Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
A gun doesn't hold any "holy" doctrine on how it should be used and on whom it should be used

Interpretation... how we view things, what we gather from our sources and how we put that into context. The Christian doctrine wasn't to blame for the Salem Witch Trials but man was.

It's a catalyst. It gives the idea for the justification. The puritans felt right because their religious doctrine stated that people who use "witch craft" should be put to death. So yes, it is just as guilty as the men who carried it out.

The underline point I am trying to make is why does the text even say this to begin with? And it's not alone, there are dozens of places in the bible where murder is justified. Any god who suggests the murder of another person, isn't worthy of the title. But if you want to suggest that no god made such proclamations then the bible has been corrupted by man. It's the only other explanation. No one should be put to death over anything. But the text says otherwise. So which is it?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Thingers (aka thnKers aka lanuagers) bestow 'thinghood' on aspects of their selectively segemented 'world'.

What's interesting about works of art that came about by some of the Cubists were they're composed of fragmented pieces that join together to form some cohesive bond. Similar to our attempts at reasoning and explaining away our world. Man isn't the creator... everything we compose ultimately has its source from something predefined.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

It's a catalyst. It gives the idea for the justification.

Man's catalyst for anything is belief. The issue is the true substance of something. The heart of Christianity is found in Matthew 22:36-40. Now how is that the catalyst for murder? Also, you have to consider what the state of Salem was at the time. There's psychotic relationship stemming from the gut-brain axis.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
It's a catalyst. It gives the idea for the justification.

Man's catalyst for anything is belief. The issue is the true substance of something. The heart of Christianity is found in Matthew 22:36-40.

Okay fine, then delete all the rest. Because it's the rest of the book where things pop up that suggest you should murder people. If you think they should keep all that stuff in there then there will be people who use the "rest" of the book to justify their actions when they want to murder people.

jerlands wrote:

Now how is that the catalyst for murder? Also, you have to consider what the state of Salem was at the time. There's psychotic relationship stemming from the gut-brain axis.

Doesn't matter. Their basis for their belief system was rooted in the bible. They justified their actions based on what the text told them was okay to do.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

"Predefinition" is merely an escape attempt from the infinite regress . Your Simplistic fallback position of 'an Absolute Creator' is a manifestation of the imprisonment of 'thought' by 'causality'. Reference to developments in physics where 'cause' has questionable status should be sufficient to highlight the problems with that.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Okay fine, then delete all the rest. Because it's the rest of the book where things pop up that suggest you should murder people. If you think they should keep all that stuff in there then there will be people who use the "rest" of the book to justify their actions when they want to murder people.

I differ in what is conventionally conceived by Egyptologists today. I'm told the pyramids were simply grand tombs for the Pharaoh but I think they're better understood by studying the crown they support (the ben-ben stone.) The pyramids are massive because they teach creation, manifestation, becoming. The New Testament isn't just a couple sentences because, well.. you have to explain things to people.. The first commandment is to love the lord thy "God" etc.. but does this give any indication what "God" is.. No.. but the purpose of the New Testament also is not understood and so volumes upon volumes are written and because of obscurity some simply dismiss it as superstition.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Reference to developments in physics where 'cause' has questionable status

Ok.. could you reference some of those works?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Reference to developments in physics where 'cause' has questionable status should be sufficient to highlight the problems with that.

Questioning something isn't proof of validity.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
Okay fine, then delete all the rest. Because it's the rest of the book where things pop up that suggest you should murder people. If you think they should keep all that stuff in there then there will be people who use the "rest" of the book to justify their actions when they want to murder people.

I differ in what is conventionally conceived by Egyptologists today. I'm told the pyramids were simply grand tombs for the Pharaoh but I think they're better understood by studying the crown they support (the ben-ben stone.) The pyramids are massive because they teach creation, manifestation, becoming. The New Testament isn't just a couple sentences because, well.. you have to explain things to people.. The first commandment is to love the lord thy "God" etc.. but does this give any indication what "God" is.. No.. but the purpose of the New Testament also is not understood and so volumes upon volumes are written and because of obscurity some simply dismiss it as superstition.

You are all over the place on this post. I see the pyramids as public works projects. They are big because a wise ruler with a large population needs to maintain order of the people. If the people are starving then there is disorder. A wise ruler creates an economic system where people are employed and can consume other goods and services. The pyramids were just one way in which jobs were created to create a stable economy for 50 years. At the same time the pharaoh then gets the result to show his greatness.

You can attempt to read in some "mystic" purpose but I just see it as a simple economic synergy of a wise ruler at that time. Nothing more.

jerlands wrote:

but the purpose of the New Testament also is not understood

See this is telling.

A god who can create the universe, can't make a book that is easily understood through out time? Wouldn't this god be aware that his "message" is too difficult to understand? Are you saying god is a terrible author and the people just can't comprehend it? Then that god has terrible skills for a god.

Instead it is more like this. Ancient people were trying to understand nature and they didn't have a good way of explaining certain things. So they borrowed (plagiarized) the people before them to help them put forth ideas to explain reality. Many of the statements in the NT are culturally solidified for that time and nearly irrelevant for our time. This is why they aren't understood, but are telling that the bible was written by people for people for that time only.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

A god who can create the universe, can't make a book that is easily understood through out time?

The old testament isn't what you might consider an original piece of work but more of a collage from a variety of sources. A book written by man but possibly inspired (I would say unquestionably inspired.)

0 Replies

@jerlands,

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html
Such issues with 'causality' are partially related to the idea of 'ordered events in time' coupled with the post Relativity non -indepdence of 'time' from 'space' . This is further compounded by the concept of 'non-locality' which undermines lay concepts of spatial separation of 'things'.Furthermore, it can be argued 'an event' assumes 'an observer' to define it, or delimit it, and here you can refer to the 'Copenhagen Interpretaion'.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Many of the statements in the NT are culturally solidified for that time and nearly irrelevant for our time. This is why they aren't understood, but are telling that the bible was written by people for people for that time only.

If the bible was written for "that time only" then why is it still in practice today? What is it about the NT holds people? Is it superstition or do you see a great number of learned men who see value in it? (this is not to say the converse doesn't hold true.)

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html

This has to do with cause and effect relationship not an event without cause. It's like "which came first.. the chicken or the egg?"

0 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
Many of the statements in the NT are culturally solidified for that time and nearly irrelevant for our time. This is why they aren't understood, but are telling that the bible was written by people for people for that time only.

If the bible was written for "that time only" then why is it still in practice today? What is it about the NT holds people? Is it superstition or do you see a great number of learned men who see value in it? (this is not to say the converse doesn't hold true.)

It's cherry picked and the statements that are chosen and used today are so vague and convoluted, it's like taking an abstract painting and dictating to everyone who looks at it, what the purpose was.

It isn't that the passages were written for the people of today, but instead people struggling to make those passages relevant for today. Some times it does work, but from my perspective it's just manipulation since we don't actually know what the original authors meant. We don't have a way to verify if that is what they meant. So you can claim it to be anything you want that fits your narrative.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

I love the 'learned men' reference ! I think you will find the number of them 'learned in science' to be rather low. It sort reminds me that smoking used to be compulsory in some Victorian boys schools because it was thought to be healthy !

BTW You need to read it right to the end. and look at Bohr's argument with Einstein over the 'existence of electrons' (Copenhagen Convention).

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

I think you will find the number of them 'learned in science' to be rather low.

Here's a list from a simple google.
https://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

But I think more valuable than the lists I gave would be contemporary scientists who believe in what we term as "God." I know they exist because I've listened to numerous ramblings but at this moment don't have reference.

Quote:

BTW You need to read it right to the end. and look at Bohr's argument with Einstein over the 'existence of electrons' (Copenhagen Convention).

First.. I'm not at all so deep into numbers that I see things with them nor am I familiar with this somewhat renown debate but it does sound interesting enough to have a go.. just not right now..

2 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
I think you will find the number of them 'learned in science' to be rather low.

Here's a list from a simple google.
https://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

But I think more valuable than the lists I gave would be contemporary scientists who believe in what we term as "God." I know they exist because I've listened to numerous ramblings but at this moment don't have reference.

Quote:
BTW You need to read it right to the end. and look at Bohr's argument with Einstein over the 'existence of electrons' (Copenhagen Convention).

First.. I'm not at all so deep into numbers that I see things with them nor am I familiar with this somewhat renown debate but it does sound interesting enough to have a go.. just not right now..

To me it is completely irrelevant if a scientist believes in god. Because there can be motivations as to why they believe. One such example is that they believe because their family is full of believers and if they proclaim that they don't believe it will cause conflicts within their family. So they just pretend to be believers so they can avoid the fallout from their family.

Another example is that some scientists never use the same line of reasoning towards their faith that they do with their work. They refuse to do such a thing because they blindly accept their faith. So they refuse to analyze it like they do with their work.

So you could give me a list of 7 trillion scientists who believe in a god. It has zero impact on me. Because they all can still be just as diluted as non-scientists.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

I should also add, Ken Ham considers himself a "scientist".

Which is laughable, he couldn't be any further from the definition.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

look at Bohr's argument with Einstein over the 'existence of electrons' (Copenhagen Convention).

Quantum Entanglement is a little above my paygrade. I think that particular debate had more to do with the mathematics of wave function and I believe your point has to do with the 'evolution of knowledge?'

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

To me it is completely irrelevant if a scientist believes in god.

Ya know why a "Big Mac" isn't healthy for you? I mean.. it has all the macronutrients... Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates so what's the problem? The problem is that food isn't just calories in, calories out... food is actually information for the body. The proteins, fats and carbs in a big mac are in such a perverted form they incite the immune system and inflammation sets up in the body. Ultimately a person becomes ill (diseased) and no longer functions well. This is what i mean by choosing wisely.

2 Replies

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know