"Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Dr. Mobius » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:56 pm

Have you read Hofstadter's "Gödel, Escher, Bach" or "I am a Strange Loop"?
Damn, now I need to find a new title for my biography.
If you can't keep your arrogance and your pseudo-intellectual bullying in check, you can just bow right back on out of this thread. If you feel inclined towards discussing interesting philosophical and scientific ideas like a civilized adult, than you're welcome to stay.
If it weren't for healthy helpings of arrogance and pseudo-intellectual BS from all involved parties, this thread wouldn't exist. I will admit, though, that Steve tends to be a bit more aggressive about it.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:01 pm

TG,
The first (and most obvious) poiint is that we're humans and flawed, we can't follow it perfectly.

The second (based on some of this discussion) is that not only can God do things that seem impossible to we of limited knowledge but also these contradictions in the Bible cease to be contradictions on some other level of understanding, call it "Level 1".
If I look at an instruction manual, and the instructions are all contradictory, and don't work, and reflect horrible biases by the author, and make no sense, then I have to start to wonder if it's nonsense. So...I check myself. I look at it again. I try to look at it differently. I ask other people to look at it. If all the people who look at it intelligently agree that it makes no sense, and the only people who claim to understand it are forced to say, "You just have to accept it. You have to stop thinking about it. You have to ignore the parts that don't make sense, and just consider the parts that you're told to consider...."

Well, then. At that point I know that there's something wrong. If it makes out and out wrong statements (birds and insects have four legs), or claims to be one thing ("moral") yet acts 180° opposite that (daughters sleeping with fathers, concubines, graphic descriptions of equine ejaculations, slaughtering civilizations and keeping the young virgin girls as sex slaves), then I'm at a loss as to why I'm supposed to take it seriously.

You DO understand, don't you, that the Bible(s) was NOT written by God, right? It was written by various men, across an extended period of time. Later in its history, certain passages were removed, and other passages were brought back from obscurity to be reintroduced into it? That absolutely EVERYONE who claims to follow it cherry-picks the parts they like (or their preachers like) and reject or ignore the rest? It's of far more value as a Rorschach test than as a moral guide!
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:07 pm

TG,

There's a word for people who accept this line of reasoning:
The first (and most obvious) poiint is that we're humans and flawed, we can't follow it perfectly.

The second (based on some of this discussion) is that not only can God do things that seem impossible to we of limited knowledge but also these contradictions in the Bible cease to be contradictions on some other level of understanding, call it "Level 1".
They're called "rubes." They're called "gullible."

If someone tried to sell you a car, or a washing machine, and used the above reasoning to explain to you why is wasn't working right now (but it would tomorrow), you'd be a fool.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:54 pm

A. Regardless, they appeared to have presented a decent summary with a quote or two of the experiment I was referring to. It's not I was linking them for an opinion or disputable information - or anything that factors in their analysis. I was linking them for a factual description of the experiment I was referring to. And, I asked you to tell me why it was wrong "this instance". Not generally. For my purpose, they weren't wrong about anything in this instance.
Because I've never seen them cover a science piece with anything resembling accuracy or factual description.


Regarding this whole mess concerning contradictions and human fallibility, and "impossible things", etc (targeted at both CezeN and TG): The both of you seem to be concluding that because human reason is limited, we should therefore not bothering to apply it all and see what it can tell us within the limitations that it has. There's a distinction between two things that people commonly identify as paradoxes. On the one hand, you have things which seem to violate common sense, but are, on further inspection, quite logically compatible and reveal deeper sophistication when really looked at. There are also things which are actually logically contradictory, but which people would like to believe are both true. One of these sorts of things is worth looking at deeply, and one can be dismissed out of hand for logical inconsistency. You appear to be conflating the two.
I'm a reductionalist. A strict physicalist. A person--their "mind," if you would--is the sum of its constituent parts.
That's what I suspected based on your previous statements, but I just wanted to make sure. Would you mind describing, briefly, your views on
a) whether or not people have free will
b) the source of morality or ethical law
c) why, you, personally, believe human reason to be trustworthy

I'm not asking for a novel, just a brief summary on each of those things, so I can respond more precisely to your arguments in light of your viewpoints, rather than responding indirectly to how they effect your perception of my views.
However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "that even purely a physical system can give rise to phenomena that are too complex to be described by the physics of its parts?"
That's probably because the people who espouse that view aren't quite sure either, which was actually going to be my initial question for you if you had turned out to be a non-reductive physicalist.
And I will admit to being utterly AMAZED by the intelligence of my children when their brains were oh-so-tiny, inside those months-old heads. But, after seeing my 65 year old mother lose what I considered to be her self-awareness for long stretches of time after having undergone chemotherapy for cancer, it was pretty obvious that as amazing as intelligence and self-awareness may be, it's all strictly brain chemistry. MPU's.
This is the exact same sort of story (with a slightly different outcome) that one might expect to hear from a believer, in a particular religious tradition, explaining the experiences that led them to, or confirmed for them, some tenet of their faith. What this highlights to me is that our worldviews are built up experientially - through inductive reasoning, and that it is the differing experiences, and a lack of statistical rigor for properly analyzing anecdotal evidence, that lead us to differing conclusions. That doesn't mean that all of these conclusions are valid or correctly reflect the real world, but that the process of their construction isn't inherently different between you, or me, or anyone else.
please show me where the explanation that "God did it," or "It's Holy Spirit" or "It's God's spirit acting within us" is anything other than what I said.
Anywhere that that explanation is part of an attempt to construct a worldview that is both internally and externally consistent.
No disrespect, but what I wrote is, to many, a legitimate, though partial description of Jesus Christ.
Let's go about judging philosophies by the uneducated masses who try to follow them. What percentage of the people in this video would you guess more closely identify with your school of thought, or with mine?



Damn, now I need to find a new title for my biography.
;)
If it weren't for healthy helpings of arrogance and pseudo-intellectual BS from all involved parties, this thread wouldn't exist. I will admit, though, that Steve tends to be a bit more aggressive about it.
I will admit to a certain degree of confidence that I have the highest degree of training in formal reasoning, computation, physics, and theology of anyone participating in this thread; call it arrogance if you will, but I'm making my assumption based on the experience of having to explain relatively basic concepts within these fields to the other participants in the thread after having made the assumption that they would be familiar with them and being asked to explain for those who don't specialize in these areas. I am not making blanket assumptions about the intelligence, motives, or possible emotional/psychological defects of anyone holding to a particular point of view that I disagree with - and I think you can see from my interactions in this thread, and in the race/equality thread that I take care to explain carefully the positions of even those people with whom I vehemently disagree if I think they're being unfairly misrepresented or generalized about. You may take this post as a personal invitation for you (or anyone else) to call me out if you think I am, in fact, spouting pseudo-intellectual BS, rather than actually making a well reasoned argument based on stated presuppositions and principles of consistent reasoning.
If all the people who look at it intelligently agree that it makes no sense
So, on the subject of arrogant claims, are willing to say, publicly, that you do not believe people such as Francis Collins, Freeman Dyson, Donald Knuth, John Polkinghorne, Thomas Jay Oord, Larry Wall, Stanley Jaki, Alister McGrath, John Lennox, Ian Barbour, John Houghton, Kenneth R. Miller, Martin Nowak or Christopher Isham look at the Bible intelligently? That you are more capable of looking at it intelligently than they are? Go ahead and look them up, if you want, before making your final analysis, but I expect you'll recognize a pretty decent swath of those names.
and the only people who claim to understand it are forced to say, "You just have to accept it. You have to stop thinking about it. You have to ignore the parts that don't make sense, and just consider the parts that you're told to consider...."
I could pull out more names here to ram home the point that your view of Biblical scholarship represents a very strong selection bias, but I think I've made my point.
claims to be one thing ("moral") yet acts 180° opposite that (daughters sleeping with fathers, concubines, graphic descriptions of equine ejaculations, slaughtering civilizations and keeping the young virgin girls as sex slaves), then I'm at a loss as to why I'm supposed to take it seriously.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity is that humans are f***ed up and God loves us anyway and is working, at great sacrifice to Himself, to restore us and bring us back into relationship with Him. I don't see how our scripture accurately portraying a lot of f***ed up humans doing f***ed up things is at odds with that, if it's not putting forward that behavior as exemplary or worthy of emulation (and it's not).
Later in its history, certain passages were removed, and other passages were brought back from obscurity to be reintroduced into it?
Just to be clear, we have literally orders of magnitude more textual attestation for the accurate transmission of the New Testament texts than for any other literary work of antiquity.
That absolutely EVERYONE who claims to follow it cherry-picks the parts they like (or their preachers like) and reject or ignore the rest?
There are some more of those tricky generalizations that keep getting you into trouble. But, I will agree that anyone who claims to follow it's teachings still falls short of the moral standard of perfect relationships. The marvelous thing about Christianity is that God loves us anyway (and everyone else too, the difference is that we're trying to love Him back).
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Dr. Mobius » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:09 am

If God loves everyone anyway, why does practically every Christian organization I've heard of claim otherwise? Yes, that's a generalization, but it's a pretty important one. God and his supposed son may very well have loved everyone unconditionally, but the beliefs of their followers has evolved into something else entirely. They may preach love, but they add artificial conditions that negate 90% of what they claim to stand for.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:04 am

If God loves everyone anyway, why does practically every Christian organization I've heard of claim otherwise?
Do you ... live in the same neighborhood of Topeka as the WBC or something? Because I honestly can't think of a single other organization that would both claim a Christian name and would not at least give lip service to the claim, not only that God loves everyone, but also that we are called to the same (“'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. ", "God desires that all men be saved","Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love",“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?","If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.").
They may preach love, but they add artificial conditions that negate 90% of what they claim to stand for.
Can you be more specific about you mean here? It is true that there are vocal groups within the church who preach legalistic versions of the gospel (or distorted and abusive health & wealth gospels), and that these tend to get the most attention in the media, partly because they're very vocal in their self-promotion, and partly because verses like this "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 'But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.'" lead the sort of Christian who is authentically striving to follow the teachings of Jesus to not be the sort who goes around telling you how great they are for doing that, and will instead be humble in their awareness that they are no more able to live up to God's high standard of morality than anyone else (including those outside the church). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:19 am

Dr. M; EP13,

I'm still not sure WHICH to follow.

Do I follow the Bible? Do I follow the OLD Testament? The LORD is one nasty, nasty son of a bitch in that one:
Numbers 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Numbers 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

Numbers 31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

Numbers 31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

Numbers 31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

Numbers 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

Numbers 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

Numbers 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

Numbers 31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

Numbers 31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

Numbers 31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

Numbers 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Do I follow the NEW Testament?
Matthew 5:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(In other words...all the problems that I have with the violent, vengeful God in the Old Testament? Jesus embraces that. So you CAN'T throw out the OLD Testament, just because the NEW one has come along)
Luke 12:47
King James Version (KJV)
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
So...slavery and physical abuse of slaves is OK by Christ!


Or do I follow Priests, Pastors, and Rabbis? Which ones? Westboro Baptist? How do I know they're not right? Some other hateful group?
Quote:
That absolutely EVERYONE who claims to follow it cherry-picks the parts they like (or their preachers like) and reject or ignore the rest?

There are some more of those tricky generalizations that keep getting you into trouble. But, I will agree that anyone who claims to follow it's teachings still falls short of the moral standard of perfect relationships. The marvelous thing about Christianity is that God loves us anyway (and everyone else too, the difference is that we're trying to love Him back).
So...my claim that "Cherry Picking" occurs is a generalization? Or my claim that everyone does it is the generalization. I'll tell you this: those that DON'T cherry pick are considered fundamentalist extremists. But even THEY cherry pick. Show me ONE person who does not cherry pick from the bible. Oh, and they shouldn't be insane or otherwise committed to a mental institution or a prison for the criminally insane. My claim: It's NOT a generalization.

And..."The moral standard of perfect relationships"???? There's two reasons there why people fall short. The word "perfect," and the word "Standard" (as in "standard reference," I assume--i.e., another way to reference "perfect.")

Oh, and Christians BELIEVE that "God loves us anyway." Since there is no God, there's no ultimate daddy to love you, or to care if you love him back or not. It's like shouting into a well.

Just to be clear, we have literally orders of magnitude more textual attestation for the accurate transmission of the New Testament texts than for any other literary work of antiquity.
"Accuracy" is an interesting word, here. Historical research has revealed that most of the claims of the New Testament are false.

http://findpdf.net/pdf-viewer/The-Forge ... ushby.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I assume (until you clear it up) that the TRANSMISSION of the texts may be accurate, even though their content does not reflect anything real. As in, "This is a very accurate drawing of the Millennium Falcon"
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Dr. Mobius » Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:50 am

You're evading the question, Elf. Every Christian denomination I can think of has special conditions for being worthy of God's love. At the very least, you have to be a member of that particular denomination. Other popular ones include monogamy and heterosexuality. If you don't fit their narrow idea righteous perfection, you're out of luck.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:20 pm

Do I follow the Bible? Do I follow the OLD Testament?

The LORD is one nasty, nasty son of a bitch in that one
Before I take the time to write up a serious response to this, let me ask - are you actually interested in hearing a thoughtful response to this critique of the Old Testament, or are you citing these verses as a "lol-gotcha" with the intention to ignore the content of any response? But the short answer is "no, you don't follow the Old Testament"

Do I follow the NEW Testament?
The short answer: yes.
Matthew 5:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(In other words...all the problems that I have with the violent, vengeful God in the Old Testament? Jesus embraces that. So you CAN'T throw out the OLD Testament, just because the NEW one has come along)
The long answer to both of your questions so far is that while the New Testament contains the teachings which Christians are supposed to follow, the Old Testament provides the historical and cultural background for Jesus's coming. You also appear to be conflating "the law and the prophets" with the bloody military work that was carried out to establish the nation of Israel as a nation set aside for God. And even within the category of "the law", there are aspects of the law which are for moral teaching, and aspects of the law which were to culturally set the Israelites apart from their neighbors. Instances of the latter include restrictions on diet, circumcision, and other "cultural" aspects of Judaism; and Christians are excused from these (there's a fairly large portion of the New Testament set aside to discuss these sorts of things, I can cite verses if you're interested). The aspects of the law (murder, sex, etc) which deal with ethics and relationships are still on the table, but Jesus came as a fulfillment of these laws - not an enforcer or a ditto. This means that in Jesus, we are seen as fulfilling the requirements of the law, even though we can't hope to live up to the ridiculously high standard of perfect relationships - Jesus made the interpretation of the law's intention even stricter, while simultaneously saying "you can't live up to this, but you don't have to. It's on me now". Of course, if we strive to love God, we're going to end up living a lifestyle that looks an awful lot like the moral aspects of the law. The difference is that now (in the New Testament, context), we're doing so out of a desire to better express our love rather than a fear of judgement.
Luke 12:47
King James Version (KJV)
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
So...slavery and physical abuse of slaves is OK by Christ!
Wooo, go context. You're familiar with the idea of a parable?

Also, it's helpful to discussion if you use a modern translation such as the NASB, NIV, or even NKJV. There are a lot of well recognized problems with that particular translation that can distract from a scholarly discussion of the intent of the original language.

Or do I follow Priests, Pastors, and Rabbis? Which ones? Westboro Baptist? How do I know they're not right? Some other hateful group?
Priests and pastors often have a better understanding of the intended meaning of various pieces of scripture because they're often trained to read the original ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew, as well spending a significant amount of their time reading and studying the Bible; and for this reason it is often worthwhile to listen to what they have to say, but ultimately you need to judge for yourself if what they're saying fits the context given by the Bible as a whole.
So...my claim that "Cherry Picking" occurs is a generalization? Or my claim that everyone does it is the generalization.
The latter, of course.

I'll tell you this: those that DON'T cherry pick are considered fundamentalist extremists. But even THEY cherry pick. Show me ONE person who does not cherry pick from the bible. Oh, and they shouldn't be insane or otherwise committed to a mental institution or a prison for the criminally insane. My claim: It's NOT a generalization.
For starters, I don't think you could accuse me, most of my extended family, my Bible study group at college (or the one I'm participating in this summer, at Princeton) and either of the two pastors I've had at my home churches, of cherry picking. And nobody's ever accused me of being a fundamentalist (though some fundamentalists have accused me of attempting to fatally weaken the Gospel because science).
And..."The moral standard of perfect relationships"???? There's two reasons there why people fall short. The word "perfect," and the word "Standard" (as in "standard reference," I assume--i.e., another way to reference "perfect.")
We agree here, at least concerning perfect. Though I mean standard as in "standardized minimum requirement".
Oh, and Christians BELIEVE that "God loves us anyway." Since there is no God, there's no ultimate daddy to love you, or to care if you love him back or not. It's like shouting into a well.
Oh, and you BELIEVE that there is no God. Which leads me back to my earlier question of requesting that you give me a basic outline of what you do believe concerning the following:
a) whether or not people have free will
b) the source of morality or ethical law
c) why, you, personally, believe human reason to be trustworthy
"Accuracy" is an interesting word, here. Historical research has revealed that most of the claims of the New Testament are false.

http://findpdf.net/pdf-viewer/The-Forge ... ushby.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I assume (until you clear it up) that the TRANSMISSION of the texts may be accurate, even though their content does not reflect anything real. As in, "This is a very accurate drawing of the Millennium Falcon"
Wait, wait, wait, of all of the potentially interesting historical/textual criticisms of the New Testament you have available, you pick Tony Bushby??? I was preparing to do some research on individual claims concerning historicity, but instead.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm not even going to dignify that PDF with a response, except to recommend you check your sources before you lean on them too heavily. Do some research on his history of fraudulent scholarship; and then find something approximating an academically acceptable source.

You're evading the question, Elf. Every Christian denomination I can think of has special conditions for being worthy of God's love.
Which ones are you thinking of, specifically? Also, since when is asking you to be more specific regarding your statement "evading the question"?
At the very least, you have to be a member of that particular denomination. Other popular ones include monogamy and heterosexuality. If you don't fit their narrow idea righteous perfection, you're out of luck.
I can attest that the American Baptist denomination which I belong to does not claim any of those as requirements for God's love, nor, to the best of my knowledge, do any of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, or Quaker churches with which I am familiar (though I don't know the specific denominational affiliations of those churches within the broad categories I just specified). In fact, as I've already pointed out, the fundamental teaching of all of those churches is "We're all human beings, and therefore fundamentally f***ed up and incapable of righteous perfection. But God loves us anyway, and we should respond to that love."
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:23 pm

Every Christian denomination I can think of has special conditions for being worthy of God's love. At the very least, you have to be a member of that particular denomination.
[citations needed]

Which mainstream denominations teach this?
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:25 pm

I thought Bushby was interesting, though I can't yet vouch for his veracity. I have done some reading, and attended some lectures (names escape me right now) that pretty much shone a bright, glaring light on all claims of historic accuracy, and found it to be wanting. Hopefully I can get back to that later tonight.

But you asked this previously, so I should answer....
Oh, and you BELIEVE that there is no God. Which leads me back to my earlier question of requesting that you give me a basic outline of what you do believe concerning the following:
a) whether or not people have free will
b) the source of morality or ethical law
c) why, you, personally, believe human reason to be trustworthy
a) Yes, though it is an interesting exercise to determine just what, exactly, that means.

b) In simple terms: Pragmatism. And the Golden Rule. With a little "What is best for my species to survive?" thrown in.

c) Human reason is a more trustworthy source of answers than, let's say, rampant emotionalism. But seriously, it's got a lot to do with empiricism. I make my living through reason (though you might scoff at that, being my non-arrogant intellectual superior). Reason answers most questions, and solves most problems. The scientific method, for instance, has shown itself to be rather successful. If you can find a BETTER way to determine what is true, other than the scientific method, please let me know. And then prove this other method to be better...

But seriously: I assume that when you say, "Trustworthy," you mean "a trustworthy method of determining what is true (what is real)"

First off--what would one offer to challenge "Human Reason"? Guesses? Wants? Desires? "In my heart I know it to be true"? "It's got to be true because I need it to be true"? "I know it's true because I read it on the internet, or saw it on the news"? "A ghost whispered in my ear that it's true"?
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:27 pm

Every Christian denomination I can think of has special conditions for being worthy of God's love. At the very least, you have to be a member of that particular denomination.
[citations needed]

Which mainstream denominations teach this?
Here's a starting point:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Most people tend to view other religions in one of three mutually exclusive ways:

Religious Exclusivists regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true religion. Other religions might have elements of truth in them -- beliefs arrived at either by accident, or by observing nature, or by following their conscience. But they are largely false, and are often viewed as rivals to the one true religion. Among many fundamentalist Christians, other religions are regarded as forms of Satanism, led by demonic forces. They are often vigorously opposed because they are viewed as drawing their followers away from salvation towards an eternity of punishment in Hell.

Exclusivism is probably the most common belief among devout Christians in the U.S. One indication of this comes from a 1995 poll showed that only 21% of churchgoers regarded Islam as having a positive impact on society. Only 21% felt that Buddhism had a positive effect.
Religious Inclusivists, like exclusivists regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true religion. They do not view other religions as completely wrong; they are seen to "reflect aspects of, or to constitute approaches to, that final truth." 5 Other religions are thus viewed as incomplete or partially developed faiths.
Religious Pluralists believe that all religions are legitimate, valid, and true -- when viewed from within their particular culture. All faith traditions are deserving of respect. Unfortunately, the term "Religious pluralism" is ambiguous. It is sometimes used as a synonym for "religious diversity" to refer to the fact that many countries have a followers of many religions within their borders. It is sometimes difficult to tell from a written document or speech which definition the author or speaker is using.

We will avoid the use of the term "religious pluralism" in this web site, where "religious diversity" is referred to.
In general:

Religious liberals in North America often tend toward religious pluralism.
Religious conservatives frequently embrace exclusivism, largely because it appears in their holy texts -- the Torah, Christian Scriptures (New Testament), Qur'an, etc. In fact, many Christian and Jewish conservatives do not recognize the liberal wings of their own religion as legitimate.
Members of mainline denominations are split. For example, at the 2001 General Conference of the Presbyterian Church (USA), salvation for non-Christians surfaced as a major item of concern.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:52 pm

These words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You do realize that a denomination as a subgroup within a religion is not the same as a wholly separate religion, yes? And that the bolded portions of what you provided as an "indication" has nothing to do with the relevant issue, here? (Polling data on whether a separate religion has a positive impact on the world shows that most denominations believe other denominations within their own religion and other religions are "not worthy" of God's love, how, exactly?) Come on, Steve. You're better than this.
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:54 pm

But you asked this previously, so I should answer....
Oh, and you BELIEVE that there is no God. Which leads me back to my earlier question of requesting that you give me a basic outline of what you do believe concerning the following:
a) whether or not people have free will
b) the source of morality or ethical law
c) why, you, personally, believe human reason to be trustworthy
a) Yes, though it is an interesting exercise to determine just what, exactly, that means.

b) In simple terms: Pragmatism. And the Golden Rule. With a little "What is best for my species to survive?" thrown in.

c) Human reason is a more trustworthy source of answers than, let's say, rampant emotionalism. But seriously, it's got a lot to do with empiricism. I make my living through reason (though you might scoff at that, being my non-arrogant intellectual superior). Reason answers most questions, and solves most problems. The scientific method, for instance, has shown itself to be rather successful. If you can find a BETTER way to determine what is true, other than the scientific method, please let me know. And then prove this other method to be better...

But seriously: I assume that when you say, "Trustworthy," you mean "a trustworthy method of determining what is true (what is real)"

First off--what would one offer to challenge "Human Reason"? Guesses? Wants? Desires? "In my heart I know it to be true"? "It's got to be true because I need it to be true"? "I know it's true because I read it on the internet, or saw it on the news"? "A ghost whispered in my ear that it's true"?
Thanks, those are more or less the answers I was expecting from you based on our previous conversations, but I just wanted to double check before I made any assumptions.

With regards to free will: does this mean you do not believe that human actions have been pre-determined by the laws of physics since the beginning of the universe; and that, as I would, you choose to preserve locality and reality, rather than determinism, where the Bell Inequality is concerned?

With regards to morality: as a reductionist, what separates, in your mind, the molecules composing a human from, say, the molecules composing a chocolate bar or a banana, such that one such set of molecules should be subject to the Golden Rule, and one need not be? Do you believe that the Golden Rule should be applied by all human societies as a moral standard, or do you believe that morality is ultimately relative to the society that constructs it? Finally, does "best for my species" come before or after the Golden Rule in your internal weighting of moral priorities?

With regards to reason: You are exactly correct in your assumption about what I mean by trustworthy. I too have every interest in pursuing a career consisting primarily off the application of reason. The reason I ask, is that a significant difference between us is that I believe my mind consists of both a rational non-physical spiritual component and the biological computational component. The difference between the views is that yours is rather like "expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset". I believe quite strongly in the trustworthiness of reason but only because I believe that part of myself is made in the image of a rational God. Which is why I asked on what grounds you choose to accept reason as trusthworthy. Is it, perhaps, because it has shown itself to be evolutionarily useful? Or is there a deeper justification than that?



We can get back to the scriptural analysis when you're ready (and I'm happy to write up a longish bit on the Old Testament, if you're genuinely interested in discussing it).

Additionally: please note that there is a significant difference between claiming to have more extensive training in a particular field and claiming "to be intellectually superior", and that claiming one is entirely different than claiming the other.

Polling data on whether a separate religion has a positive impact on the world shows that most denominations believe other denominations within their own religion and other religions are "not worthy" of God's love, how, exactly?
QFT. I may not think belief in the Easter Bunny has a positive impact on society, but I have no reason to believe that people who practice Easter Bunnyism are any less worthy of God's love than I am.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:05 pm

BTW, Elf, since I can't review all the philosophies of all the people you listed, I picked one at random (so muych for free will--though I did DECIDE to pick one at random, all by myself), and I picked Chris Isham.

The first statement about God I read from him is this:
The best answer to that is that - I think in all honesty - the theological school that is most consistent with modern science is actually atheism. Now, I'm not an atheist I'm a Christian but, as far as I can see, the modern science matter is totally consistent with being just that. In that sense Dawkins has a point.
To put it in context:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... FWYXkPMQIw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

will get you to the document.

Sure, there's more to the man. ANd you listed others as well. But the fist gu I chose, the first paper I read, leads me to this.

Maybe it was pre-ordained. In which case...I passed, but I failed.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:12 pm

Same document:
Christopher Isham
I once had a debate with John Polkinghorne about more or less the same issue. This was serious, it was one of these Vatican meetings and it was to do with the nature of prayer and the theory of special relativity. Because I claimed to him that actually the concept of prayer violated relativity theory you see, and he said no and we had a big discussion about this and, although he never actually agreed with me, he almost did. That's my useful remark there.
Isham does not believe in prayer. What sort of a Christian is THAT?!? :?
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Wed Aug 08, 2012 10:57 pm

Steve,
If I look at an instruction manual, and the instructions are all contradictory, and don't work, and reflect horrible biases by the author, and make no sense, then I have to start to wonder if it's nonsense. So...I check myself. I look at it again. I try to look at it differently. I ask other people to look at it. If all the people who look at it intelligently agree that it makes no sense, and the only people who claim to understand it are forced to say, "You just have to accept it. You have to stop thinking about it. You have to ignore the parts that don't make sense, and just consider the parts that you're told to consider...."

Well, then. At that point I know that there's something wrong. If it makes out and out wrong statements (birds and insects have four legs), or claims to be one thing ("moral") yet acts 180° opposite that (daughters sleeping with fathers, concubines, graphic descriptions of equine ejaculations, slaughtering civilizations and keeping the young virgin girls as sex slaves), then I'm at a loss as to why I'm supposed to take it seriously.

You DO understand, don't you, that the Bible(s) was NOT written by God, right? It was written by various men, across an extended period of time. Later in its history, certain passages were removed, and other passages were brought back from obscurity to be reintroduced into it? That absolutely EVERYONE who claims to follow it cherry-picks the parts they like (or their preachers like) and reject or ignore the rest? It's of far more value as a Rorschach test than as a moral guide!
Okay, there's a difference between the Bible and a manual. The Bible isn't a "How to live you life" guide, it's an explanation, by God and through men, of who God is. The Bible never said that Jesus or God slept with closely related family members. I haven't read too much of Lot's story, but intend to.

Another thing, I claim to live by the Bible and do NOT "cherry pick" the bits that suit me or the bits that I like or the bits that already fit in with my view of the world and how I want to live my own life. There are many things that Christians shouldn't do and that I'd very much enjoy. If I cherry picked I'd just disregard them and say, "Well, I'll follow these bits and go to heaven." Unless I'm no one, your statement is false. You can't make any statements of the kind with anything like certainty.

No one can say, with the minimal knowledge about the universe that we possess, "Based on this I can deduce that there is no God." You can't draw conclusions from such insufficient information. True, it runs the other way, we can't say for certain that God does exist, but that's about faith and I'm sure we've been down that road.

I'm afraid that the most useful thing that I got from your post was the spelling of the word "Rorschach".
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:23 am

BTW, Elf, since I can't review all the philosophies of all the people you listed, I picked one at random (so muych for free will--though I did DECIDE to pick one at random, all by myself), and I picked Chris Isham.
I actually would have suggested one of the first three, or Polkinghorne as good places to start. Chris Isham is certainly both brilliant, and a practising Christian, so I don't mind though, except that because of the format of the interview, he left me with 2 rather awkward-at-first-glance questions to answer for you. I'm actually pretty familiar with the interview you linked to though, so I wasn't terribly surprised by the quotes you picked.
The best answer to that is that - I think in all honesty - the theological school that is most consistent with modern science is actually atheism. Now, I'm not an atheist I'm a Christian but, as far as I can see, the modern science matter is totally consistent with being just that. In that sense Dawkins has a point. However, of course I don't believe that and the last twenty years particularly have seen intense discussions amongst people who work in this sort of field to try and find a view - in a sense a common philosophical position - for discussing both theology and particularly modern physics, which is one of my big interests. A friend of mine, a very good friend of mine John Polkinghorne who's very well known for his work in this area has with others developed what they call 'critical realism', which is a kind of philosophical view which they think allows you to talk about both science and religion at the same time. I always say to John, if he's a critical realist then I am a mystical idealist, which is a half joke and half not joke. ...It comes back to what I said at the beginning, scientists have no qualifications whatsoever for answering the question about divine purpose. As a matter of fact many of you in the audience may be better qualified than me, if you have a more spiritual perception of the world you may be better qualified than I am. I'll just say this one thing and then, of course, discuss this more later, is that this type of a question has lead me very much to a fundamental question which actually rises in all of these discussions and includes also modern science, modern physics particularly. Which is, what are the appropriate categories of thought with which to study the world? You just cannot imagine how much people don't think about this when they should. There is an enormous tendency to take for granted that what works over here, is this realm of reality, is going to work over there. Now, a philosopher Kant very famously warned against this - what he called category errors - but we do it all the time.
You left out an important bit of context there. I suspect the first sentence is the one that you found to be really interesting, but based on the rest of what he was saying in that first portion of the interview, it seems to me he's saying that atheism (or physicalism) most closely matches the philosophy which guides the practice of modern science, rather than that any particular result in modern science is more consistent with atheism than theism. If what I just described is what he intended to say, than I actually mostly agree with him, in that science is not capable of studying anything which is nonphysical, and therefore many scientists end up getting "when all you have is a hammer" syndrome. If he was saying that science actually conflicts with religious belief and that he just chooses to ignore that I would be very much disappointed in him, but I think my take on that portion of the interview is the more correct one. Another choice quote on the issue:
So it's six people out of eighty; and I'm the only one who has gotten involved in the debate about science and religion in a professional sense. As far as I can see, they live a total schizoid life. Unlike what Eric was saying actually, and okay maybe this is Imperial College ethos, but they may have quite different religious beliefs but they separate them quite completely in their minds from their scientific world. Part of my answer to the question I was recently asked actually was I only became a Christian when I was forty years old - in fact I was simultaneously baptised and confirmed on my fortieth birthday. Now if you ask, what was I doing the rest of the time? Well I was having mystical feelings is the answer. But I did finally decide I could authentically call myself a Christian, and I thought I must do something about this. Because my students, who kept asking me how can you a theoretical physicist be a Christian; it doesn't make any sense you see...So I thought, well rather than just saying what I am - I feel mystical and there you are - I should try to address the issue, and that is what started me personally on this last twenty years when I've been working on science and religion on the side.
Same document:
Christopher Isham
I once had a debate with John Polkinghorne about more or less the same issue. This was serious, it was one of these Vatican meetings and it was to do with the nature of prayer and the theory of special relativity. Because I claimed to him that actually the concept of prayer violated relativity theory you see, and he said no and we had a big discussion about this and, although he never actually agreed with me, he almost did. That's my useful remark there.
Isham does not believe in prayer. What sort of a Christian is THAT?!? :?
Temporarily, the sort with a physicist's sense of humor - keep reading:
]I made a jocular comment, and I'll make now a dead serious one. For many years at Imperial College I was deeply involved with student welfare on a sort of one-to-one counselling basis, and many students came through my hands. Some of them were extremely disturbed, I had at least half a dozen people who were blatantly suicidal. Often I saw these students regularly, once each week or something like that; if I couldn't get them to go the doctor, which often you can't, it was all I could do. Sometimes, I know that a student is coming and that it was extremely difficult for me to do anything useful to help and on those occasions I used to always prayer beforehand for help - and it was extraordinary how often it worked. In fact once, just once, I had a really very profound mystical experience of actually - almost - seeing an image of Christ sitting there. These things happen and I can't say what they mean, but it was like Christ was present and helping me with these students. So, prayer seems to me - and actually what often almost always works is prayer for other people. If you pray for yourself, 'can I get the Nobel Prize?', it's not very effective.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:29 am

TG,
Okay, there's a difference between the Bible and a manual. The Bible isn't a "How to live you life" guide, it's an explanation, by God and through men, of who God is. The Bible never said that Jesus or God slept with closely related family members. I haven't read too much of Lot's story, but intend to.

Another thing, I claim to live by the Bible and do NOT "cherry pick"

So....
According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.
Do you keep Kosher, or not?

And similarly (and NOT that I want to know your response, but....)
Circumcision is of no consequence.
Galatians 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.

The covenant of circumcision is an everlasting covenant.
Genesis 17:7, 10-11: (7) And I will establish My covenant between Me and between you and between your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be to you for a God and to your seed after you. (10) This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised. (11) And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be as the sign of a covenant between Me and between you.
People claim that the covenant with Christ revokes former covenants between Abraham and God. Yet Christ, himself says that it doesn't.

As a Christian, then, you have to decide: do you keep Kosher, or don't you? Are you circumcised, or not (and, I do NOT recommend it late in life) Do you believe in an angry, vengeful, Old testament God, or a loving, all-inclusive New Testament God?

If your parents are opposed to homosexuality, is it based on Leviticus (in which case: no haircuts, no poly/cotton blends for your pajamas)? Or on sections in the New testament? Because Jesus never says a thing about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... _Testament" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:41 am

People claim that the covenant with Christ revokes former covenants between Abraham and God. Yet Christ, himself says that it doesn't.
People who claim that don't really understand what's being said. Christ fulfills the covenants and replaces the role of priests as our mediation with God. What you're doing in the last several posts where you cite scripture is cherry picking verses independently of context, which makes them appear to say things the author is not saying. "If we talk about the economy, we're going to lose"/"If you have a business, you didn't build that".
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby locke » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:00 pm

TG,

Well, but of course the human mind is a biochemical SOMETHING. As best as we can currently label it, it's fair enough to call it a computer.

From Wikipedia:
Conventionally, a computer consists of at least one processing element and some form of memory. The processing element carries out arithmetic and logic operations, and a sequencing and control unit that can change the order of operations based on stored information. Peripheral devices allow information to be retrieved from an external source, and the result of operations saved and retrieved.
However, there is this pesky aspect of "Self Awareness" to our Meat-based Processor Units (MPU's). Where it comes from, I don't know. Neuroscientists are trying their damnedest to figure it out. Some say it's a natural, non-spiritual by-product of having enough processing and interconnections going on. For now, I can handle that. And it's certainly better than saying it's "Spirit" or "God," which is just a pretense for saying, "I don't know," but by way of throwing a bunch of other ridiculous nonsense into the mix in a failed attempt to distract others (and one's self) from that basic ignorance.
iirc, a lot of neuroscience research is currently indicating that consciousness free-will is more or less an illusion, our brain tricking itself, like an optical illusion.

This basically irritates all non-neuroscientists and most neuroscientists, because it seriously tweaks the ego/sense-of-self of basically everyone.

***

Can I make up something for Steve to rip up too?

**
Given that damnation lasts infinitely long
Given that damnation is a punishment for sins
Given that damnation is basically torture
Is there any difference between being damned for a little thing and being damned for a lifetime of horrible things?
So if one person is damned because their only sin in life was cheating on a test let's assign them a damnation value of 1, they only get tortured a little bit.
And another person is damned because they've had a lifetime of sins, some big, some small, some heinous, some benign, they get a damnation value of 86 and get tortured a right and proper goodly amount.

So if you have D1*infinity and D86*infinity isn't the product of both these calculations equal? Is there any difference for them and someone with a D1000*infinity?
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:25 pm

I thought I'd throw this out there for possible discussion: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

User avatar
Tiny genius
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:59 am
Location: Starship Herodotus

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Tiny genius » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:33 pm

Locke,

I thought we gave up trying to assign mathematics to theological concepts with the whole 1/infinity chance of getting saved business.

Steve,

I don't keep Kosher, as it happens. Mainly because 1) I'm not sure of all the technicalities and rules and 2) I haven't been brought up that way.

I'll leave you to wonder (or not) on whether or not I'm circumsised though why the recommendation of not getting it done later in life? Advice based on personal experience?

I think that you've already been told off for taking scripture out of context in order to make the verses seem contraditory so I won't do it again but I don't have Level 1 understanding, I don't have the ability to smooth out the paradoxes. Sorry about that. Sorry that it's true and sorry that I said it because you'll probably just call it an excuse but hey, whatever.
"Other universes may exist, but ours seems to be based on war and games" - William S. Burroughs

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:22 pm

I thought I'd throw this out there for possible discussion: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
It didn't take him long to make the blunder that I was fully expecting him to make. "Values are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures" and then he goes on to talk about suffering. Let's go back and look at the questions I asked Steve a couple posts back:
With regards to free will: does this mean you do not believe that human actions have been pre-determined by the laws of physics since the beginning of the universe; and that, as I would, you choose to preserve locality and reality, rather than determinism, where the Bell Inequality is concerned?

With regards to morality: as a reductionist, what separates, in your mind, the molecules composing a human from, say, the molecules composing a chocolate bar or a banana, such that one such set of molecules should be subject to the Golden Rule, and one need not be? Do you believe that the Golden Rule should be applied by all human societies as a moral standard, or do you believe that morality is ultimately relative to the society that constructs it? Finally, does "best for my species" come before or after the Golden Rule in your internal weighting of moral priorities?

With regards to reason: You are exactly correct in your assumption about what I mean by trustworthy. I too have every interest in pursuing a career consisting primarily off the application of reason. The reason I ask, is that a significant difference between us is that I believe my mind consists of both a rational non-physical spiritual component and the biological computational component. The difference between the views is that yours is rather like "expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset". I believe quite strongly in the trustworthiness of reason but only because I believe that part of myself is made in the image of a rational God. Which is why I asked on what grounds you choose to accept reason as trusthworthy. Is it, perhaps, because it has shown itself to be evolutionarily useful? Or is there a deeper justification than that?
On what grounds can you claim that science tells us which set of molecules ought (to use Sam Harris's choice of words concerning value-judgements) in a Kantian, this-is-the-right-way-for-things-to-be, rather than predictive sense? Why should we, on scientific grounds, treat the configuration of molecules in your brain as inherently different than the configuration of molecules in the RAM of your computer, or in a rock?
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:45 pm

I thought I'd throw this out there for possible discussion: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
It didn't take him long to make the blunder that I was fully expecting him to make. "Values are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures" and then he goes on to talk about suffering. Let's go back and look at the questions I asked Steve a couple posts back:
With regards to free will: does this mean you do not believe that human actions have been pre-determined by the laws of physics since the beginning of the universe; and that, as I would, you choose to preserve locality and reality, rather than determinism, where the Bell Inequality is concerned?

With regards to morality: as a reductionist, what separates, in your mind, the molecules composing a human from, say, the molecules composing a chocolate bar or a banana, such that one such set of molecules should be subject to the Golden Rule, and one need not be? Do you believe that the Golden Rule should be applied by all human societies as a moral standard, or do you believe that morality is ultimately relative to the society that constructs it? Finally, does "best for my species" come before or after the Golden Rule in your internal weighting of moral priorities?

With regards to reason: You are exactly correct in your assumption about what I mean by trustworthy. I too have every interest in pursuing a career consisting primarily off the application of reason. The reason I ask, is that a significant difference between us is that I believe my mind consists of both a rational non-physical spiritual component and the biological computational component. The difference between the views is that yours is rather like "expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset". I believe quite strongly in the trustworthiness of reason but only because I believe that part of myself is made in the image of a rational God. Which is why I asked on what grounds you choose to accept reason as trusthworthy. Is it, perhaps, because it has shown itself to be evolutionarily useful? Or is there a deeper justification than that?
On what grounds can you claim that science tells us which set of molecules ought (to use Sam Harris's choice of words concerning value-judgements) in a Kantian, this-is-the-right-way-for-things-to-be, rather than predictive sense? Why should we, on scientific grounds, treat the configuration of molecules in your brain as inherently different than the configuration of molecules in the RAM of your computer, or in a rock?

Well, for starters, the molecules in my brain, through efforts of the larger, surrounding body that they control, can defend themselves. As I have just proven for myself, the peanut butter, chocolate, and banana sandwich that I just devoured (along with the tall glass of fat-free milk I had with it) cannot.

And thinking about your request for details regarding "internal weighing of moral priorities"--how do YOU handle all of that? Does "God's rationality" come first? How do you know what that is? Do you ever find yourself going against the wishes of God as clearly outlined in the Bible (slaughtering civilizations, killing disobedient children, handing over your daughter to ravening crowds to protect your guests, etc.) if "something else in you" should determine that, for some strange reason, what the Bible demands is "just not right"?
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.Matthew 10:34
I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.Luke 12:49-51
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.Luke 22:35-38
So...are ye all weaponed up? Or do you, somehow, know better?
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:34 pm

Well, for starters, the molecules in my brain, through efforts of the larger, surrounding body that they control, can defend themselves. As I have just proven for myself, the peanut butter, chocolate, and banana sandwich that I just devoured (along with the tall glass of fat-free milk I had with it) cannot.
For a self-proclaimed reductionist, you don't seem terribly eager to be reductive. By "defend themselves" you apparently mean "persist in their current configuration of being you", but even that is a somewhat misleading statement, since the sandwich and milk are now also within the you-system, but some aspects of that system you're happy to part with and continue to consider yourself you (hair, fingernails, various excretions and secretions, blood or teeth or bone marrow under the right circumstances). And many of the smaller clumps of molecules ("cells") that up you are replaced every couple of years. There are also a number of systems that are able to persist in their configuration in a manner that is a good deal more defined (and more permanent) than the way you seem to mean it. Solitons, for example, are able to withstand tremendous outside interference. You on the other hand are not - if I cut you up with a sword and allowed some animals to eat you, you were apparently unable to defend yourself, and those parts of you which were chopped off are now partially part of the things that ate you. And what about infants, which are entirely unable to defend themselves? Are they without moral rights?
And thinking about your request for details regarding "internal weighing of moral priorities"--how do YOU handle all of that? Does "God's rationality" come first? How do you know what that is?
Ideally, I would prioritize things this way:
'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
But, like all humans, I spend a good deal of time struggling with "what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate."
Do you ever find yourself going against the wishes of God as clearly outlined in the Bible (slaughtering civilizations, killing disobedient children, handing over your daughter to ravening crowds to protect your guests, etc.) if "something else in you" should determine that, for some strange reason, what the Bible demands is "just not right"?
Are you giving those things as examples of things that are clearly "the wishes of God" or clearly going against them?
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.Matthew 10:34
I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.Luke 12:49-51
Context, context, context. As I understand it, Both of these are in a larger context of showing how the followers of Jesus will end up being in conflict with the world about them, because of the divisive nature of the Gospel message (i.e., exactly what's going on right here in this thread).
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.Luke 22:35-38
While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:37 pm

EP,

I'm a reductionist, but it's a beautiful day out, and I have other things to do.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:57 pm

http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/tyt-d ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

$5 says the kid's dad is NOT a Jew.

Or maybe he was referring to Romans, Corinthians, or Timothy....
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:08 pm

Actually, this is the wrong way to go about proving that "it's incorrect to say that everyone cherry picks."

What I'd need to do is find ONE person who does not (or did not) Cherry Pick.

Maybe...

Image

Image


Or....

Image

Image

That's it. I'm out.

EP? Any ideas? TG?
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:10 pm

--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:08 pm

As far as cherry picking goes - all of those people are doing just that, and picking only the portions of the scripture which support their ideology.

I'm not going to attempt to defend Islamic theology, since there are a vast array of things I disagree with, but I'm also not going to demonize Islam or the contents of the Qur'an. There are two broad camps of cherry pickers. Those who want only the warm-fuzzies of religion, and those who want none of the warm-fuzzies. Militant Jihadis, like Westboro Baptist Church, ignore all of the stuff about love and peace. The word "jihad" literally means "struggle", and includes spiritual struggle on AT LEAST an even footing with military struggle ("jihad bil saif").

"Liberal protestant" Christians, and many Muslims I've met (for example, many Ahmadis) like to ignore the stuff about judgement and God's righteous anger against those who practice injustice against the poor and helpless.

The following post will hopefully give you an idea of what it looks like to not cherry pick, and instead embrace even the seemingly difficult portions of your scripture in order to get a complete picture.

(quick edit, it's rather amusing that you selected Pat Robertson as an example here, since as I was writing up my post, I used him as an example of someone who would, rightfully, be dead under Old Testament law)

EP,

I'm a reductionist, but it's a beautiful day out, and I have other things to do.
Well, under your reductionist physicalism, if you do them, it's not as if you could have done anything else, since your particles happened to interact in that way; and if you don't do them, it's not as if you could have done anything else, since your particles happened to interact that way instead. So don't let me stop you from doing what physics said you were going to do anyway (but if I did stop you, you or I couldn't have helped it).

Third: You use the term "Perfect and Loving." Given "God exists" as your premise, with the (assumed) corollary that God is also "perfect," I would add that men (and women) are NOT perfect. Basically, because we're not, and that's OK--since we're only in God's "Likeness" God may treat us in a "perfect and loving" manner (which I would, of course, disagree with; and can, and later will, find plenty of examples), but we--by our nature--cannot deal with him in a perfect manner.
You're almost spot on here as well - note that the original question is framed in terms of "how can God exist if _____", so answers are going to be "He could exist like ________", or "He couldn't". I should also describe God as "perfectly just" in addition to the other attributes I've already mentioned, since it is an important one, one I suspect will come up later (in anticipation to your objection of my view of God).
While you're outside playing, and I'm inside taking a break from writing about shear-Alfvén waves in Gyrokinetic Simulation, I think it's time to write up my aside on how to understand the violence in the Old Testament from a Christian and Biblically sound point of view.

Starting point (these are the assumptions that we can make when working inside a Christian worldview):
  • God is omniscient
  • God is perfectly loving
  • God is perfectly just
  • God is slow to anger and filled with unfailing love, forgiving every kind of sin and rebellion.
  • Humans are created by God
  • Murder is wrong.
  • Humans have since rebelled against God and our nature is now inherently sinful (missing the mark of what was intended for us)
  • The Bible contains incomplete knowledge of historical events (i.e., we only have one narrative point of view in a particular account)
Before we get terribly in depth with the Israelite conquests of neighboring kingdoms as they settle the Promised Land, there are two other important issues to address.

First, the question of "what is murder?" The naive answer to this question "killing people", but that leaves the question of why we shouldn't ("because it's bad?"/"because the Bible says not to?"). Answering that question in a more satisfying way brings in what it means for us to be created by God, in His image. If you believe that the creator of something is the one with proper authority over it, than God properly has authority over human life; and killing another person becomes wrong because it is usurping God's authority over human life. The corollary here being that if God tasked a human with taking another human life, as an instrument for exercising his authority, then that would not be wrong. The obvious questions this doesn't answer are "how is killing people consistent with a loving and just God, even if He rightfully has the authority to do so?" and "does this mean you really think the God-told-me-to-kill-them defense is morally legitimate?" For the first question - I'll get there, that's what this post is about. For the second question - my answer is a qualified yes. If God actually told you to kill someone, the only correct response would be to obey. But my immediate next response is that I'm extremely skeptical of any such claim, and that in the scriptures, miracles were used as an empirical framework to authenticate the authority of people who claimed to speak on God's behalf (prophets), or even when God spoke directly to people asking them to carry out specific tasks (this is a form of the interactive proof systems studied by computational complexity theorists). People who claimed to speak on God's behalf without being able to back it up were put to death (i.e., people like Pat Robertson would be killed for their claims, rather than given a public forum to brag about their "pretty good track record").


The next part of my post is to look at the (threatened) destruction of several cities in the Old Testament, which aren't part of the invading-the-Promised-Land narrative. Specifically, Sodom/Gomorrah in the case of Abraham and Lot, and Nineveh in the case of Jonah. I'm going to quote some passages at length here (though I will try and chop out some of the surrounding text if I can do so without removing important context, and bold the most important sections), so wait on reading this through until you actually have some time.
Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, 3 and said, “My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not pass Your servant by. 4 Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; 5 and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant.” And they said, “So do, as you have said.”
...
16 Then the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. 17 The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? 19 For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” 20 And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” 22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord. 23 Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” 26 So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.” 27 And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” 29 He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.” 30 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 And he said, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.” 32 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” 33 As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed, and Abraham returned to his place.
So what actually happens, after God says He will not destroy the cities if even 10 righteous people can be found there? Let's keep reading and find out.
Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and [a]bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” 3 Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

12 Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; 13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” 14 Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, “Up, get out of this place, for the Lord will destroy the city.” But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

15 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city.” 16 But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the Lord was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.
So even though God is unable to find even the 10 righteous men for which He said He would spare the city, He still rescues the one family that is apparently righteous enough (and based on the offer Lot makes, it seems like the bar is set pretty low for being rescued - apparently the rest of the city is even worse than being willing to offer up their daughters as sex toys to protect two guests).

Now, let's take a look at Jonah and Nineveh.
3:1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and proclaim to it the proclamation which I am going to tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three days’ walk. 4 Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.”

5 Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them.
6 When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes. 7 He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. 8 But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. 9 Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”

10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.


4:1 But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord and said, “Please Lord, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness, and one who relents concerning calamity. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life.” 4 The Lord said, “Do you have good reason to be angry?”

5 Then Jonah went out from the city and sat east of it. There he made a shelter for himself and sat under it in the shade until he could see what would happen in the city. 6 So the Lord God appointed a plant and it grew up over Jonah to be a shade over his head to deliver him from his discomfort. And Jonah was extremely happy about the plant. 7 But God appointed a worm when dawn came the next day and it attacked the plant and it withered. 8 When the sun came up God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on Jonah’s head so that he became faint and begged with all his soul to die, saying, “Death is better to me than life.”

9 Then God said to Jonah, “Do you have good reason to be angry about the plant?” And he said, “I have good reason to be angry, even to death.” 10 Then the Lord said, “You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight. 11 Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?”
In this case, God withdraws His threat against Nineveh after they express remorse and make an attempt to repent; and proceeds to rebuke Jonah for being too swift to execute judgement rather than showing compassion.

Based on these two passages, and the fact that we have nothing in the Old Testament to tell us that the cities which were destroyed by the Israelite invasion of the Promised Land did not have advanced warning to a "righteous remnant" or general calls to repentance in order to avert destruction, I don't have much problem interpreting those as God executing justice on the genuinely guilty (or believing that He would have evacuated those who were undeserving of justice). Belief in God's omnipotence and the strong demonstrations of His compassion, even in anger, allows me to trust this conclusion even more strongly.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:16 pm

I'll have to do some reading.

Good to know that you incorporate the Old Testament (and therefore ALL the Old Testament in your religious world view), since you don't Cherry Pick.
For starters, I don't think you could accuse me, most of my extended family, my Bible study group at college (or the one I'm participating in this summer, at Princeton) and either of the two pastors I've had at my home churches, of cherry picking.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:22 pm

By the way, how many newborn infants, and pregnant mothers, were slaughtered when God destroyed Sodom?

And the Old Testament really doesn't go into any great detail about why it was totally OK and fully God-Ordained to wipe out the Midianites (maybe you can clear that up for me), and to save only the virgin girls...

Or does that fall under the3 heading of "We're too stupid to understand God, so it must, somehow, really be OK" (at which point, what the hell's the point? God musty have had some reason to allow His Chosen People to be slaughtered by the MILLIONS in WWII, and you can pretty much claim anything you want. It's a "divide by infinity" sort of game.
Numbers 31
New International Version (NIV)
Vengeance on the Midianites

31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people. ”

3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba —the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army —the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

And correct me if I'm wrong (since, in your eyes, I always am), but the phrase "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man..." really sounds like these young girls are to be made into sex slaves for the Jews. And, in subsequent sections, for the priest class as well.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby elfprince13 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:12 pm

By the way, how many newborn infants, and pregnant mothers, were slaughtered when God destroyed Sodom?
My inclusivist* tendencies and confidence in a just God would say that any "collateral damage", if there were truly people killed in that incident, or any of the later ones in the Old Testament, who were undeserving of that fate, would be known of by God and will be dealt with justly - hopefully being resurrected into the restored and perfect Earth on which God's kingdom will be built. Which, really, is a much better deal than the protracted suffering we encounter every day in this still-fallen world.
And the Old Testament really doesn't go into any great detail about why it was totally OK and fully God-Ordained to wipe out the Midianites (maybe you can clear that up for me),
There was an incident several chapters earlier - I'm using The Message here, because the plain English makes it very easy to parse what is going on. The NIV and NASB are my usual translations of choice, but the writing style in Numbers is quite terse, and this helps unpack it somewhat. The weirdly punctuated place name is because PWeb's profanity filters have a little difficulty with it.
While Israel was camped at S.h.i.t.t.i.m. (Acacia Grove), the men began to have sex with the Moabite women. It started when the women invited the men to their sex-and-religion worship. They ate together and then worshiped their gods. Israel ended up joining in the worship of the Baal of Peor. God was furious, his anger blazing out against Israel. God said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of Israel and kill them by hanging, leaving them publicly exposed in order to turn God's anger away from Israel." Moses issued orders to the judges of Israel: "Each of you must execute the men under your jurisdiction who joined in the worship of Baal Peor." Just then, while everyone was weeping in penitence at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, an Israelite man, flaunting his behavior in front of Moses and the whole assembly, paraded a Midianite woman into his family tent. Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw what he was doing, grabbed his spear, and followed them into the tent. With one thrust he drove the spear through the two of them, the man of Israel and the woman, right through their private parts. That stopped the plague from continuing among the People of Israel. But 24,000 had already died. God spoke to Moses: "Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has stopped my anger against the People of Israel. Because he was as zealous for my honor as I myself am, I didn't kill all the People of Israel in my zeal. So tell him that I am making a Covenant-of-Peace with him. He and his descendants are joined in a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and made atonement for the People of Israel." The name of the man of Israel who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the head of the Simeonite family. And the name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family. God spoke to Moses: "From here on make the Midianites your enemies. Fight them tooth and nail. They turned out to be your enemies when they seduced you in the business of Peor and that woman Cozbi, daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed at the time of the plague in the matter of Peor."
Or does that fall under the heading of "We're too stupid to understand God, so it must, somehow, really be OK"
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that in my previous post, but instead went and showed how we can use passages that are very clear about motivations and provide a certain narrative point of view (looking at the people in a city He is considering for destruction) to help clear up more difficult passages that are being told from a different point of view (that of an army invading a city which He has decided should be destroyed) where motivations are unclear.
God musty have had some reason to allow His Chosen People to be slaughtered by the MILLIONS in WWII
The abbreviated response to this, since you still have a lot of reading to do from my last post, is that the more He intervenes to prevents people from doing Bad Things(tm), the less meaningful it is when people choose to do Good Things(tm) instead - the Free Will defense I gave as an answer to the problem of evil on the previous page. The obvious question of "well then why did He interfere in helping Israel get set up back in the Old Testament" requires a lot of writing to fully answer, but the abbreviated response is that was Special Event(tm) related to the promises He made to Abraham, and the establishment of a "Law/Land Covenant" with Abraham's descendants.
And correct me if I'm wrong (since, in your eyes, I always am),
Looking back at page 9, some of my responses to you:
  • "You have it exactly"
  • "You're almost spot on here as well"
  • "you are correct in saying that"
  • "Yes. That's the one-sentence summary."
but the phrase "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man..." really sounds like these young girls are to be made into sex slaves for the Jews. And, in subsequent sections, for the priest class as well.
Sounds more like they should be adopted, raised to adulthood and married, particularly since a large portion of the troubles between the Midianites and the Israelites had to do with the Midianite women using extramarital sexual relations to draw the men of Israel into idolatry and worship of foreign Gods. Let's take a brief look at how slaves, husbandly duty, and an "excellent wife" are viewed in the Old Testament:
“You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.
10 An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
13 She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.
14 She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.
15 She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household
And portions to her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.
18 She senses that her gain is good;
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.
20 She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future.
26 She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:
29 “Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
31 Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.
Doesn't sound like "sex slavery" is the intended relationship to me.




* By inclusivist, I do not mean that other religions can lead to salvation, but that people who may hold other religious beliefs can still be saved by God's grace, extended through Christ, if they have responded to the general revelation apparent in nature, rather than rejecting God outright. In this case, any other religious views they have are likely to be a hindrance, rather than help to salvation, because it is likely to produce a distorted view of who God is, and how best to respond to Him.
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: "Turn him loose as a theorist..."

Postby Boothby » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm

Oh, really.

You come across as a well spoken, delusional apologist for a poorly written, totally psychotic fictional character. If that works for you, great. I hope you'll understand (no, truthfully, I don't give a damn if you understand or not) if I fight the attempts made in my country by anyone trying to impose that utter insanity here.

Good night.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests