Vince wrote: > Seeing a pattern by hindsight is interesting, > but it suggests nothing more than that God has > a TIMEtable.
LOL. That's the whole point. If in hindsight we do see some patterns, then maybe with a little study we might become a little better at predicting future events. I'm not saying that we should do this through astrology because God has instructed us not to do it, but if there is any amount of predestination in God's plan, and stars and planets help mark time and are given for signs, times, and seasons, then it follows that they do relate in some way to God's foreordained plan and when certain events happen. Vince wrote: > Assuming that this is true, then someday we can > ask God the significance of His using identical > dates. The stars determined nothing. Oh, yeah, I've heard this old response before. "We can't study and learn it now, just wait until Jesus comes back and then all our questions will be answered." <...sigh...> I do hope you understand that I speak of the stars and planets only as a timepiece. If we say, "the stars determine" we should not read any more into that than when we say that our watch determines when the sun rises tomorrow. Our watch does not cause the sun to rise, but we can predict when it will rise using our watch. Vince wrote: > "Seems to?" All of this is about something which > you're not really certain about? That's right, Vince. God instructs us not to study astrology and so I haven't. Nevertheless, I do recognize in Scripture that both Egyptians and Chaldeans did so, and prophets of God often were compared to them in terms of knowledge and ability to be predictive. Modern astrology is filled with charlatans for the most part, but I'm not convinced that all of astrology has always been that way. Bottom line, though, is I don't know that much about it. David Miller wrote: >> Do you give this ANY merit at all.... Vince wrote: > No. Interesting. David Miller wrote: >> or do you just not want to hear it? Vince wrote: > Your question appears to be based upon the assumption > that there are only two possible attitudes for me > to take, either I agree with you, or I'm unwilling > to listen due to some imperfection or failure on my > part. Well, the Biblical record and historical anecdotes, along with extensive Christian teaching about predestination, lead me to think that there is at least enough merit to talk about it. For you to say that there is NO merit whatsoever, yet offer no reason for dismissing the evidence, suggests that you just don't want to hear it. It isn't necessarily due to some imperfection or failure. For example, a pure scientist would not hear it simply because by definition he believes that nature is not ordered by God and has absolutely no relationship to human lives. So a pure scientist does not hear such considerations simply by how he has defined truth and not because of imperfection or failure with his thinking ability. Vince wrote: > Perhaps you don't recongize this as an indirect, > veiled, ad hominem argument, which is, of course, > useless for advancing understanding through debate. No, Vince, I did not recognize it this way. I'm sorry you took it that way. I certainly welcome you to suggest a third possibility why you might dismiss the correlations. Vince wrote: > There's another possibility which you don't mention above: > You're wrong about all of this nonsense. You mean that I am wrong about Jesus being born on Passover, and about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit being on Shavuot, about a star & comet appearing at Christ's birth and also at the time of the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., etc.? Or do you mean to say that the correlations are simply coincidence and it would be spurious to make anything out of it? Did you ever read Josephus's account of a sword shaped star as well as a comet that appeared during the time of the temple's destruction in 70 A.D.? I see merit in that, but you don't? Hmmm. You are an interesting person. Vince wrote: > The very word "theory" is a scientific term, > defined by scientists for scientific usage. Where in the world did you get that idea? I am a published scientist myself and I have never heard of such a thing. My scientific peers have always had a tendency to avoid the word "theory" because of the way the public uses the word. We much prefer the word "model" to "theory" any day. When we have used the word "theory," it has usually always been in comparing scientific theories to non-scientific theories. David Miller wrote: >> ... you have been programmed to think >> and say what you just said in this >> short paragraph quoted above. Vince wrote: > That's another indirect ad hominem argument. I'm sorry. I'm truly just expressing how it appears to me because you come back with pat answers that are so characteristic of the culture in which we live. Vince wrote: > You can't possibly know that I've been programed > in any fashion, unless, like God, you can probe > the depths of my mind. Are you claiming > that you can read minds? LOL. No, I can't read minds, but your words reveal how you think. When you speak dismissively about any discipline other than science, that tells me that you buy into our cultural milieu. We have all been subject to this kind of programming, and it is not always so easy to break out of it. The first step is to acknowledge it. David Miller wrote: >> ... your worldview is that truth only comes >> through objective and testable means. Vince wrote: > There you go again, telling me what my worldview is. > I hope you understand that's just another ad hominem > argument. Please try a little harder to stay with > the issue under discussion? LOL. Sorry, Vince, I can see that I have messed up this discussion real good. It seems quite apparent to me that your worldview is based on the objective and empirical side. Well, maybe it isn't a worldview, but it sure looks like a paradigm by which you operate. I'm not attacking you at all, just trying to clarify your position. I truly would have thought that you would consider it a compliment because you seem to express the idea that only testable theories are worth consideration. If you think that is a bad place to be, then perhaps some more explaining is needed. On the other hand, maybe you have never thought about your paradigm or worldview? I don't know, Vince. As you pointed out, I can't read minds. I'm trying to help you express yourself to us so we can get to know you better. Vince wrote: >>> I don't believe that astrology foretold Jesus' birth. David Miller wrote: >> But the astrologers were the ones >> who came looking for him, the ones >> who Herod quizzed, the ones who >> said they saw his star. Why would they >> have done this if they did not use their >> understanding in astrology to >> look for him? Vince wrote: > IMHO, they were led to Him by an angel. How can you > know that their astrology was the same as your modern > understanding of astrology? You can't know that. It certainly was not like our modern astrology, but we have many of their records and so we have somewhat of a handle on how they approached astrology. Vince wrote: > On the other hand, we know that God condemns using > astrology, and we know that He honored these magi > by announcing Jesus' birth to them. Would God so > honor people who do the same sort of evil things > for which God condemned King Saul? I doubt it. That really is the beauty about the story of the Magi in the gospels. Surely you are aware of the volumes that have been written about this. If you strip what happened with the Magi, you strip a wonderful teaching within the gospels about Jesus coming for the whole world, astrologers and sorcerers included! Vince wrote: >>> The "star" did not act like a star. >>> It acted more like a spirit >>> manifested as a star; David Miller wrote: >> How do you know this? >> What gives you this perception? Vince wrote: > Stars rise and set, just as the sun and moon rise > and set. This star stayed in front of the magi, > leading them as they travelled west toward Bethlehem. > When they arrived, it hung there over Him. Stars don't > do that. Actually, I have studied the stars a little bit myself, not astrology, but on the astronomy side. The idea of it leading them is very plausible in a number of ways. In fact, the Chinese records of a supernova in Cassiopeia was dismissed as explaining the gospels for the very fact that Cassiopeia would have been behind the Magi at the time this happened, and would have led them further to the east and north instead of toward the west. Kepler calculated a conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn with Mars conjoining with them that would have been a spectacular sight. He was convinced that this was the star that led the Magi. It, of course, would have led them to the west as the Bible describes. There also is a historical account (not sure how trustworthy it is, but it is worth mentioning) that the Magi lost sight of the star as they arrived at Bethlehem. What was happening was that it was climbing higher and higher in the sky and became difficult to spot in the daylight. Then when one of them was getting water out of the well during the middle of the day, he saw the reflection of the star in the surface of the water. Knowing that this meant the star was directly overhead, he concluded that they had arrived at the spot and so they sought to find out where in the city Jesus was. This is the way in which Matthew's account of it "stood over where the child was" is understood. Vince wrote: > On the other hand, we know many angels were involved > in announcing His birth to the shepherds. It seems > reasonable to me that God announced His birth to > the magi with an angel to lead them. Hmmm. It is interesting that you would think it strange that God might speak through the stars to the Magi, but not strange that he would visit them with an angel? ???? I surely acknowledge that your idea is possible, but my reading of Scripture seems to indicate to me that there was a star, comet, conjunction of planets, or supernova. I'm very intrigued by Kepler's calculations of a conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn and Mars at this time. These are very bright planets. The Chinese astronomical tables record a comet at this time too, so if that is added, it could have been very spectacular. A supernova also might have happened then, or temporary star, which in history have been known to be so bright that they were visible during mid-day. Vince wrote: > I suspect that there's nobody else here in tt > who doesn't already know that we each have > different perspectives, because we each have > different experiences and have had different > sources of information through the years. > If I'm wrong, if there's somebody here who > never knew this before now, please speak up > and let us know. But don't you find it interesting to discuss these things? I find it fascinating that you think the star was an angel. I immediately become curious about why you might think that, and if you have considered any of the historians and astronomers of the past, especially Kepler, Schubert, Ideler, and Pritchard. To these guys, the star of astrology became a torch of chronology, and an argument for the truthfulness of the gospels. Do you know of any other time when an angel appeared as a star? I must admit that I am exposing my ignorance on this one. By the way, have you read the Stoic Chaeremon's "Treatise on Comets" that correlates comets with important events, or do you dismiss the idea of such on grounds sufficiently strong that would make reading such a work a waste of time? David Miller wrote: >> How we interpret Scripture has much >> to do with how we live and the history >> of our personal experiences as well >> as to the operation of the Holy >> Spirit in our personal lives. Vince wrote: > How we understand scripture is determined by God > and how much He wants to open our minds to > understanding. He tells us that He gives > understanding to the humble. He gives eyes that > see and ears to hear to those who are humble, > contrite, and tremble at His word. Proud and > rebellious people are without understanding > regardless of how many advanced degrees in > philosphy or theology they might have. I think recognizing how much mental baggage we bring with us when we read the Scriptures is a way we exercise humility. Vince wrote: > I'm making the general statement that God opening our > minds to scripture is the one essential factor in our > understanding. Oh, yes, we certainly agree on this. Vince wrote: > Jesus had no formal training and neither did > the apostles, yet the doctors of the law, the > lawyers, the teachers, etc. were amazed at > their understanding. Jesus' home town neighbors > were amazed at His understanding. > > All of the diversity of exeperience and background > becomes secondary when we are one in heart and mind > with Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit. Very well said. David Miller wrote: >> It seems to me that much of your objection >> to Bill's earlier post, or perhaps the reason >> it went over your head .... Vince wrote: > Over my head? OUCH !! Another ad hominem. Ooops. I will try to do better. Wasn't it you that described it as psychobabble and indicated that you did not understand it? Maybe I misunderstood you. Did you understand Bill's post? Vince wrote: > Your argument certainly depends a lot on ad hominems. Sorry, Vince, I did not realize that we were in a debate. I'm just trying to explore together and trying to help us recognize the history and psychology that hangs over all our heads. Vince wrote: > Do you think maybe perhaps this might maybe be > a good indication that there's something wrong > with your logic? No, I truly think that you have spoken from an empirical paradigm. I'm only sorry that my attempt to discuss that was perceived as some sort of attack on you. I will back off. David Miller wrote: >> ... was because you have not worked >> through thinking about the questions >> he was addressing in that post. Vince wrote: > Another ad hominem. Your argument depends upon > a failing on my part, i.e., that I failed > to work through those questions. Wow, I never really looked at it like that, as some kind of failure on your part. I have found in my past that sometimes people bring things up and offer me answers before I have even asked the question. I truly thought that you had never really delved into these philosophical questions, and I still kind of think that for some reason. Hey, if you think I'm attacking you in some way, I'm sorry. That truly was not my intention. Vince wrote: > Perhaps I have worked through all those questions, > and I've come to a different, better understanding > than you have. That's what I'm trying to find out. You make that difficult for me to accept when you claim that the word "theory" is a scientific term and that there is no such thing as an untestable theory. Vince wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to stick with the issues > rather than my supposed failings, the existence > of which are indicated by no other evidence than > the fact that I disagree with you? It is not your disagreement, but the actual argument you make. For example, when you say, > Astrology does not have theories about the universe. > A theory is testable and the results of those tests > are reproducable by other trained scientists. > Astrological myths are not the same as a theory. well, that expresses the idea that science is true and astrology is false and that astrology is so false that it is not worthy to use the word "theory" for its models of understanding. Your argument expresses a very strong belief in empiricism. Don't get me wrong. I much favor astronomy over astrology, but I find your attitude to be very dismissive of anything but science. The posts by Bill dealt with very low level questions about how we can actually know anything. I have never heard such considerations in my science background, so I naturally would assume that perhaps you have not considered the basic questions which he has attempted to answer. I have studied the differences between astrology and astronomy in my science background, and I mistakenly thought that perhaps that might be a good springboard to getting to an understanding of Bill's remarks. David Miller wrote: >> ... if nothing I have said thus far has >> stimulated your thinking even one bit .... Vince wrote: > ZING!! The premise behind that is that it's MY > thinking which needs to be stimulated. That, of > course, is an ad hominem argument. Wow! I thought we were all here to stimulate each other's thinking. Sorry for offending you, Vince. Maybe I should crawl under a rock somewhere and get out of sight for awhile. I truly did NOT mean to offend you in any way with my statement. David Miller wrote: >> ... I am not the best communicator. Vince wrote: > I disagree. You are very well spoken. > Many of your ideas are wrong, > but you do state them clearly. ;) Well, then, perhaps I am blind because I do not see how any ideas that I have shared with you were wrong. Oh, well. I'm off to read Torrance now. :-) I will try to be more polite in future posts. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
