POSTED BY FLYINGBUTTRESSMAN ON ANOTHER THREAD
Tell me, where in the Bible does it say that it is bad to commit genocide? Joshua didn't seem to have any problem committing genocide. In fact, from the description that has to be one of the worst examples of genocide in history. The Israelites invaded Canaan and killed everyone they could find; men, women and children. God punished them when the DIDN'T kill every single human being. The one city that saved itself by tricking Joshua into an alliance ended up being treated as 2nd class citizens. Tell me that's not horrible. Don't forget, God told them to do it. (posted by flyingbuttressman on another thread)
MY RESPONSE:
The book of Exodus begins with the story of Moses becoming angry with the Egyptians as enslavers of the Jews. He waits until he thinks no one is looking and kills an Egyptian. Later he sees two Jews fighting and doesn't know who to kill. Then he finds out that someone saw him kill the Egyptian. Later he leads the Jews out of Egypt into the desert. All the suffering brought on the Egyptians comes from natural disasters and plagues, supposedly caused by God. Later Moses also writes down the commandment not to kill.
My interpretation of these parts of the story is that Moses found it easy to kill someone he saw as ethnically different from himself, but he realized that it was wrong when he had to take revenge on someone who shared his ethnicity. I think this is related to the general commandment not to kill, because even though it's easy(er) to want to destroy people who are racist against you or otherwise viewed as racially different from you, it is the same as killing "your own people."
I think this is also why the Egyptians are told to have suffered at the hands of God and not through violence of Jewish retaliation. If there are other parts of the bible that prescribe killing, this seems hypocritical to me - but they might have been added through the years (by trolls?) or they might be symbolic stories making a point using killing as a metaphor even though they are not really meant to prescribe killing.
In short, I don't believe that the commandment not to kill has exceptions. Killing is always a sin, even though Christians would also have to admit that it is a forgivable sin the same as any other if and when people confess it to God and seek redemption. As long as people deny the sinfulness of an act of killing, they cannot find forgiveness and deliverance from the shame that keeps them in denial. This makes sense to me but please don't insult or ridicule me for saying so and explaining it.
You didn't answer the question. Why did Joshua lead the people of Israel to commit genocide? Are you saying that they didn't kill the Canaanites when they "moved in?" The bible pretty clearly says that God told Joshua to kill everyone. This was the next generation after Moses, who supposedly wrote the Torah.
I googled a website with bible passages on this topic but the site won't let me post it.
The title is something like "joshua and the conquest of canaan."
It says that God commanded the Jews not to break His laws in conquering because doing so would make them one of the sinners and then the city would "vomit" them out the way it had done so many others of its own people.
So presumably all the conquering that took place did so without killing. Maybe it was some kind of exorcism, conversion, or other cultural-purification process?
I didn't read anything about extermination, genocide, or killing generally.
The title is something like "joshua and the conquest of canaan."
It says that God commanded the Jews not to break His laws in conquering because doing so would make them one of the sinners and then the city would "vomit" them out the way it had done so many others of its own people.
So presumably all the conquering that took place did so without killing. Maybe it was some kind of exorcism, conversion, or other cultural-purification process?
I didn't read anything about extermination, genocide, or killing generally.
I give you Joshua 6:20-21
I'm pretty sure that "destroyed with the sword" means kill, but who knows? It could mean "encouraged to leave" but I think that's a stretch.
Wait, it gets better! (from Joshua 8)
I'm pretty sure that "destroyed with the sword" means kill, but who knows? It could mean "encouraged to leave" but I think that's a stretch.
Wait, it gets better! (from Joshua 8)
(24) When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. (25) Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. (26) For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. (27) But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.
QUOTE
(20) When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. (21) They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
I'm pretty sure that "destroyed with the sword" means kill, but who knows? It could mean "encouraged to leave" but I think that's a stretch.
Wait, it gets better! (from Joshua 8)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (20) When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. (21) They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. |
I'm pretty sure that "destroyed with the sword" means kill, but who knows? It could mean "encouraged to leave" but I think that's a stretch.
Wait, it gets better! (from Joshua 8)
(24) When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. (25) Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. (26) For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. (27) But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.
If you read Joshua 24, there is a speech spoken by Joshua where he speaks for God. In it he claims that the destruction that was done in creating Israel was God's work. This could be interpreted as meaning that God worked through the hands of the soldiers, or that something else happened to destroy people that didn't involve violence at the hands of the soldiers. Joshua 24-8 says, for example:
In Joshua 24-12 it says:
In Joshua 24-12 it says:
Then I sent the hornet before you and it drove out the two kings of the Amorites from before you but not by your sword or your bow.
Does this mean that a hornet plague destroyed these people? I don't know but it seems that the concept is present that war and destruction should happen at the will of God, and not by the will of humans. Of course, you can debate about distinguishing between the will of God and humans - and this is a critical discussion in theology, since each individual is supposed to try to distinguish her/his own self-interest (egoism) from the will of God, which is supposed to transcend self-interest.
Anyway, one more quote is Joshua 24-13, which I think is significant:
I think this is similar to the story of the forbidden fruit in Genesis. God provides them with bounty and when they take it, they become ashamed and their punishment redemption comes in the form of laboring for themselves. It seems to me God judges them for failing to use the creative power He endowed them with, and their only punishment is to be redeemed by "serving Him in sincerity and truth," which means that they have to rediscover the lesson of genesis which is not to be ashamed of their creative power and live by the sweat of their brow from the land bear children. For as long as they have the opportunity to do this, they are supposed to.
It was just that their enslavement in Egypt had made it necessary for them to flee and seek the means to live for themselves, and there was no one who allowed them to live for themselves, so God continued to slaughter people who fought to destroy them instead of allowing them the opportunity to live by the sweat of their brow. There was one story, the one after Joshua 8 you quoted, where the people did not want to fight with Joshua and instead offered to serve him and they were not killed. Were they kept in permanent servitude or liberated by being given the word of God? It doesn't say. My guess is that they were because it seems like divine enlightenment always brings people to the same conclusion, that they are supposed to live from the fruit of their own labor instead of taking from others in one way or the other. Doing so in sinful but it seems that God keeps forgiving people for failing and providing them with the means to continue "serving Him in sincerity and truth" until they learn to take care of themselves.
So, the destruction seems to be holy when it happens as a result of events truly outside of human control (even when this occurs at human hands?). But the spoils of war that provide the opportunity to live from the fruits of someone else's labor come with the condemnation to serve God "in sincerity and truth." Assumably this leads to a moment where one "ascends to God" meaning that one learns to do God's will without "serving Him." i.e. one lives in harmony with God's will, which I think means to live without breaking commandments such as killing and stealing.
So Joshua was blessed, but God still admonished him and his people for stealing, and punished them by keeping them in his service. I think this is also similar to the story of Cain and Able, but I can't remember how exactly now. Something about making sacrifices of meat but not vegetables, probably because meat involves killing and vegetables don't.
Anyway, if anything the killing of Joshua forbids killing, except when it happens out of the will of God and NOT humans (i.e. self-interest). So whenever people are not 100% faithful to God in their actions, they should not kill because doing so could potentially condemn them to spiritual and material suffering (i.e. hell)
QUOTE
Then I brought you into the land of the Amorites who lived beyond the Jordan, and they fought with you; and I gave them into your hand, and you took possession of their land when I destroyed them before you.
In Joshua 24-12 it says:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then I brought you into the land of the Amorites who lived beyond the Jordan, and they fought with you; and I gave them into your hand, and you took possession of their land when I destroyed them before you. |
In Joshua 24-12 it says:
Then I sent the hornet before you and it drove out the two kings of the Amorites from before you but not by your sword or your bow.
Does this mean that a hornet plague destroyed these people? I don't know but it seems that the concept is present that war and destruction should happen at the will of God, and not by the will of humans. Of course, you can debate about distinguishing between the will of God and humans - and this is a critical discussion in theology, since each individual is supposed to try to distinguish her/his own self-interest (egoism) from the will of God, which is supposed to transcend self-interest.
Anyway, one more quote is Joshua 24-13, which I think is significant:
QUOTE
And I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and cities which you had not built, and you have lived in them; you are eating of vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant.
Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt and serve the Lord. etc. etc.
Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt and serve the Lord. etc. etc.
I think this is similar to the story of the forbidden fruit in Genesis. God provides them with bounty and when they take it, they become ashamed and their punishment redemption comes in the form of laboring for themselves. It seems to me God judges them for failing to use the creative power He endowed them with, and their only punishment is to be redeemed by "serving Him in sincerity and truth," which means that they have to rediscover the lesson of genesis which is not to be ashamed of their creative power and live by the sweat of their brow from the land bear children. For as long as they have the opportunity to do this, they are supposed to.
It was just that their enslavement in Egypt had made it necessary for them to flee and seek the means to live for themselves, and there was no one who allowed them to live for themselves, so God continued to slaughter people who fought to destroy them instead of allowing them the opportunity to live by the sweat of their brow. There was one story, the one after Joshua 8 you quoted, where the people did not want to fight with Joshua and instead offered to serve him and they were not killed. Were they kept in permanent servitude or liberated by being given the word of God? It doesn't say. My guess is that they were because it seems like divine enlightenment always brings people to the same conclusion, that they are supposed to live from the fruit of their own labor instead of taking from others in one way or the other. Doing so in sinful but it seems that God keeps forgiving people for failing and providing them with the means to continue "serving Him in sincerity and truth" until they learn to take care of themselves.
So, the destruction seems to be holy when it happens as a result of events truly outside of human control (even when this occurs at human hands?). But the spoils of war that provide the opportunity to live from the fruits of someone else's labor come with the condemnation to serve God "in sincerity and truth." Assumably this leads to a moment where one "ascends to God" meaning that one learns to do God's will without "serving Him." i.e. one lives in harmony with God's will, which I think means to live without breaking commandments such as killing and stealing.
So Joshua was blessed, but God still admonished him and his people for stealing, and punished them by keeping them in his service. I think this is also similar to the story of Cain and Able, but I can't remember how exactly now. Something about making sacrifices of meat but not vegetables, probably because meat involves killing and vegetables don't.
Anyway, if anything the killing of Joshua forbids killing, except when it happens out of the will of God and NOT humans (i.e. self-interest). So whenever people are not 100% faithful to God in their actions, they should not kill because doing so could potentially condemn them to spiritual and material suffering (i.e. hell)
So, the second that the bible starts to wander outside your sense of morality, you justify it by making up a completely bogus interpretation. The bible made it pretty clear that the inhabitants of those cities were murdered, not "driven off" by magical hornets.
In one example, a city of people were spared so that they could be slaves. Wow, that's merciful alright.
In one example, a city of people were spared so that they could be slaves. Wow, that's merciful alright.
Anyway, if anything the killing of Joshua forbids killing, except when it happens out of the will of God and NOT humans (i.e. self-interest). So whenever people are not 100% faithful to God in their actions, they should not kill because doing so could potentially condemn them to spiritual and material suffering (i.e. hell)
I like how I don't even need to argue that killing people was god's will. You admit that your god is a mass-murderer.
You are so blinded by your faith that you cannot see this for what it is: GENOCIDE.
(edit)
As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being:
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
QUOTE
There was one story, the one after Joshua 8 you quoted, where the people did not want to fight with Joshua and instead offered to serve him and they were not killed. Were they kept in permanent servitude or liberated by being given the word of God? It doesn't say.
In one example, a city of people were spared so that they could be slaves. Wow, that's merciful alright.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There was one story, the one after Joshua 8 you quoted, where the people did not want to fight with Joshua and instead offered to serve him and they were not killed. Were they kept in permanent servitude or liberated by being given the word of God? It doesn't say. |
In one example, a city of people were spared so that they could be slaves. Wow, that's merciful alright.
Anyway, if anything the killing of Joshua forbids killing, except when it happens out of the will of God and NOT humans (i.e. self-interest). So whenever people are not 100% faithful to God in their actions, they should not kill because doing so could potentially condemn them to spiritual and material suffering (i.e. hell)
I like how I don't even need to argue that killing people was god's will. You admit that your god is a mass-murderer.
You are so blinded by your faith that you cannot see this for what it is: GENOCIDE.
(edit)
As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being:
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 14 2009, 03:39 PM)
So, the second that the bible starts to wander outside your sense of morality, you justify it by making up a completely bogus interpretation. The bible made it pretty clear that the inhabitants of those cities were murdered, not "driven off" by magical hornets.
In one example, a city of people were spared so that they could be slaves. Wow, that's merciful alright.
I like how I don't even need to argue that killing people was god's will. You admit that your god is a mass-murderer.
You are so blinded by your faith that you cannot see this for what it is: GENOCIDE.
(edit)
As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being:
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
I'm not going to examine your logic, but I like your approach.
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Maybe the killing was similar to the forbidden fruit in the garden. God allowed Joshua to do it, but by doing it he was brought into subservience to God, instead of being free to "go forth and multiply" of his own free will. It is also possible that (this part) of the bible was not divinely inspired but the result of ancient "trolls." I have no way of establishing this factually one way or the other.
People are free to doubt whatever they want. The problem with doubt is that it leads you in the opposite direction as faith. If you want to discover God through the holy spirit, you have to exercise faith in some way. Supposedly if you do this, it will lead you to the light of truth. Can this be doubted? Of course. But once again that doubt will not lead to enlightenment. Do you follow this logic of faith? i.e. Faith leads to enlightenment and doubt leads to confusion and darkness.
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
In one example, a city of people were spared so that they could be slaves. Wow, that's merciful alright.
I like how I don't even need to argue that killing people was god's will. You admit that your god is a mass-murderer.
You are so blinded by your faith that you cannot see this for what it is: GENOCIDE.
(edit)
As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being:
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
I'm not going to examine your logic, but I like your approach.
QUOTE
As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being:
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being: Admit that your god is a mass-murderer |
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Maybe the killing was similar to the forbidden fruit in the garden. God allowed Joshua to do it, but by doing it he was brought into subservience to God, instead of being free to "go forth and multiply" of his own free will. It is also possible that (this part) of the bible was not divinely inspired but the result of ancient "trolls." I have no way of establishing this factually one way or the other.
QUOTE
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
People are free to doubt whatever they want. The problem with doubt is that it leads you in the opposite direction as faith. If you want to discover God through the holy spirit, you have to exercise faith in some way. Supposedly if you do this, it will lead you to the light of truth. Can this be doubted? Of course. But once again that doubt will not lead to enlightenment. Do you follow this logic of faith? i.e. Faith leads to enlightenment and doubt leads to confusion and darkness.
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
I'm not going to examine your logic, but I like your approach.
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Maybe the killing was similar to the forbidden fruit in the garden. God allowed Joshua to do it, but by doing it he was brought into subservience to God, instead of being free to "go forth and multiply" of his own free will. It is also possible that (this part) of the bible was not divinely inspired but the result of ancient "trolls." I have no way of establishing this factually one way or the other.
People are free to doubt whatever they want. The problem with doubt is that it leads you in the opposite direction as faith. If you want to discover God through the holy spirit, you have to exercise faith in some way. Supposedly if you do this, it will lead you to the light of truth. Can this be doubted? Of course. But once again that doubt will not lead to enlightenment. Do you follow this logic of faith? i.e. Faith leads to enlightenment and doubt leads to confusion and darkness.
QUOTE
As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being:
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
Admit that your god is a mass-murderer
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as I see it, you have 3 options befitting a logical human being: Admit that your god is a mass-murderer |
That was already made clear with the flood in Genesis. He killed everything on Earth (except for Noah and those he brought with him on the arc). The question is why he would kill entire cities full of people? I think that what happened was that these people brought their destruction on themselves by hating the Israelites. If the intention of the Israelites had been to destroy (genocide) those people, they may have brought the same destruction on themselves. However, as long as they only sought liberation from enslavement, it was up to the people they encountered to share their land with them. This is what they did when the people came to them in subservience - they allowed them to live and share their land. As I said, the question is whether these people were kept in permanent servitude or liberated by making them citizens. I'm going to bet that they were made citizens and liberated from servitude until shown passages that say otherwise.
What other option for people to let others live is there except to accept their subservience? The nice thing about the Israelites is that their history in Exodus begins in servitude in Egypt, so how can they will others to servitude without being hypocrites? The laws of moses talk a lot about slaves and how to treat them. People take this as evidence that the bible/God prescribes slavery - but it is probably just explaining God's will in situations where slavery is occurring. God probably not want people to submit to a boss in a job either, but He can still judge the actions of a boss and an employee toward one another.
You can read the story of Adam and Eve as a path to liberation and redemption from the shame that was bestowed on them by succumbing to the temptation of the serpent. After they fell to temptation, they covered up the reproductive parts and God became angry with them for it, asking them who told them to cover themselves up. This is because God gave them the power to "go forth and multiply" and there was no reason for them to be ashamed of their ability to do so. However, once they fell to temptation their punishment/redemption is to farm and eat from the soil and have pain in childbirth. If they resist the sin of shame and fear of God, they can feel joy in their work and have painless childbirth - but as long as they feel shame in farming and pregnancy, they will be condemned to suffering, sin, and sacrifice.
So when God allows people to go into servitude, it is with the commandment that they serve Him, which is their path to enlightenment and freedom. In modern language it would be like telling people to learn science for themselves so they don't have to rely on experts to tell them what to do. Once they understand the will of God (i.e. how nature works), they are able to live freely and provide for all their own needs and wants (i.e. go forth and multiply fruitfully).
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
Maybe the killing was similar to the forbidden fruit in the garden. God allowed Joshua to do it, but by doing it he was brought into subservience to God, instead of being free to "go forth and multiply" of his own free will. It is also possible that (this part) of the bible was not divinely inspired but the result of ancient "trolls." I have no way of establishing this factually one way or the other.
QUOTE
Concede that the biblical account in Joshua is false (which would almost certainly throw into doubt the books of Moses)
People are free to doubt whatever they want. The problem with doubt is that it leads you in the opposite direction as faith. If you want to discover God through the holy spirit, you have to exercise faith in some way. Supposedly if you do this, it will lead you to the light of truth. Can this be doubted? Of course. But once again that doubt will not lead to enlightenment. Do you follow this logic of faith? i.e. Faith leads to enlightenment and doubt leads to confusion and darkness.
I'm asking you for what YOU believe.
You admit that the people were killed.
You have yet to declare whether their murders were divinely inspired or not.
I don't care about Joshua's culpability. If god allowed Joshua to kill in his name, then god wanted it to happen.
Pick a conclusion. Blind faith is not a conclusion. Look at your holy book and make a decision.
You admit that the people were killed.
You have yet to declare whether their murders were divinely inspired or not.
I don't care about Joshua's culpability. If god allowed Joshua to kill in his name, then god wanted it to happen.
Pick a conclusion. Blind faith is not a conclusion. Look at your holy book and make a decision.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 14 2009, 10:39 AM)
Concede that maybe Joshua was not led be god when he killed all those people (which would negate the claim that the Old Testament is divinely inspired)
This is a fallacy of composition. Simply because one part of one tale of the old testament is false doesn't mean the entire old testament is false.
Of course, it casts doubts upon the authenticity of the entire old testament, but it doesn't necessarily prove that the entire compilation is false. The false claims presented elsewhere within the old testament contribute to this doubt, as well.
As far as the claim that a speech by Joshua negates the idea that the people of Canaan were the victims of genocide: That is so far beyond a fallacy that it's not even funny.
It's a red herring, an appeal to authority, and a contradiction, all in one.
This is a fallacy of composition. Simply because one part of one tale of the old testament is false doesn't mean the entire old testament is false.
Of course, it casts doubts upon the authenticity of the entire old testament, but it doesn't necessarily prove that the entire compilation is false. The false claims presented elsewhere within the old testament contribute to this doubt, as well.
As far as the claim that a speech by Joshua negates the idea that the people of Canaan were the victims of genocide: That is so far beyond a fallacy that it's not even funny.
It's a red herring, an appeal to authority, and a contradiction, all in one.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 14 2009, 12:07 PM)
This is a fallacy of composition. Simply because one part of one tale of the old testament is false doesn't mean the entire old testament is false.
Of course, it casts doubts upon the authenticity of the entire old testament, but it doesn't necessarily prove that the entire compilation is false. The false claims presented elsewhere within the old testament contribute to this doubt, as well.
For Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the entire bible, proof that any part of the bible is not a direct representation of the true and perfect will of god contradicts the notion that the bible is a perfect document.
Once a perfect document becomes an imperfect document, all passages become open to questions of validity. If the divine inspiration of one part of the bible comes into question, then there is no way to know which parts are divinely inspired and which parts aren't.
Of course, it casts doubts upon the authenticity of the entire old testament, but it doesn't necessarily prove that the entire compilation is false. The false claims presented elsewhere within the old testament contribute to this doubt, as well.
For Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the entire bible, proof that any part of the bible is not a direct representation of the true and perfect will of god contradicts the notion that the bible is a perfect document.
Once a perfect document becomes an imperfect document, all passages become open to questions of validity. If the divine inspiration of one part of the bible comes into question, then there is no way to know which parts are divinely inspired and which parts aren't.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 14 2009, 05:15 PM)
Once a perfect document becomes an imperfect document, all passages become open to questions of validity. If the divine inspiration of one part of the bible comes into question, then there is no way to know which parts are divinely inspired and which parts aren't.
Exactly, and this is where the divinity of the holy spirit becomes relevant, as the voice of God within that can guide people to the true meaning through faith. This is too subjective for people who like to base all their faith on absolute proof. I think this is what causes so much animosity between science and religion.
Like I said, the test of faith is to shed sufficient doubt on everything possible that you become lost in darkness and confusion. You have no idea what is right or wrong because nothing is 100% certain. At that point you have to either choose to exercise faith and follow its light out of the darkness, or continue in darkness until something convinces you that there is truth that is indubitable. To me these two are the same thing - and I would call either the discovery of God/holy spirit.
I don't believe that the bible is a perfect document because it is as imperfect as the human who wrote it or the one translating it, copying it, or reading it. I think it's worth keeping the bible around for study because there may be insights to be gained from it. I.e. there may be some babies in it that you wouldn't want to throw out with the bathwater. If you find some dirt and declare the whole thing to be dirty bathwater, you risk throwing out the babies too.
To answer you question about whether Joshua's genocide, assuming it is true and not just a metaphorical story, was holy because it was the will of God . . . Like I said, I think that God forgave Joshua and his soldiers because they weren't killing to destroy their enemy but to defend themselves against attack. I think that they could have offered to serve the cananites, as another tribe had offered to serve them, but they couldn't do so because there was so much sin to contend with that the Israelites would have become servants of sin by doing so. God told them not to mix with the sinful people because they would become like them and get vomited out of the city the same as so many before them. So I take it that if there was killing that it was caused by the resistance of the Israelites to join in the sin of canaan and the intolerance of them as cohabitants, not as servants.
Joshua's approach seems strikingly different from Moses leaving Egypt to go into the desert. Moses did not like killing and he wrote the commandment not to kill. Jesus came along with a similar perspective of obeying the commandments and refusing to kill, even if that meant accepting murderous violence against him.
If the teachings of Moses and Christ contradict the genocidal God of Joseph, than my faith is for Moses and Christ, against Joseph. Yet is it "God's will" to forgive Joseph rather than condemning him as a murderer? I think so because I think this is what the speech in Joshua 24 is about. It may also be a cheap justification for things Joshua did he knew were sinful. It all depends on Joshua's faith and the faith of the reader. If you are able to forgive Joshua for killing, you have discovered the divine power of forgiveness. If you judge him beyond redemption, then you have failed to discover this divine power. Does this make (logical) sense?
Exactly, and this is where the divinity of the holy spirit becomes relevant, as the voice of God within that can guide people to the true meaning through faith. This is too subjective for people who like to base all their faith on absolute proof. I think this is what causes so much animosity between science and religion.
Like I said, the test of faith is to shed sufficient doubt on everything possible that you become lost in darkness and confusion. You have no idea what is right or wrong because nothing is 100% certain. At that point you have to either choose to exercise faith and follow its light out of the darkness, or continue in darkness until something convinces you that there is truth that is indubitable. To me these two are the same thing - and I would call either the discovery of God/holy spirit.
I don't believe that the bible is a perfect document because it is as imperfect as the human who wrote it or the one translating it, copying it, or reading it. I think it's worth keeping the bible around for study because there may be insights to be gained from it. I.e. there may be some babies in it that you wouldn't want to throw out with the bathwater. If you find some dirt and declare the whole thing to be dirty bathwater, you risk throwing out the babies too.
To answer you question about whether Joshua's genocide, assuming it is true and not just a metaphorical story, was holy because it was the will of God . . . Like I said, I think that God forgave Joshua and his soldiers because they weren't killing to destroy their enemy but to defend themselves against attack. I think that they could have offered to serve the cananites, as another tribe had offered to serve them, but they couldn't do so because there was so much sin to contend with that the Israelites would have become servants of sin by doing so. God told them not to mix with the sinful people because they would become like them and get vomited out of the city the same as so many before them. So I take it that if there was killing that it was caused by the resistance of the Israelites to join in the sin of canaan and the intolerance of them as cohabitants, not as servants.
Joshua's approach seems strikingly different from Moses leaving Egypt to go into the desert. Moses did not like killing and he wrote the commandment not to kill. Jesus came along with a similar perspective of obeying the commandments and refusing to kill, even if that meant accepting murderous violence against him.
If the teachings of Moses and Christ contradict the genocidal God of Joseph, than my faith is for Moses and Christ, against Joseph. Yet is it "God's will" to forgive Joseph rather than condemning him as a murderer? I think so because I think this is what the speech in Joshua 24 is about. It may also be a cheap justification for things Joshua did he knew were sinful. It all depends on Joshua's faith and the faith of the reader. If you are able to forgive Joshua for killing, you have discovered the divine power of forgiveness. If you judge him beyond redemption, then you have failed to discover this divine power. Does this make (logical) sense?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 14 2009, 12:15 PM)
For Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the entire bible, proof that any part of the bible is not a direct representation of the true and perfect will of god contradicts the notion that the bible is a perfect document.
Well in basic logic, proof that any part of the bible is not a direct representation of the true and perfect will of god contradicts the notion that the bible is a perfect document. It doesn't matter what you believe. If any part of the bible is false, the bible is not perfect.
This is very true, however there is a difference between "false" and "open to question."
Consider the following:
I am your real father. I slept with your mother nine months before you were born at a time when the man you think is your father was out of the country for several months before and after. I have freckles on my arms and shoulders, but not my face. I am the inventor of the electric light bulb, and the victim of a conspiracy which resulted in the theft of all rights to this invention. I once flew a spaceship to Mars, but since there was nothing interesting there (the aliens who live there are all bureaucrats and their television consists entirely of live golfing broadcasts and reruns of the Andy Griffith Show), I came back and decided not to make a press release about it.
Now, it is quite obvious that most of the claims in that are false. I am obviously not your father, the inventor of the electric light bulb, or an independent spaceship pilot. All of those can be proven wrong quite easily (in theory), through the use of a genetic test, photographs of light bulbs which are older than I, and records of orbital radar telemetry going back to before I was born. But that doesn't mean that I don't have freckles on my arms and shoulders, or that I do have them on my face.
The fact is, the claim I made about freckles is true. Certainly, it's open to question, given my proven predilection for lies in that statement, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Now, I'm not saying that the bible was written by god, or even divinely inspired and written by man. All I'm saying is that it's possible that it is divinely inspired, yet still contains errors. After all, neither you nor I were present when it was written. It may be that the original writings were factually accurate in all things, but that subsequent generations changed them for political or personal reasons.
It's often tempting to say that just because you disprove one or even many theistic arguments, that the entirety of their beliefs is false, but that would be falling into the same sort of behavior that theists so often engage in. It is better to consistently show each argument such a person puts forth to be wrong as possible, and leave the question of overall validity open.
Well in basic logic, proof that any part of the bible is not a direct representation of the true and perfect will of god contradicts the notion that the bible is a perfect document. It doesn't matter what you believe. If any part of the bible is false, the bible is not perfect.
QUOTE
Once a perfect document becomes an imperfect document, all passages become open to questions of validity. If the divine inspiration of one part of the bible comes into question, then there is no way to know which parts are divinely inspired and which parts aren't.
This is very true, however there is a difference between "false" and "open to question."
Consider the following:
I am your real father. I slept with your mother nine months before you were born at a time when the man you think is your father was out of the country for several months before and after. I have freckles on my arms and shoulders, but not my face. I am the inventor of the electric light bulb, and the victim of a conspiracy which resulted in the theft of all rights to this invention. I once flew a spaceship to Mars, but since there was nothing interesting there (the aliens who live there are all bureaucrats and their television consists entirely of live golfing broadcasts and reruns of the Andy Griffith Show), I came back and decided not to make a press release about it.
Now, it is quite obvious that most of the claims in that are false. I am obviously not your father, the inventor of the electric light bulb, or an independent spaceship pilot. All of those can be proven wrong quite easily (in theory), through the use of a genetic test, photographs of light bulbs which are older than I, and records of orbital radar telemetry going back to before I was born. But that doesn't mean that I don't have freckles on my arms and shoulders, or that I do have them on my face.
The fact is, the claim I made about freckles is true. Certainly, it's open to question, given my proven predilection for lies in that statement, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Now, I'm not saying that the bible was written by god, or even divinely inspired and written by man. All I'm saying is that it's possible that it is divinely inspired, yet still contains errors. After all, neither you nor I were present when it was written. It may be that the original writings were factually accurate in all things, but that subsequent generations changed them for political or personal reasons.
It's often tempting to say that just because you disprove one or even many theistic arguments, that the entirety of their beliefs is false, but that would be falling into the same sort of behavior that theists so often engage in. It is better to consistently show each argument such a person puts forth to be wrong as possible, and leave the question of overall validity open.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 01:13 PM)
To answer you question about whether Joshua's genocide, assuming it is true and not just a metaphorical story, was holy because it was the will of God . . . Like I said, I think that God forgave Joshua and his soldiers because they weren't killing to destroy their enemy but to defend themselves against attack.
Bullsh1t. They went from city to city killing everyone in their path. They didn't go around saying "Help! Don't attack us! We're trying to invade your country and steal your cities peacefully! I'm sorry that we accidentally massacred those other guys in that other town!"
So, blame the victim? Is this how you would deal with victims of rape as well?
So, blame the victim? Is this how you would deal with victims of rape as well?
Joshua's approach seems strikingly different from Moses leaving Egypt to go into the desert. Moses did not like killing and he wrote the commandment not to kill. Jesus came along with a similar perspective of obeying the commandments and refusing to kill, even if that meant accepting murderous violence against him.
Yeah, that whole "killing all the firstborn" and inflicting plagues on the populace thing was totally unintentional.
So god forgave Joshua for doing what god told him to do? Nice.
My point is that if you can't take the account of Joshua at face value, you can't take the creation account at face value either. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose what is fact and what is fiction.
I'm not trying to turn you into an atheist, I'm trying to turn you into a realist and an evolutionist.
Bullsh1t. They went from city to city killing everyone in their path. They didn't go around saying "Help! Don't attack us! We're trying to invade your country and steal your cities peacefully! I'm sorry that we accidentally massacred those other guys in that other town!"
QUOTE
I think that they could have offered to serve the cananites, as another tribe had offered to serve them, but they couldn't do so because there was so much sin to contend with that the Israelites would have become servants of sin by doing so. God told them not to mix with the sinful people because they would become like them and get vomited out of the city the same as so many before them. So I take it that if there was killing that it was caused by the resistance of the Israelites to join in the sin of canaan and the intolerance of them as cohabitants, not as servants.
So, blame the victim? Is this how you would deal with victims of rape as well?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think that they could have offered to serve the cananites, as another tribe had offered to serve them, but they couldn't do so because there was so much sin to contend with that the Israelites would have become servants of sin by doing so. God told them not to mix with the sinful people because they would become like them and get vomited out of the city the same as so many before them. So I take it that if there was killing that it was caused by the resistance of the Israelites to join in the sin of canaan and the intolerance of them as cohabitants, not as servants. |
So, blame the victim? Is this how you would deal with victims of rape as well?
Joshua's approach seems strikingly different from Moses leaving Egypt to go into the desert. Moses did not like killing and he wrote the commandment not to kill. Jesus came along with a similar perspective of obeying the commandments and refusing to kill, even if that meant accepting murderous violence against him.
Yeah, that whole "killing all the firstborn" and inflicting plagues on the populace thing was totally unintentional.
QUOTE
If the teachings of Moses and Christ contradict the genocidal God of Joseph, than my faith is for Moses and Christ, against Joseph. Yet is it "God's will" to forgive Joseph rather than condemning him as a murderer? I think so because I think this is what the speech in Joshua 24 is about. It may also be a cheap justification for things Joshua did he knew were sinful. It all depends on Joshua's faith and the faith of the reader. If you are able to forgive Joshua for killing, you have discovered the divine power of forgiveness. If you judge him beyond redemption, then you have failed to discover this divine power. Does this make (logical) sense?
So god forgave Joshua for doing what god told him to do? Nice.
My point is that if you can't take the account of Joshua at face value, you can't take the creation account at face value either. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose what is fact and what is fiction.
I'm not trying to turn you into an atheist, I'm trying to turn you into a realist and an evolutionist.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 06:13 PM)
Exactly, and this is where the divinity of the holy spirit becomes relevant, as the voice of God within that can guide people to the true meaning through faith.
Faith is the arch enemy of finding the Truth.
Nothing impedes the journey to the Truth more than Faith.
Faith is the arch enemy of finding the Truth.
Nothing impedes the journey to the Truth more than Faith.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 14 2009, 06:21 PM)
It's often tempting to say that just because you disprove one or even many theistic arguments, that the entirety of their beliefs is false, but that would be falling into the same sort of behavior that theists so often engage in. It is better to consistently show each argument such a person puts forth to be wrong as possible, and leave the question of overall validity open.
But if they make three claims;
Claim one; all their claims are true.
Claim two; something that gets proven false.
Claim three; something that isn't proven one way or the other.
Proving claim two false does not say anything about claim three, but it does prove that their claim one is false.
Which does mean you have to evalutate claim three on it's own merit, and can't simply accept it's veracity based on claim one.
But if they make three claims;
Claim one; all their claims are true.
Claim two; something that gets proven false.
Claim three; something that isn't proven one way or the other.
Proving claim two false does not say anything about claim three, but it does prove that their claim one is false.
Which does mean you have to evalutate claim three on it's own merit, and can't simply accept it's veracity based on claim one.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 14 2009, 02:19 PM)
But if they make three claims;
Claim one; all their claims are true.
Claim two; something that gets proven false.
Claim three; something that isn't proven one way or the other.
Proving claim two false does not say anything about claim three, but it does prove that their claim one is false.
Which does mean you have to evalutate claim three on it's own merit, and can't simply accept it's veracity based on claim one.
Absolutely. I was only disagreeing with the notion that proving one story in the old testament false disproves the idea that the old testament was divinely inspired false.
The fact that even one aspect of the old testament is false (such as the deluge) does suggest that the notion of divine inspiration is a questionable one.
Claim one; all their claims are true.
Claim two; something that gets proven false.
Claim three; something that isn't proven one way or the other.
Proving claim two false does not say anything about claim three, but it does prove that their claim one is false.
Which does mean you have to evalutate claim three on it's own merit, and can't simply accept it's veracity based on claim one.
Absolutely. I was only disagreeing with the notion that proving one story in the old testament false disproves the idea that the old testament was divinely inspired false.
The fact that even one aspect of the old testament is false (such as the deluge) does suggest that the notion of divine inspiration is a questionable one.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 14 2009, 06:32 PM)
My point is that if you can't take the account of Joshua at face value, you can't take the creation account at face value either. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose what is fact and what is fiction.
I'm not trying to turn you into an atheist, I'm trying to turn you into a realist and an evolutionist.
There is a big difference between language and narratives designed to describe as accurately as possible for empirical events (positivism) and language and narratives designed to convey meaning, even when doing so comes at the expense of empirical accuracy.
The creation story is irrelevant as an empirical description of how the physical/material world came to be. It's relevance is at the level of providing spiritual insight into the purpose of life, not its empirical existence. In evolution theory, life's purpose is survival, nothing more or less. In creationism there is a purpose (created) to energy-translations of matter and life, which gives meaning and purpose to people seeking it.
You can look at the story of Joshua as a survival story of killing in order to survive, or you can look at it as a story of tension between the purpose of life according to God's will and the resistance of that will by people under the influence of evil. If you view it as survival, there is no ethical problem with the killing or the consumption of the fruits of "vineyards and olive trees" that were not planted by your own hands. If you view it as a story of people fleeing from enslavement and encountering sinful/evil people trying to destroy them, and how to deal with being stuck between a rock and a hard place in this way, it is a much more interesting story in my opinion.
It is up to the reader to interpret what these people should have done to be in harmony with God's will. Should they have gone back to Egypt and served their old masters? Should they have offered to serve the Canaanites even though they were sinful and their city "vomited" out those who joined them in their sin? The bible tells the story of Joshua's inspirations through the voice he believed was God's. If you are an expert in the holy spirit, you might be able to see how the voice Joshua was listening to was not God's but Satan's. I would be interested to hear what you come up with.
I agree with you that killing is wrong. I agree with you that God is repeatedly attributed with killing in bible stories. I believe that it is possible to learn from God's mistakes, just as He has. He learned from his mistake of flooding the world except for Noah, for example. Joshua's experience with listening to God may also have been an experience of learning from mistakes. This may be the reason why his speech at the end of the book refers to living by the fruits of other's labor and serving God. The bible may simply be telling the story of another contradiction where God prescribes creation and yet destruction emerges as the only option. This is as puzzling as the call for sacrifices in the old testament.
Is God teaching people to think for themselves instead of following Him mindlessly, through these contradictions? I would like to have faith in that because otherwise I would have to throw my hands up in the air and concede that there is nothing except for confusion and darkness possible and faith and hope for truth is futile. Well, I've been down that road and I found it fruitless and destructive, so I chose to pursue enlightenment and truth instead.
CREATIONISM VS. EVOLUTIONISM
By the way, creationism need not preclude evolutionist ideas. It's not that hard to imagine that God created the world by creating the sun and solar energy evolved the Earth into the living, breathing "Gaia" that it is. In creationist terms, one could say that God created the Earth by the processes that led to water, bacteria, plants, and other life. You could say that the Earth's dynamism is fuel for creation by conscious beings like humans. Hence the potential to create and reproduce comes from the creative potential built into nature. Is this such a bad way to look at "nature/the creation?"
Some people take issue with the idea of "nature" because they feel it implies something untouched by human influence. For example, some things are labelled "natural" as opposed to "artificial" (human-made). People who want to empower humans to do something with the world they live in have a completely different attitude as people who want people to "leave the world alone" to do what it does 'naturally." This basically is the same dichotomy as "conservative/progressive." It's just a political choice of how you want to approach life and the world around you, but people take it very seriously and argue insistently for their own approach over the other one.
Some of us are aware of the ideological aspects of the matter and have a certain distance from it as a result. Personally, I favor the creationist approach politically but I think the empirical study of the physical/material world is worthwhile. What I don't mind doing is pointing out when I think scientists are confounding empirical observations and facts with theoretical concepts and politically-loaded language.
I believe many scientists are attracted to evolutionary theory not because of its explanatory value, but because it fits with a certain political-view they prefer. Basically I believe many scientists are looking to shed ethical concerns by accepting suffering and death as inevitable aspects of a darwinistic world. If sin is just "human nature," then they can accept it and not worry about intervening to make things better. This is a bad reason to believe in evolution, and I'm not saying that everyone is drawn to it for that reason, but I think that political view is behind a lot of the energy that is put into developing evolutionary theories and explanations.
There is nothing inherently unethical about science. In fact, science actually evolved from the radical Christian approach to religious authority by questioning it (Christ questioned the Pharises just as Galileo questioned the pope). But science has been given the status as the opposite of religion, which leads people who dislike religion to flee to science. In a way it's a trick that re-routes them back into the search for truth despite wanting to flee from "truth" as it is taught in religion. But many people still manage to slant science in the direction of accepting academic authority instead of questioning it as Galileo did, for example. This manifests an anti-enlightenment spirit in science that I dislike, which is also evident when scientists react against creationism instead of searching for further enlightenment.
I'm not trying to turn you into an atheist, I'm trying to turn you into a realist and an evolutionist.
There is a big difference between language and narratives designed to describe as accurately as possible for empirical events (positivism) and language and narratives designed to convey meaning, even when doing so comes at the expense of empirical accuracy.
The creation story is irrelevant as an empirical description of how the physical/material world came to be. It's relevance is at the level of providing spiritual insight into the purpose of life, not its empirical existence. In evolution theory, life's purpose is survival, nothing more or less. In creationism there is a purpose (created) to energy-translations of matter and life, which gives meaning and purpose to people seeking it.
You can look at the story of Joshua as a survival story of killing in order to survive, or you can look at it as a story of tension between the purpose of life according to God's will and the resistance of that will by people under the influence of evil. If you view it as survival, there is no ethical problem with the killing or the consumption of the fruits of "vineyards and olive trees" that were not planted by your own hands. If you view it as a story of people fleeing from enslavement and encountering sinful/evil people trying to destroy them, and how to deal with being stuck between a rock and a hard place in this way, it is a much more interesting story in my opinion.
It is up to the reader to interpret what these people should have done to be in harmony with God's will. Should they have gone back to Egypt and served their old masters? Should they have offered to serve the Canaanites even though they were sinful and their city "vomited" out those who joined them in their sin? The bible tells the story of Joshua's inspirations through the voice he believed was God's. If you are an expert in the holy spirit, you might be able to see how the voice Joshua was listening to was not God's but Satan's. I would be interested to hear what you come up with.
I agree with you that killing is wrong. I agree with you that God is repeatedly attributed with killing in bible stories. I believe that it is possible to learn from God's mistakes, just as He has. He learned from his mistake of flooding the world except for Noah, for example. Joshua's experience with listening to God may also have been an experience of learning from mistakes. This may be the reason why his speech at the end of the book refers to living by the fruits of other's labor and serving God. The bible may simply be telling the story of another contradiction where God prescribes creation and yet destruction emerges as the only option. This is as puzzling as the call for sacrifices in the old testament.
Is God teaching people to think for themselves instead of following Him mindlessly, through these contradictions? I would like to have faith in that because otherwise I would have to throw my hands up in the air and concede that there is nothing except for confusion and darkness possible and faith and hope for truth is futile. Well, I've been down that road and I found it fruitless and destructive, so I chose to pursue enlightenment and truth instead.
CREATIONISM VS. EVOLUTIONISM
By the way, creationism need not preclude evolutionist ideas. It's not that hard to imagine that God created the world by creating the sun and solar energy evolved the Earth into the living, breathing "Gaia" that it is. In creationist terms, one could say that God created the Earth by the processes that led to water, bacteria, plants, and other life. You could say that the Earth's dynamism is fuel for creation by conscious beings like humans. Hence the potential to create and reproduce comes from the creative potential built into nature. Is this such a bad way to look at "nature/the creation?"
Some people take issue with the idea of "nature" because they feel it implies something untouched by human influence. For example, some things are labelled "natural" as opposed to "artificial" (human-made). People who want to empower humans to do something with the world they live in have a completely different attitude as people who want people to "leave the world alone" to do what it does 'naturally." This basically is the same dichotomy as "conservative/progressive." It's just a political choice of how you want to approach life and the world around you, but people take it very seriously and argue insistently for their own approach over the other one.
Some of us are aware of the ideological aspects of the matter and have a certain distance from it as a result. Personally, I favor the creationist approach politically but I think the empirical study of the physical/material world is worthwhile. What I don't mind doing is pointing out when I think scientists are confounding empirical observations and facts with theoretical concepts and politically-loaded language.
I believe many scientists are attracted to evolutionary theory not because of its explanatory value, but because it fits with a certain political-view they prefer. Basically I believe many scientists are looking to shed ethical concerns by accepting suffering and death as inevitable aspects of a darwinistic world. If sin is just "human nature," then they can accept it and not worry about intervening to make things better. This is a bad reason to believe in evolution, and I'm not saying that everyone is drawn to it for that reason, but I think that political view is behind a lot of the energy that is put into developing evolutionary theories and explanations.
There is nothing inherently unethical about science. In fact, science actually evolved from the radical Christian approach to religious authority by questioning it (Christ questioned the Pharises just as Galileo questioned the pope). But science has been given the status as the opposite of religion, which leads people who dislike religion to flee to science. In a way it's a trick that re-routes them back into the search for truth despite wanting to flee from "truth" as it is taught in religion. But many people still manage to slant science in the direction of accepting academic authority instead of questioning it as Galileo did, for example. This manifests an anti-enlightenment spirit in science that I dislike, which is also evident when scientists react against creationism instead of searching for further enlightenment.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 03:18 PM)
There is a big difference between language and narratives designed to describe as accurately as possible for empirical events (positivism) and language and narratives designed to convey meaning, even when doing so comes at the expense of empirical accuracy.
There are certainly major ethical problems with genocide however you frame the motivations. There is no justification.
There are certainly major ethical problems with genocide however you frame the motivations. There is no justification.
It is up to the reader to interpret what these people should have done to be in harmony with God's will. Should they have gone back to Egypt and served their old masters? Should they have offered to serve the Canaanites even though they were sinful and their city "vomited" out those who joined them in their sin? The bible tells the story of Joshua's inspirations through the voice he believed was God's. If you are an expert in the holy spirit, you might be able to see how the voice Joshua was listening to was not God's but Satan's. I would be interested to hear what you come up with.
Who cares? No-one deserves to be murdered.
I hope that you realize the significance of stating that god is fallible. There are many Christians who would scream "HERETIC" at you just for suggesting it.
I hope that you realize the significance of stating that god is fallible. There are many Christians who would scream "HERETIC" at you just for suggesting it.
Is God teaching people to think for themselves instead of following Him mindlessly, through these contradictions? I would like to have faith in that because otherwise I would have to throw my hands up in the air and concede that there is nothing except for confusion and darkness possible and faith and hope for truth is futile. Well, I've been down that road and I found it fruitless and destructive, so I chose to pursue enlightenment and truth instead.
I went down that path and I discovered Atheism. Now I'm the happiest I've ever been.
I have a problem with attributing a supernatural/miraculous cause to a natural phenomenon. If the Earth and its contents obey natural laws, why give them a supernatural origin story?
I have a problem with attributing a supernatural/miraculous cause to a natural phenomenon. If the Earth and its contents obey natural laws, why give them a supernatural origin story?
I believe many scientists are attracted to evolutionary theory not because of its explanatory value, but because it fits with a certain political-view they prefer. Basically I believe many scientists are looking to shed ethical concerns by accepting suffering and death as inevitable aspects of a darwinistic world. If sin is just "human nature," then they can accept it and not worry about intervening to make things better. This is a bad reason to believe in evolution, and I'm not saying that everyone is drawn to it for that reason, but I think that political view is behind a lot of the energy that is put into developing evolutionary theories and explanations.
That is completely and utterly false. Evolution is accepted because of evidence. It would not exist without evidence. The worldview comes from evolution, not the other way around. Any legitimate scientist has to accept evolution when they see the mountain of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against. The professional work of the scientist is the one of the few professions in the world that relies completely on factual evidence. Make no mistake.
Another pack of lies. You are speaking completely from ignorance.
Who cares? No-one deserves to be murdered.
Right, which is why there is the commandment not to kill. But arguably the Israelites also didn't deserve to be enslaved in Egypt, so the question is whether they should have remained in the desert or sought fertile land, and what to do when they encountered resistance to settling on that land. What is your opinion?
If heresy is a sin and I am blind to my own, I pray for enlightenment from the holy spirit. Only God through the holy spirit will show me my fallacy. I am free to listen to human opinions because I have faith that the truth or fallacy of those opinions will be revealed to me through faith.
Do you propose there is a rational/logical way to reveal the truth of heresy?
If heresy is a sin and I am blind to my own, I pray for enlightenment from the holy spirit. Only God through the holy spirit will show me my fallacy. I am free to listen to human opinions because I have faith that the truth or fallacy of those opinions will be revealed to me through faith.
Do you propose there is a rational/logical way to reveal the truth of heresy?
I have a problem with attributing a supernatural/miraculous cause to a natural phenomenon. If the Earth and its contents obey natural laws, why give them a supernatural origin story?
So when you attribute natural cause to observed phenomena, do you think it makes the power of human beings appear weak? Do you focus on the inevitability of nature instead of looking for the possibility of intervening and affecting change in nature? That's my point about the political attitude in these ideologies.
It seems so naive to me when people insist that a theory can be proven by evidence. Inductive science may begin with observations and create theories from them but most scientists recognize the inconclusiveness of inductive theorizing. Deductive theorizing involves taking a theory and seeking facts to support or contradict aspects of the theory. Falsification is the process of focussing on searching for facts and experiments to call a theory into question, instead of searching for endless support and reinforcement.
Your approach to evolution theory seems to be one of support and faith rather than falsification.
Your claim that the worldview comes from evolution presumes that the theorists who developed the theory were politically unbiased, which I strongly doubt, just as I doubt that most people who go into academic science are politically unbiased as students and researchers. Social science and philosophy are the disciplines where subjectivity and bias are studied, and so I don't see how people without any training in identifying and controlling for their own subjectivity and political leanings are able to approach scientific theorizing without inherent ideological bias.
It seems so naive to me when people insist that a theory can be proven by evidence. Inductive science may begin with observations and create theories from them but most scientists recognize the inconclusiveness of inductive theorizing. Deductive theorizing involves taking a theory and seeking facts to support or contradict aspects of the theory. Falsification is the process of focussing on searching for facts and experiments to call a theory into question, instead of searching for endless support and reinforcement.
Your approach to evolution theory seems to be one of support and faith rather than falsification.
Your claim that the worldview comes from evolution presumes that the theorists who developed the theory were politically unbiased, which I strongly doubt, just as I doubt that most people who go into academic science are politically unbiased as students and researchers. Social science and philosophy are the disciplines where subjectivity and bias are studied, and so I don't see how people without any training in identifying and controlling for their own subjectivity and political leanings are able to approach scientific theorizing without inherent ideological bias.
Another pack of lies. You are speaking completely from ignorance.
If this is true, why don't you provide evidence or reasoning that I am wrong. Are my claims too vague to argue against them?
QUOTE
You can look at the story of Joshua as a survival story of killing in order to survive, or you can look at it as a story of tension between the purpose of life according to God's will and the resistance of that will by people under the influence of evil. If you view it as survival, there is no ethical problem with the killing or the consumption of the fruits of "vineyards and olive trees" that were not planted by your own hands. If you view it as a story of people fleeing from enslavement and encountering sinful/evil people trying to destroy them, and how to deal with being stuck between a rock and a hard place in this way, it is a much more interesting story in my opinion.
There are certainly major ethical problems with genocide however you frame the motivations. There is no justification.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You can look at the story of Joshua as a survival story of killing in order to survive, or you can look at it as a story of tension between the purpose of life according to God's will and the resistance of that will by people under the influence of evil. If you view it as survival, there is no ethical problem with the killing or the consumption of the fruits of "vineyards and olive trees" that were not planted by your own hands. If you view it as a story of people fleeing from enslavement and encountering sinful/evil people trying to destroy them, and how to deal with being stuck between a rock and a hard place in this way, it is a much more interesting story in my opinion. |
There are certainly major ethical problems with genocide however you frame the motivations. There is no justification.
It is up to the reader to interpret what these people should have done to be in harmony with God's will. Should they have gone back to Egypt and served their old masters? Should they have offered to serve the Canaanites even though they were sinful and their city "vomited" out those who joined them in their sin? The bible tells the story of Joshua's inspirations through the voice he believed was God's. If you are an expert in the holy spirit, you might be able to see how the voice Joshua was listening to was not God's but Satan's. I would be interested to hear what you come up with.
Who cares? No-one deserves to be murdered.
QUOTE
I agree with you that killing is wrong. I agree with you that God is repeatedly attributed with killing in bible stories. I believe that it is possible to learn from God's mistakes, just as He has. He learned from his mistake of flooding the world except for Noah, for example. Joshua's experience with listening to God may also have been an experience of learning from mistakes. This may be the reason why his speech at the end of the book refers to living by the fruits of other's labor and serving God. The bible may simply be telling the story of another contradiction where God prescribes creation and yet destruction emerges as the only option. This is as puzzling as the call for sacrifices in the old testament.
I hope that you realize the significance of stating that god is fallible. There are many Christians who would scream "HERETIC" at you just for suggesting it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I agree with you that killing is wrong. I agree with you that God is repeatedly attributed with killing in bible stories. I believe that it is possible to learn from God's mistakes, just as He has. He learned from his mistake of flooding the world except for Noah, for example. Joshua's experience with listening to God may also have been an experience of learning from mistakes. This may be the reason why his speech at the end of the book refers to living by the fruits of other's labor and serving God. The bible may simply be telling the story of another contradiction where God prescribes creation and yet destruction emerges as the only option. This is as puzzling as the call for sacrifices in the old testament. |
I hope that you realize the significance of stating that god is fallible. There are many Christians who would scream "HERETIC" at you just for suggesting it.
Is God teaching people to think for themselves instead of following Him mindlessly, through these contradictions? I would like to have faith in that because otherwise I would have to throw my hands up in the air and concede that there is nothing except for confusion and darkness possible and faith and hope for truth is futile. Well, I've been down that road and I found it fruitless and destructive, so I chose to pursue enlightenment and truth instead.
I went down that path and I discovered Atheism. Now I'm the happiest I've ever been.
QUOTE
By the way, creationism need not preclude evolutionist ideas. It's not that hard to imagine that God created the world by creating the sun and solar energy evolved the Earth into the living, breathing "Gaia" that it is. In creationist terms, one could say that God created the Earth by the processes that led to water, bacteria, plants, and other life. You could say that the Earth's dynamism is fuel for creation by conscious beings like humans. Hence the potential to create and reproduce comes from the creative potential built into nature. Is this such a bad way to look at "nature/the creation?"
I have a problem with attributing a supernatural/miraculous cause to a natural phenomenon. If the Earth and its contents obey natural laws, why give them a supernatural origin story?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, creationism need not preclude evolutionist ideas. It's not that hard to imagine that God created the world by creating the sun and solar energy evolved the Earth into the living, breathing "Gaia" that it is. In creationist terms, one could say that God created the Earth by the processes that led to water, bacteria, plants, and other life. You could say that the Earth's dynamism is fuel for creation by conscious beings like humans. Hence the potential to create and reproduce comes from the creative potential built into nature. Is this such a bad way to look at "nature/the creation?" |
I have a problem with attributing a supernatural/miraculous cause to a natural phenomenon. If the Earth and its contents obey natural laws, why give them a supernatural origin story?
I believe many scientists are attracted to evolutionary theory not because of its explanatory value, but because it fits with a certain political-view they prefer. Basically I believe many scientists are looking to shed ethical concerns by accepting suffering and death as inevitable aspects of a darwinistic world. If sin is just "human nature," then they can accept it and not worry about intervening to make things better. This is a bad reason to believe in evolution, and I'm not saying that everyone is drawn to it for that reason, but I think that political view is behind a lot of the energy that is put into developing evolutionary theories and explanations.
That is completely and utterly false. Evolution is accepted because of evidence. It would not exist without evidence. The worldview comes from evolution, not the other way around. Any legitimate scientist has to accept evolution when they see the mountain of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against. The professional work of the scientist is the one of the few professions in the world that relies completely on factual evidence. Make no mistake.
QUOTE
There is nothing inherently unethical about science. In fact, science actually evolved from the radical Christian approach to religious authority by questioning it (Christ questioned the Pharises just as Galileo questioned the pope). But science has been given the status as the opposite of religion, which leads people who dislike religion to flee to science. In a way it's a trick that re-routes them back into the search for truth despite wanting to flee from "truth" as it is taught in religion. But many people still manage to slant science in the direction of accepting academic authority instead of questioning it as Galileo did, for example. This manifests an anti-enlightenment spirit in science that I dislike, which is also evident when scientists react against creationism instead of searching for further enlightenment.
Another pack of lies. You are speaking completely from ignorance.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 14 2009, 08:43 PM)
Who cares? No-one deserves to be murdered.
Right, which is why there is the commandment not to kill. But arguably the Israelites also didn't deserve to be enslaved in Egypt, so the question is whether they should have remained in the desert or sought fertile land, and what to do when they encountered resistance to settling on that land. What is your opinion?
QUOTE
I hope that you realize the significance of stating that god is fallible. There are many Christians who would scream "HERETIC" at you just for suggesting it.
If heresy is a sin and I am blind to my own, I pray for enlightenment from the holy spirit. Only God through the holy spirit will show me my fallacy. I am free to listen to human opinions because I have faith that the truth or fallacy of those opinions will be revealed to me through faith.
Do you propose there is a rational/logical way to reveal the truth of heresy?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I hope that you realize the significance of stating that god is fallible. There are many Christians who would scream "HERETIC" at you just for suggesting it. |
If heresy is a sin and I am blind to my own, I pray for enlightenment from the holy spirit. Only God through the holy spirit will show me my fallacy. I am free to listen to human opinions because I have faith that the truth or fallacy of those opinions will be revealed to me through faith.
Do you propose there is a rational/logical way to reveal the truth of heresy?
I have a problem with attributing a supernatural/miraculous cause to a natural phenomenon. If the Earth and its contents obey natural laws, why give them a supernatural origin story?
So when you attribute natural cause to observed phenomena, do you think it makes the power of human beings appear weak? Do you focus on the inevitability of nature instead of looking for the possibility of intervening and affecting change in nature? That's my point about the political attitude in these ideologies.
QUOTE
That is completely and utterly false. Evolution is accepted because of evidence. It would not exist without evidence. The worldview comes from evolution, not the other way around. Any legitimate scientist has to accept evolution when they see the mountain of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against. The professional work of the scientist is the one of the few professions in the world that relies completely on factual evidence. Make no mistake.
It seems so naive to me when people insist that a theory can be proven by evidence. Inductive science may begin with observations and create theories from them but most scientists recognize the inconclusiveness of inductive theorizing. Deductive theorizing involves taking a theory and seeking facts to support or contradict aspects of the theory. Falsification is the process of focussing on searching for facts and experiments to call a theory into question, instead of searching for endless support and reinforcement.
Your approach to evolution theory seems to be one of support and faith rather than falsification.
Your claim that the worldview comes from evolution presumes that the theorists who developed the theory were politically unbiased, which I strongly doubt, just as I doubt that most people who go into academic science are politically unbiased as students and researchers. Social science and philosophy are the disciplines where subjectivity and bias are studied, and so I don't see how people without any training in identifying and controlling for their own subjectivity and political leanings are able to approach scientific theorizing without inherent ideological bias.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is completely and utterly false. Evolution is accepted because of evidence. It would not exist without evidence. The worldview comes from evolution, not the other way around. Any legitimate scientist has to accept evolution when they see the mountain of evidence for and the complete lack of evidence against. The professional work of the scientist is the one of the few professions in the world that relies completely on factual evidence. Make no mistake. |
It seems so naive to me when people insist that a theory can be proven by evidence. Inductive science may begin with observations and create theories from them but most scientists recognize the inconclusiveness of inductive theorizing. Deductive theorizing involves taking a theory and seeking facts to support or contradict aspects of the theory. Falsification is the process of focussing on searching for facts and experiments to call a theory into question, instead of searching for endless support and reinforcement.
Your approach to evolution theory seems to be one of support and faith rather than falsification.
Your claim that the worldview comes from evolution presumes that the theorists who developed the theory were politically unbiased, which I strongly doubt, just as I doubt that most people who go into academic science are politically unbiased as students and researchers. Social science and philosophy are the disciplines where subjectivity and bias are studied, and so I don't see how people without any training in identifying and controlling for their own subjectivity and political leanings are able to approach scientific theorizing without inherent ideological bias.
Another pack of lies. You are speaking completely from ignorance.
If this is true, why don't you provide evidence or reasoning that I am wrong. Are my claims too vague to argue against them?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 04:55 PM)
So when you attribute natural cause to observed phenomena, do you think it makes the power of human beings appear weak? Do you focus on the inevitability of nature instead of looking for the possibility of intervening and affecting change in nature? That's my point about the political attitude in these ideologies.
You obviously don't know much about science and technology then. Do you seriously think that the religiously-minded are more likely to make breakthroughs in our understanding and abilities than materialistic scientists?
Not only did that makes sense, it also reveals your hostility toward science. It also shows that you know next to nothing about the scientific method.
Not only did that makes sense, it also reveals your hostility toward science. It also shows that you know next to nothing about the scientific method.
Your approach to evolution theory seems to be one of support and faith rather than falsification.
Aaaaaand you're wrong. Completely.
I'm afraid that you are describing YOUR bias against the scientific process.
I'm afraid that you are describing YOUR bias against the scientific process.
If this is true, why don't you provide evidence or reasoning that I am wrong. Are my claims too vague to argue against them?
Where to begin? Your history of science is wrong. Your perception of the process of science is wrong. Science can only exist outside of bias. Biased scientists don't get very far in their careers unless their bias developed later. Every single scientist is actively looking for a way to overturn mainstream ideas. Maybe you should actually take a few science courses so that you can actually understand what you are criticizing.
You have made no substantive statement or argument. You have expressed your opinions without giving any basis for them. You have demonstrated by these opinions that you know little or nothing about the scientific method, and the scientific community.
There's not much there to argue with, simply a lot of presuppositions and misconceptions.
You obviously don't know much about science and technology then. Do you seriously think that the religiously-minded are more likely to make breakthroughs in our understanding and abilities than materialistic scientists?
QUOTE
It seems so naive to me when people insist that a theory can be proven by evidence. Inductive science may begin with observations and create theories from them but most scientists recognize the inconclusiveness of inductive theorizing. Deductive theorizing involves taking a theory and seeking facts to support or contradict aspects of the theory. Falsification is the process of focussing on searching for facts and experiments to call a theory into question, instead of searching for endless support and reinforcement.
Not only did that makes sense, it also reveals your hostility toward science. It also shows that you know next to nothing about the scientific method.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It seems so naive to me when people insist that a theory can be proven by evidence. Inductive science may begin with observations and create theories from them but most scientists recognize the inconclusiveness of inductive theorizing. Deductive theorizing involves taking a theory and seeking facts to support or contradict aspects of the theory. Falsification is the process of focussing on searching for facts and experiments to call a theory into question, instead of searching for endless support and reinforcement. |
Not only did that makes sense, it also reveals your hostility toward science. It also shows that you know next to nothing about the scientific method.
Your approach to evolution theory seems to be one of support and faith rather than falsification.
Aaaaaand you're wrong. Completely.
QUOTE
Your claim that the worldview comes from evolution presumes that the theorists who developed the theory were politically unbiased, which I strongly doubt, just as I doubt that most people who go into academic science are politically unbiased as students and researchers. Social science and philosophy are the disciplines where subjectivity and bias are studied, and so I don't see how people without any training in identifying and controlling for their own subjectivity and political leanings are able to approach scientific theorizing without inherent ideological bias.
I'm afraid that you are describing YOUR bias against the scientific process.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your claim that the worldview comes from evolution presumes that the theorists who developed the theory were politically unbiased, which I strongly doubt, just as I doubt that most people who go into academic science are politically unbiased as students and researchers. Social science and philosophy are the disciplines where subjectivity and bias are studied, and so I don't see how people without any training in identifying and controlling for their own subjectivity and political leanings are able to approach scientific theorizing without inherent ideological bias. |
I'm afraid that you are describing YOUR bias against the scientific process.
If this is true, why don't you provide evidence or reasoning that I am wrong. Are my claims too vague to argue against them?
Where to begin? Your history of science is wrong. Your perception of the process of science is wrong. Science can only exist outside of bias. Biased scientists don't get very far in their careers unless their bias developed later. Every single scientist is actively looking for a way to overturn mainstream ideas. Maybe you should actually take a few science courses so that you can actually understand what you are criticizing.
Flyingbuttressman, I cannot discuss any of your responses to my post because they are all conclusion-statements without any content-based arguments. If you would give counterpoints to my points or examples or something I could consider the validity of your conclusions, but in this form you give me nothing to evaluate the conclusions you make.
I will admit that you gave me something to think about in saying that scientists and technologists are often the ones devoting most energy to pursuing nature-changing developments. This may actually strengthen my belief that science is the evolutionary offspring of divine-creationism.
The fact that divine-creationism continues to exist in parallel with modern science creates a bizarre pseudo-dichotomy then. Either that or there are simply people in both camps who abuse faith in creation and faith in human creativity to worship God or nature, without taking advantage of the powerful gifts both provide.
Thank you for giving me something to renew some of my hope for science. I have become cynical by the number of academic scientists I have seen who fall into the socially motivated professional pattern of hyper-specialization and, as a result, lose sight of the kind of general spirit of enlightenment that is the real fruit of the scientific revolution. To me the point of the enlightenment was to create a world of people free to explore ideas and the empirical world without fear of thinking outside the box, upsetting social conventions, etc. Unfortunately many academicians today seem as strongly burdened with social conventions and fear of questioning disciplinary norms and expectations as anyone in the dark ages who was afraid of people who suggested the world might be round or that everything in the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth.
For example, look at the responses I've gotten for questioning the assumption that photons have zero mass and that the speed of light is fixed. These are not empirically proven facts, but rather assumptions based on theory - so why should I be attacked for bringing them up for discussion?
I will admit that you gave me something to think about in saying that scientists and technologists are often the ones devoting most energy to pursuing nature-changing developments. This may actually strengthen my belief that science is the evolutionary offspring of divine-creationism.
The fact that divine-creationism continues to exist in parallel with modern science creates a bizarre pseudo-dichotomy then. Either that or there are simply people in both camps who abuse faith in creation and faith in human creativity to worship God or nature, without taking advantage of the powerful gifts both provide.
Thank you for giving me something to renew some of my hope for science. I have become cynical by the number of academic scientists I have seen who fall into the socially motivated professional pattern of hyper-specialization and, as a result, lose sight of the kind of general spirit of enlightenment that is the real fruit of the scientific revolution. To me the point of the enlightenment was to create a world of people free to explore ideas and the empirical world without fear of thinking outside the box, upsetting social conventions, etc. Unfortunately many academicians today seem as strongly burdened with social conventions and fear of questioning disciplinary norms and expectations as anyone in the dark ages who was afraid of people who suggested the world might be round or that everything in the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth.
For example, look at the responses I've gotten for questioning the assumption that photons have zero mass and that the speed of light is fixed. These are not empirically proven facts, but rather assumptions based on theory - so why should I be attacked for bringing them up for discussion?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 09:27 PM)
Flyingbuttressman, I cannot discuss any of your responses to my post because they are all conclusion-statements without any content-based arguments. If you would give counterpoints to my points or examples or something I could consider the validity of your conclusions, but in this form you give me nothing to evaluate the conclusions you make.
flyingbuttressman is absolutely right in his descriptions of science and evolution. You are horrifically uneducated. If you disagree with him, find some evidence to support your position. After all, fbm is merely affirming that which is already held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers, while you are insisting that something which is not held to be true is true. The burden of proof in this matter is upon you.
So go find some evidence of science's lack of integrity. Since I'm such a generous guy, I'll offer you some of the affirming evidence upon which that which is held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers is based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodologica...ical_naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
This is an example of creationist dogma. It is not true because it defies the very principles of science, which the vast vast majority of scientists hold to be very very important. It's ironic that you demonstrate your own guilt of the very same crime you accuse mainstream science of.
flyingbuttressman is absolutely right in his descriptions of science and evolution. You are horrifically uneducated. If you disagree with him, find some evidence to support your position. After all, fbm is merely affirming that which is already held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers, while you are insisting that something which is not held to be true is true. The burden of proof in this matter is upon you.
So go find some evidence of science's lack of integrity. Since I'm such a generous guy, I'll offer you some of the affirming evidence upon which that which is held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers is based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodologica...ical_naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
QUOTE
But many people still manage to slant science in the direction of accepting academic authority instead of questioning it as Galileo did, for example. This manifests an anti-enlightenment spirit in science that I dislike, which is also evident when scientists react against creationism instead of searching for further enlightenment.
This is an example of creationist dogma. It is not true because it defies the very principles of science, which the vast vast majority of scientists hold to be very very important. It's ironic that you demonstrate your own guilt of the very same crime you accuse mainstream science of.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 15 2009, 02:47 AM)
flyingbuttressman is absolutely right in his descriptions of science and evolution. You are horrifically uneducated. If you disagree with him, find some evidence to support your position. After all, fbm is merely affirming that which is already held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers, while you are insisting that something which is not held to be true is true. The burden of proof in this matter is upon you.
So go find some evidence of science's lack of integrity. Since I'm such a generous guy, I'll offer you some of the affirming evidence upon which that which is held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers is based.
This is an example of creationist dogma. It is not true because it defies the very principles of science, which the vast vast majority of scientists hold to be very very important. It's ironic that you demonstrate your own guilt of the very same crime you accuse mainstream science of.
I am not interested in your assessment of my level of education or establishing who should have the burden of proof. I am interested purely in substantive discussion and arguments. If you don't have sufficient respect or interest in my point of view, why vocally discredit it? Are you scared that if you don't monopolize scientific discussions that the world will fall to creationism?
Majoritarian politics have no place in science. The very fact that you cite "the majority" of scientists as validation for shifting the burden of proof or having an indication of which theories and ideas are closer to truth is evidence that you are socially biased.
Granted it is possible for one to choose one's research from a discursive point of view and then apply scientific rigor at the level of the actual research performed. However, bias in choice and approach to research does have the ability to slant the overall evolution of scientific knowledge. For example, if scholarly physicists all manage to convince each other that it is a taboo to select a research topic that contradicts Einstein, then all physics research, no matter how unbiased at the level of actual theorizing and experimentation, will be slanted away from exploring directions that would contradict Einstein. Isn't this basically what Kuhn talks about with paradigms?
If you dare to have a discussion that explores relevant evidence and examples, please do so. If you only want to argue about what who "holds to be true" and why the "burden of proof" should fall on one set of shoulders or another, please don't bother. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just exploring ideas and knowledge and posting my insights for others to learn from, discuss, and help progress further. My faith is that this process can generate truth. Arguing over whether to engage in it based on the relative popularity of ideas only stifles the possibility of moving further. If you consider it so important that I arrive at the truth you seem to be so privileged to have learned from "the majority," then don't derail me on the way to conclusions that you believe, in the long run, to be inevitable anyway.
So go find some evidence of science's lack of integrity. Since I'm such a generous guy, I'll offer you some of the affirming evidence upon which that which is held to be true by the majority of scientists and philosophers is based.
This is an example of creationist dogma. It is not true because it defies the very principles of science, which the vast vast majority of scientists hold to be very very important. It's ironic that you demonstrate your own guilt of the very same crime you accuse mainstream science of.
I am not interested in your assessment of my level of education or establishing who should have the burden of proof. I am interested purely in substantive discussion and arguments. If you don't have sufficient respect or interest in my point of view, why vocally discredit it? Are you scared that if you don't monopolize scientific discussions that the world will fall to creationism?
Majoritarian politics have no place in science. The very fact that you cite "the majority" of scientists as validation for shifting the burden of proof or having an indication of which theories and ideas are closer to truth is evidence that you are socially biased.
Granted it is possible for one to choose one's research from a discursive point of view and then apply scientific rigor at the level of the actual research performed. However, bias in choice and approach to research does have the ability to slant the overall evolution of scientific knowledge. For example, if scholarly physicists all manage to convince each other that it is a taboo to select a research topic that contradicts Einstein, then all physics research, no matter how unbiased at the level of actual theorizing and experimentation, will be slanted away from exploring directions that would contradict Einstein. Isn't this basically what Kuhn talks about with paradigms?
If you dare to have a discussion that explores relevant evidence and examples, please do so. If you only want to argue about what who "holds to be true" and why the "burden of proof" should fall on one set of shoulders or another, please don't bother. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just exploring ideas and knowledge and posting my insights for others to learn from, discuss, and help progress further. My faith is that this process can generate truth. Arguing over whether to engage in it based on the relative popularity of ideas only stifles the possibility of moving further. If you consider it so important that I arrive at the truth you seem to be so privileged to have learned from "the majority," then don't derail me on the way to conclusions that you believe, in the long run, to be inevitable anyway.
QUOTE
I am interested purely in substantive discussion and arguments.
You have made no substantive statement or argument. You have expressed your opinions without giving any basis for them. You have demonstrated by these opinions that you know little or nothing about the scientific method, and the scientific community.
There's not much there to argue with, simply a lot of presuppositions and misconceptions.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 11:15 PM)
I am not interested in your assessment of my level of education or establishing who should have the burden of proof. I am interested purely in substantive discussion and arguments. If you don't have sufficient respect or interest in my point of view, why vocally discredit it? Are you scared that if you don't monopolize scientific discussions the the world will fall to creationism?
So, tunnel
How is it going? You have started a number of "substantive" threads here. Have any of them given you the enlightenment that you said you seek?
You have been shown a lot of patience. I hope you have taken the opportunity to open some books, find out why you may be right or wrong.
Or are you going to keep slogging at these poor, benighted people until they see the error in their thoughts?
This has nothing to do with anything but I'm curious as to your gender. I ask because of your responses to criticism. You can answer or not.
So, tunnel
How is it going? You have started a number of "substantive" threads here. Have any of them given you the enlightenment that you said you seek?
You have been shown a lot of patience. I hope you have taken the opportunity to open some books, find out why you may be right or wrong.
Or are you going to keep slogging at these poor, benighted people until they see the error in their thoughts?
This has nothing to do with anything but I'm curious as to your gender. I ask because of your responses to criticism. You can answer or not.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 02:27 AM)
The fact that divine-creationism continues to exist in parallel with modern science creates a bizarre pseudo-dichotomy then. Either that or there are simply people in both camps who abuse faith in creation and faith in human creativity to worship God or nature, without taking advantage of the powerful gifts both provide.
Belief in Divine-Creationism continues to exist. That does not mean Divine-Creation continues to exist. You really need to distinguish between belief and reality.
Were you born between late September and early October?
Belief does not make something real.
You are not adding anything substantive. All you are doing is adding smoke and mirrors.
And as for what scientists choose to persue. Einstien contracted the person who was the most "revered" before him. Any scientist that contradicts Einstien will afterwards become the greatest scientist ever.
Newton, Einstien, whoever shows Einstien wrong.
Religion can only be right if it is right from the start and any change contradicts this.
Science is about advancing and advancing requires change.
Belief in Divine-Creationism continues to exist. That does not mean Divine-Creation continues to exist. You really need to distinguish between belief and reality.
Were you born between late September and early October?
Belief does not make something real.
You are not adding anything substantive. All you are doing is adding smoke and mirrors.
And as for what scientists choose to persue. Einstien contracted the person who was the most "revered" before him. Any scientist that contradicts Einstien will afterwards become the greatest scientist ever.
Newton, Einstien, whoever shows Einstien wrong.
Religion can only be right if it is right from the start and any change contradicts this.
Science is about advancing and advancing requires change.
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 15 2009, 01:10 PM)
How is it going? You have started a number of "substantive" threads here. Have any of them given you the enlightenment that you said you seek?
You have been shown a lot of patience. I hope you have taken the opportunity to open some books, find out why you may be right or wrong.
Or are you going to keep slogging at these poor, benighted people until they see the error in their thoughts?
This has nothing to do with anything but I'm curious as to your gender. I ask because of your responses to criticism. You can answer or not.
You can read the responses for yourself.
You can read the responses for yourself.
You have been shown a lot of patience. I hope you have taken the opportunity to open some books, find out why you may be right or wrong.
I do a lot of googling on my topics of interest, yes. . . is it really necessary to belittle me by telling me that "I've been shown patience?" All this does is assert the idea that someone else has the position to show me patience, instead of the other way around. I also have to be patient with these kinds of remarks in order to get anything substantive. At least I don't insult people and post purely belligerent posts.
I don't immediately assume that theoretical differences necessitate error. The only way to find out if any error is present is to sufficiently explore ideas until error is discovered. I am more than aware that my ideas seem errant to some people on this post based on their unbending faith in their educational materials (received knowledge). Still, I hope that people who can't think outside the box of their assumptions will either figure out how, or stop harassing me and allow me to seek others who will entertain my theoretical whims however non-conformist they seem to be.
I don't immediately assume that theoretical differences necessitate error. The only way to find out if any error is present is to sufficiently explore ideas until error is discovered. I am more than aware that my ideas seem errant to some people on this post based on their unbending faith in their educational materials (received knowledge). Still, I hope that people who can't think outside the box of their assumptions will either figure out how, or stop harassing me and allow me to seek others who will entertain my theoretical whims however non-conformist they seem to be.
This has nothing to do with anything but I'm curious as to your gender. I ask because of your responses to criticism. You can answer or not.
Why, you looking for a date?
You have been shown a lot of patience. I hope you have taken the opportunity to open some books, find out why you may be right or wrong.
Or are you going to keep slogging at these poor, benighted people until they see the error in their thoughts?
This has nothing to do with anything but I'm curious as to your gender. I ask because of your responses to criticism. You can answer or not.
QUOTE
How is it going? You have started a number of "substantive" threads here. Have any of them given you the enlightenment that you said you seek?
You can read the responses for yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How is it going? You have started a number of "substantive" threads here. Have any of them given you the enlightenment that you said you seek? |
You can read the responses for yourself.
You have been shown a lot of patience. I hope you have taken the opportunity to open some books, find out why you may be right or wrong.
I do a lot of googling on my topics of interest, yes. . . is it really necessary to belittle me by telling me that "I've been shown patience?" All this does is assert the idea that someone else has the position to show me patience, instead of the other way around. I also have to be patient with these kinds of remarks in order to get anything substantive. At least I don't insult people and post purely belligerent posts.
QUOTE
Or are you going to keep slogging at these poor, benighted people until they see the error in their thoughts?
I don't immediately assume that theoretical differences necessitate error. The only way to find out if any error is present is to sufficiently explore ideas until error is discovered. I am more than aware that my ideas seem errant to some people on this post based on their unbending faith in their educational materials (received knowledge). Still, I hope that people who can't think outside the box of their assumptions will either figure out how, or stop harassing me and allow me to seek others who will entertain my theoretical whims however non-conformist they seem to be.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or are you going to keep slogging at these poor, benighted people until they see the error in their thoughts? |
I don't immediately assume that theoretical differences necessitate error. The only way to find out if any error is present is to sufficiently explore ideas until error is discovered. I am more than aware that my ideas seem errant to some people on this post based on their unbending faith in their educational materials (received knowledge). Still, I hope that people who can't think outside the box of their assumptions will either figure out how, or stop harassing me and allow me to seek others who will entertain my theoretical whims however non-conformist they seem to be.
This has nothing to do with anything but I'm curious as to your gender. I ask because of your responses to criticism. You can answer or not.
Why, you looking for a date?
I measure the existence of a cultural institution from the perspective that if any measurable amount of its existence can be observed, then it continues to "exist," however transformed in form or context. So it is possible to say that divine-creationism has evolved, in one direction, by transforming into modern physics, and in another direction, by those who insist on believing that the heavens and the Earth were literally created in seven days, etc. To trace the evolution of theories and beliefs, and other cultural practices, you have to find the empirical level that they are actually observable. Discourse (i.e. articles, books, and other accounts) provide a certain history of ideas but ideas themselves are only observable at the level of their materiality, which includes their evolution in the minds of the people who think about them and make choices about what to retain and what to discard in their thinking and other scientific work.
As long as there is discussion about divine-creationism it continues to "exist" in discourse. When evolutionists proclaim it to be a bankrupt theory, that only makes it so for them. In order for others to be convinced of its bankruptcy, it should take more than insistence of such. I have explained this in other posts, but I will do so again. I do not see divine-creationism as a useful theory at the level of positive description of a plausible empirical situation. I see it as a theory that helps give people meaning in their lives and inspire/empower them by connecting their perception/ontology of the universe they live in with their experience of themselves as living beings among others. I think this approach to the universe is worth keeping, even if fossils and continuity between species are fascinating ideas that deserve study, whether or not they are insisted upon as proof of an origin mythology.
I don't think so. If that was true it would be possible for me to be recognized as the greatest scientist ever just for consciously conceiving ideas that break with assumptions about massless light and fixity of light-speed. The social structuring tendencies of people who participate in scientific community-building cause knowledge to hang together in a "paradigm." It takes a "fool" to propose radically different ideas that no self-respecting member of the community would dare to propose. However, while processing the foolishness of such ideas, well-integrated scientists end up developing new directions that ARE recognized as wise among reputable scientists. The result is that science does progress, and those that are instrumental to such progress are revered. But those of us that stimulate the revered to think differently are never given credit or paid as anything other than crazy fools who naively question what is well-known as a result of our lack of (sufficient) education.
So discuss my crazy ideas with me and maybe you will come up with the REAL idea that wins you fame and fortune as a well-integrated "member of the scientific community."
I don't think so. If that was true it would be possible for me to be recognized as the greatest scientist ever just for consciously conceiving ideas that break with assumptions about massless light and fixity of light-speed. The social structuring tendencies of people who participate in scientific community-building cause knowledge to hang together in a "paradigm." It takes a "fool" to propose radically different ideas that no self-respecting member of the community would dare to propose. However, while processing the foolishness of such ideas, well-integrated scientists end up developing new directions that ARE recognized as wise among reputable scientists. The result is that science does progress, and those that are instrumental to such progress are revered. But those of us that stimulate the revered to think differently are never given credit or paid as anything other than crazy fools who naively question what is well-known as a result of our lack of (sufficient) education.
So discuss my crazy ideas with me and maybe you will come up with the REAL idea that wins you fame and fortune as a well-integrated "member of the scientific community."
Religion can only be right if it is right from the start and any change contradicts this.
As long as there is discussion about divine-creationism it continues to "exist" in discourse. When evolutionists proclaim it to be a bankrupt theory, that only makes it so for them. In order for others to be convinced of its bankruptcy, it should take more than insistence of such. I have explained this in other posts, but I will do so again. I do not see divine-creationism as a useful theory at the level of positive description of a plausible empirical situation. I see it as a theory that helps give people meaning in their lives and inspire/empower them by connecting their perception/ontology of the universe they live in with their experience of themselves as living beings among others. I think this approach to the universe is worth keeping, even if fossils and continuity between species are fascinating ideas that deserve study, whether or not they are insisted upon as proof of an origin mythology.
QUOTE
And as for what scientists choose to persue. Einstien contracted the person who was the most "revered" before him. Any scientist that contradicts Einstien will afterwards become the greatest scientist ever.
I don't think so. If that was true it would be possible for me to be recognized as the greatest scientist ever just for consciously conceiving ideas that break with assumptions about massless light and fixity of light-speed. The social structuring tendencies of people who participate in scientific community-building cause knowledge to hang together in a "paradigm." It takes a "fool" to propose radically different ideas that no self-respecting member of the community would dare to propose. However, while processing the foolishness of such ideas, well-integrated scientists end up developing new directions that ARE recognized as wise among reputable scientists. The result is that science does progress, and those that are instrumental to such progress are revered. But those of us that stimulate the revered to think differently are never given credit or paid as anything other than crazy fools who naively question what is well-known as a result of our lack of (sufficient) education.
So discuss my crazy ideas with me and maybe you will come up with the REAL idea that wins you fame and fortune as a well-integrated "member of the scientific community."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And as for what scientists choose to persue. Einstien contracted the person who was the most "revered" before him. Any scientist that contradicts Einstien will afterwards become the greatest scientist ever. |
I don't think so. If that was true it would be possible for me to be recognized as the greatest scientist ever just for consciously conceiving ideas that break with assumptions about massless light and fixity of light-speed. The social structuring tendencies of people who participate in scientific community-building cause knowledge to hang together in a "paradigm." It takes a "fool" to propose radically different ideas that no self-respecting member of the community would dare to propose. However, while processing the foolishness of such ideas, well-integrated scientists end up developing new directions that ARE recognized as wise among reputable scientists. The result is that science does progress, and those that are instrumental to such progress are revered. But those of us that stimulate the revered to think differently are never given credit or paid as anything other than crazy fools who naively question what is well-known as a result of our lack of (sufficient) education.
So discuss my crazy ideas with me and maybe you will come up with the REAL idea that wins you fame and fortune as a well-integrated "member of the scientific community."
Religion can only be right if it is right from the start and any change contradicts this.
Religion is not "right" in a positivistic sense. It only works well as an instrument for directly affecting spiritual perception, ethical action, etc. It is easy to argue against religious knowledge if you have a theory whose main purpose is to integrate large amounts of empirical data into an explanation that works for all of it. This is not what religion tries to do. Religion tries to achieve spiritual results by integrated data and narrative in a way that causes people to "live well" however that is defined. Personally, I believe that the people who pursue widely explanatory positivist theories also do so from an underlying motive related to their ideas of how to "live well," but because living-well for them entails believing in a theory that explains the most evidence, they avoid anything except the relentless pursuit of explanatory dominance.
Do my claims sound vague and empty to you again, or do you just dislike them?
Do my claims sound vague and empty to you again, or do you just dislike them?
Orestis, I think it wants to be male. If trolls have gender, that is...
I don't think googling will help you understand much. And it damn sure wont help you stand toe to toe with the people here.
Most people who think outside the box end up in the deep end. Those who have succeeded have "stood on the shoulders of giants." I hope you see the symbolism in that.
No, Im not looking for a date. It's just an exercise on my part, to see if my observations are true. By your answer I take it you are a woman. It would explain your "feeling" responses to criticism.
It would also explain the unusual name you made for yourself. A bit of a Mother of God complex, don't you think?
Most people who think outside the box end up in the deep end. Those who have succeeded have "stood on the shoulders of giants." I hope you see the symbolism in that.
No, Im not looking for a date. It's just an exercise on my part, to see if my observations are true. By your answer I take it you are a woman. It would explain your "feeling" responses to criticism.
It would also explain the unusual name you made for yourself. A bit of a Mother of God complex, don't you think?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 09:10 AM)
When evolutionists proclaim it to be a bankrupt theory, that only makes it so for them. In order for others to be convinced of its bankruptcy, it should take more than insistence of such. I have explained this in other posts, but I will do so again. I do not see divine-creationism as a useful theory at the level of positive description of a plausible empirical situation. I see it as a theory that helps give people meaning in their lives and inspire/empower them by connecting their perception/ontology of the universe they live in with their experience of themselves as living beings among others. I think this approach to the universe is worth keeping, even if fossils and continuity between species are fascinating ideas that deserve study, whether or not they are insisted upon as proof of an origin mythology.
Lies mixed with sentimental garbage.
1. Hubris
2. You're an idiot
3. Just because you can pull something out of your @ss doesn't mean it's worth jack.
1. Hubris
2. You're an idiot
3. Just because you can pull something out of your @ss doesn't mean it's worth jack.
So discuss my crazy ideas with me and maybe you will come up with the REAL idea that wins you fame and fortune as a well-integrated "member of the scientific community."
Hubris again, and No, I will not discuss your "ideas"
More sentimental worthless garbage. It's just hilarious that you think that religion makes people MORE open minded. In case you haven't heard, religion just happens to be the biggest source of anti-science rhetoric ever.
More sentimental worthless garbage. It's just hilarious that you think that religion makes people MORE open minded. In case you haven't heard, religion just happens to be the biggest source of anti-science rhetoric ever.
Do my claims sound vague and empty to you again, or do you just dislike them?
Vague, empty, and completely devoid of education, intelligence, critical thinking, and life experience.
I really hope that you didn't just have to look up the definition of 'Hubris'.
In other words, you flunked out of freshman Intro to Science.
Lies mixed with sentimental garbage.
QUOTE
I don't think so. If that was true it would be possible for me to be recognized as the greatest scientist ever just for consciously conceiving ideas that break with assumptions about massless light and fixity of light-speed. The social structuring tendencies of people who participate in scientific community-building cause knowledge to hang together in a "paradigm." It takes a "fool" to propose radically different ideas that no self-respecting member of the community would dare to propose. However, while processing the foolishness of such ideas, well-integrated scientists end up developing new directions that ARE recognized as wise among reputable scientists. The result is that science does progress, and those that are instrumental to such progress are revered. But those of us that stimulate the revered to think differently are never given credit or paid as anything other than crazy fools who naively question what is well-known as a result of our lack of (sufficient) education.
1. Hubris
2. You're an idiot
3. Just because you can pull something out of your @ss doesn't mean it's worth jack.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think so. If that was true it would be possible for me to be recognized as the greatest scientist ever just for consciously conceiving ideas that break with assumptions about massless light and fixity of light-speed. The social structuring tendencies of people who participate in scientific community-building cause knowledge to hang together in a "paradigm." It takes a "fool" to propose radically different ideas that no self-respecting member of the community would dare to propose. However, while processing the foolishness of such ideas, well-integrated scientists end up developing new directions that ARE recognized as wise among reputable scientists. The result is that science does progress, and those that are instrumental to such progress are revered. But those of us that stimulate the revered to think differently are never given credit or paid as anything other than crazy fools who naively question what is well-known as a result of our lack of (sufficient) education. |
1. Hubris
2. You're an idiot
3. Just because you can pull something out of your @ss doesn't mean it's worth jack.
So discuss my crazy ideas with me and maybe you will come up with the REAL idea that wins you fame and fortune as a well-integrated "member of the scientific community."
Hubris again, and No, I will not discuss your "ideas"
QUOTE
Religion is not "right" in a positivistic sense. It only works well as an instrument for directly affecting spiritual perception, ethical action, etc. It is easy to argue against religious knowledge if you have a theory whose main purpose is to integrate large amounts of empirical data into an explanation that works for all of it. This is not what religion tries to do. Religion tries to achieve spiritual results by integrated data and narrative in a way that causes people to "live well" however that is defined. Personally, I believe that the people who pursue widely explanatory positivist theories also do so from an underlying motive related to their ideas of how to "live well," but because living-well for them entails believing in a theory that explains the most evidence, they avoid anything except the relentless pursuit of explanatory dominance.
More sentimental worthless garbage. It's just hilarious that you think that religion makes people MORE open minded. In case you haven't heard, religion just happens to be the biggest source of anti-science rhetoric ever.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion is not "right" in a positivistic sense. It only works well as an instrument for directly affecting spiritual perception, ethical action, etc. It is easy to argue against religious knowledge if you have a theory whose main purpose is to integrate large amounts of empirical data into an explanation that works for all of it. This is not what religion tries to do. Religion tries to achieve spiritual results by integrated data and narrative in a way that causes people to "live well" however that is defined. Personally, I believe that the people who pursue widely explanatory positivist theories also do so from an underlying motive related to their ideas of how to "live well," but because living-well for them entails believing in a theory that explains the most evidence, they avoid anything except the relentless pursuit of explanatory dominance. |
More sentimental worthless garbage. It's just hilarious that you think that religion makes people MORE open minded. In case you haven't heard, religion just happens to be the biggest source of anti-science rhetoric ever.
Do my claims sound vague and empty to you again, or do you just dislike them?
Vague, empty, and completely devoid of education, intelligence, critical thinking, and life experience.
I really hope that you didn't just have to look up the definition of 'Hubris'.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 08:18 PM)
I believe many scientists are attracted to evolutionary theory not because of its explanatory value, but because it fits with a certain political-view they prefer. Basically I believe many scientists are looking to shed ethical concerns by accepting suffering and death as inevitable aspects of a darwinistic world. If sin is just "human nature," then they can accept it and not worry about intervening to make things better. This is a bad reason to believe in evolution, and I'm not saying that everyone is drawn to it for that reason, but I think that political view is behind a lot of the energy that is put into developing evolutionary theories and explanations.
It doesn't matter that many scientists are attracted to Evolutionary thinking for the wrong reasons.
and I think a lot religious people are drawn to it because they can abdicate responsibility for their moral beliefs.
Do you have any desire for accuracy? Do you understant that some people would rather be unsure than wrong?
It doesn't matter that many scientists are attracted to Evolutionary thinking for the wrong reasons.
and I think a lot religious people are drawn to it because they can abdicate responsibility for their moral beliefs.
Do you have any desire for accuracy? Do you understant that some people would rather be unsure than wrong?
Yes, I did have to google "hubris." Surprisingly the newness of the word to me did not intensify the ego-insulting effect of it compared with other words I already know. Try to avoid insulting people, making people's ego's swell up in defense is a major impediment to them progressing scientifically.
As for this:
I believe the reason is that many people with a true scientific spirit have left science because of the overwhelming orthodoxy, specialism, and so forth that impedes them from finding in it what they sought. That is certainly the case for me. Every graduate student who obeys a faculty member who tells them to abandon the big interesting questions that led them to science in the first place and study a tiny sub-question of a sub-question, contributes to this. They do it because they are told it's the only way for them to continue to work in the field they love. They sacrifice their dreams to own the watered-down reality that no longer resembles anything they dreamed of in the first place.
I still love science, but it's because I haven't given up on the part of it that made it interesting when I was young. The big questions - not the hyper-specialized questions about the rotational dynamics of a neutrino in a positively charged basic solution under the influence of an oscillating magnetic field. I'm sure that such questions are fascinating to people within the frame of the subdiscipline in which their meanings become contextually significant - but if they aren't willing to reach out to people outside their sub-genre, how can they expect to influence the general knowledge of humanity?
As for this:
QUOTE
It's just hilarious that you think that religion makes people MORE open minded. In case you haven't heard, religion just happens to be the biggest source of anti-science rhetoric ever.
I believe the reason is that many people with a true scientific spirit have left science because of the overwhelming orthodoxy, specialism, and so forth that impedes them from finding in it what they sought. That is certainly the case for me. Every graduate student who obeys a faculty member who tells them to abandon the big interesting questions that led them to science in the first place and study a tiny sub-question of a sub-question, contributes to this. They do it because they are told it's the only way for them to continue to work in the field they love. They sacrifice their dreams to own the watered-down reality that no longer resembles anything they dreamed of in the first place.
I still love science, but it's because I haven't given up on the part of it that made it interesting when I was young. The big questions - not the hyper-specialized questions about the rotational dynamics of a neutrino in a positively charged basic solution under the influence of an oscillating magnetic field. I'm sure that such questions are fascinating to people within the frame of the subdiscipline in which their meanings become contextually significant - but if they aren't willing to reach out to people outside their sub-genre, how can they expect to influence the general knowledge of humanity?
What questions did you ask?
What kind of answers did you expect?
And remember, "we don't know" and "we have no way of knowing" are the only vallid answers to many many important questions.
Iti's not watered down reality, it's the real reality, it's not the imaginary reality.
Don't blame science for what you find behind the curtain, blame the people who told you the wizard was there.
What kind of answers did you expect?
And remember, "we don't know" and "we have no way of knowing" are the only vallid answers to many many important questions.
Iti's not watered down reality, it's the real reality, it's not the imaginary reality.
Don't blame science for what you find behind the curtain, blame the people who told you the wizard was there.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 15 2009, 07:52 PM)
What questions did you ask?
What kind of answers did you expect?
And remember, "we don't know" and "we have no way of knowing" are the only vallid answers to many many important questions.
Iti's not watered down reality, it's the real reality, it's not the imaginary reality.
Don't blame science for what you find behind the curtain, blame the people who told you the wizard was there.
I don't mind when people admit they don't know, or claim that there is no way of knowing. I think it is better when they explain why their knowledge is limited in the way that they claim. I especially like it when people are willing to stretch their knowledge to speculate about things they don't think they do or can know, just to see what comes out of the process. I think all these things are valuable forms of knowledge exploration, along with anything else that keeps the discussion posts constructive and positive in spirit.
When people break down into insults and other negativity, I can't understand the need for this. Is it because they are frustrated with the limits of knowledge they perceive to be absolute, and they feel a need to take out their frustration on me for going in the direction of these limits?
I don't blame science for what I find behind the curtain. I blame the people who are unwilling to continue pursuing the ideals. They drag everyone, including themselves, down.
What kind of answers did you expect?
And remember, "we don't know" and "we have no way of knowing" are the only vallid answers to many many important questions.
Iti's not watered down reality, it's the real reality, it's not the imaginary reality.
Don't blame science for what you find behind the curtain, blame the people who told you the wizard was there.
I don't mind when people admit they don't know, or claim that there is no way of knowing. I think it is better when they explain why their knowledge is limited in the way that they claim. I especially like it when people are willing to stretch their knowledge to speculate about things they don't think they do or can know, just to see what comes out of the process. I think all these things are valuable forms of knowledge exploration, along with anything else that keeps the discussion posts constructive and positive in spirit.
When people break down into insults and other negativity, I can't understand the need for this. Is it because they are frustrated with the limits of knowledge they perceive to be absolute, and they feel a need to take out their frustration on me for going in the direction of these limits?
I don't blame science for what I find behind the curtain. I blame the people who are unwilling to continue pursuing the ideals. They drag everyone, including themselves, down.
QUOTE
That is certainly the case for me.
In other words, you flunked out of freshman Intro to Science.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 08:30 PM)
I don't mind when people admit they don't know, or claim that there is no way of knowing. I think it is better when they explain why their knowledge is limited in the way that they claim. I especially like it when people are willing to stretch their knowledge to speculate about things they don't think they do or can know, just to see what comes out of the process. I think all these things are valuable forms of knowledge exploration, along with anything else that keeps the discussion posts constructive and positive in spirit.
When people break down into insults and other negativity, I can't understand the need for this. Is it because they are frustrated with the limits of knowledge they perceive to be absolute, and they feel a need to take out their frustration on me for going in the direction of these limits?
I don't blame science for what I find behind the curtain. I blame the people who are unwilling to continue pursuing the ideals. They drag everyone, including themselves, down.
IT's the people who can't admit to not knowing that bother people who want accuracy.
You do not accept what you find behind the curtain. it's Professor Marvel, not the
Wizard. You do not accept that there is no Wizard. Sciece didn't put him there, science revealed him. That is what you don't understand.
People can't know what God did or did not do. There is no evidence.
When people break down into insults and other negativity, I can't understand the need for this. Is it because they are frustrated with the limits of knowledge they perceive to be absolute, and they feel a need to take out their frustration on me for going in the direction of these limits?
I don't blame science for what I find behind the curtain. I blame the people who are unwilling to continue pursuing the ideals. They drag everyone, including themselves, down.
IT's the people who can't admit to not knowing that bother people who want accuracy.
You do not accept what you find behind the curtain. it's Professor Marvel, not the
Wizard. You do not accept that there is no Wizard. Sciece didn't put him there, science revealed him. That is what you don't understand.
People can't know what God did or did not do. There is no evidence.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 02:16 PM)
Yes, I did have to google "hubris." Surprisingly the newness of the word to me did not intensify the ego-insulting effect of it compared with other words I already know. Try to avoid insulting people, making people's ego's swell up in defense is a major impediment to them progressing scientifically.
It wasn't an insult, it was an observation.
Obviously you've never written a thesis or graduated college. If you had, you would appreciate the importance of scope. Give me one example of someone who has "left science" and was successful in overturning established scientific ideas. I'm pretty sure that the answer is 0. Your assumptions about scientific orthodoxy are completely false. There is no scientific orthodoxy outside of science education. Science education has a certain orthodoxy about it for a number of reasons. One, the textbook publishing process is notoriously resistant to change. Two, there has to be a system to prevent science teachers from teaching their opinions in place of science.
Obviously you've never written a thesis or graduated college. If you had, you would appreciate the importance of scope. Give me one example of someone who has "left science" and was successful in overturning established scientific ideas. I'm pretty sure that the answer is 0. Your assumptions about scientific orthodoxy are completely false. There is no scientific orthodoxy outside of science education. Science education has a certain orthodoxy about it for a number of reasons. One, the textbook publishing process is notoriously resistant to change. Two, there has to be a system to prevent science teachers from teaching their opinions in place of science.
I still love science, but it's because I haven't given up on the part of it that made it interesting when I was young. The big questions - not the hyper-specialized questions about the rotational dynamics of a neutrino in a positively charged basic solution under the influence of an oscillating magnetic field. I'm sure that such questions are fascinating to people within the frame of the subdiscipline in which their meanings become contextually significant - but if they aren't willing to reach out to people outside their sub-genre, how can they expect to influence the general knowledge of humanity?
This shows that you do not understand the scientific process. You think that non-specialized scientific professionals can discover 'answers' to the great 'questions.' They usually can't. Every single scientific breakthrough is the result of specialization. Of course, specialization is relative to the time that you live in. Leonardo da Vinci was a general scientist, but that had to do with the limited body of scientific knowledge at the time. As time goes on, scientists will become more specialized. If you want to learn more about science, we will be happy to help you understand, as long as you stop insulting it and stop assuming that you know better.
It wasn't an insult, it was an observation.
QUOTE
I believe the reason is that many people with a true scientific spirit have left science because of the overwhelming orthodoxy, specialism, and so forth that impedes them from finding in it what they sought. That is certainly the case for me. Every graduate student who obeys a faculty member who tells them to abandon the big interesting questions that led them to science in the first place and study a tiny sub-question of a sub-question, contributes to this. They do it because they are told it's the only way for them to continue to work in the field they love. They sacrifice their dreams to own the watered-down reality that no longer resembles anything they dreamed of in the first place.
Obviously you've never written a thesis or graduated college. If you had, you would appreciate the importance of scope. Give me one example of someone who has "left science" and was successful in overturning established scientific ideas. I'm pretty sure that the answer is 0. Your assumptions about scientific orthodoxy are completely false. There is no scientific orthodoxy outside of science education. Science education has a certain orthodoxy about it for a number of reasons. One, the textbook publishing process is notoriously resistant to change. Two, there has to be a system to prevent science teachers from teaching their opinions in place of science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I believe the reason is that many people with a true scientific spirit have left science because of the overwhelming orthodoxy, specialism, and so forth that impedes them from finding in it what they sought. That is certainly the case for me. Every graduate student who obeys a faculty member who tells them to abandon the big interesting questions that led them to science in the first place and study a tiny sub-question of a sub-question, contributes to this. They do it because they are told it's the only way for them to continue to work in the field they love. They sacrifice their dreams to own the watered-down reality that no longer resembles anything they dreamed of in the first place. |
Obviously you've never written a thesis or graduated college. If you had, you would appreciate the importance of scope. Give me one example of someone who has "left science" and was successful in overturning established scientific ideas. I'm pretty sure that the answer is 0. Your assumptions about scientific orthodoxy are completely false. There is no scientific orthodoxy outside of science education. Science education has a certain orthodoxy about it for a number of reasons. One, the textbook publishing process is notoriously resistant to change. Two, there has to be a system to prevent science teachers from teaching their opinions in place of science.
I still love science, but it's because I haven't given up on the part of it that made it interesting when I was young. The big questions - not the hyper-specialized questions about the rotational dynamics of a neutrino in a positively charged basic solution under the influence of an oscillating magnetic field. I'm sure that such questions are fascinating to people within the frame of the subdiscipline in which their meanings become contextually significant - but if they aren't willing to reach out to people outside their sub-genre, how can they expect to influence the general knowledge of humanity?
This shows that you do not understand the scientific process. You think that non-specialized scientific professionals can discover 'answers' to the great 'questions.' They usually can't. Every single scientific breakthrough is the result of specialization. Of course, specialization is relative to the time that you live in. Leonardo da Vinci was a general scientist, but that had to do with the limited body of scientific knowledge at the time. As time goes on, scientists will become more specialized. If you want to learn more about science, we will be happy to help you understand, as long as you stop insulting it and stop assuming that you know better.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 16 2009, 02:03 AM)
This shows that you do not understand the scientific process. You think that non-specialized scientific professionals can discover 'answers' to the great 'questions.' They usually can't. Every single scientific breakthrough is the result of specialization. Of course, specialization is relative to the time that you live in. Leonardo da Vinci was a general scientist, but that had to do with the limited body of scientific knowledge at the time. As time goes on, scientists will become more specialized. If you want to learn more about science, we will be happy to help you understand, as long as you stop insulting it and stop assuming that you know better.
You left out the reason why specializationn is neccesary now.
The body of work for any given specialization is getting bigger all the time.
All the easy stuff has been done already. You need to learn so much to get to the leading edge that you can't generalize anymore.
You left out the reason why specializationn is neccesary now.
The body of work for any given specialization is getting bigger all the time.
All the easy stuff has been done already. You need to learn so much to get to the leading edge that you can't generalize anymore.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 14 2009, 10:15 PM)
I am not interested in your assessment of my level of education or establishing who should have the burden of proof.
If you are not interested in establishing who has the burden of proof, then you are not interested in a reasoned debate. In that vein, you're an idiot and so nothing you say is worth the pixels it takes to display it.
You have already claimed that you are not interested in the things which would make for substantive discussion and arguments. You're just contradicting yourself now.
You have already claimed that you are not interested in the things which would make for substantive discussion and arguments. You're just contradicting yourself now.
If you don't have sufficient respect or interest in my point of view, why vocally discredit it?
I do have interest, I find idiots who think they know everything but get almost every claim they make wrong to be very very interesting. That's the whole reason I post here.
If you think that I am monopolizing any discussions, you're delusional.
If you think that I am monopolizing any discussions, you're delusional.
Majoritarian politics have no place in science.
"Majoritarian" is not a word. "Majority politics" is the phrase you're looking for, and while politics absolutely have no place in science, the majority view most certainly does, being that the majority view is informed by science.
That is both utterly wrong and demonstrative of a continued lack of understanding of scientific methodology.
That is both utterly wrong and demonstrative of a continued lack of understanding of scientific methodology.
Granted it is possible for one to choose one's research from a discursive point of view and then apply scientific rigor at the level of the actual research performed. However, bias in choice and approach to research does have the ability to slant the overall evolution of scientific knowledge. For example, if scholarly physicists all manage to convince each other that it is a taboo to select a research topic that contradicts Einstein, then all physics research, no matter how unbiased at the level of actual theorizing and experimentation, will be slanted away from exploring directions that would contradict Einstein.
You are assuming that physicists as a rule see some areas of research as taboo. That is untrue.
Before you mention anything about perpetual motion or free energy or any other pseudoscientific 'field', let me tell you that they are not areas of research, but hypothetical applications of research in particle and cosmological physics.
No.
No.
If you dare to have a discussion that explores relevant evidence and examples, please do so.
You have already indicated a disinclination to provide evidence which supports your position. It is thus impossible to discuss all relevant evidence and examples with you.
If you cannot accept the burden of proof, then it is you who should not bother, because no-one will take you seriously.
If you cannot accept the burden of proof, then it is you who should not bother, because no-one will take you seriously.
I am not trying to prove anything.
You have made many erroneous claims. If you are not going to attempt to prove them, then we can all rightfully write you off as a raving lunatic.
Your faith is misplaced and useless. If you want to discuss science, then faith has no part.
Your faith is misplaced and useless. If you want to discuss science, then faith has no part.
Arguing over whether to engage in it based on the relative popularity of ideas only stifles the possibility of moving further.
You are still ignoring the fact that there are very good reasons why certain ideas are popular among scientists. Those reasons consist of the evidence supporting those ideas and the predictive power those ideas have.
The conclusions science draws are not inevitably arrived at by people who reject scientific methodology, which you are explicitly doing. They are not even likely to be arrived at. To arrive at those conclusions, you must embrace skepticism and reject credulity. You must abandon all pre-conceived notions and be open to accepting whatever the evidence implies.
If you are not interested in establishing who has the burden of proof, then you are not interested in a reasoned debate. In that vein, you're an idiot and so nothing you say is worth the pixels it takes to display it.
QUOTE
I am interested purely in substantive discussion and arguments.
You have already claimed that you are not interested in the things which would make for substantive discussion and arguments. You're just contradicting yourself now.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am interested purely in substantive discussion and arguments. |
You have already claimed that you are not interested in the things which would make for substantive discussion and arguments. You're just contradicting yourself now.
If you don't have sufficient respect or interest in my point of view, why vocally discredit it?
I do have interest, I find idiots who think they know everything but get almost every claim they make wrong to be very very interesting. That's the whole reason I post here.
QUOTE
Are you scared that if you don't monopolize scientific discussions that the world will fall to creationism?
If you think that I am monopolizing any discussions, you're delusional.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you scared that if you don't monopolize scientific discussions that the world will fall to creationism? |
If you think that I am monopolizing any discussions, you're delusional.
Majoritarian politics have no place in science.
"Majoritarian" is not a word. "Majority politics" is the phrase you're looking for, and while politics absolutely have no place in science, the majority view most certainly does, being that the majority view is informed by science.
QUOTE
The very fact that you cite "the majority" of scientists as validation for shifting the burden of proof or having an indication of which theories and ideas are closer to truth is evidence that you are socially biased.
That is both utterly wrong and demonstrative of a continued lack of understanding of scientific methodology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The very fact that you cite "the majority" of scientists as validation for shifting the burden of proof or having an indication of which theories and ideas are closer to truth is evidence that you are socially biased. |
That is both utterly wrong and demonstrative of a continued lack of understanding of scientific methodology.
Granted it is possible for one to choose one's research from a discursive point of view and then apply scientific rigor at the level of the actual research performed. However, bias in choice and approach to research does have the ability to slant the overall evolution of scientific knowledge. For example, if scholarly physicists all manage to convince each other that it is a taboo to select a research topic that contradicts Einstein, then all physics research, no matter how unbiased at the level of actual theorizing and experimentation, will be slanted away from exploring directions that would contradict Einstein.
You are assuming that physicists as a rule see some areas of research as taboo. That is untrue.
Before you mention anything about perpetual motion or free energy or any other pseudoscientific 'field', let me tell you that they are not areas of research, but hypothetical applications of research in particle and cosmological physics.
QUOTE
Isn't this basically what Kuhn talks about with paradigms?
No.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Isn't this basically what Kuhn talks about with paradigms? |
No.
If you dare to have a discussion that explores relevant evidence and examples, please do so.
You have already indicated a disinclination to provide evidence which supports your position. It is thus impossible to discuss all relevant evidence and examples with you.
QUOTE
If you only want to argue about what who "holds to be true" and why the "burden of proof" should fall on one set of shoulders or another, please don't bother.
If you cannot accept the burden of proof, then it is you who should not bother, because no-one will take you seriously.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you only want to argue about what who "holds to be true" and why the "burden of proof" should fall on one set of shoulders or another, please don't bother. |
If you cannot accept the burden of proof, then it is you who should not bother, because no-one will take you seriously.
I am not trying to prove anything.
You have made many erroneous claims. If you are not going to attempt to prove them, then we can all rightfully write you off as a raving lunatic.
QUOTE
I am just exploring ideas and knowledge and posting my insights for others to learn from, discuss, and help progress further. My faith is that this process can generate truth.
Your faith is misplaced and useless. If you want to discuss science, then faith has no part.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am just exploring ideas and knowledge and posting my insights for others to learn from, discuss, and help progress further. My faith is that this process can generate truth. |
Your faith is misplaced and useless. If you want to discuss science, then faith has no part.
Arguing over whether to engage in it based on the relative popularity of ideas only stifles the possibility of moving further.
You are still ignoring the fact that there are very good reasons why certain ideas are popular among scientists. Those reasons consist of the evidence supporting those ideas and the predictive power those ideas have.
QUOTE
If you consider it so important that I arrive at the truth you seem to be so privileged to have learned from "the majority," then don't derail me on the way to conclusions that you believe, in the long run, to be inevitable anyway.
The conclusions science draws are not inevitably arrived at by people who reject scientific methodology, which you are explicitly doing. They are not even likely to be arrived at. To arrive at those conclusions, you must embrace skepticism and reject credulity. You must abandon all pre-conceived notions and be open to accepting whatever the evidence implies.
I think it's funny of the people who always say that they don't need or want any proof always ask someone else to do what they fear to do themselves.
"I am not claiming anything other than you're being an idiot. I said so and all my narrow minded friends agree with me and my short, crude, vulgar, and unbecoming behavior. That makes us right, and you wrong. That means you have to prove something to us, like the world is round not flat, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that a man can sketch a perfect circle freehand, and that NASA should remove all refferences to "godspeed" from history. You say you believe in god, prove it ... - I don't have to, being god is not my job. all I have to do is be me, and try to respect other people for who they are- That's just stupid, I don't believe in "god" because there is no proof ... - Oh really, prove it - I don't have to ... you have to prove I am wrong ... "
In the words of the great and most powerful and immortal of all gods .....
Fozzy Bear
"Waka Waka"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxZg1EKFMxI
"I am not claiming anything other than you're being an idiot. I said so and all my narrow minded friends agree with me and my short, crude, vulgar, and unbecoming behavior. That makes us right, and you wrong. That means you have to prove something to us, like the world is round not flat, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that a man can sketch a perfect circle freehand, and that NASA should remove all refferences to "godspeed" from history. You say you believe in god, prove it ... - I don't have to, being god is not my job. all I have to do is be me, and try to respect other people for who they are- That's just stupid, I don't believe in "god" because there is no proof ... - Oh really, prove it - I don't have to ... you have to prove I am wrong ... "
In the words of the great and most powerful and immortal of all gods .....
Fozzy Bear
"Waka Waka"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxZg1EKFMxI
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 19 2009, 11:13 PM)
"I am not claiming anything other than you're being an idiot. I said so and all my narrow minded friends agree with me and my short, crude, vulgar, and unbecoming behavior. That makes us right, and you wrong. That means you have to prove something to us, like the world is round not flat, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that a man can sketch a perfect circle freehand, and that NASA should remove all refferences to "godspeed" from history. You say you believe in god, prove it ... - I don't have to, being god is not my job. all I have to do is be me, and try to respect other people for who they are- That's just stupid, I don't believe in "god" because there is no proof ... - Oh really, prove it - I don't have to ... you have to prove I am wrong ... "
Wow, I feel dumber after reading that paragraph. What are you trying to say? Please don't phrase your answer as an argument between two imaginary people.
Wow, I feel dumber after reading that paragraph. What are you trying to say? Please don't phrase your answer as an argument between two imaginary people.
"To speak with an equal, an Irishman is forced to converse with the almighty."
I imagined what I said was pretty easy to understand. Retards are easy to understand, remember?
I imagined what I said was pretty easy to understand. Retards are easy to understand, remember?
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 19 2009, 11:30 PM)
I imagined what I said was pretty easy to understand. Retards are easy to understand, remember?
Your post reminded me of a schizophrenic having a conversation with himself.
Your post reminded me of a schizophrenic having a conversation with himself.
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 12:17 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gHH0ih867U
You spend way too much time watching youtube and not nearly enough time thinking about what you're trying to say before you start posting.
You spend way too much time watching youtube and not nearly enough time thinking about what you're trying to say before you start posting.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 20 2009, 03:33 PM)
You spend way too much time watching youtube and not nearly enough time thinking about what you're trying to say before you start posting.
He should be out learning the fine art of skirt chasing.
He should be out learning the fine art of skirt chasing.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 20 2009, 11:16 AM)
He should be out learning the fine art of skirt chasing.
This is true. I would imagine there aren't many single young guys on this forum who aren't physicists or in school for physics.
It kinda says something about him, doesn't it?
This is true. I would imagine there aren't many single young guys on this forum who aren't physicists or in school for physics.
It kinda says something about him, doesn't it?
Hey, I heard you're the one with "the" hammer in your pants. I'm not looking to be the nail on the head ... are you offering?
Here's a tip about that fine art you don't seem to understand, you don't chase it, and it will chase you.
QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 03:46 PM)
Here's a tip about that fine art you don't seem to understand, you don't chase it, and it will chase you.
I bet you couldn't get laid if you were a rug in a room with concrete floors.
I bet you couldn't get laid if you were a rug in a room with concrete floors.
I'm not really one to brag about sexual conquest, but I was quite the "dog" in my day. I'm older and wiser now, and the trick is figuring out now how to drive one woman wild over and over again. You still make, what I think the error is of getting laid means. I don't get laid, I do the laying, capice? Car, truck, balcony, bedroom, kitchen counter, floor, wall, back porch, a rock cliff. Going camping for labor day ... hope to find a waterfall near by.
But like I said, finding a new woman isn't anything special. Finding a way to drive the same woman absolutely nuts, that's a gift ... "young padawan."
But like I said, finding a new woman isn't anything special. Finding a way to drive the same woman absolutely nuts, that's a gift ... "young padawan."
hmm who's the 13 year old guy then?
Who did I mix Meem up with?
Who did I mix Meem up with?
Everyone, is 13 once. Some people forget it, other's don't. I can remember advice I got when I was 13 now when I am 32. The piece that stands out the most, it's not all about me, or "you."
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 20 2009, 04:06 PM)
hmm who's the 13 year old guy then?
Who did I mix Meem up with?
martillo?
Who did I mix Meem up with?
martillo?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 13 2009, 08:37 PM)
POSTED BY FLYINGBUTTRESSMAN ON ANOTHER THREAD
Tell me, where in the Bible does it say that it is bad to commit genocide? Joshua didn't seem to have any problem committing genocide. In fact, from the description that has to be one of the worst examples of genocide in history. The Israelites invaded Canaan and killed everyone they could find; men, women and children. God punished them when the DIDN'T kill every single human being. The one city that saved itself by tricking Joshua into an alliance ended up being treated as 2nd class citizens. Tell me that's not horrible. Don't forget, God told them to do it. (posted by flyingbuttressman on another thread)
MY RESPONSE:
The book of Exodus begins with the story of Moses becoming angry with the Egyptians as enslavers of the Jews. He waits until he thinks no one is looking and kills an Egyptian. Later he sees two Jews fighting and doesn't know who to kill. Then he finds out that someone saw him kill the Egyptian. Later he leads the Jews out of Egypt into the desert. All the suffering brought on the Egyptians comes from natural disasters and plagues, supposedly caused by God. Later Moses also writes down the commandment not to kill.
That's not what the text says regarding Moses killing the Egyptian.
The egyptian was beating an innocent man and Moses WRONGFULLY took matters into his own hands and killed the egyptian.
Later, when he saw the two Israelites fighting, he tried to break up the fight, and THEY asked him something like, "Who made you a judge over us, will you kill us like the egyptian?"
The commandment says "thou shalt not murder" in the original Hebrew. "kill" and "murder" are two very distinct words.
The commandment says "thou shalt not murder" in the original Hebrew. "kill" and "murder" are two very distinct words.
I think this is also why the Egyptians are told to have suffered at the hands of God and not through violence of Jewish retaliation. If there are other parts of the bible that prescribe killing, this seems hypocritical to me - but they might have been added through the years (by trolls?) or they might be symbolic stories making a point using killing as a metaphor even though they are not really meant to prescribe killing.
The commandments in Exodus and Leviticus prescribe death as the penalty for certain heresies, blasphemies, and certain sexual sins.
Death penalty is not the same thing as murder. Until you can make that distinction with some sort of integrity, you will never understand the Old Testament of the Bible.
Death penalty is the lawful, God-ordained function of ending the life of a severe offender to prevent them from hurting others.
Murder is the taking of the life of an innocent victim.
Get a hebrew concordance and look up the word "Kill". You will find there are many, many hebrew words that all get translated as "kill", yet they actually have very distinct, specific definitions and usages.
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has never applied to the Death Penalty and other matters of law enforcement, or military campaigns, and it was never interpreted that way in either the Old Testament nor the New Testament. As internal evidence found in the Bible, I cite Paul, the premier expert on the Old Testament.
(speaking of Godly rulers)
Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The notion of an "all accepting, all benevolent God" has never been taught in Judaism or Christianity, and definitely cannot be found in the Bible; John 3:16 is qualified, after all, by belief and consequently obedience. Jesus said that he did not come to condemn the world because the world was condemned already. That is, Jesus isn't sending anyone to hell. They send themselves to hell.
In the matters of Genocide, one must understand that God is all-knowing. He knows absolutely that the individuals who were slain in these acts of judgment were absolutely guilty of these crimes. While skeptics may doubt the validity and the historicity of the documents, the fact remains that an all knowing God knows absolutely every act of evil each and every one of us has committed(unless has already been forgiven by him, as he willfully chooses to forget it under those conditions.)
In other words, when God orderer Joshua, and later Saul, to kill certain races, we must understand that absolutely every indivual, of whatever age, race, or sex, was in fact guilty of death for one reason or another, and that moreover, they were unredeemably corrupted within the confines fo free will.
Moreover, the judgment of God goes beyond simply punishment that we "deserve" for sin. Everyone "deserves" death. If there were any judgment and justice, we would all be put to death, because each and every one of us has sinned against God, and most countless times.
Genesis 6:5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I'm sure all math majors know what the word "continually" means. In that there is in fact never a moment where we aren't doing something that displeases God in some way, because we are so corrupt that we lie, cheat, lust, steal, hate, etc, etc, something of that sort from moment to moment. If one examines themself honestly for any lenght of time, they will discover this to be irrefutable truth.
If "justice" were done, every person alive would be destroyed right now.
Later, we see this following passage when God is about to pour out a similar judgment upon many in the house of Israel. Though not all of such events are recorded, we do have internal evidence in the Bible that God always gives more than ample warning to any individual or civilization before such judgment is carried out. I.E. See the story of Rahab, where it is stated by RAHAB that the people of Jericho knew God was going to destroy them and deliver them into the hands of Israel....most still refused to repent...
Ezekiel 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
But indeed there comes a time when a rabid dog must be put down, lest the disease spread and infect others. Such was the case at Sodom, where not only was homosexuality rampant, but the civilization had degenerated to the point that the MAJORITY of people were homosexuals, and they had even developed a culture of gang raping "male" visitors. Yet God told Abraham that if he found so much as ten righteous people in the city he would spare it(note that God already knew there weren't ten righteous in the city). When the angels arrive, they find only one person who is even trying to live for God, and even he screws up more often than not, and this is Lot. Yet the Bible says that as bad off as Lot was, he vexed his soul for the sake of Sodom, i.e. praying to God on thier behalf and trying to talk sense to them.
Thus God did not destroy ANY "innocents" at Sodom and Gomorah, or anywhere else for that matter. Every person who died was guilty of death, and had decades of warning from man who later appears in Paul's "Hall of faith". passage in the epistle of Hebrews. So then they are without excuse.
It is no different than the final judgments of Hell and the Lake of fire. It is the judgment of God and he is absolutely just.
Group A is doing everything wrong and further attempting to pervert all other groups.
Group B is doing some things wrong, but is at least trying to obey God.
In order to prevent Group A from perverting the entire human race, God ended them.
Who are you to tell God that he was somehow unjust in doing this?
It is no different than the final judgments of Hell and the Lake of fire. It is the judgment of God and he is absolutely just.
Group A is doing everything wrong and further attempting to pervert all other groups.
Group B is doing some things wrong, but is at least trying to obey God.
In order to prevent Group A from perverting the entire human race, God ended them.
Who are you to tell God that he was somehow unjust in doing this?
By the way, why did god save Lot if he was willing to offer his own daughters to be raped in place of total strangers?
I don't know all the reasons, but:
1)if the women went willingly it wouldn't be rape.
2) In certain situations extra-marital sex between a man and woman was not a captial offense, assuming the man and woman agreed to be married.
3) Lot's motivation may have been sort of like the priest at the beginning of the movie "Les Miserables". Which is, "If I give you this willingly, then you didn't steal it." It was an imperfect attempt to convince people not to commit a greater crime.
Actually, the fact that the sordid details of Lot's own family experience aren't glossed over strongly supports the validity of the text. After all, the text lays open for all to see the fact that Lot did in fact offer his daughters to appease the homosexuals, who denied and would prefer to rape the angels than to lay with two women. Well, as stated, the text doesn't hide this fact from the reader, nor does the text hide Lot's incest with his daughters(though this was more their fault than his, since they had sex with him while he was intoxicated and didn't know.)
Anyway, the point is, most biographical documents wouldn't give this sort of inside information about a person if they were in any way trying to build up that person.
The fact that the Bible lays open plainly the failures of Abraham and Sarah, how he lied about his relationship to her in order to protect his own skin, the fact She gave up on God and asked her husband to marry another woman so they could have a child, none of this is hidden from the reader. Nor are Lot, Isaac, or Jacob's similar failures hidden. If this was a biography about a European king, or an american president, most of these sorts of things would have been left out, particularly by anyone who was biased in his favor.
Therefore, the fact that the Bible shows us all of these people's most sordid sins and failures strongly supports the position of it NOT being biased or falsified in anyone's favor.
Tell me, where in the Bible does it say that it is bad to commit genocide? Joshua didn't seem to have any problem committing genocide. In fact, from the description that has to be one of the worst examples of genocide in history. The Israelites invaded Canaan and killed everyone they could find; men, women and children. God punished them when the DIDN'T kill every single human being. The one city that saved itself by tricking Joshua into an alliance ended up being treated as 2nd class citizens. Tell me that's not horrible. Don't forget, God told them to do it. (posted by flyingbuttressman on another thread)
MY RESPONSE:
The book of Exodus begins with the story of Moses becoming angry with the Egyptians as enslavers of the Jews. He waits until he thinks no one is looking and kills an Egyptian. Later he sees two Jews fighting and doesn't know who to kill. Then he finds out that someone saw him kill the Egyptian. Later he leads the Jews out of Egypt into the desert. All the suffering brought on the Egyptians comes from natural disasters and plagues, supposedly caused by God. Later Moses also writes down the commandment not to kill.
That's not what the text says regarding Moses killing the Egyptian.
The egyptian was beating an innocent man and Moses WRONGFULLY took matters into his own hands and killed the egyptian.
Later, when he saw the two Israelites fighting, he tried to break up the fight, and THEY asked him something like, "Who made you a judge over us, will you kill us like the egyptian?"
QUOTE
My interpretation of these parts of the story is that Moses found it easy to kill someone he saw as ethnically different from himself, but he realized that it was wrong when he had to take revenge on someone who shared his ethnicity. I think this is related to the general commandment not to kill, because even though it's easy(er) to want to destroy people who are racist against you or otherwise viewed as racially different from you, it is the same as killing "your own people."
The commandment says "thou shalt not murder" in the original Hebrew. "kill" and "murder" are two very distinct words.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My interpretation of these parts of the story is that Moses found it easy to kill someone he saw as ethnically different from himself, but he realized that it was wrong when he had to take revenge on someone who shared his ethnicity. I think this is related to the general commandment not to kill, because even though it's easy(er) to want to destroy people who are racist against you or otherwise viewed as racially different from you, it is the same as killing "your own people." |
The commandment says "thou shalt not murder" in the original Hebrew. "kill" and "murder" are two very distinct words.
I think this is also why the Egyptians are told to have suffered at the hands of God and not through violence of Jewish retaliation. If there are other parts of the bible that prescribe killing, this seems hypocritical to me - but they might have been added through the years (by trolls?) or they might be symbolic stories making a point using killing as a metaphor even though they are not really meant to prescribe killing.
The commandments in Exodus and Leviticus prescribe death as the penalty for certain heresies, blasphemies, and certain sexual sins.
Death penalty is not the same thing as murder. Until you can make that distinction with some sort of integrity, you will never understand the Old Testament of the Bible.
Death penalty is the lawful, God-ordained function of ending the life of a severe offender to prevent them from hurting others.
Murder is the taking of the life of an innocent victim.
QUOTE
In short, I don't believe that the commandment not to kill has exceptions. Killing is always a sin, even though Christians would also have to admit that it is a forgivable sin the same as any other if and when people confess it to God and seek redemption. As long as people deny the sinfulness of an act of killing, they cannot find forgiveness and deliverance from the shame that keeps them in denial. This makes sense to me but please don't insult or ridicule me for saying so and explaining it.
Get a hebrew concordance and look up the word "Kill". You will find there are many, many hebrew words that all get translated as "kill", yet they actually have very distinct, specific definitions and usages.
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has never applied to the Death Penalty and other matters of law enforcement, or military campaigns, and it was never interpreted that way in either the Old Testament nor the New Testament. As internal evidence found in the Bible, I cite Paul, the premier expert on the Old Testament.
(speaking of Godly rulers)
Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The notion of an "all accepting, all benevolent God" has never been taught in Judaism or Christianity, and definitely cannot be found in the Bible; John 3:16 is qualified, after all, by belief and consequently obedience. Jesus said that he did not come to condemn the world because the world was condemned already. That is, Jesus isn't sending anyone to hell. They send themselves to hell.
In the matters of Genocide, one must understand that God is all-knowing. He knows absolutely that the individuals who were slain in these acts of judgment were absolutely guilty of these crimes. While skeptics may doubt the validity and the historicity of the documents, the fact remains that an all knowing God knows absolutely every act of evil each and every one of us has committed(unless has already been forgiven by him, as he willfully chooses to forget it under those conditions.)
In other words, when God orderer Joshua, and later Saul, to kill certain races, we must understand that absolutely every indivual, of whatever age, race, or sex, was in fact guilty of death for one reason or another, and that moreover, they were unredeemably corrupted within the confines fo free will.
Moreover, the judgment of God goes beyond simply punishment that we "deserve" for sin. Everyone "deserves" death. If there were any judgment and justice, we would all be put to death, because each and every one of us has sinned against God, and most countless times.
Genesis 6:5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
I'm sure all math majors know what the word "continually" means. In that there is in fact never a moment where we aren't doing something that displeases God in some way, because we are so corrupt that we lie, cheat, lust, steal, hate, etc, etc, something of that sort from moment to moment. If one examines themself honestly for any lenght of time, they will discover this to be irrefutable truth.
If "justice" were done, every person alive would be destroyed right now.
Later, we see this following passage when God is about to pour out a similar judgment upon many in the house of Israel. Though not all of such events are recorded, we do have internal evidence in the Bible that God always gives more than ample warning to any individual or civilization before such judgment is carried out. I.E. See the story of Rahab, where it is stated by RAHAB that the people of Jericho knew God was going to destroy them and deliver them into the hands of Israel....most still refused to repent...
Ezekiel 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
But indeed there comes a time when a rabid dog must be put down, lest the disease spread and infect others. Such was the case at Sodom, where not only was homosexuality rampant, but the civilization had degenerated to the point that the MAJORITY of people were homosexuals, and they had even developed a culture of gang raping "male" visitors. Yet God told Abraham that if he found so much as ten righteous people in the city he would spare it(note that God already knew there weren't ten righteous in the city). When the angels arrive, they find only one person who is even trying to live for God, and even he screws up more often than not, and this is Lot. Yet the Bible says that as bad off as Lot was, he vexed his soul for the sake of Sodom, i.e. praying to God on thier behalf and trying to talk sense to them.
Thus God did not destroy ANY "innocents" at Sodom and Gomorah, or anywhere else for that matter. Every person who died was guilty of death, and had decades of warning from man who later appears in Paul's "Hall of faith". passage in the epistle of Hebrews. So then they are without excuse.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 22 2009, 08:39 PM)
In the matters of Genocide, one must understand that God is all-knowing. He knows absolutely that the individuals who were slain in these acts of judgment were absolutely guilty of these crimes. While skeptics may doubt the validity and the historicity of the documents, the fact remains that an all knowing God knows absolutely every act of evil each and every one of us has committed(unless has already been forgiven by him, as he willfully chooses to forget it under those conditions.)
In other words, when God orderer Joshua, and later Saul, to kill certain races, we must understand that absolutely every indivual, of whatever age, race, or sex, was in fact guilty of death for one reason or another, and that moreover, they were unredeemably corrupted within the confines fo free will.
Moreover, the judgment of God goes beyond simply punishment that we "deserve" for sin. Everyone "deserves" death. If there were any judgment and justice, we would all be put to death, because each and every one of us has sinned against God, and most countless times.
I see, so you advocate mass murder then? Tell me, how can babies deserve death? Are you that inhuman? Has your faith blinded you to the point where you can accept genocide as acceptable? F*ck you buddy.
(edit)
By the way, why did god save Lot if he was willing to offer his own daughters to be raped in place of total strangers? Given that Lot and his family were the only witnesses to that event, I find the account to be a bit... unreliable. Actually, seems like an outright lie to me. A whole town of gay rapists? Yeah, right.
In other words, when God orderer Joshua, and later Saul, to kill certain races, we must understand that absolutely every indivual, of whatever age, race, or sex, was in fact guilty of death for one reason or another, and that moreover, they were unredeemably corrupted within the confines fo free will.
Moreover, the judgment of God goes beyond simply punishment that we "deserve" for sin. Everyone "deserves" death. If there were any judgment and justice, we would all be put to death, because each and every one of us has sinned against God, and most countless times.
I see, so you advocate mass murder then? Tell me, how can babies deserve death? Are you that inhuman? Has your faith blinded you to the point where you can accept genocide as acceptable? F*ck you buddy.
(edit)
By the way, why did god save Lot if he was willing to offer his own daughters to be raped in place of total strangers? Given that Lot and his family were the only witnesses to that event, I find the account to be a bit... unreliable. Actually, seems like an outright lie to me. A whole town of gay rapists? Yeah, right.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 22 2009, 08:01 PM)
I see, so you advocate mass murder then? Tell me, how can babies deserve death? Are you that inhuman? Has your faith blinded you to the point where you can accept genocide as acceptable? F*ck you buddy.
(edit)
By the way, why did god save Lot if he was willing to offer his own daughters to be raped in place of total strangers? Given that Lot and his family were the only witnesses to that event, I find the account to be a bit... unreliable. Actually, seems like an outright lie to me. A whole town of gay rapists? Yeah, right.
What? A whole town of evil people who all agree to the same evil principles somehow surprises you?
Ever heard of Nazis who were the majority party in an entire nation, and butchered people by the millions for no reason?
The difference being Nazis commited genocide because of racism and the theory of evolution. The Jews commited Genocide because they were ordered to by an all-knowing, perfectly just God because of the sins of the people: human sacrifice, idolatry, murder, rape, cohabitation, homosexuality, etc.
But what about "gay day" even right here in the U.S., where all the homosexuals and lesbians like to get together and parade around naked? Couldn't possibly be a whole town of people who are like-minded sinners...
Let us not forget modern "Sin Cities," such as Las Vegas, where the entire economy is based on prostitution and greed.
...but there coudln't possibly be a whole city of sinners, you say.
See, it is you who deny historical facts both in ancient times and modern times.
People are evil by any reasonable, rational definition. This is why we have a police department in every town and city in the nation: to protect people from one another, because people are evil.
It isn't one or two "bad apples". As evidence, look at the number of people in U.S. prisons and the number on various forms of parole and public service. Now think of all the people who have done "something" that carries a jail time or prison sentence, but simply weren't caught, and all the people who have been released ahead of time because there isn't enough prison space for them all.
What is your explaination for this? Most consent that the law is good, yet we all break it anyway.
Any rational person would admit that the fundamental condition of human beings is one of total depravity.
But name one of the ten commandments that you have honestly never broken.
The only one that I have never physically broken is "thou shalt not kill(murder)" and even that one, I must confess, has been broken in the form of anger and hatred.
But Paul even went as far as to say that breaking any of the commandments is the same as breaking them all. Whether you steal, lie, or kill, you've still broken the same law of God either way.
You can look at them and admit they are all good rules, and yet how many people actually keep them? Ask yourself this, even the ones that, as an atheist or agnostic, you would admit you agree with, well, how many of those do you break every month? Every week? Every day?
The genocides in the Old Testament are the divine sentence of God against un-repentant sin. Later, when Israel fell into many of the same sins, in some cases some groups were even worse than the pagan nations(see ezekiel 16 and 17,) God did not have "respect of persons". In a vision, he showed the prophet the divine judgment against Israel, telling the angel to go mark every person who cried and sighed because of the wickedness of their neighbours, and those people would be spared. By the time God is finished describing the judgment, the angel has already finished his task, because there is almost nobody alive to mark as redeemable. One angel is sent to mark those who repented and would be spared, six are sent to kill those who would not be spared.
This is why the Bible is hated by people, because it lays open the un-apologetic truth of what humanity is and doesn't gloss it over.
(edit)
By the way, why did god save Lot if he was willing to offer his own daughters to be raped in place of total strangers? Given that Lot and his family were the only witnesses to that event, I find the account to be a bit... unreliable. Actually, seems like an outright lie to me. A whole town of gay rapists? Yeah, right.
What? A whole town of evil people who all agree to the same evil principles somehow surprises you?
Ever heard of Nazis who were the majority party in an entire nation, and butchered people by the millions for no reason?
The difference being Nazis commited genocide because of racism and the theory of evolution. The Jews commited Genocide because they were ordered to by an all-knowing, perfectly just God because of the sins of the people: human sacrifice, idolatry, murder, rape, cohabitation, homosexuality, etc.
But what about "gay day" even right here in the U.S., where all the homosexuals and lesbians like to get together and parade around naked? Couldn't possibly be a whole town of people who are like-minded sinners...
Let us not forget modern "Sin Cities," such as Las Vegas, where the entire economy is based on prostitution and greed.
...but there coudln't possibly be a whole city of sinners, you say.
See, it is you who deny historical facts both in ancient times and modern times.
People are evil by any reasonable, rational definition. This is why we have a police department in every town and city in the nation: to protect people from one another, because people are evil.
It isn't one or two "bad apples". As evidence, look at the number of people in U.S. prisons and the number on various forms of parole and public service. Now think of all the people who have done "something" that carries a jail time or prison sentence, but simply weren't caught, and all the people who have been released ahead of time because there isn't enough prison space for them all.
What is your explaination for this? Most consent that the law is good, yet we all break it anyway.
Any rational person would admit that the fundamental condition of human beings is one of total depravity.
But name one of the ten commandments that you have honestly never broken.
The only one that I have never physically broken is "thou shalt not kill(murder)" and even that one, I must confess, has been broken in the form of anger and hatred.
But Paul even went as far as to say that breaking any of the commandments is the same as breaking them all. Whether you steal, lie, or kill, you've still broken the same law of God either way.
You can look at them and admit they are all good rules, and yet how many people actually keep them? Ask yourself this, even the ones that, as an atheist or agnostic, you would admit you agree with, well, how many of those do you break every month? Every week? Every day?
The genocides in the Old Testament are the divine sentence of God against un-repentant sin. Later, when Israel fell into many of the same sins, in some cases some groups were even worse than the pagan nations(see ezekiel 16 and 17,) God did not have "respect of persons". In a vision, he showed the prophet the divine judgment against Israel, telling the angel to go mark every person who cried and sighed because of the wickedness of their neighbours, and those people would be spared. By the time God is finished describing the judgment, the angel has already finished his task, because there is almost nobody alive to mark as redeemable. One angel is sent to mark those who repented and would be spared, six are sent to kill those who would not be spared.
This is why the Bible is hated by people, because it lays open the un-apologetic truth of what humanity is and doesn't gloss it over.
QUOTE
I see, so you advocate mass murder then? Tell me, how can babies deserve death? Are you that inhuman? Has your faith blinded you to the point where you can accept genocide as acceptable? F*ck you buddy.
It is no different than the final judgments of Hell and the Lake of fire. It is the judgment of God and he is absolutely just.
Group A is doing everything wrong and further attempting to pervert all other groups.
Group B is doing some things wrong, but is at least trying to obey God.
In order to prevent Group A from perverting the entire human race, God ended them.
Who are you to tell God that he was somehow unjust in doing this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I see, so you advocate mass murder then? Tell me, how can babies deserve death? Are you that inhuman? Has your faith blinded you to the point where you can accept genocide as acceptable? F*ck you buddy. |
It is no different than the final judgments of Hell and the Lake of fire. It is the judgment of God and he is absolutely just.
Group A is doing everything wrong and further attempting to pervert all other groups.
Group B is doing some things wrong, but is at least trying to obey God.
In order to prevent Group A from perverting the entire human race, God ended them.
Who are you to tell God that he was somehow unjust in doing this?
By the way, why did god save Lot if he was willing to offer his own daughters to be raped in place of total strangers?
I don't know all the reasons, but:
1)if the women went willingly it wouldn't be rape.
2) In certain situations extra-marital sex between a man and woman was not a captial offense, assuming the man and woman agreed to be married.
3) Lot's motivation may have been sort of like the priest at the beginning of the movie "Les Miserables". Which is, "If I give you this willingly, then you didn't steal it." It was an imperfect attempt to convince people not to commit a greater crime.
QUOTE
Given that Lot and his family were the only witnesses to that event, I find the account to be a bit... unreliable. Actually, seems like an outright lie to me. A whole town of gay rapists? Yeah, right.
Actually, the fact that the sordid details of Lot's own family experience aren't glossed over strongly supports the validity of the text. After all, the text lays open for all to see the fact that Lot did in fact offer his daughters to appease the homosexuals, who denied and would prefer to rape the angels than to lay with two women. Well, as stated, the text doesn't hide this fact from the reader, nor does the text hide Lot's incest with his daughters(though this was more their fault than his, since they had sex with him while he was intoxicated and didn't know.)
Anyway, the point is, most biographical documents wouldn't give this sort of inside information about a person if they were in any way trying to build up that person.
The fact that the Bible lays open plainly the failures of Abraham and Sarah, how he lied about his relationship to her in order to protect his own skin, the fact She gave up on God and asked her husband to marry another woman so they could have a child, none of this is hidden from the reader. Nor are Lot, Isaac, or Jacob's similar failures hidden. If this was a biography about a European king, or an american president, most of these sorts of things would have been left out, particularly by anyone who was biased in his favor.
Therefore, the fact that the Bible shows us all of these people's most sordid sins and failures strongly supports the position of it NOT being biased or falsified in anyone's favor.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 11:04 AM)
Ever heard of Nazis who were the majority party in an entire nation, and butchered people by the millions for no reason?
The difference being Nazis commited genocide because of racism and the theory of evolution. The Jews commited Genocide because they were ordered to by an all-knowing, perfectly just God because of the sins of the people: human sacrifice, idolatry, murder, rape, cohabitation, homosexuality, etc.
You seem to forget that the Nazis where Christians.
- Steven Weinberg
One point before I get started. The Nazis did not commit genocide based on the theory of evolution. That is a complete fabrication and a willful misinterpretation of history. That idea started as propaganda started by willfully ignorant creationists.
- Steven Weinberg
One point before I get started. The Nazis did not commit genocide based on the theory of evolution. That is a complete fabrication and a willful misinterpretation of history. That idea started as propaganda started by willfully ignorant creationists.
What? A whole town of evil people who all agree to the same evil principles somehow surprises you?
Yes, because if you call a whole town of people evil, you are the bigot.
Since you've already brought the Nazis into this, let's make another comparison.
The Nazis determined that the entirety of several races and social groups were "evil" and needed to be exterminated. According to your model, could the Nazis have also be working on the will of god? Didn't think so. This is because you are a hypocrite, and you are blind enough to actually believe that a whole town can be evil.
I think it's just hilarious that you would judge Las Vegas to be an 'evil' city. Do you seriously think that everyone who lives there deserves to die? Again, F*ck You.
First off, you are completely wrong to say that "all" homosexuals (lesbians aren't homosexuals? weird.) participate. I personally don't think that these festivals are that great PR-wise. If they want to pursue acceptance, they probably shouldn't do things that make people scared of them. On the other hand, they have a constitutional right to have their 'celebrations' so I will leave them alone.
You, sir, need to reconsider some of your priorities. If god told you to kill someone, would you? If you believed in your heart that god wanted you to kill, would you?
The difference being Nazis commited genocide because of racism and the theory of evolution. The Jews commited Genocide because they were ordered to by an all-knowing, perfectly just God because of the sins of the people: human sacrifice, idolatry, murder, rape, cohabitation, homosexuality, etc.
You seem to forget that the Nazis where Christians.
QUOTE
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg
One point before I get started. The Nazis did not commit genocide based on the theory of evolution. That is a complete fabrication and a willful misinterpretation of history. That idea started as propaganda started by willfully ignorant creationists.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. |
- Steven Weinberg
One point before I get started. The Nazis did not commit genocide based on the theory of evolution. That is a complete fabrication and a willful misinterpretation of history. That idea started as propaganda started by willfully ignorant creationists.
What? A whole town of evil people who all agree to the same evil principles somehow surprises you?
Yes, because if you call a whole town of people evil, you are the bigot.
Since you've already brought the Nazis into this, let's make another comparison.
The Nazis determined that the entirety of several races and social groups were "evil" and needed to be exterminated. According to your model, could the Nazis have also be working on the will of god? Didn't think so. This is because you are a hypocrite, and you are blind enough to actually believe that a whole town can be evil.
I think it's just hilarious that you would judge Las Vegas to be an 'evil' city. Do you seriously think that everyone who lives there deserves to die? Again, F*ck You.
QUOTE
But what about "gay day" even right here in the U.S., where all the homosexuals and lesbians like to get together and parade around naked? Couldn't possibly be a whole town of people who are like-minded sinners...
First off, you are completely wrong to say that "all" homosexuals (lesbians aren't homosexuals? weird.) participate. I personally don't think that these festivals are that great PR-wise. If they want to pursue acceptance, they probably shouldn't do things that make people scared of them. On the other hand, they have a constitutional right to have their 'celebrations' so I will leave them alone.
You, sir, need to reconsider some of your priorities. If god told you to kill someone, would you? If you believed in your heart that god wanted you to kill, would you?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 23 2009, 11:25 AM)
Who are you to tell God that he was somehow unjust in doing this?
YOU are the one advocating the belief that this god exists. Therefore, you must agree with this god's decisions. Scary thought.
YOU are the one advocating the belief that this god exists. Therefore, you must agree with this god's decisions. Scary thought.
Actually, Quantum_Conundrum, has brought up something that I think strikes to the core of what I think is a vital question in religion.
GOOD question.
Here's an even better one as an attempt to answer that.
Can you worship someone or something if you do not agree with their moral values?
I often hear religious people say in essence that whatever God does is right because he is always right.
Facts.
1. It is impossible for humans to determine whether God(s) are right or wrong, since none of us are omniscient. This assumes that God(s) are omniscient but bear with me on this one.
2. It is impossible to determine which God(s) is real since we are not omniscient. There are thousands of God(s), pantheons, etc. To date, each and every believer is absolutely darn sure that his or her God is real and the other ones are not. Someone is bound to be a tad disappointed in the Hereafter if there is one.
3. Each one of us has a moral code that we adhere to... sometimes more so than other times, depending on the person. The origin of these values are irrelevant to the conclusion but that we have them. Everyone has values.
Ergo...
If you found out, with absolute proof, that God exists but that he does not correspond to the image you had of Him and had different values than you do, would you change your values and morals to match his?
More to the point....should you?
(Sorry for the bolded statements, I felt the point was important)
QUOTE
Who are you to tell God that he was somehow unjust in doing this?
GOOD question.
Here's an even better one as an attempt to answer that.
Can you worship someone or something if you do not agree with their moral values?
I often hear religious people say in essence that whatever God does is right because he is always right.
Facts.
1. It is impossible for humans to determine whether God(s) are right or wrong, since none of us are omniscient. This assumes that God(s) are omniscient but bear with me on this one.
2. It is impossible to determine which God(s) is real since we are not omniscient. There are thousands of God(s), pantheons, etc. To date, each and every believer is absolutely darn sure that his or her God is real and the other ones are not. Someone is bound to be a tad disappointed in the Hereafter if there is one.
3. Each one of us has a moral code that we adhere to... sometimes more so than other times, depending on the person. The origin of these values are irrelevant to the conclusion but that we have them. Everyone has values.
Ergo...
If you found out, with absolute proof, that God exists but that he does not correspond to the image you had of Him and had different values than you do, would you change your values and morals to match his?
More to the point....should you?
(Sorry for the bolded statements, I felt the point was important)
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 23 2009, 04:23 PM)
3. Each one of us has a moral code that we adhere to... sometimes more so than other times, depending on the person. The origin of these values are irrelevant to the conclusion but that we have them. Everyone has values.
The priests of yonder are the social scientists of today. Theology and Science need not be seen as two different entities. Mainstream faiths has seen the need to educate their priests/preachers in social sciences. True truth seekers follows methods that are inherently scientific. It is their moral duty to do so. Science is the God given tool for truth search.
We are told by Theists that God wrote two books. 1) The scriptures 2) Nature. Wheres the former can and has been corrupted, the later is as pure as ever. The scientist is burdened with the task of revealing the truth of nature to the masses. Social scientists are charged with the immediate task of keeping as together and focused to that end. Their calling precedes 'religion' as we know it today.
The priests of yonder are the social scientists of today. Theology and Science need not be seen as two different entities. Mainstream faiths has seen the need to educate their priests/preachers in social sciences. True truth seekers follows methods that are inherently scientific. It is their moral duty to do so. Science is the God given tool for truth search.
We are told by Theists that God wrote two books. 1) The scriptures 2) Nature. Wheres the former can and has been corrupted, the later is as pure as ever. The scientist is burdened with the task of revealing the truth of nature to the masses. Social scientists are charged with the immediate task of keeping as together and focused to that end. Their calling precedes 'religion' as we know it today.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.