for me.

It's still under construction. To access the older thesis, go to
www.romancatholic.org/cindy.html.

I'll send you an email.

Got it.

God is one God in three holy persons, Father, Son, and Holy

Hmm. That seems contradictory and unnecessary to me.

Why? The three persons are comprised of the same substance --
Godstuff, for lack of a better term. Why do you consider that to be
contradictory and unnecessary?

I like your 'Godstuff' better. It is more consistent.
God is the Godstuff. There was Godstuff in Jesus.
The Godstuff in Jesus was visible after his human body
died. That seems more consistent (even if still
not believable). That 'persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'
seem unnecessarily complex and inappropriately
anthropomorphic for a Unmoved Mover, First Cause,
Necessary Being, ... thingy.

So, you think God is Spirit without the Father and Son bit?
Interesting.

No, God is still just a fantasy. The father and son
stuff are just additional unnecessary contradictions.

What is "additional" and "unnecessary" and contradictory about the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

God is the one who redeems us and grants us eternal salvation.

What do you think God is?

The same as Brahma, Baal, Quetzalcoatl, Osiris, Zeus, etc.
i.e. a myth.

Father Leverdierre would argue that myth is essential to Biblical
faith, including the myth of Creation as described in the

"The first eleven chapters of Genesis are much closer to mythical

forms

of

writing. Myth, in this case, must not be understood to mean that

events told were fictional or untrue. A myth is a profoundly true
statement which speaks to universal aspects of life and reality.

(Should I again assume that when you quote someone
that it is also your view?)

Generally.

Hmm. That seems to be a rather nonstandard view of myth.
Myths are generally not accepted as true.
This sounds like equivocation.

I'm simply using the scholarly definition of "myth."

OK. Then I would say that God, Brahma, Baal, Quetzalcoatl, Osiris,
Zeus, etc. are all untrue myths, i.e. fictional.

If you mean
"myth" in the sense of a story which tellers believe is true but which
most listeners or readers generally assume to be untrue, then, no,
Genesis is not mythological in character.

Is it poetic then, or is it literal fact?

Whether Scripture passages are poetic, historical, fable (like Balaam
and the talking donkey), myth (like Genesis 1-11), eyewitness accounts
of historical events (like David), satire (like Jonah), Gospel,
epistles, or apocalyptic -- is open to interpretation, both literary
interpretation and theological interpretation.

If you are asking me
whether I believe the Bible is the "literal Word of God" with no room
for metaphor, then, no, I'm afraid, as a Catholic, I don't fall into
that generally Protestant Evangelical camp. I believe the Bible is
the Word of God, yes, but the Word of God must be understood within
the context of the historical, sociological, and cultural
circumstances in which it was written. The Bible contains historical
errors because the Bible is not, in general, a textbook of history.
The Bible contains scientific errors because the Bible is not, in
general, a textbook of science. The Bible contains no theological
errors because the Bible is a textbook of theology.

In article <2yZac.34093$Lq4.28435@twister.socal.rr.com>, "Ron Baker,
Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> writes: