12 Jul 2015, 9:20 am
Lukecash12 wrote:
Here's a sampling of common misunderstandings and an academic perspective on them:
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.
There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?
I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon.
At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist. Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, zayin, het, tet, yod, kaf/qof, lamed, etc.) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.
On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.
As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Jarrod begat, Hasharad begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating like "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological, but rather is used as a historical pedigree.
Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit. This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.
And now we finish with some discussion of a global flood. I think I only need to raise two points to debunk this entirely: erets, which has been popularly translated as "the whole earth" in the story of Noah, actually means "mud/dirt" in it's most literal sense and has been translated according to context all throughout the bible as "mud", "field", "land", "province", "dominion", etc. It can signify anything from a single farm to an entire empire. So, as we can see now, there is no basic linguistic necessity for the flood being global. Is there proper context for such a translation? I should hardly think so, given that all of these newly endowed hominids turned into Mankind, were still in a pretty limited geographical region.
In fact, given a general sense of the rivers and landmasses named so far (although there are a few geographical names that still puzzle scholars here), it's obvious that Cain and Adam's respective tribes were still right around Mesopotamia. Given that, we've got two relatively small groups which have just started to domesticate animals and develop complex culture, living betwixt the Tigris and Euphrates, which are two rivers known to flood violently and on an unpredictable basis. Considering all of this, it would be awfully contrived to say that God flooded the whole earth when He could have accomplished the same goal by flooding a region smaller than a county.
When I think of all of this, I feel that at the very least these should be regarded as compelling accounts, as a beautiful literary accomplishment.
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.
There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?
I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon.
At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist. Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, zayin, het, tet, yod, kaf/qof, lamed, etc.) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.
On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.
As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Jarrod begat, Hasharad begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating like "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological, but rather is used as a historical pedigree.
Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit. This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.
And now we finish with some discussion of a global flood. I think I only need to raise two points to debunk this entirely: erets, which has been popularly translated as "the whole earth" in the story of Noah, actually means "mud/dirt" in it's most literal sense and has been translated according to context all throughout the bible as "mud", "field", "land", "province", "dominion", etc. It can signify anything from a single farm to an entire empire. So, as we can see now, there is no basic linguistic necessity for the flood being global. Is there proper context for such a translation? I should hardly think so, given that all of these newly endowed hominids turned into Mankind, were still in a pretty limited geographical region.
In fact, given a general sense of the rivers and landmasses named so far (although there are a few geographical names that still puzzle scholars here), it's obvious that Cain and Adam's respective tribes were still right around Mesopotamia. Given that, we've got two relatively small groups which have just started to domesticate animals and develop complex culture, living betwixt the Tigris and Euphrates, which are two rivers known to flood violently and on an unpredictable basis. Considering all of this, it would be awfully contrived to say that God flooded the whole earth when He could have accomplished the same goal by flooding a region smaller than a county.
When I think of all of this, I feel that at the very least these should be regarded as compelling accounts, as a beautiful literary accomplishment.
'This' is an interesting analysis; and I appreciate 'you' providing it here, as it extremely hard for literal thinking folks to appreciate the depth of metaphors in poetry. Truly the Hebrew Language is a language of existential intelligence where every letter in Alphabet, is a Universe of poetic meaning.
Poetry on this Internet site, overall, is assessed not much more meaningful than so-called 'human emotionalism'; where IN REALITY; human emotionalism is the prime ACTION mover of human being and all other mammals with 'human reasoning' as an empirical after thought of human being;
However; of course that is not to discount the value of the ability to use sign language to express the reality around human being for symbolic expression of what works yesterday works today; and of course the negative aspect of that as well.
But what most humans in western societies live today is a world mired in written abstract concepts; with worries of the past and worries over predictions of the future. MOST any clinical psychiatrist or psychologist will tell 'you' that human beings in the full load of managing work and home life rarely have time for introspection.
Tie on a full plate of electronic shallow entertainment caught up in someone else's Acting and Producing Play and human being is lost in a culture outside of what is human innate instinct and intuition within.
The subconscious mind is discounted as a vague place that has not much meaning; where truly it is a vast ocean of true meaning of what it is to be human in balance with Nature. True Creativity flows and is not rationally planned. The results are myriad in poetic meaning.
And as a person, spending literally thousands of hours reading and commenting on poetry in real time; as well as reading the eyes of other people who see poetry in their own unique views; each unique reflection of interpreting poetry reflects another Universe of eyes; whereas, each poet's writing reflects another Universe of eyes; where the two interpretations may intersect or may not intersect at all.
And this is the problem with a materialistic shallow thinking culture taking up the poetry of old in the bible, translated from a language with even the alphabet having an entirely different meaning, translated into several other languages with different syntax and semantics.
Even in the Greek Language, there is NO ONLY SON OF GOD FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT JESUS, later translated into the King James Bible and others works of text to make Jesus into an only SON OF GOD; instead, just another human like the rest of us, entering into what can generally can be described as 'cosmic consciousness', when unconscious mind 'sings a song of poetry', without the planning reasoning mind in assistance of THAT creative state of mind that all true artists experience.
In the Greek Language, there is only "A SON OF GOD"; who is humble enough to suggest that folks after him will do much greater works of human nature. And whether or not there are really any myths of miracles rising to the level of raising folks from the dead is entirely speculative; for a historical record that only provides at most around eighteen percent of what an original Jesus may have reflected in his creative state of mind.
One need look not far into Nature to get a clear understanding that the GOD of Nature is a GOD of merit and not anointed humans special alone. It is the trials and tribulations and the challenges met that make a human into a 'SUPER-man or woman'; not a cushy life; same as is the case for all other animals as well;
However, some folks become watered down with functional disability; and can no longer enter into the creative state of mind, if they ever could in the first place; in a life now served up with a cultural plate of complexity, spoon-fed almost from birth; sometimes with 'Barney the Purple Dinosaur' for metaphor, IN INPUT; raising the child, instead of a frigging flesh and blood village; including parents.
It is no wonder that so many people live in a poverty of imagination, creativity; along with a deficit in the kind of physical intelligence that allows for emotional regulation, sensory integration; and greater focus and short term working memory for best cognitive executive functioning.
The creative mind capable of great literary works of art like some of what is in the bible; or Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman in flow; and so many other examples of creative flow of art, in general; ranging from dance to song to poetry to painting will NOT FLOW AND NEVER TRULY CREATE unless it escapes a wave of cultural intrusion that blocks the flow of human creative subconscious mind in social cognition; orchestrating a kind of intelligence that is not limited by time, distance or space. Truly far beyond the future and the past; where now is art instead of systemizing science, mechanical cognition, alone
Like any short poem; I can interpret a different meaning from a psalm or even a SYMBOL OF number as both reflecting a multi-universe of eyes; even in just one human THAT IS ME; wHere each now is a Universe UNTO itself.
Human beings CAN BE INCREDIBLE WORKS OF EXPRESSING ART; if they exercise IN PRACTICE THAT human imaginative and creative potential; but as in any other muscle of life; ranging from sexual, sensual, physical, emotional, or bicep intelligence; USE OR LOSE ALWAYS APPLIES; AS AGAIN, GOD IS A GOD OF MERIT; NOT A GOD OF GRACE AND GIVING ALONE.
WORK AND PRACTICE ALWAYS APPLIES;
YES, so no wonder a carpenter become a philosopher;
a place where folks understand that work and practice always applies.
And the same applies to all philosophers who truly practice as works of ART.
Science is just a software program.
The hardware of human can metaphorically
fly with innate instinctual intuitive practice
FULLY ALIVE IN GREATER PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE
IN MIND AND BODY BALANCE EXPRESSING IMAGINATION
AND CREATIVITY IN FLOW
OF subconscious and
conscious mind
joining 'hands'
together
in TRUE
COSMIC
CONSCIOUSNESS;
WHERE TIME NO LONGER
EXISTS AND NOW IS
forever
in flow of NOW
in human heArt,
expressed as spiRit
to GREATER reflect
A TRUER
HUMAN
SOuL.
IT DOES NOT TAKE
A ROCKET SCIENTIST
TO BE LIKE
JESUS, BUDDHA,
MUHAMMAD,
LAO TZU;
OR EVEN
MYTHOLOGICAL
KRISHNA; OR flesh
and blood Nietzsche
and Einstein; it takes
practice and freedom in
mind and body IN
imagination and
CREATIVITY away
from the cultural
intrusion of
closing
one's
mind
forever
now.
This is a place;
a real place;
far far away
in a Universe
of a human
mind and
body
in
balance;
To go wHere
NO
one
man
has
gone
before.
'Star Trek' searches
in the 'wrong place';
from the get go;
but truly
Star
Trek
comes
from a
Universe
Within, FIRST;
Truth and
Light IS
DELICIOUS
BLACK AND
WHITE IRONY;
IN LIVING
COLOR
OF HUMAN
EXISTENCE,
AS
ART
and
SCIENCE
JOINING
HAND
IN
HAND IN
BALANCING
MIND AND
BODY OF
HUMAN
BEING
AS ONE
FORCE
WITH GOD.
So anyWay,
may
THE FORCE;
YOUR OWN PERSONAL
COLORED FORCE; BE
WITH 'YOU'; AND
ALSO
WITH
'US',
FOR
'US'
TO VIEW
DIFFERENTLY,
WITH A FORCE
FROM A
DIFFERENT
UNIVERSE
OF MIND
AND BODY
IN OR
OUT
OF
BALANCE.
I FOR ONE;
do not 'look' to
the past OR
FUTURE for
Truth; i for
one;
CREATE
TRUTH
NOW;
AND that
is what
ART
and GOD
is ALL
ABOUT
IN THIS
UNIVERSE
OF MINE
MIND AND
BODY IN IMAGINATIVE
AND CREATIVE BALANCE;
AS WELL AS SYSTEMIZING
SCIENCE
MIND
HAND
IN
HAND.
"I am tired of
the same old
phrases"
to quote
'Arnold'
here; and i for one;
am back always
now..
Have a nice now; it's time for me to get ready for Catholic Church;
haven't missed a Sunday in nearly two years; dance walking my
3843rd mile of dance walk Yesterday at most all the casinos
in Biloxi Mississipi; writing about my experience of rave
dancing with Gorgeous girls 33 years or so my junior
on Thursday Night before that Friday; LINKING
photos of me and 400 or so, gorgeous
early twenties women in documentary
way; broadly grinning ear to ear in
blog posts; and off and on the
Wrong Planet and Poetry
sites here and there;
while additionally working
out in exXtreme MARTIAL
ARTS AND strength
training; now leg
pressing 930 LBS;
25 times with
arms raised in
air, on Parallel
leg press machine;
like no other man
in the entire world
on YOUTUBE, AT
AGE 55.
I get around in PRACTICE;
including writing 11K WORD,
epic free verse poetry
in ONE DAY.
AT least Jesus or whomever
says MORE will come;
is NOT kidding;
and i am
certainly
not the
FIRST
OR LAST TO
PROVE THAT
IN LIVING
COLOR;
technology
just allows
the real time
record to stand,
as long as servers
serve
it to
serve
human;
a FAR CRY
FROM THE
TWILIGHT
ZONE VERSION;
HAHA!
"This is no cookbook; baby"..
And i try my best to write in a 'conventional' way for
'you'; but sorry friend; that is not the way either
ART or GOD works.
GOD is CREATIVE
AND SO AM
i in FLOW
WITH GOD;
AS ONE FORCE
NOW.
THAT DID NOT
END 2K OR SO YEARS
AGO; IT STILL EXISTS
MOSTLY IN MUSIC;
POETRY AND OTHER
ART; AND ESPECIALLY
ROCK
AND ROLL..
AND to end this long
thingy; here is an
excellent example
of THAT PROPHECY;
WITH LED ZEPPELIN;
LITERaLLY
'HERE' TOO..
AND that's
serving thought
for food; my friend;
If 'you' get this far;
but like 'they' say;
'wHere no human has
gone
before....'
'I' gEt aRound..
And for NOW..
'i' AM JUST passing through..
dusting my feet off.. wHere not
welcome..
AND passing
through..
BACK
again....'!'
13 Jul 2015, 6:06 pm
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1026
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
13 Jul 2015, 10:25 pm
13 Jul 2015, 11:05 pm
Sons of God mentioned in the Bible:
Adam... Luke 3:38
The Pre-flood Pack... Genesis 6:2
Israel... Exodus 4:22
Angelic Earth Patrol... Job 1:6
Peace makers... Matthew 5:9
The resurrected... Luke 20:36
Those led by the Spirit of God... Romans 8:14, 19
Those who have faith in Christ Jesus... Galatians 3:26
Those led by the Spirit of God... Romans 8:14, 19
Jesus... Luke 22:70
Occurrences of the word monogenes that don't apply to Jesus Christ:
...the only son of his mother... Luke 7:12
...for he [Jairus] had an only daughter... Luke 8:42
...for he is my only boy... Luke 9:38
...offering up his only begotten son (i.e. Isaac; Abraham already was the father of Ishmael.)... Hebrews 11:17
Most scholars suggest that Son of God in Hebrew means Servant of GOD;
that is a job of work, practice, and merit; and not anointing alone;
and of course there are countless Servants of GOD;
More than one is equal to A son of GOD.
The bible is full of inconsistencies
and discrepancies;
And hypocrisy as well.
But yeah; there is helpful
stuff in there; AS WELL.
If the real Jesus has his way;
he probably will burn it back 'then'.
He finds his answers in the desert;
like anyone can by looking within;
God doesn't play by human rules;
God plays by God's rules;
but even my cat feels that.
He is not crippled by abstract
human
concepts
in the written
language of collective
intelligence, used as culture
to subjugate and control
GOD given Human
Nature with
baseless
fears;
hmm, mostly
for reproductive control
and for gains in power
and material
by-products
of culture.
I don't have a desert;
but a desolate beach
works
the same;
smiles..
Thanks for the music;
it is always more inspiration
than anything i can come up
with in words; i must wonder
what instrument Jesus plays
and dances with; perhaps
his voice in true human
Angelic perfect
pitch
ways;
as that
can be so
inspiring too;
Like a chalice of
TRUTH without
a vessel
of
cup.
Here is another resource by someone
who listens within as well;
but still pays a little too
much attention to what
is already
written;
NOT
'iN SToNE'.
14 Jul 2015, 2:44 am
Lukecash12 wrote:
how familiar do you really feel with the academic side of theism and Christianity?
I'm a "fish" (or should I say ex-fish
) out of water...I am more into psychology...
Cheers m8...
14 Jul 2015, 4:24 am
nerdygirl wrote:
Have you spent time with a child under the age of two?
I'm going to tell you a few secrets. One, babies can fight getting their diaper changed. Babies can have temper fits when they don't get the toy they want. Babies can purposefully throw food. Etc., etc.
Kids might not be able to verbalize what they want or explain themselves, but from an extremely young age, they strive to get what they want.
Context, milady...<bow gracefully with a flourish>
I am not talking about the primitive reptilian brain governing raw emotions:
"The term “reptilian” refers to our primitive, instinctive brain function that is shared by all reptiles and mammals, including humans. It is the most powerful and oldest of our coping brain functions since without it we would not be alive."
http://www.copingskills4kids.net/Reptil ... Brain.html
I am referring the higher cognitive functions...such as reasoning...
There have been a "milliard" examples of psychological research into childhood development...
Dare I say that this aspect of human developmental psychology is considered an irrefutable "fact" as far as anything can be factual in regards to naked ape psychology...
Consider this:
From the initial formation of the first unified fertilised cell there is a progressive biological development.
At this stage, there s no brain, hence no thoughts can be generated by the "entity"...
A theist might say that there is, however, a soul which contains the personality including the morality...of that particular individual...(To this concept I say Ha!
)Now my question to you is this:
At what point of this biological development does reasoning develop?
Surely one must have a brain to reason?...surely...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs
"Children are not little adults. Until they reach the age of 15 or so they are not capable of reasoning as an adult."
http://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-d ... nt/piaget/
nerdygirl wrote:
Parents teach "values" from day one because they MUST. Babies will do their own thing if parents don't try to curb the behavior. For example, sleeping through the night. That is an important value. Left to their own devices, babies will create their own sleeping schedule which has nothing to do with the rhythm of the parents' life.
How about making sure one eats fruits and vegetables? That's an important value, too. Parents control what their child eats. But I will tell you that babies FULLY KNOW what they LIKE and DON'T LIKE, and if they don't like the food, guess what? A six month old will fight.
Babies are not blank slates. You don't need to teach a toddler to scream, take toys from other kids, or to hit. Instead, parents are working on teaching them what NOT to do, and what is right.
How about making sure one eats fruits and vegetables? That's an important value, too. Parents control what their child eats. But I will tell you that babies FULLY KNOW what they LIKE and DON'T LIKE, and if they don't like the food, guess what? A six month old will fight.
Babies are not blank slates. You don't need to teach a toddler to scream, take toys from other kids, or to hit. Instead, parents are working on teaching them what NOT to do, and what is right.
And what does a 6 month old think about existentialism?...
And where does the concept of Santa Clause, The Tooth Fairy and a caring personal God come from?
I totally agree with you in regards to the need of guiding children...
A dog that has not be trained can be a danger to itself and others and hardly an "asset" to the society it is part of...
But let me make this rather blunt/humorous/politically-incorrect point:
From a different perspective, parental/community guidance can be seen as a form of mind rape...
Admittedly necessary (if the desire/intent is some form of social/tribal harmony), but still a forced will against an unwilling individual...
One "must" question this questionable process of forced indoctrination/enlightenment, surely?
The genesis of social development/beliefs seems to be one of brutal dominance even if it is done lovingly, or so it seems to me...
How deep shall we travel down this philosophical rabbit hole?
Curiouser and curiouser...
14 Jul 2015, 5:33 am
Lukecash12 wrote:
Here's a sampling of common misunderstandings and an academic perspective on them:
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
<A quick philosophical rabbit punch to the kidneys>
What I find offensive is the *seeming* propensity to allow ignorance to prevail...
Lies by omission:
"Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
Yes I see the irony...
You are "giving examples" where there was an attempt at clarification...
However, this simply highlights the intrinsic/general deception that has infested theist indoctrination throughout the millennia...
From my perspective, throughout history, deceit and the allowing of misconception was a deliberate strategy to pacify/control the uneducated masses...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't fundamentalism still quite common in the USA bible belt?
Didn't Borat come across quite a few fundamentalists in his travels?
"Borat:Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of
Kazakhstan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTaFkahld50
One must ask:
Why is there this "common misunderstandings" in the first place?
Doesn't "common" mean it has freely proliferated?
Why has this meme persisted?
And why wasn't there greater effort in combating this fallacy throughout history?
I mistakenly ate meat on a Friday once...
At the time there was a "misconception" that it was a mortal sin!
Until the catholic church rescinded this edict, I was condemned to eternal torment!
Fortunately, this "eternal torment" was deemed simply an artistic *interpretation* by one of the recent popes and also rescinded...before I died...
Phew!
For the life of me, it seemed that these sorts of "misconceptions" were a deliberate means of control via emotional blackmail...
What could I have been thinking?
Admittedly, Communism wasn't so successful, which suggests human affinity with emotionalism is "a force to be reckoned with..." <shrug>
"Religion is the opium of the masses..."
14 Jul 2015, 9:29 am
^^^
'You',
are 'my kind'
of Atheist.
I like
your style;
overall,
of course.
Nothing's Perfect.
Perfect's Nothing.
That is why,
and how,
and wHere;
GOD exists
AS IS, NOW.
Humans can create a GOD;
sure, through imagination and
creativity; for subjugation and
control; and empty promises
to yes, pacify the masses;
however, never the
LESS; the GOD that
IS NOW AS THE INTER-
DEPENDENT INTER-
CONNECTING RE-
LATION-
SHIP OF
ALL THAT IS
EXISTS ALWAYS
NOW;
THAT'S JUST
COMMON SENSE;
i mean duh; my cat
learns that in the wild;
on his own; quite well
in survival; without ever
any school; and just a little
rough and tumble play;
WITH his peer
kittens as 'child';
and sucking at
the teats
of
MAMA
CAT;
AS PART
OF MOTHER
NATURE; HUMANS
ARE RELATIVELY
WEAK AND
STUPID
WHEN
IT COMES
to individual
survival; but alas
that is the lot
of a so-called
advanced social
animal
like
human
being.
But still; overall,
my once feral cat
is smarter; for one
reason and one reason
only; he never worries
over bulls88t
like
human do;
he exists in
bliss; like most
other animals; other
than humans do when
it is not time for
fight
or
flight,
IN GAINING SUBSISTENCE.
For all practical intents
and purposes; I am
a happy
FERAL
FEARLESS
TOM CAT
NOW;
but yeah;
imagination,
creativity,
and all
of those
HUMAN TOOLS;
USING 'THAT' TO MY ADVANTAGE;
WITH NEVER EVER ILLUSORY
FEARS,
ALONE;
ALLONE AS
TOM CAT
ME AND
GOD.
OH, and as a special
treat; you can call me
Casanova Fred; or not;
as Tom
needs a dancing muse
mouse named Jerry to
muse the pretty female
cats; I come all naturally
equipped; totAlly through
innate instinct and intuition
in fabulous dance to instinctually
muse all the female cats in my local
metro area; and no I am not saying
they are in heat; but they still can
appreciate the dance
of an older
TOM CAT
LIKE ME;
he HE!..
Oh, and in case you
missed it; that's
less or MORE;
a 'new
age
parable';
in other words,
it has much deeper
meaning than meets
the shallow of human
eyes and
ears.
If you are a 'clever
cat', like a FOX;
you will
see
and hear
deeper;
too;
or
NOT..
So perhaps,
I am more like
the RED FOXX;
than Tom
of Tom
and
Jerry..
Wow; a song with totally un-intelligible language gets over half a billion
views on youtube; but here's the thingy friend; emotions emote
all human action; and emotions require
NO INTELLIGIBLE
WORDS AT ALL;
IN FACT, HUMAN INSPIRING
EMOTIONS TO MOTIVATE
ACTION CAN BE PRODUCED
ALL THROUGH THE NON-VERBAL
LANGUAGE OF DANCE;
and in empirical terms;
I CAN PROVE THAT
in irrefutable evidence;
of over 400 grinning ear
to ear women with me
in the last 66 weeks
of dance
at one
place on
Thursday night;
with a quick
quote specific
Google
search on
these
two terms:
"God's Muse of Dance"
and
"666 months of Dance".
There is no higher
achievement in life
for so-called 'normal
Men' or 'TOM cats' than
attracting
members
of the opposite
sex; and hey I
don't even
have a
'barbed
penis';
to hook
them into
'uncomfortable
grins'; so I am
more powerful
than a LION,
as
a
FOX;
WITH MY FEMALE
FOXES GRINNING
WITH JOY
AND NOT
PAIN.
YES, I KNOW, it takes
a while to get to the
moral of the story;
but us foxes are
not always
good
at
verbal
stuff..
14 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm
Pepe wrote:
What I find offensive is the *seeming* propensity to allow ignorance to prevail...
Where, and from whom? Some group I am supposedly part of, or even myself? Where do I actually connect to this?
Quote:
Lies by omission:
"Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
Yes I see the irony...
You are "giving examples" where there was an attempt at clarification...
However, this simply highlights the intrinsic/general deception that has infested theist indoctrination throughout the millennia...
From my perspective, throughout history, deceit and the allowing of misconception was a deliberate strategy to pacify/control the uneducated masses...
"Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
Yes I see the irony...
You are "giving examples" where there was an attempt at clarification...
However, this simply highlights the intrinsic/general deception that has infested theist indoctrination throughout the millennia...
From my perspective, throughout history, deceit and the allowing of misconception was a deliberate strategy to pacify/control the uneducated masses...
Who? Where? What was omitted? The examples I gave were a demonstration that the academic side of Christianity is starkly different from fundamentalist thinking. There is an overall narrative here of "science and forward thinking scholars in general vs the Church", and however popular it is such a metanarrative can be demonstratively wrong on all counts. Just like any other proponents of ideology, there is great variety and we also have a rich philosophical history, full of progressive contributions. Even great thinkers of other stripes can acknowledge that much.
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't fundamentalism still quite common in the USA bible belt?
Didn't Borat come across quite a few fundamentalists in his travels?
"Borat:Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of
Kazakhstan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTaFkahld50
One must ask:
Why is there this "common misunderstandings" in the first place?
Doesn't "common" mean it has freely proliferated?
Why has this meme persisted?
And why wasn't there greater effort in combating this fallacy throughout history?
Didn't Borat come across quite a few fundamentalists in his travels?
"Borat:Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of
Kazakhstan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTaFkahld50
One must ask:
Why is there this "common misunderstandings" in the first place?
Doesn't "common" mean it has freely proliferated?
Why has this meme persisted?
And why wasn't there greater effort in combating this fallacy throughout history?
Misunderstandings abound because of the fallibility of man, and our great susceptibility to the vehicle of culture. Why has the meme of Darwin's God Delusion persisted? Why are so many militant atheists incredibly ignorant of the people they are criticizing? And why do you think they normally target Christianity here in the west, as opposed to all of the other religions? Culture, monsieur, things like culture, geography, and all of the historic causes.
None of which has anything to do with whether or not the facts support this or that idea. Arguments are not persons, after all.
Quote:
I mistakenly ate meat on a Friday once...
At the time there was a "misconception" that it was a mortal sin!
Until the catholic church rescinded this edict, I was condemned to eternal torment!
Fortunately, this "eternal torment" was deemed simply an artistic *interpretation* by one of the recent popes and also rescinded...before I died...
Phew!
For the life of me, it seemed that these sorts of "misconceptions" were a deliberate means of control via emotional blackmail...
What could I have been thinking?
At the time there was a "misconception" that it was a mortal sin!
Until the catholic church rescinded this edict, I was condemned to eternal torment!
Fortunately, this "eternal torment" was deemed simply an artistic *interpretation* by one of the recent popes and also rescinded...before I died...
Phew!
For the life of me, it seemed that these sorts of "misconceptions" were a deliberate means of control via emotional blackmail...
What could I have been thinking?
Do I sound like a Roman Catholic to you, monsieur?
Quote:
Admittedly, Communism wasn't so successful, which suggests human affinity with emotionalism is "a force to be reckoned with..." <shrug>
"Religion is the opium of the masses..."
"Religion is the opium of the masses..."
Ah, I'd rather say that "culture is the opium of the masses" and religion is merely another opiate. Yet another opiate would be Dawkin's God Delusion, "ancient aliens", and whatever else is in vogue these days that has popular consumption but little in the way of substance. Dawkins could hardly shine the atheistic shoes of Russell or Feinberg with his work, but people love his work and seemingly could care less about his poor citation standards or basic fallacies.
14 Jul 2015, 8:11 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
Where, and from whom? Some group I am supposedly part of, or even myself? Where do I actually connect to this?
My good man...
Consider the following definition:
Egocentric:
"The definition of egocentric is self-centered and is someone who thinks only about himself or who thinks the world revolves around him."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/egocentric
It is *not* all about *you*...
As per usual, misunderstandings are usually the result of misunderstandings...
Can't argue with that...
Though some may try...
Shall we do the dance?
I think we must...
Let us define our personal context in regards to our involvement in this thread...
Here is part of mine:
1. The social influence of religion on the general population...
(1a. Biochemical influences on spirituality)...
2. The misuse of theology throughout the ages...
3. The persistent engagement of emotionalism rather than the predominant involvement of the intellect...
4. The consideration of where one's personal beliefs are derived...
Consider point 1.
* Social indoctrination is an extremely powerful tool of the social architect...
Consider point 2.
* "Give me the child until age seven and I will show you the man"...
Consider point 3.
* All you need is faith...no need for reason...
Consider point 4.
* We have been influenced by our particular environment/culture/history...
* At times our beliefs may have been derived from ignorance and/or manipulative intent...
* At times we may have been influenced through the encouragement of non critical thinking by some social architects or simply significant others...
Yes, I believe we are talking in crossed purposes...
Please define your context...
Please elaborate on your personal perspective in regards to "Beliefs Based On...?"...
14 Jul 2015, 8:21 pm
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1026
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
14 Jul 2015, 8:27 pm
Dawkins has been mentioned ! This thread now needs a Clip of Rupert Sheldrake vs. Richard Dawkins...! 
Lukecash12 wrote:
Dawkins could hardly shine the atheistic shoes of Russell or Feinberg with his work, but people love his work and seemingly could care less about his poor citation standards or basic fallacies.
...because Para-Psychology is hated by both the Fundamental-Materialists and the Religious-Fundamentalists !
14 Jul 2015, 11:18 pm
14 Jul 2015, 11:28 pm
15 Jul 2015, 12:22 am
nurseangela wrote:
I believe in Jesus and the Big G. Go Big G!
Yo yo Big G, he's my favorite rapper!
15 Jul 2015, 1:19 am
Lukecash12 wrote:
Why has the meme of Darwin's God Delusion persisted?
Personally speaking:
As I mentioned to you before, I am not a philosophical groupie...
I don't go to the mountain...
The mountain comes to me...
In other words, I tend to casually meander around and if I find something insightful, I take a closer peek...
Richard Dawkins simply espoused some concepts which resonated within my philosophical structure...
I think many people are attracted to his use of reason...
His scientific approach...
His unshackled perspective...
I should mention I haven't read his book: The God delusion...
(No lies of omission from me at this point at least...
)So I am not in a position to answer your question...
What concepts in that book do you disagree with?
Which concepts do you consider unreasonable?
Lukecash12 wrote:
Why are so many militant atheists incredibly ignorant of the people they are criticizing? And why do you think they normally target Christianity here in the west, as opposed to all of the other religions?
My best guess is that atheists are fallible humans also...
And most are neurotypical with their inherent/evolution-inspired need to dominate, not only for mating rites, but also for conceptual rites which may afford some additional sense of social status, perversely or not.
For me personally, I am not sure how relevant it is to understand the entire history of philosophical/theological musings...
These discussions in these forums are a hobby for me, not a profession...
Could you provide us with some of the characteristics you associate with "militant Atheism"?
Are you saying you consider Richard Dawkins to be one of the main offenders?
"To whom" are you referring (to)?
I don't criticise some other faiths because it is potentially dangerous to do so...
Emotionalism can have some dire consequences...
Had I been born in the time and place of the Spanish Inquisition, I would not have criticised christianity either...
Simples...
Let me make this clear...
I am not a hero...
Nor do I wish the change the world...
...since the world is full of crap and there isn't a big enough dirty nappy bin...
I'd rather "do a Galileo" than be burnt at the stake for some "inconvenient truth"...
However, the principles I espouse could quite easily apply to other aspects of social meme-ology...
But I didn't say that...
