jc,
Would you actually like to entertain discussion? You mostly quoted a portion of scripture and (as Tom noted) used it as your sole reply. Would you care to discuss that passage at all?
At the outset, it must be said that it's an interior portion of a larger statement, and when removed from its context, it could be understood to say that seeking knowledge of things is frowned upon by God.
The Greeks of that very time had already pretty accurately determined the size and distance of the moon in its orbit around the earth. Is Paul saying this was a bad thing in and of itself? In the language of the King James (quoting Paul), "I trow not".
Paul's statement "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart" was obviously a quote. Are you familiar with the origin of that quote? It was from Isaiah 29:14 which is a portion of the prediction of a (I forget which) fall of Jerusalem. The full(er) passage is: "The Lord said: Because these people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote; so I will again do amazing things with this people, shocking and amazing. The wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the discernment of the discerning shall be hidden." (must have been the second captivity)
The gist of the passage Paul quoted is the basis the people held for their relationship with God. They were his chosen people who he'd already many times "saved", and yet they were taking credit for their standing with him as if it were a result of their activity such that they were somehow deserving of it (or that he was beholden to them). Does '"Who will ascend into heaven?" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "Who will descend into the abyss?" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)' ring a bell?
In the same way (general context) the people of that time (in particular; the primary focus of Paul's argument - though it would likely not hurt to extend it even 'til today, always remember to do so after the fact - you wouldn't want to make Paul be saying more than he'd said or change the import of the message, would you? remember he was talking about specific things to specific people) who were tending to consider themselves to be in a special relationship with God as if their qualities/abilities were the reason. Paul says emphatically that was not the case.
Well, anyway, Paul was not decrying the Greeks for trying to figure out the more intimate components of their surroundings. That had nothing to do with what he was saying. Similarly today, we see the religious zealots pointing their fingers at what scientists are trying to do and accusing them of trying to pull God out of the loop. The scientists say, "we're not trying to pull God out of the loop; we aren't even concerning ourselves with God in the matter. Faith/belief is something that cannot be proven in the lab. We're trying to see how all this works."
The religious zealots typically take that as an affront on their beliefs. And rightly so, if they were foolish enough to, say, try to make the Bible be a scientific treatise. But if they were to use the scriptures for only their intended purpose instead of to hold them up to proclaim (pseudo-scientifically) that the earth was created and populated such as we know it now all over the period of one week roughly 6,000 years ago, they would not have backed themselves into the corner. I can understand how they feel so "assaulted" by a denial of that misunderstanding. Especially of the findings of such great age of the earth.
If the earth is in fact only 6,000 years old, evolution in its true sense really is absurd. But once the door is open for the possibility that things have been happening here for millions or (gasp!) billions of years, evolution is not too hard to fathom at all! Why not accept it and look on it, instead of an assault on God, rather merely part of his excellent tool kit? That really is a safe thing to do since it not only doesn't contradict anything he's said (had written), but in reality, it removes a misleading misapplication of what he actually
did say!
It's interesting to glimpse an overview of religious studies/teachings through the years. For instance, back before much of the diversity of the animal life which covers the globe was known, the discussion of the story of Noah's ark was relatively straightforward. Once it became obvious that it would have been quite difficult to get all those critters on the boat, the apology centered on the average size of the animals (something like maybe a sheep), so, yeah, they could have all fit. Then when it became obvious that many of the diverse creatures could in no way have survived crossing the deserts or oceans to get there, the possibility that maybe it wasn't a "global" flood but only a "worldwide" one (world being "known at the time" world) began to be studied and more generally accepted (as it would sincerely
have to; or else all faith in the scriptures would have to start to be discarded). One must take great care to not make the scriptures say/mean more than they do (or to more than the intended audience) or they cause them to become untenable. In general, scientific findings don't contradict the bible; they merely contradict wrong ideas of it.
You see where I'm going with this? Think back on what happened to Galileo when he put some lenses together and mapped some of the heavens. Did the "church" maintain their incorrect understanding (assessment of what the scriptures
actually said) at the expense of what they could prove with their own eyes, or did they come to a more knowledgeable understanding of them instead? If you (anyone) proclaim the findings of science to be an attack on God, you miss out on being able to truly appreciate the absolute wonder of what he's done and instead relegate him ever more closer to a mere mythical entity.
I guess I've lost my train of thought.
You want to know what I think is currently perhaps the greatest loss of appreciation for what the scriptures have to say? Those who waste so much time and effort trying to map out what is going to happen (both time frame and location) in the "end times"! If they reassign (as they do) what Jesus said, from his actual audience to an audience (maybe as yet) some time in the future, when he said to a small group in private: [bringing this in like with the forum a little
] "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."
You know what? He said it would happen, within their lifetime, to a group of men and it did. Instead of appreciating the confirmation of what he'd said, we have most of the "Christian" world today still holding their breath for its fulfillment! Makes me wonder how well they really know who it is they claim to know?! In a very real sense I see it as infiltration of the Jewish teachings which were prevalent at the time (and still are?): "we're patiently waiting for the Messiah to finally appear".
There is a single, relatively unrelated passage which just now comes to mind, and is usually a hard pill for people to swallow (those who would tend to place themselves within some kind of elite grouping), and it ends up with "because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (first letter to Timothy). Sounds like they have a savior, whether they believe it or not. Man, that's hopeful, ain't it? Maybe that means there need be little to no bickering about it all.
There's a lot more that could be said about a lot more, to be sure. Care to discuss any of what I've brought up here? (I hope it doesn't take an hour to read like it did to write!)
Might as well round this out for the rest of my fans:
image/avatar too big
Windows v. GNU/Linux v. OS X
...
Glen
