Moving mountains

[dochawk]

Not quite.

Four of the five postulates, yet.

However, of the five postulates, the bit about one straight line between two points is not universal.

Deny it with “more than one” and you get spherical rather than planar geometry, and “no straight lines” leads to another (elliptic? I forget . . )

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

What’s the point of all this? You doubt faith in God can move mountains - so what conclusion are you coming to?

 

[AlNg]

Not quite.

Four of the five postulates, yet.

However, of the five postulates, the bit about one straight line between two points is not universal.

Deny it with “more than one” and you get spherical rather than planar geometry, and “no straight lines” leads to another (elliptic? I forget . . )

There is no disagreement about Euclidean or plane geometry. It has held for 2300 years. There have been different geometries developed by assuming an axiom different from the parallel postulate assumed in Euclidean geometry. These geometries hold on non-planar surfaces. Spherical and hyperbolic geometries are true of course, but do not negate any of the results in plane geometry. Euclidean or Plane geometry continues to hold true for flat two dimensional surfaces and is still being taught in schools even after 2300 years.

what conclusion are you coming to?

That it is easier to understand a proposition when it is spoken clearly and unambiguously.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

That it is easier to understand a proposition when it is spoken clearly and unambiguously.

That sounds fine on the surface, but since the words of Scripture are set already the only question is how are you going to reconcile with the sometimes unclear language?

 

[speculator]

The bible-gospel is always clear and Jesus always spoke clearly.

In the same way his followers should speak today.

For my part I repeat mountains don’t move.

But we don’t always read with much attention his words-deeds.

Besides we don’t always have the knowledge of historical facts and religious traditions and so on.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In primitive days, when man had very limited understanding of how things work, many unpredictable things were attributed to the will of a god or gods. Why have the locusts come? Our god is angry. Why has there been no rain in weeks? It is not the will of our gods to make it rain. We know now that these occurrences have natural explanations.

There is a two-step process here to try and explain away unanswered prayer:

1. No response is actually a response by the god or gods saying “no”.
2. If the prayer was sincere, the request was pure and good, and there doesn’t seem to be a reason why the prayer wasn’t answered, then the factor was the will of the god or gods.

You mentioned that it wouldn’t make sense that one would expect your God to answer a prayer that goes against his will, but (like in step 2) there are a great many sincere and good prayers that don’t get answered. And it doesn’t add up why they go against God’s will. It’s a blanket catch-all to avoid answering this very question.

And what strikes me is that this very same two-step process can show why prayers to

• a god we both agree doesn’t exist
• the natural elements
• (as I mentioned to TisBearself) an inanimate object like the idol from The Brady Bunch
  doesn’t always answer prayers the way we want it to.

People who do that basically, care less about God and only care about what they can get from God. They view prayer as a means to get things for free.

I think this parody from The Onion capsulizes my feeling on this:

God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy

 

[De_Maria]

We know now that these occurrences have natural explanations.

You have come to that erroneous conclusion because you don’t understand the will of God.

There is a two-step process here to try and explain away unanswered prayer:
…

No. You have received an explanation and you are rejecting it because you don’t like it.

You mentioned that it wouldn’t make sense that one would expect your God to answer a prayer that goes against his will,

Correct.

but (like in step 2) there are a great many sincere and good prayers that don’t get answered.

In your opinion. But it is God’s will that matters.

And it doesn’t add up why they go against God’s will.

It doesn’t add up to you, because you don’t have faith in God. We believe that all which God does is for our good, whether it is answering the prayer or not. God does not give us a viper when we ask for bread.

It’s a blanket catch-all to avoid answering this very question.

I’ve answered your question, you simply don’t like the answer.

And what strikes me is that this very same two-step process can show why prayers to

• a god we both agree doesn’t exist

I know that God exists and I know that He is a loving God who has our best interest at heart.

I think this parody from The Onion capsulizes my feeling on this:

Well, at least you can articulate your feelings. But, what you and the Onion don’t realize is that this physical world is secondary. And, if God hasn’t answered the paralyzed child’s prayer, it is because God knows that it is better for his soul for him to go without that which he prayed for.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

We know now that these occurrences have natural explanations.

You have come to that erroneous conclusion because you don’t understand the will of God.

Please read my post again. The these occurrences referenced in the statement “We know now that these occurrences have natural explanations” was referring to the examples I gave why locusts may come or rain won’t fall.

No. You have received an explanation and you are rejecting it because you don’t like it.

I’ve answered your question, you simply don’t like the answer.

It’s not that I’m rejecting an answer simply because I don’t like, but because the methodology is so poor in can be use to explain why if praying to something like a lamp doesn’t give a positive response doesn’t mean it’s not divine.

It doesn’t add up to you, because you don’t have faith in God. We believe that all which God does is for our good, whether it is answering the prayer or not. God does not give us a viper when we ask for bread.

Let me get back to you on this one.

• a god we both agree doesn’t exist

I know that God exists and I know that He is a loving God who has our best interest at heart.

I specifically used the lowercase g to indicate that I’m not talking about Jehovah, Adonai, God the Father, etc. I’m talking about a god you and I agree is not divine like Zeus or Moloch.

Also, I am not here to sway you from your beliefs, but it seems like when the rubber meets the road the God of the Bible requires a great many explanations after the fact to square what it says about him to what we see in the world today.

Well, at least you can articulate your feelings. But, what you and the Onion don’t realize is that this physical world is secondary. And, if God hasn’t answered the paralyzed child’s prayer, it is because God knows that it is better for his soul for him to go without that which he prayed for.

We differ in that regard. I can’t look at suffering and call it either necessary or good.

 

[Bithynian]

I think it’s worthwhile noting that some early Gentile Christians had difficulty in interpreting the relationship with the literal and non-literal meanings of certain texts, especially where it interacted with Jewish understandings of God’s omnipotency.

For example, take Mark 10:25 ’ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ Early Latin Christians translated κάμηλον (camelon, in English ‘camel’) as camellus, but we find in some of their early commentaries an attempt to force an interpretation of camellus as a ‘ship’s rope’ to make the literal meaning more sensical.

Most commentaries (ancient and modern) interpret Matt 17:20 via an understanding that he is using a rhetorical device, adynaton (Gk: ὰδύνατον, in English ‘impossible’) in order further his line of argument. That is, adynaton utilises an exaggerated hyperbole (whether impossible, fantastical or possible but extraordinary) in order to compare and contrast another statement.

In this case, an impossible/fantastical/possible but extraordinary action (moving mountains) is compared to the small size of faith in God (as small as a mustard seed) required to effect that action. The effect of this rhetoric in the context of Matt 17:14-21 is to suggest that the disciples have little faith, and that they need more.

In respect to this pattern of exegesis, it is missing the sense of the passage to focus on ‘moving mountains’ in order to determine whether it is literal or figurative or the degree to which it is impossible, fantastical or possible but extraordinary.

Taking a more prosaic example, if I were to say “I’m so hungry that I could eat a horse” (another example of adynaton), I’m not suggesting that I want to eat a horse, that I could eat an entire horse, that I want horsemeat or that I want as much food as a horse weighs, but only that I’m very hungry. To focus on the ‘horse’ is to misinterpret its function in the context of the line of argument.

 

[Brian_K]

When I reflect on this I think how the societies that accepted Christianity received sufficient peace, order and learning to develop things like earth moving equipment today, which can literally move mountains. He said the mountain would move, just not when.

 

[De_Maria]

Please read my post again. The these occurrences referenced in the statement “We know now that these occurrences have natural explanations” was referring to the examples I gave why locusts may come or rain won’t fall.

It’s God’s world.

It’s not that I’m rejecting an answer simply because I don’t like, but because the methodology is so poor in can be use to explain why if praying to something like a lamp doesn’t give a positive response doesn’t mean it’s not divine.

No, it can’t. Please reread my post.

Let me get back to you on this one.

Ok.

I specifically used the lowercase g to indicate that I’m not talking about Jehovah, Adonai, God the Father, etc. I’m talking about a god you and I agree is not divine like Zeus or Moloch.

You don’t use words like a Christian. So, what are you saying? Our God is Divine.

Also, I am not here to sway you from your beliefs, but it seems like when the rubber meets the road the God of the Bible requires a great many explanations after the fact to square what it says about him to what we see in the world today.

Again, because you don’t know God’s will. You think that this world is “it”. That’s all. But it isn’t. There is a world to come and a life to come. And those who don’t strive to get there, will not.

We differ in that regard. I can’t look at suffering and call it either necessary or good.

I understand. I left the Church mainly because of that sentiment, myself. I have since, returned.

Read this from Scripture.

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

You think of suffering as something bad. But God doesn’t. That’s why He came to suffer and give us an example:

1 Peter 2:21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

 

[dochawk]

There is no disagreement about Euclidean or plane geometry. It has held for 2300 years. There have been different geometries developed by assuming an axiom different from the parallel postulate assumed in Euclidean geometry. These geometries hold on non-planar surfaces. Spherical and hyperbolic geometries are true of course, but do not negate any of the results in plane geometry.

That is what I said . . .

That it is easier to understand a proposition when it is spoken clearly and unambiguously.

I can think of Someone whose apostles and crowds said something like that without much luck . . .

 

[Tis_Bearself]

For example, let’s say someone is driving in the middle of nowhere and gets caught in a ditch. It wasn’t enough to cause serious injury, but it’s enough where the car can’t be extracted without a tow truck. There is no cell reception. At this point the person is frightened and turns to God. That person may pray a general prayer, but I’m more interested in people who pray a specific request. Would it be safe to say that this person might ask God to provide cell service or to have someone drive by who can help? Would it be safe to stay that this person would NOT ask for the car to be levitated back on the road or to be instantly whisked away from the ditch to home in bed?

A normal believer would simply pray, “God, help me please” and leave it up to God how he wanted to help.
When I need help I don’t sit around analyzing how to craft my request to the Almighty.

 

[AlNg]

That is what I said .

Each geometry, whether Euclidean, spherical or hyperbolic is presented in a clearcut, unambiguous fashion. There is no disagreement among scholars on what a proposition means. This is not true of Scripture.

 

[GiftofMercy]

For my part I repeat mountains don’t move.

And I repeat that mountains do move. By physical processes. So we cannot say they are static. However, this is different to moving a mountain by faith.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

A normal believer would simply pray, “God, help me please” and leave it up to God how he wanted to help.
When I need help I don’t sit around analyzing how to craft my request to the Almighty.

You would be incorrect in claiming that a normal believer wouldn’t pray for something specific in a time of crisis. It happens all the time. Yes, some people would pray a general prayer. I could even say a majority of prayers would do so. But for those people that make specific requests it’s very interesting that when they have the option of praying for something normally impossible or something mundane (e.g. having a policeman drive by instead being supernaturally whisked home).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No, it can’t. Please reread my post.

But it does. The two-step process of (1) what looks to be a non-response from deity X is really a response of “no”, and (2) if a no response from deity X should be a yes response, the reason is that the request was not of X’s will works whether X is your god or you consider false.

You don’t use words like a Christian. So, what are you saying? Our God is Divine.

I’m simply not using a proper noun to differentiate between the God of Christianity verses the general idea of a god.

Again, because you don’t know God’s will. You think that this world is “it”. That’s all. But it isn’t. There is a world to come and a life to come. And those who don’t strive to get there, will not.

I have to go with what the Bible says about God’s will. It says that we should care enough about the world that we can and should ask for intercession. It says that believers can do miraculous things provided they have the faith of a mustard seed. It doesn’t impress non-believers that so often qualifiers and the like have to explain why those with great faith can’t do what was assured.

We differ in that regard. I can’t look at suffering and call it either necessary or good.

I understand. I left the Church mainly because of that sentiment, myself. I have since, returned.

Read this from Scripture.

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

You think of suffering as something bad. But God doesn’t. That’s why He came to suffer and give us an example:

1 Peter 2:21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

I know parents who have experienced great unwarranted and unneeded suffering. They do all that they can to prevent their children from experiencing that same suffering, for they know that there is a difference between experiencing obstacles and withstanding suffering.

And to one thing you mentioned in an earlier post, I had to find the passage:

It doesn’t add up to you, because you don’t have faith in God. We believe that all which God does is for our good, whether it is answering the prayer or not. God does not give us a viper when we ask for bread.

God literally gave the Israelites vipers when they asked for bread. See Numbers 21:4-6:

4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” 6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You seem to have an odd idea that people should ask for the supernatural. While we recognize that the supernatural could occur, I think most of us are taught as children that asking for supernatural things is a violation of “thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”. There is a higher possibility of being told “no” to a supernatural request because God sees no need for a supernatural request, as he can accomplish the same thing by a more ordinary means. There is also a feeling among most believers that one needs to be very holy to ask for and obtain supernatural requests and most of us feel that we miss that mark. Perhaps this is a lack of faith or spiritual development on our part, but it is what it is.

When making prayers we are more likely to ask for things that we think are more likely to actually occur, such as “Lord please send someone to help with my car” rather than “Lord please fly my car home to the garage.”

If you yourself do not pray regularly, you’re not going to understand the attitude of respect for God and not being proud or trivial that underlies this.

Furthermore, many Catholics are skeptical of much of the supernatural phenomena associated with the Church. I’m sure many for example would listen to the legends of the saints mentioned in this thread as moving mountains and say, “Well, that’s private revelation, I don’t have to believe it” because they don’t believe it is possible or that it happened. If it did happen, they’d look for a physical cause such as an optical illusion or an earthquake. I see this also as a lack of faith but again it is what it is.

 

[speculator]

I correct myself: I wrote that mountains don’t move. I should have written: Mountains do not walk.

 

[GiftofMercy]

I correct myself: I wrote that mountains don’t move. I should have written: Mountains do not walk.

on their own…