# Brushes with the divine? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585 "2013-06-09T21:12:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/301 "2013-06-19T13:46:00Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Let’s see, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, for starters, and centuries of theologians since. Why should we believe those guys? What is the definition BTW? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/302 "2013-06-19T13:47:28Z")
> [@Troppus](#): > > That’s my point. When contradictions occur or the facts claimed are just too preposterous to be believed, apologists claim “allegory”. The burning bush which spoke is allegorical, but a talking fox is a mere fable, right? Though I have a feeling that if a bumbling monk had erroneously included the Fox and the Grapes during transcription, said story would be promoted to allegory even in your eyes. > > Your revelation isn’t nearly as surprising as is your apparent Bibliolatry. As Czarcasm pointed out earlier, the idea with allegory is that the author intended the symbolism. Most of my Presbyterian friends would laugh at loud at my being accused of bibliolatry, as I consider large portions to be allegory, myth or, in the case of the book of Revelation, beyond one set of interpretations. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/303 "2013-06-19T13:48:42Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > I think that the particular symbolism used in apocryphal literature of the period the book was written in allows for too many interpretations to pin it down to anything specific. There are a numbers of books just on the history of its interpretation. Only the strictest of fundamentalists take it literally. OK, that sounds like a nice way of saying it’s made up. You are good at that. Do you think God Himself had anything to do with it’s authorship? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/304 "2013-06-19T13:50:56Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > I’ve already agreed that if I was raised in India I would accept this in accordance with the prevalent faith. I really DON’T know what happened here. My thought was and is that since I had been presented with a personal epiphany that God exists Why gods and not aliens? ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/305 "2013-06-19T13:51:51Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Thank you for your remarks, and, as it happens, I went to the doctor shortly afterwards, as my job required me to get a complete physical. For whatever reason (it’s been 25 years, I forget), that included a brain scan. Nothing abnormal. My doctor comment wasn’t a dig, BTW. I’m explaining how cognitive dissonance would lead two people with the same experience to draw different conclusions. I feel your certainty that the Christian God singled you out is an attempt to discount the religious epiphanies of “lesser” peoples of differing religious beliefs if it doesn’t also imply a tremendous amount of wishful thinking that medicine and science can easily explain away. Would you claim Joseph Smith suffered megalomania? If yes, how would your geographically convenient experience differ? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/306 "2013-06-19T13:52:12Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > No, I don’t disagree. Miracles are irrational and scientifically can’t be accepted, UNLESS IT HAPPENS TO YOU. OK, but I’m missing the part where a MIRACLE happened to you. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/307 "2013-06-19T13:54:16Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > The song was merely the medium for the message. If I’m not mistaken, you said the message was unintelligible to you. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/308 "2013-06-19T13:57:18Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > As Czarcasm pointed out earlier, the idea with allegory is that the author intended the symbolism. Most of my Presbyterian friends would laugh at loud at my being accused of bibliolatry, as I consider large portions to be allegory, myth or, in the case of the book of Revelation, beyond one set of interpretations. So Aesop believed in a literal talking fox? Doubtful. I’m quite sure he intended for the fox to symbolize a bitterly disappointed man. I can’t say with full certainty that Biblical authors intended for a talking shrub to symbolize the internalized voice of God. Or reason. Too many fundamentalists believe that God has the power to throw his voice into a flaming bush, so why is your designation of allegory superior to a literal interpretation? I’ll tell you why. Because it makes your belief system more palatable to you. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/309 "2013-06-19T13:57:22Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > That information, however, is the consensus of modern scholarship, and so was unavailable to Luke, who, seeing a composition ascribed to Peter’s companion, would have been remiss if he didn’t use it. What? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/310 "2013-06-19T13:59:13Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Which is why I’m telling you that your mystical experience had no connection with the Bible. You said so yourself. Yet you are irrationally linking the two. Your mystical experience does not support the religion you post-hoc connected it too. Get it? Given the experience that God reveals himself to humanity, it seems reasonable to explore how he has previously revealed himself. In a Christian society, Christianity is the obvious starting place. There may indeed be many paths to spiritual truth, and I’ve studied a number of them, but I can do the most good for society working within the strictures of the Christian church. It’s the path I’m on, and I’m familiar with most of its ruts and windings, its limitations and misuses. As far as accepting the Bible within that framework, it does show a progressive revelation of the nature of God throughout history, and I cannot (given my own experience) dismiss the pivotal idea of Christ’s sacrifice for the redemption of mankind offhand. Without that experience, it would be a completely different matter for me. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/311 "2013-06-19T14:02:16Z")
> [@Troppus](#): > > Study and analysis of facts and evidence. Though I do enjoy mythology as entertainment. I don’t discount the Bible as a primitive attempt at recording history and writing laws. And some of the stories are painterly even if plagarized. But I regard it wholey as any other agenda: the bias of the authors and translators removes the credibility. Great, keep at it. As I’ve said repeatedly, without my experience I wouldn’t believe in God either. I have no way to disprove your POV, and no reason why it happened to me. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/312 "2013-06-19T14:02:55Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > As far as accepting the Bible within that framework, it does show a progressive revelation of the nature of God throughout history… What is the nature of God? “Love me, bow to me or I’ll kill/torture you?” ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/313 "2013-06-19T14:03:45Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > It’s the path I’m on, and I’m familiar with most of its ruts and windings, its limitations and misuses. This is a little clearer, thank you. > [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > As far as accepting the Bible within that framework, it does show a progressive revelation of the nature of God throughout history, and I cannot (given my own experience) dismiss the pivotal idea of Christ’s sacrifice for the redemption of mankind offhand. Without that experience, it would be a completely different matter for me. If you mean that our interpretation of the Bible has evolved as society has progressed, I’ll give you that. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/314 "2013-06-19T14:11:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Okay, I explained my position that God, being outside of time, knows the future and the choices we will make. People, being inside time, don’t know the future and make choices of their own free will. > > People inside time’s free will is only an illusion if they are unable to change the part that was played out in advance for them by your god. A puppet that can’t see his strings is not free. This assumes God controls our every thought and action. I disagree. > [@](#): > > You insisted that this idea is modern liberalism. Pish-tush. It was the opinion of the following “modern liberals”: C. S. Lewis, early 20th Century; Thomas Aquinas, 13th Century, and Boethius, 6th Century. And it wasn’t new with Boethius, or even with Paul and the authors of 1-2 Peter and 1-3 John. The concept of predestination dates back to the ancient Greeks. > > I remember reading that from Lewis? He copied from those other guys? I’m aware of the greeks. Hector talked about his fate in the Iliad. So, it isn’t just modern liberalism. > [@](#): > > The notion that predestination precludes free will doesn’t even enter the picture until the 16th Century and the troublesome John Calvin. > > I think Hector knew his will wasn’t free. Apparently among Christians Calvin was the first one smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. Only if you agree with Calvin. His ideas were innovative, useful, but did not ultimately satisfy. > [@](#): > > And once again, no, most Presbyterians don’t assume that predestination means God has fore-ordained hellfire and damnation. John 3:16-17 and other salvation-inclusive passages are more commonly believed by all but the most separatist denominations. > > Yeah, I find Calvin is out of favor these days. If your god predestines people to hell, he’s a monster. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much what the Bible says in some parts, and what logically follows if you believe that everything happens in accordance with God’s will. It is what the Bible says in some parts, and not in others. Studying the totality of the scriptures and the history of its interpretation does not necessarily lead one to this conclusion. > [@](#): > > Romans 8:29-30 speaks of God’s foreknowledge and predestination of those who are called. > > Thanks. > [@](#): > > Romans 9 is a reiteration that all of humanity is eligible for salvation, however, the section you refer to does speak of God hardening the hearts of those who are not called so they cannot be saved. > > Thanks. > [@](#): > > Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 are all part of a passage which does not refer to the Christian community, nor the Jews, nor the Gentiles: it refers to the apostles and early missionaries, as stated in 1:12, “to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of his glory”. (NASB) And it goes on: “In him, you also, having listened to the message of truth, the glory of your salvation – having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Inclusive message of salvation for all mankind. > > Predestined according to His will it says. I imagine that means the one’s He didn’t harden the hearts of, as you mentioned above. Again, the predestination in these verses refers to the special call of the apostles, and not to the world in general. > [@](#): > > By the way, when shopping at Amazon for Sam Harris books, I noticed he’s written one titled “Free Will”. I haven’t read it, but the blurbs and reviews indicate that he doesn’t believe humans have Free Will either. > > That is true. And what’s your take on it? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/315 "2013-06-19T14:15:00Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Why should we believe those guys? What is the definition BTW? Why should we believe those guys? How about, this isn’t the first time these ideas have been expressed, and these people have taken a lot of time and effort to, as rationally as possible, discuss the issues and come to conclusions that, if you are at all fair, must be considered if you are seriously interested in them. Overlooking centuries of academic scholarship is turning a blind eye to any opinion but your own. What’s the definition? You tell me, you mentioned it first. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/316 "2013-06-19T14:15:55Z")
**Prof. Pepperwinkle** , can you see how inconsistent the interpretation and application of Biblical principle is to the outside observer? How would you classify the burning bush incident? Was that a divine revelation like your own? Or was it a halluncination brought about by extreme thirst, a mustard bush full of volatile oils and the spark from a flinty rock? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/317 "2013-06-19T14:16:26Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > OK, that sounds like a nice way of saying it’s made up. You are good at that. Do you think God Himself had anything to do with it’s authorship? The authorship of the Book of Revelation? I’m very dubious about its claims to authenticity, and I’m not alone: it nearly wasn’t included in the canon. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/318 "2013-06-19T14:20:42Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Why should we believe those guys? How about, this isn’t the first time these ideas have been expressed, and these people have taken a lot of time and effort to, as rationally as possible, discuss the issues and come to conclusions that, if you are at all fair, must be considered if you are seriously interested in them. Overlooking centuries of academic scholarship is turning a blind eye to any opinion but your own. The scholarly examination of a written work by critics from differing geographical backgrounds and cultural influences is called Literature. We do it all the time without attributing magic to the hero or authors. Why have you picked the Bible to focus on? Why not Blake, Melville, Faust, Shakespeare, Marquez, or Li Bai? Those authors have inspired legions of poets, authors, students, and readers. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/319 "2013-06-19T14:21:15Z")
> [@Troppus](#): > > My doctor comment wasn’t a dig, BTW. I’m explaining how cognitive dissonance would lead two people with the same experience to draw different conclusions. I feel your certainty that the Christian God singled you out is an attempt to discount the religious epiphanies of “lesser” peoples of differing religious beliefs if it doesn’t also imply a tremendous amount of wishful thinking that medicine and science can easily explain away. Would you claim Joseph Smith suffered megalomania? If yes, how would your geographically convenient experience differ? I didn’t take it as a dig, but, thank you. Ah, no, I cannot disregard the epiphanies of others, but I am highly skeptical of them. For every genuine mystical experience, I’d imagine there are hundreds of shams. I haven’t studied the Book of Mormon and Smith as much as I have others, so I wouldn’t make such claims of megalomania, except, perhaps, on historical grounds. What I do know of the Book of Mormon’s claims to the identity of Christ are not compatible with anything in the NT. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/320 "2013-06-19T14:21:30Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > The authorship of the Book of Revelation? I’m very dubious about its claims to authenticity, and I’m not alone: it nearly wasn’t included in the canon. When you say “claims to authenticity” do you mean directly inspired by God? Because otherwise it seems as if you just moved the goalposts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585.md?page=17)