Feos: Are you implying that God dictated to the man who wrote it?
I'd think it more likely that if indeed God had a hand in the Bible's creation as a literary article, that it would have been done by Man using their 'better judgement' to interpret God's intentions, which is coincidentally what people ask of those who wish to believe that what the Bible says is true.
Faith makes no sense to me. I'd rather not have to make such an effort to believe in something which has so many holes and flaws in it when there's something which makes sense for reasons which also (generally) make sense as an alternative.
LOL, if you write down the words I dictate you (as some writers used to do, their helpers wrote down what they were speaking), are you something that can divide me from the reader? I trust God who said that I can trust those men and confirmed their witnessing differently (for me).
You mean they were hearing voices? Doesn't sound very convincing. It's still just a book of opinions.
feos wrote:
I afraid of nothing because I can feel the truth, by intuition. And I feel what is right for me and what's wrong.
Subjectivity? It's okay until you start to propagandize it as "the only truth", and to tell people they are going to suffer hellish pain unless they do as you feel.
feos wrote:
As for critical thinking, I mentioned that God is Absolute and free of flaws withing his creation, while human really can find bugs in any program because they were all written by a human.
The world is not perfect. It has many flaws. In fact there were more flaws yesterday then there is today. People constantly improve, converting chaos into order. There's no need to assume that people already had an artificial base to begin their progress. (no need other than use religion as a social tool, but it's very old and ineffective)
feos wrote:
So the only constructive approach is to WONDER what the given part means, looking for the answer that would make you feel it's right. And your destiny would kindly send you such an answer. Happened to me hundreds of times, in different spheres.
This approach is not constructive. If people relied on the first and foremost assumption popping in their head (rather than applying critical thinking and searching for objective truth), we would still live in caves (okay, in monastic cells if you think there was no lithic age).
feos wrote:
But there's something that's higher than any written text. It's your own heart's direct feeling. Conscience, intuition. It leads you where no text can give an acceptable answer. And the most funny thing is when your heart allows you the things forbidden by the text (crux death was damned in the Old Testament).
Awesome, let's go molest children, since my god says it's alright.
This thread is turning into Ask feos. The only reason why we think differently is that we are actually different persons. And no person can say he knows all. I just described the stuff confirmed for me during my life (no need to describe how, particularly). It never confirmed for you so you see no reason to TRUST me in that. No, I took nothing by faith, I analized everything I've read and what seemed strange to me. Do you want me to write the whole dump of my mind? Hehe.
This approach is not constructive. If people relied on the first and foremost assumption popping in their head (rather than applying critical thinking and searching for objective truth), we would still live in caves (okay, in monastic cells if you think there was no lithic age).
It's not about catching the first thought coming to your mind. It's about actual searching for the answer. Analizing. One just needs to stay true to himself & beware of narcissism. Getting a higher answer isn't harder than getting one for any real life subject.
You mean they were hearing voices?
You never heard your inner voice that advised you what's better to do or say, right? Oh, and surely, there's no reality that can't be seen or touched or measured otherwise :P
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
It's not about catching the first thought coming to your mind. It's about actual searching for the answer. Analizing. One just needs to stay true to himself & beware of narcissism. Getting a higher answer isn't harder than getting one for any real life subject.
But at one moment you suddenly stop analyzing and consider current result as the answer. That's the difference between science and religion. Science never stops searching for more accurate answer, it questions the trustworthness of previously found answer even when it's not profitable (when it may ruin some beleifs and make people less comfortable than with previous paradigm).
So I think you're just lazy. That's it, you're loving your comfort zone with already found answers which are ultimate and right. Ok, keep thinking that there is a limit to everything.
I love how you twist my words. Is it lazyness to adhere to my own decisions in the face of the whole world and people around, convincing me how to act or speak? It's checking how right they are, if you remember, I said I keep 'tasing', improving my self all the time. And the 'answer' is always being improved, deepened and sometimes even disproved.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Right, right, you can feel the truth, and I can't. Good for you, because even though I seem to lack that sixth sense I still find answers that are way more consistent than ones you may decipher from Bible/Quran/whatever.
I afraid of nothing because I can feel the truth, by intuition.
Look up the placebo effect. You can feel yourself into damn near anything.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
As I said above, don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
I don't see how a thing could not exist anywhere if it has been created. Genesis 1 explains the creation of the universe, and Genesis 2 might be talking about the creation of the garden of Eden.
Warp wrote:
You never fail to amuse. Sometimes I suspect you are just a very clever poe who has been able to keep his disguise for years.
Well, I have said in the past that I'm an atheist, so if you thought I was a creationist or something, then I guess you could call me a poe. Devil's advocate is a more correct term though.
They are basically proposing that God created the universe about 6000 years ago and then went to extreme lengths to make it look like it's much, much older.
For YECs the evidence points to a 6000 year earth, they have a lot of "evidence" for that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
Such videos are pretty cool even if you don't agree with them, it's interesting to see a radically different worldview.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
Nach wrote:
As I said above, don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
I don't see how a thing could not exist anywhere if it has been created.
I don't know if you're familiar with programming terminology. But it can be compared to creating a class, and instantiating an object of that class.
nfq wrote:
Genesis 1 explains the creation of the universe, and Genesis 2 might be talking about the creation of the garden of Eden.
Except it's not.
1-2:3 talks about the creating of the world. The rest of "chapter 2" talks specifics about the world we know. 2:4 specifically says the world is now instantiated, in a day no less. It goes on to speak about how out of Eden came a body of water which split into four bodies of water surrounding well known areas of today.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
After Darwin and the dissemination of evolutionism, it became scientific to disprove Bible, the new philosophy was born and captured scientists' minds as well.
You are simply repeating creationist propaganda.
There's no such a thing as "evolutionism". That's just a term invented by creationists in order to make science sound like "just another religion". Scientists are not out to "disprove the Bible". They are out to discover how the universe works by observation, measurement and testing, without bias. (That doesn't mean no scientist exists without bias, but in general science is unbiased.) Creationists invent these terms and attack and belittle science simply because they feel threatened by it.
(And by "creationist" I do not mean "someone who believes there's a god who created the universe". It's a much more specific term. Most of these creationists are so-called young-earth creationists, although there are also some "old-earth creationists" that fit the bill.)
feos wrote:
I afraid of nothing because I can feel the truth, by intuition. And I feel what is right for me and what's wrong.
So you are basically saying that human feelings are more trustworthy than physical observation, measurement and testing. I hope you understand why many people would disagree with you.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Look at how many times could that Saul guy die, back in the day:
1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
Wut? Dude, they're just four passages describing Saul's death. Why do you think that if something is written four times it actually happened four times?
Anyway, if you're interested to know why they make sense you could start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul#Battle_of_Gilboa_and_the_death_of_King_Saul
nice, but that still doesn't explain his death by philistines or by god (maybe he was killed by samuels's ghost lol)
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Well, the Philistines are the ones he battled against, and the battle was what ultimately led him to commit suicide. Also, at some point, Saul refused to follow God's orders, so possibly God might have left him on his own at that battle, which makes sense when that text says God wouldn't answer his prayers. Perhaps someone with more biblical knowledge can explain.
Warp, I haven't seen any other science than was studied in my university, lectured by the people grown at the times when science just served the religion of atheism, so seeing how narrow-minded these people are (I used to converse with them on topic everytime), I got the impression that all scientists are similar. Looks like this cliché was wrong.
So you are basically saying that human feelings are more trustworthy than physical observation, measurement and testing.
I just didn't mention how insane work shall be put to become able to feel the right and wrong. This is the subject of one's pure interst - what to achieve from himself. I'm not into true sciense, so I can't argue objectively.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warp, I haven't seen any other science than was studied in my university, lectured by the people grown at the times when science just served the religion of atheism, so seeing how narrow-minded these people are (I used to converse with them on topic everytime), I got the impression that all scientists are similar. Looks like this cliché was wrong.
You are still spouting such a creationist propagandist nonsense that I can't figure out if that last sentence was just sarcasm or not.
I just didn't mention how insane work shall be put to become able to feel the right and wrong. This is the subject of one's pure interst - what to achieve from himself. I'm not into true sciense, so I can't argue objectively.
I really think that you should study a bit how the human mind works, and how extremely unreliable it is at assessing the truth on its own. The human mind very easily misinterprets things, deduces things in the wrong way, attributes things wrongly, has very strong biases and emotions that color and distort conclusions, and so on. And this has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or education (even though the latter, when proper, can considerably diminish the amount of errors that one makes, as one becomes aware of what the typical errors are and learns to recognize them).
"I'm convinced that this is the truth because I can feel it" is just pure nonsense, and this doesn't even have anything to do with science. Feelings are worthless for assessing the truth.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nowadays I'm fond of (some) Hebrew songs. I particularly like the one that goes "Baruch Haba B'Shem Adonai".
That's a song? Isn't it Psalm 118?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Dacicus wrote:
Maybe we should move the debate to a more appropriate thread, since this one is supposed to be for asking Bisqwit questions.
OK, back to the funny questions.
1- Bisqwit, do you eat shrimp?
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)
2 - How often do you shave?
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Rarely.
However, if you read the surrounding context:
LEV 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
LEV 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
LEV 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am YHWH.
This speaks of practices that were common with religious rituals of pagans at the time (and still are). The general principle is that YHWH is never to be served with rites and practices that are associated with pagan religions.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Bisqwit wrote:
This speaks of practices that were common with religious rituals of pagans at the time (and still are). The general principle is that YHWH is never to be served with rites and practices that are associated with pagan religions.
Yeah I haven't read all the text before I posted but I thought there was something peculiar behind those orders, heh.
Here's another one:
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. Leviticus 20:13
You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. Deuteronomy 17:12
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27
Many people criticize Islam for its atrocious ways to apply justice. Do you consider Judaism as a "religion of peace"?
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Not to comment on your actual arguments, but I could let this one pass. Who exactly has claimed that judaism is a "religion of peace"?
(With this I don't mean to say that judaism is violent. I'm just wondering why are you applying the term to them. I have never heard it used in connection with judaism.)
lrn2troll. You contrast killing-instructions with Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16. If you're trying to determine peacefulness, large-scale war and mass-murder is a lot more fun than a little capital punishment, see Deuteronomy 20. I particularly like verses 13 and 16. Also contrast with Lev 19:18, that's always fun.
Here's another one:
<..>
Many people criticize Islam for its atrocious ways to apply justice. Do you consider Judaism as a "religion of peace"?
I cannot tell you anything about Judaism, what it might be and what it might not be, but I can comment upon the word in the Bible and explain what I think of it.
Within the phrases you quoted, I would group them in several ways.
The easy ones first. There are pre-meditated voluntary iniquities, direct sins against God's commandments:
LEV 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
LEV 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
EX 22:17 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
LEV 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
These laws are very clear, and I don't see a problem with that. The sins described in these verses are of a direct opposition to the ten commandments, particularly the one that forbids people from having other gods, and the one that in a more general sense speaks of bridal covenant, i.e. marriage. Within the nation where God's laws are taught from childhood to adulthood, where the word of Bible is ever-pervasive in life, there is no excuse in committing an act that is in direct opposition to it; an act which requires conscious decision and just does not happen accidentally.
God promises that his laws are good for man to prosper and live long in the land of Israel (repeated many times in Deuteronomy, e.g. 4:40). Prolonged failure to do so will also prolongedly decrease prosperity and longevity, so in fact a penalty which immediately ends the iniquity is pro-peace.
So what is a witch? The Bible is a middle-eastern book; perhaps one should study the middle-eastern cultures to understand what is meant by a witch in that context. I have not studied them, so I cannot provide a definite answer. However, in any context witchcraft is mentioned in the Bible, it is part of an enumeration where the other items are observing times, using enchantments, dealing with familiar spirits, and with wizards. Inter-/extrapolate from that list as you may…
LEV 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
This one also goes to the above category.
LEV 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So does this. But how does this work, if one of the parties did not consent to the adultery, e.g. if the wife was raped? The verse says "adulteress". Should a raped person be called an adulterer or an adulteress? I doubt they should.
The verse in Deuteronomy 17:12 is clearer when you look at it in context:
DEU 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
DEU 17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
DEU 17:10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
DEU 17:11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
DEU 17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
tl/dr: If you have controversy and you take it up to the court (who are to be vowen to God), you are to honor their decisions and do according to them. Failure to do so is a conscious act of lawlessness, punishable by death. Lawlessness, in general, tends to decrease peace, so I would argue that even this verse is pro-peace. If they are however not serving God, or aren't in a place appointed by God for resolving your dispute, then all bets are off, I guess…
I forgot whether I should still have typed something in this post or not. So here's a link to an unrelated video instead to substitute for the closing words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPt4Fkd0wBY
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
LEV 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So does this. But how does this work, if one of the parties did not consent to the adultery, e.g. if the wife was raped? The verse says "adulteress". Should a raped person be called an adulterer or an adulteress? I doubt they should.
How does it work in regards to rape? Read Deut. 22:22-27.
Bisqwit wrote:
tl/dr: If you have controversy and you take it up to the court (who are to be vowen to God), you are to honor their decisions and do according to them. Failure to do so is a conscious act of lawlessness, punishable by death. Lawlessness, in general, tends to decrease peace, so I would argue that even this verse is pro-peace. If they are however not serving God, or aren't in a place appointed by God for resolving your dispute, then all bets are off, I guess…
If you read this carefully, you see this section does not apply to ordinary people. When judges themselves have a dispute, or are dealing with a case which is too difficult for them, they are to go to the supreme court in the place appointed. Then after the supreme court's ruling, if one of the judges is unfaithful to that ruling, he is eliminated.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
