Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Tue Oct 29 22:41:35 EST 2002


JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote: 
>>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>>>>>Then you cannot say with certainty that God did indeed choose "ALL
>>>>>of mankind" if you read that in a Bible which is not 100% accurate.
>
>>>>Nothing can be said with certainty.  You might be a butterfly dreaming
>>>>you are "Jd" and posting on the Internet.  There might be no Bible at
>>>>all, and it might be a figment of your imagination, or you might be a
>>>>figment of mine.
>
>>>Uncertainty is a law of quantum mechanics devolped by Heisenberg.
>>>Scientists operate within the realm of probabilities and therefore
>>>restrict themselves from certainty. 
>
>>The "butterfly dreaming" thing came from some ancient Chinese
>>philosopher.
>
>Heisenberg was German as were many of the guys who developed the
>laws of physics.

Yep.  Newton was a good German.  So was Galileo.

BTW, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has NOTHING whatsoever to do
with what we can say about God and the Bible.

>>>>If the Bible is true, then I see no basis for a claim of selective
>>>>grace.  If the Bible is not true, then it may or may not matter, but I
>>>>choose to have faith anyway.
>>>
>>>Faith in something that may not be true?
>>
>>If there were proof that it is true, then it would not be faith.
>
>Faith is proof by biblical definition.

No.

>Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
>things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

That one I agree with, but that is not "proof", by definition or
otherwise.  "Things hoped for" aren't necessarily proven to exist.

>>>Unbelief which comes by doubt and uncertainty may very well be
>>>predicated on the rejection of the existence of truth. Truth also
>>>comes via the spoken word, for if it were not so, Jesus would have
>>>to had written his thoughts down with pen and ink.  Instead, he
>>>preached.
>
>>Unfortunately the spoken word that is not written cannot be testified
>>to.  My understanding is that the Talmud that you anti-Semites condemn
>>started as nothing other than the remembrance of the spoken word that
>>had been passed down for centuries, finally being written down so that
>>it might not be lost in the Jewish diaspora.  The Old Testament that
>>we have is those oral traditions which was written down at the time of
>>the Babylonian captivity, and after the return for the same reason.
>
>That's basically irrelevant.  Down through the centuries God has
>sent his men to speak His word.  Lastly God sent His Son, upon whom
>they who knew the Talmud passed the death sentence...

Which is precisely what God had planned, and what he required of them.
Since Christ's death on the cross was required for salvation, it is
quite possible that God intentionally supplied laws to the Jews that
when misinterpreted would lead to that event, knowing full well
because of His omniscience that they would in fact misinterpret them.

>Also it's irrelevant due to the fact that not even all Jews
>themselves adhere to the Rabbinical form of  Talmidism any more than
>all Christians adhere to the Popery of the Papal decrees.

I merely threw in that comment because you and others seem to have a
hangup about the Talmud and yet have no problem with oral law not
recorded in the Bible, when in fact the two may be the same thing.
  
>Your view that the Talmud is a type of codification of the oral
>Torah is off  by one order of magnitude in that the earliest
>document of rabbinic literature is the "Mishnah" not the Talmud.

The Mishnah is part of the Talmud.

>>>... which should immediately make anyone interested in truth ask the
>>>question "what is the gospel?" if they previously thought that the
>>>"gospel" is only relevant to NT teachings.  Obviously, the element
>>>of certain truth is contained within the phraseology "word preached"
>>>and is not limited to NT theology (or scientific review which is
>>>limited by uncertainties). Otherwise, how could many of the OT
>>>characters have aquired the status of "saints" as is revealed in
>>>both OT and NT scriptures?
>
>>I don't think any OT characters are considered "saints".  They are
>>considered "patriarchs" or "prophets".
>
>Spoken as a true victim of Popery.  I've heard that some saints get
>voted into sainthood by the "council of divines" 500 years or so
>after they've died.

So now I am a Catholic?  Sorry, but no.  My father's family is
Catholic and he studied in seminary but turned away from the church.
I knew nothing of Catholicism until I was an adult.  My most recent
baptism was Southern Baptist (which doesn't accept anyone else's
baptism as valid).

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list