- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Here is a short partial chapter on Metonomy...
Metonymy is integrally involved in understanding many of the verses that seem to make God the direct and active cause of negative circumstances. Metonymy has many forms, and the biblical examples that concern us here are those related to the concepts of cause and effect, permission and prophecy. In the Old Testament, God often revealed Himself as the author of both good and evil. Thus “God” is often put by Metonymy as the cause of events that were actually engineered by the Devil.
To get a better understanding of the complexities of cause and effect, let us consider the case of Mr. Smith, who gets drunk at a party one night and then heads for home in his car, driving well above the posted speed limit on a two-lane highway. An oncoming car makes a left turn in front of him, but Mr. Smith’s impaired perception causes him to misjudge the distance and swerve to avoid the other car. He loses control of his car, hits a concrete bridge abutment and is killed.
A policeman arriving at the scene might say that excessive alcohol was the cause of Mr. Smith’s death. Mr. Smith’s family might say the driver of the other car was the cause. The coroner’s report would probably conclude that he died because he flew through the windshield and his head hit the concrete abutment.
In a sense, each of the statements is valid, although the coroner’s report seems to most accurately reflect why Mr. Smith actually died. But did the concrete “kill” Mr. Smith? Not in the active sense in which one person “kills” another. Yet the concrete was the final cause of his death, for if he had driven into a huge pile of mattresses instead of an immovable object, he might have survived. Nevertheless, we understand that the actual cause of his death was something other than the abutment, which did not jump into his path. The actual cause was whatever made him lose control of his car, which in his case was his heavily impaired faculties and judgment.
It has been said that one cannot “break” God’s laws, but only breaks himself against them, because they are “immovable objects.” God has set up the universe to function according to many laws and principles, which He said were “very good” (Genesis 1:31). In reality, physical laws cannot be broken. A farmer who disregards the principles of soil fertility will eventually go broke. The window cleaner with a cavalier attitude toward safety, whose worn-out rope breaks while he is dangling from the roof of a highrise office building, will, because of the law of gravity, be rudely introduced to an unsuspecting pedestrian.
There are spiritual laws also. For example: you reap what you sow; evil associations corrupt good ethics; sin separates man from God. When we “break” these laws, whether knowingly or unknowingly, we are not actually breaking them, rather we are breaking ourselves against them. Is God to blame because He set these laws in place? No more than a state highway department is liable for fatalities caused by drunken motorists driving into concrete bridge supports.
In the Bible, most especially in the Old Testament in regard to the cause of evil, sin and suffering, we find numerous records where the subject of a sentence is said to be the cause of an event, when in reality something else (another subject) is the cause. This is the figure of speech Metonymy of the Subject, in which one subject is put in place of another subject with which it stands in a definite relation.
A good illustration of how one subject is put for another is found in comparing the two seemingly contradictory biblical accounts of the death of King Saul. Remember that in the Old Testament, as we have noted, God was perceived as the ultimate cause of both positive and negative circumstances, and as sovereign in the sense that He controlled everything that happened. In 1 Samuel 31:4 and 5, the Word of God states that Saul died by committing suicide, falling upon his sword. Yet, 1 Chronicles 10:14 says that “the Lord put him to death” for disobeying the Word of God and for enquiring of a familiar spirit.
How do we reconcile these apparently conflicting statements? We do so by recognizing that the latter statement is the figure of speech Metonymy of the Subject. The actual subject, Saul (as stated in 1 Samuel 31) is exchanged for another subject, the Lord, with which it stands in a definite relation. The relation between Saul and the Lord is that it was the Lord God who gave Saul His commandments, and Saul disobeyed them. Thus the Lord can, in one sense, be said to be the “cause” of Saul’s death. By breaking God’s laws, Saul broke himself against them.
By his own choice, Saul separated himself from God and His blessings, and therefore faced the consequences of his actions without the benefit of God’s grace and mercy. Because of his own sin, Saul found himself in a hopeless predicament, and killed himself. Only in the sense that God’s Word was the “immovable object,” against which Saul rebelled, could it be said that God “put him to death.” In concluding this chapter, we will see why God used this figurative language in the Old Testament.
Just as there is a relation between Saul and God such that “Saul” can be exchanged for “God” by Metonymy of the Subject, so there is a relation between Satan and God such that they can be exchanged by Metonymy of the Subject. This relation between Satan and God, and why “Satan” is exchanged for “God” is explained later in this chapter.
For the most part, God’s ability to alleviate for people the effects of sin is directly proportional to their obedience to Him. For instance, Romans 1:24 and 26 say that God “gave up” those who turned away from Him in the same way Jesus gave up His life, as an act of will (John 19:20). There are situations in which God reaches a point at which He knows it is fruitless to continue to attempt to convince people who are no longer willing to change their behavior. God lets them go on the road to self-destruction, to learn by experience apart from His grace and mercy, much like the father did in Jesus’ parable about the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32).
Why are people “permitted” to turn away? Because God highly values man’s freedom of will. If one wills to continue in his sinful disobedience, he will suffer the consequences of his unwillingness to listen to God. God is not in the business of forcing obedience, which then becomes meaninglessly mechanical. He does, however, honestly declare the consequences that result from sin so that all people have a genuine choice. Without choice, there can be no true freedom. God’s desire is that His people be set free by knowledge, understanding and wisdom so they can make informed choices. He is fundamentally an educator, not an autocratic puppeteer.
Originally posted by checkbaiter🙄🙄🙄
Here is a short partial chapter on Metonomy...
Metonymy is integrally involved in understanding many of the verses that seem to make God the direct and active cause of negative circumstances. Metonymy has many forms, and the biblical examples that concern us here are those related to the concepts of cause and effect, permission and prophecy. In the ...[text shortened]... o they can make informed choices. He is fundamentally an educator, not an autocratic puppeteer.
Originally posted by checkbaiterI was thinking of using those, too. In essense, you don't believe in the God of the Bible at all; you just change the meanings of the passages willynilly to fit your own preconceived notions. Why not end the charade and not bother to cite the Bible at all then say it doesn't mean what it says? Who killed the first born of Egypt according to Exodus 12:12?
😴😴😴
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by no1marauderExod 12:12
I was thinking of using those, too. In essense, you don't believe in the God of the Bible at all; you just change the meanings of the passages willynilly to fit your own preconceived notions. Why not end the charade and not bother to cite the Bible at all then say it doesn't mean what it says? Who killed the first born of Egypt according to Exodus 12:12?
12 'For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
(NKJ)
Plain and simple, there you go. Your right. God killed them. He must be a monster as you say. Over and out. Adios. Goodnight.
Originally posted by checkbaiterGlad we settled that, but why would you worship a monster when you can worship the nice, pleasant Creator God that Deists do? If you're going to be in the God-believing at all business, that is.
Exod 12:12
12 'For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
(NKJ)
Plain and simple, there you go. Your right. God killed them. He must be a monster as you say. Over and out. Adios. Goodnight.
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder you are again at the verge of changing the subject.
Tell that to the Midianites, the residents of Jericho, the first born in Egypt, etc. etc. etc. etc. Old Testament Monster God is the type of God you would expect a semi-savage group of people to create: one who favors them over everything else in the universe and who acts in a brutal and murderous manner to protect them. The Deist God is the type of God you would expect from Enlightenment thinking based on human reason. Which sounds better to you?
Originally posted by checkbaiterThis thread is about the Deist God. Please stay on topic.
Isa 45:1
1 "Thus says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held-- to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut:
(NKJ)
Isa 44:28
28 Who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, "You sh ...[text shortened]... shall be laid."'
(NKJ)
It's a good thing that God does intervene in the affairs of men.🙂
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't know. They would say that they know by observing the Creation; they are big on Watchmaker arguments. If you don't know what the Watchmaker argument is, I'll explain it though it has been posted in this forum innumerable times.
How do you know the Deist god exists ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf I understand what you’re getting at, it seems to me that there are four perspectives from which people conclude that there is a God (or at least, as Teilhard de Chardin put it, that there is “something afoot in the universe” ):
*bump*
Anybody wants to answer my questions about the Deist god ?
(1) Conclusion from evidence in nature and reason (No. 1’s answer on page 2).
(2) Conclusion from (acceptance of) written revelation.
(3) Conclusion from mystical experience.
(4) Conclusion from actual witnessing of supranatural intervention (“miracle” ).
It seems to me that the Deist is limited to the first one (e.g., the “watchmaker” argument)—although perhaps the third one as well, if such an experience is not viewed as a particular divine communication, but simply a “tapping in” so to speak.
Now, it seems to me to be quite a step from “there’s something afoot in the universe”—or even that there is a “presence” in the universe that is somehow the ground of our own being—to the kind of benevolent God described in the missive. Why is the God of the Deist not simply ethically “neutral” for example? Or why should our “better natures” derive from that God, but not our uglier natures as well? (My stepfather is a Deist: I’ll have to ask him when I get the chance.)
Originally posted by vistesdThanks.
If I understand what you’re getting at, it seems to me that there are four perspectives from which people conclude that there is a God (or at least, as Teilhard de Chardin put it, that there is “something afoot in the universe” ):
(1) Conclusion from evidence in nature and reason (No. 1’s answer on page 2).
(2) Conclusion from (acceptance of) writte ...[text shortened]... glier natures as well? (My stepfather is a Deist: I’ll have to ask him when I get the chance.)
The next question is of course what is that evidence in nature and reason which leads to the conclusion there is a (Deist) god ?
Only the watchmaker argument ?
Originally posted by vistesdWouldn't the act of Creation itself imply a positive goodness? Don't we normally value acts of creativity as a positive good?
If I understand what you’re getting at, it seems to me that there are four perspectives from which people conclude that there is a God (or at least, as Teilhard de Chardin put it, that there is “something afoot in the universe” ):
(1) Conclusion from evidence in nature and reason (No. 1’s answer on page 2).
(2) Conclusion from (acceptance of) writte ...[text shortened]... glier natures as well? (My stepfather is a Deist: I’ll have to ask him when I get the chance.)