If you are going to make a clay bowl, the clay begins "without form". Does light pass through it? In other words, "without form" does not mean transparent or invisible.But maybe your middle sentence is a chance for me to stay on subject. Are you saying that ‘without form’ really doesn’t mean what “without form” means in ordinary plain English?
This is a first-class response. I absolutely should have taken the time to really think about the way RD dismissed what I said. I blew it. You have my honest and sincere thanks for showing me a far more productive response than the poor one I offered. For what it's worth, my opinion of you just went up appreciably.Instead of belly-aching about it, why don't you just take his response at face value and respond to it with "It's not irrelevant just because you claim it to be. Explain why it's irrelevant."
RD may declare continuing discussion of the CMB out of bounds in this thread unless it is in the context of allegorical or symbolic meaning. I don’t know of any symbolic or allegorical meanings that the CMB might carry, but if you do, please offer them. But I will ask directly, are you saying the CMB is fiction, and not real?Who said fiction is about something? I didn't.
Clete, I have a backlog of posts in this thread that I hope to find time for soon. Several times by chance I have seen recent posts to me that I responded quickly to, posts after this one from you. So I have you in the queue, but I don’t have a good feel for how long it might take me to get caught up.... I'll give you one and only one additional chance to answer the question I've asked with a direct answer. If you fail to give one then we will all know who it is who's interested in having substantive two way conversation and who isn't. Any additional posts that even somewhat resemble this last one will be ignored.
Well, that is a bit of a relief that you indeed seem inclined to say the CMB is real. To dismiss it completely is a level of science denial that would pretty well be a barrier to any hope of productive discourse.I'm saying that you are using your phrase, "the CMB," in a fictional way, rather than in a cognitively meaningful way.
Ontology? Really? Are you real? Am I real? Is the book on my desk labelled “Holy Bible” real? Is the microwave radiation that we receive from space real?Oh, also...what (if anything) do you mean by "real"? What, beyond a thing's being a thing, would prompt you to call a thing, "real"?
Well, that is a bit of a relief that you indeed seem inclined to say the CMB is real.
To dismiss it completely is a level of science denial that would pretty well be a barrier to any hope of productive discourse.
But I am still unclear of what I said regarding the CMB that you term as fiction.
I think you're being a little unfair.If you feel they are self-explanatory, then please enlighten me. I’ve seen you seriously misapply the CMB as part of the explanation, and shadows from void and not-yet formed earths. But I am willing to see if you can avoid a third strike.
It did not remain without form.Ok, so you mean the Bible was in error saying the earth at this time was without form? It was already an opaque spherical object?
Are you real?
Am I real?
Is the book on my desk labelled “Holy Bible” real?
Is the microwave radiation that we receive from space real?
Asked and answered. The context determines it. Not just the context of the specific verse but of the whole bible as well.So I've got Scripture that tells me God is the Logos, God is love, God is spirit, and God is light.
Which of these are literal, wooden, and which are figurative, allegorical and or symbol?