AI in the Bible

December 17, 2007

This guy is either reading into certain Biblical passages way to much or is on to something:

The true meaning of the churches will come as a shock to many, especially to members of  the scientific community. As incredible as it may sound,  the message of the seven churches is a symbolic description of the principles that govern the operation of the brain! Each church represents a major cell assembly or subnetwork in the central nervous system, each with its own unique function and operating principle. The following table lists the corresponding function and cell assembly (or network) of each church

He’s also got something to say about Darwin as well:

Darwinian evolution is by necessity a blind incremental process. In other words, it does not anticipate. Most intelligence researchers (e.g., Rodney Brooks, director of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab) base their work on evolutionarily plausible scenarios. In their view, intelligence evolved gradually over the years as new behaviors are built on top of previously evolved behaviors (this is the basis (PDF] of Brooks’ subsumption architecture). The end result, we are told, is that the more recent members of a species are smarter than their ancestors. But this overlooks an important consideration. Humans are born with almost no behavioral skills.

This is the kind of thinking I like: don’t presume that those before you were correct, use current knowledge in order to re-look at what we thought we knew, and just plain think outside the box.

Trinity and Evolution

December 14, 2007

Monsieurturtle comes in  from the cold:

“Well, we are. God is one being; that is, The Being, the Existing One, the One that Is (all these being various possible translations of the Greek rendering of “I AM”). God is one God, as is proclaimed throughout scripture, but the distinction lies in the fact that He is revealed to us in three persons, or to use a more accurate term (given that English attaches multiple meanings to that term) would be “prosopa”, or “faces/masks/elements”.”

Indeed, when the words behind the words are examined the point becomes even clearer. God is revealed to us through many faces (wrestling with Jeremiah) and masks (the talking donkey), and elements (the burning bush). Yet, we have created no more “persons” in which to express God.

“No, I don’t believe any Trinitarian theologian would believe that God has revealed Himself fully. Indeed, we can only see what has been revealed, but again, what was revealed was done so by God’s own determination, and therefore what we do know of Him must indeed be held precious.”

The problem is that at the basic premise of Trinitarianism is that we have received the full revelation of God, but by your own admission we understand that God has revealed only what he has chosen to reveal. Therefore, any fixed and unchangeable formulation of how God exists is incorrect and hence Trinitarianism is incorrect.

While I consider your troubles with Trinitarian theology valid and worthy of discussion, I find the above statement to be an indicator that you may be doubting a doctrine based on a genuine ounce of doubt and about a pound of misinformation into the matter. That is to say, your consternation with the doctrine is understandable and expected, but the concepts to which you reach for support are based on a non-existent foundation.

I disagree, as the history of the church and the ideas which shaped it are very well documented. Many of the “greatest” men of early church were products of conversion and not born into it (Origen, Justin Martyr, and Turtullian come to mind.) It is quite easy to demonstrate through early church writings how the idea of Trinity was formed over several centuries.

When Man is short on knowledge, the most consistent theories are the simplest. Trinitarianism fails because it relies on an unprovable “mystery”. Trinitarianism relies on a “mystery” so that it can overcome the contradictory gaps. It is the same kind of “mystery” or “missing link” which evolutionists trot out when faced with problems in their theory.


December 14, 2007

I just realized that I had set the comment moderation on without realizing it with the “Comment author must have a previously approved comment”. To those who have responded I apologize.


December 14, 2007

Christians should understand that when discussing the law we have to be just a specific as we would be if we were arguing our case in a courtroom. Gary Amirault has done a pretty good job of showing why one Biblical law in particular is not applicable to New Testament Christians.

Almost all denominations of Christianity have taken portions of the Mosaic Covenant, “Christened them,” and added them to the New Covenant. Without being aware of it, this has made most Christians guilty of the whole Mosaic Law, which says it all must be kept. At the same time, they have “fallen from grace” because of mixing it with a covenant which no longer serves a purpose for those under the New Covenant. This is not to say that we cannot learn many wonderful truths from the Mosaic Law. We are just no longer in covenantal relationship with God through that covenant. We are in covenantal relationship with God through a New Covenant ratified by Jesus Christ, not Moses.

I attend what is known in the Pentecostal movement as a “liberal” church, by which I mean that the stricter preaching against women cutting their hair, wearing make-up, men wearing short sleeves, and speaking in tongues are almost non-existent. One would think that given its receptive nature to all people that attendance would be on its way up and not down, where it is currently headed. In fact, I would say that we are doing everything that every book and program on church growth says we should do, yet instead of church growth we are facing church decline. This is especially strange considering that our church’s median age is about 30 (its not like our members are dying off).

The answer lies in the economic laws of competition. A church attendee brings with them two things: money and family. The money goes to the church in order to provide for the needs of the family.
Imagine that a certain city has two churches, A and B. They both believe, preach, and teach the same ideas. When the attendee weighs the pros and cons of each church he will make his decision based on which church offers the most for his money.

However, if church A and B do not teach and preach the same ideas, then the attendee will choose the church which shares most closely what he believes. Some subjects are more important than others. For example, a Trinitarian will find it hard to attend a Oneness church and vice versa.

In our case, we don’t preach much differently than the rest of the area churches and can’t compete with what they offer materially. Hence, we are losing more than we are gaining.

Ideas and beliefs are what define our identity in a community. We use those beliefs to separate ourselves into groups in that community. If those beliefs no longer matter, then there is no reason why people will not randomly switch groups based on something as simple as which minister preaches better than the other one.

For a church to sustain members and gain new ones it must teach doctrines which separate it from all others in order to instill in each member the sense of being different and in those differences form a community.