Unique Earth
Frank Schierenberg
>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:30:35 +0800, "Frank Schierenberg"
><NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>> And what do "YOU propose"?
>
>I propose that calculating the odds against an event that has in fact
>occured is nothing more than mathmatical masturbation. As the previous
>writer pointed out, no matter how long the odds, chance events do
>occur.
>
Your proposal that "chance events do occur" is nothing more than stating
the obvious with great emphasis. It's NOT a proposal and does NOT exclude
the God hypothesis. For God is 'spirit' and therefore the agency causing
cognition of events amidst chaos, and the cause of categorizing ('naming' in
Genesis) events so as to appear to make sense.
You observed correctly, that statistically there is no reason why the
cards should not appear in the same order for any number of times. When this
happens however, man is programmed to assume that this is a universal law
and will find reasons to support his contention. The chance event then being
the time the cards do NOT appear as expected.
Frank A.S.
There is no rule more invariable than
that we are paid for our suspicions by
finding what we suspect.
- Thoreau (1817-1862)
Frank Schierenberg
>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 17:39:50 +0800, "Frank Schierenberg"
><NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you sure, you are not just objecting to the existence of an
>>infantile 'hairy warrior' God idea in your overactive imagination?
>
>No, I'm objecting to it in the theist's imagination.
>
Considering your inability to understand abstract Biblical symbolism and
metaphor it's no wonder you are nonplused by the theist's encoded language.
What you object to is only your 'assumption' of what the theist imagines.
John Ings
>>> Are you sure, you are not just objecting to the existence of an
>>>infantile 'hairy warrior' God idea in your overactive imagination?
>>
>>No, I'm objecting to it in the theist's imagination.
>>
> Considering your inability to understand abstract Biblical symbolism and
>metaphor
Not inability to understand Frank. Unwillingness to believe.
Anybody can engage in flights of imagination.
>it's no wonder you are nonplused by the theist's encoded language.
>What you object to is only your 'assumption' of what the theist imagines.
The theist pontificates endlessly about what he imagines, there's no
good your maintaining he has zeroed in on some esoteric insight I have
missed. The endless disputation among you theists assures me of the
inadequacy of your symbolism and metaphore.
This quote from a philosopher covers it nicely I think---
"On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the
deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment,
it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by
the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of
authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and
orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private
judgment. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own
premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it
then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of
liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and
divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from
the unrestricted exercise of the individual's reason or caprice upon
the subject matter of Revelation. The individual or sect interprets as
it pleases--rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly
called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on
the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed
over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for
it is clear that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the
right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him,
cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the same ground, repudiates
the whole. If one creed is as good as another, on the plea of rational
liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the
field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed
and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe
of its own making.
"Liberalism Is a Sin" by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany 1886
TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. Rockford, Illinois 61105
Ch. 2
Of course Don Felix was arguing in favor of the authority of the
Catholic church, but his condemnation of the uselessness of
individual freeform interpretation is still valid. The difference
between us is that I am one of the infidels who considers the Church
of Rome's interpretation and authority equally invalid.
## White is black,if the Church so decides. St IGNATIUS of LOYOLA
John Ings
<NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>>I propose that calculating the odds against an event that has in fact
>>occured is nothing more than mathmatical masturbation. As the previous
>>writer pointed out, no matter how long the odds, chance events do
>>occur.
>>
>
> Your proposal that "chance events do occur" is nothing more than stating
>the obvious with great emphasis. It's NOT a proposal
Sure it's a proposal. It's the same as your proposing a God.
Yes it's a tautology. But the proposal of a God merely removes the
problem a step and does not answer it. It does not reduce the odds,
but rather increases them.
>and does NOT exclude the God hypothesis.
True, but it is more likely than the God hypothesis, which must
logically be even less probable. Calculate me the odds of a universe
creating god existing.
> For God is 'spirit' and therefore the agency causing
>cognition of events amidst chaos, and the cause of categorizing ('naming' in
>Genesis) events so as to appear to make sense.
A flight of imagination there Frank. If a being exists that is capable
of creating the universe, you haven't a hope of deducing what it is or
how it goes about things.
> You observed correctly, that statistically there is no reason why the
>cards should not appear in the same order for any number of times. When this
>happens however, man is programmed to assume that this is a universal law
>and will find reasons to support his contention. The chance event then being
>the time the cards do NOT appear as expected.
No, chance events happen EVERY time, and our expectations have nothing
to do with it.
>There is no rule more invariable than
>that we are paid for our suspicions by
>finding what we suspect.
>- Thoreau (1817-1862)
Thoreau also said-
"What man believes, God believes."
"There is no creed so false, but faith can make it true."
## Primus in orbe deos fecit timor
ONEstar
John Ings
John. You live a life that you did not furnish. You subsist upon things
you did not create but only transformed. You call home an earth that you
did not form in a universe you can not fathom. Now, you desire to believe
all of these things a "chance" occurrence. It appears your belief is
foundless as those you accuse.
ONE
John Ings
>John. You live a life that you did not furnish. You subsist upon things
>you did not create but only transformed. You call home an earth that you
>did not form in a universe you can not fathom. Now, you desire to believe
>all of these things a "chance" occurrence.
Certainly. But you do acknowledge that even if a creator made this
universe, it's STILL a chance occurance don't you? Either the universe
came about by chance or its creator did.
>It appears your belief is foundless as those you accuse.
Not quite. My belief is founded on logic.
Theirs is founded on an emotional need for a father figure in the sky.
## "God is dead"- Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead"- God
Frank Schierenberg
>"Frank Schierenberg" <NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Are you sure, you are not just objecting to the existence of an
>>>>infantile 'hairy warrior' God idea in your overactive imagination?
>>>
>>>No, I'm objecting to it in the theist's imagination.
>>>
>> Considering your inability to understand abstract Biblical symbolism
and
>>metaphor
>
>Not inability to understand Frank. Unwillingness to believe.
>Anybody can engage in flights of imagination.
Believe comes AFTER decifering and interpreting abstract philosophical
hyperbole, symbolism and metaphor into the coherent logical construct the
witer probably had in mind. All you are saying is, that because you can't do
these things you refuse to believe. Believe what? It's all mumbo jumbo to
you anyway. Taking into acount that beliefs are suppositions that lack
sufficient evidence to make them facts, I have but one axiomatic belief, and
that boils down to, that existence bids me well and I can trust it.
Everything of interest to me about religion I have reduced to facts
requiring neither faith nor beliefs. I am aware however, that I may have
interpreted the Biblical authors incorrectly and I'm open to criticism in
that direction.
>
>>it's no wonder you are nonplused by the theist's encoded language.
>>What you object to is only your 'assumption' of what the theist imagines.
>
>The theist pontificates endlessly about what he imagines, there's no
>good your maintaining he has zeroed in on some esoteric insight I have
>missed. The endless disputation among you theists assures me of the
>inadequacy of your symbolism and metaphore.
I know what you mean. The cook book format would be so much clearer, but
a lot less than half as exciting.
>
>This quote from a philosopher covers it nicely I think---
>The individual or sect interprets as
>it pleases--rejecting or accepting what it chooses.
He is starting to go wrong here. Nobody interpreting Revelation rejects
Revelation, for that is not interpretation.
This is popularly
>called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on
>the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed
>over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for
>it is clear that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the
>right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him,
>cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the same ground, repudiates
>the whole.
This is where he falls overboard. He compare those interpreting
Revelation with those deciding whether to accept Revelation as valid or not.
"Repudiating the whole of Revelation" has has nothing to do with
interpretation of it whatever.
If one creed is as good as another, on the plea of rational
>liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the
>field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed
>and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe
>of its own making.
>
Just gratuitous belly aching and sour grapes by someone with an
atheistic agenda.
>"Liberalism Is a Sin" by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany 1886
>TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. Rockford, Illinois 61105
>Ch. 2
>
>Of course Don Felix was arguing in favor of the authority of the
>Catholic church, but his condemnation of the uselessness of
>individual freeform interpretation is still valid. The difference
>between us is that I am one of the infidels who considers the Church
>of Rome's interpretation and authority equally invalid.
>
The only difference is, you don't know beans about what your reject. Of
necessity religious, moral and social philosophy is written in code, and
some are unable to decode. Most atheists are stimied by anything abstract,
that is beyond the cook book format.
>
Frank A.S.
Those who believe God exists and those
who do not are both equally far from the truth.
Chuang Tsu
John Ings
>>> Considering your inability to understand abstract Biblical symbolism
>>>and metaphor
>>
>>Not inability to understand Frank. Unwillingness to believe.
>>Anybody can engage in flights of imagination.
>
> Believe comes AFTER decifering and interpreting abstract philosophical
>hyperbole, symbolism and metaphor into the coherent logical construct the
>witer probably had in mind.
No it doesn't Frank. You have your belief that there is treasure
within scripture at the start, and are certain that you will find it.
So you do. Your chances of actually figuring out what a 6th century
BCE writer had in mind are minute in the extreme.
> All you are saying is, that because you can't do
>these things you refuse to believe.
No, it's because YOU can't do these things I don't believe. You seers-
of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
I don't believe.
> Believe what? It's all mumbo jumbo to
>you anyway. Taking into acount that beliefs are suppositions that lack
>sufficient evidence to make them facts, I have but one axiomatic belief, and
>that boils down to, that existence bids me well and I can trust it.
Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
> Everything of interest to me about religion I have reduced to facts
>requiring neither faith nor beliefs. I am aware however, that I may have
>interpreted the Biblical authors incorrectly and I'm open to criticism in
>that direction.
If by some long chance you have interpreted them correctly, what
reason have you to think they had anything important to communicate?
>>>it's no wonder you are nonplused by the theist's encoded language.
>>>What you object to is only your 'assumption' of what the theist imagines.
>>
>>The theist pontificates endlessly about what he imagines, there's no
>>good your maintaining he has zeroed in on some esoteric insight I have
>>missed. The endless disputation among you theists assures me of the
>>inadequacy of your symbolism and metaphore.
>
> I know what you mean. The cook book format would be so much clearer, but
>a lot less than half as exciting.
Are we seeking excitement or truth?
>>This quote from a philosopher covers it nicely I think---
>>The individual or sect interprets as
>>it pleases--rejecting or accepting what it chooses.
>
> He is starting to go wrong here. Nobody interpreting Revelation rejects
>Revelation, for that is not interpretation.
If you can read it any old way you want, (and if it's vague enough you
can do just that) they reject what they don't want without even being
aware they're doing it. They just see what they want to see.
>>This is popularly
>>called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on
>>the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed
>>over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for
>>it is clear that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the
>>right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him,
>>cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the same ground, repudiates
>>the whole.
>
> This is where he falls overboard. He compare those interpreting
>Revelation with those deciding whether to accept Revelation as valid or not.
Other way around. They are rejecting (or accepting) the
interpretation. It is always assumed by the faithful that Revelation
is inerrant. It's the interpretation step where the fatal flaw is.
>"Repudiating the whole of Revelation" has has nothing to do with
>interpretation of it whatever.
Ah but it does. I repudiate revelation as valueless, not on the
grounds that it is wrong, but on the grounds that it is not
consistently decipherable. If all you Bible believers presented a
common viewpoint, I couldn't do that and I would have to accept or
repudiate Revelation on its merits.
IOW my argumet is that the Revelation is spurious, not that it is
wrong. It really isn't Revelation at all, just men's imaginings.
>>If one creed is as good as another, on the plea of rational
>>liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the
>>field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed
>>and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe
>>of its own making.
>>
> Just gratuitous belly aching and sour grapes by someone with an
>atheistic agenda.
Atheistic! Good heavens man! The guy was a Church of Rome apologist!
>>"Liberalism Is a Sin" by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany 1886
>>TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. Rockford, Illinois 61105
>>Ch. 2
>>
>>Of course Don Felix was arguing in favor of the authority of the
>>Catholic church, but his condemnation of the uselessness of
>>individual freeform interpretation is still valid. The difference
>>between us is that I am one of the infidels who considers the Church
>>of Rome's interpretation and authority equally invalid.
>>
> The only difference is, you don't know beans about what your reject.
Nor do you. Nor does anyone else. That's why I reject it.
>Of necessity religious, moral and social philosophy is written in code,
Do tell! What's the necessity?
> and
>some are unable to decode. Most atheists are stimied by anything abstract,
>that is beyond the cook book format.
And so are all theists, as their dissent amply demonstrates.
>Those who believe God exists and those
>who do not are both equally far from the truth.
>Chuang Tsu
Now that observation I will nod agreement to.
## If agnosticism is a religion, then health is a disease.
ONEstar
John Ings
>>John. You live a life that you did not furnish. You subsist upon things
>>you did not create but only transformed. You call home an earth that you
>>did not form in a universe you can not fathom. Now, you desire to believe
>>all of these things a "chance" occurrence.
>Certainly. But you do acknowledge that even if a creator made this
>universe, it's STILL a chance occurance don't you? Either the universe
>came about by chance or its creator did.
I understand your reasoning, in part, as you seem to require an answer no
one is able to provide. The question remains and so will your doubt remain.
>>It appears your belief is foundless as those you accuse.
>Not quite. My belief is founded on logic.
>Theirs is founded on an emotional need for a father figure in the sky.
You will excuse my observation that no matter the level of logic utilized,
your question remains unanswered thus your belief remains unfounded.
ONE
Frank Schierenberg
>
>Not quite. My belief is founded on logic.
>Theirs is founded on an emotional need for a father figure in the sky.
>
Frank A.S.
John Ings
wrote:
>>>John. You live a life that you did not furnish. You subsist upon things
>>>you did not create but only transformed. You call home an earth that you
>>>did not form in a universe you can not fathom. Now, you desire to believe
>>>all of these things a "chance" occurrence.
>
>>Certainly. But you do acknowledge that even if a creator made this
>>universe, it's STILL a chance occurance don't you? Either the universe
>>came about by chance or its creator did.
>
>I understand your reasoning, in part, as you seem to require an answer no
>one is able to provide.
No, I do not require an answer. The question is unanswerable.
> The question remains and so will your doubt remain.
Exactly. So what I am decrying is the smug assurance on the part of
the theist that having declared "God created all" he has answered the
question of our origins.
>>>It appears your belief is foundless as those you accuse.
>
>>Not quite. My belief is founded on logic.
>>Theirs is founded on an emotional need for a father figure in the sky.
>
>You will excuse my observation that no matter the level of logic utilized,
>your question remains unanswered thus your belief remains unfounded.
My belief is that proposing a deliberate act by a deity to explain an
otherwise extremely unlikely event is not sufficient. It is not "the
only possible explanation" as the devout insist. Even if the universe
was so created, all you have is a still greater improbability. Now how
is that unfounded?
## Amphora coepit institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?
Frank Schierenberg
>"Frank Schierenberg" <NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>No it doesn't Frank. You have your belief that there is treasure
>within scripture at the start, and are certain that you will find it.
>So you do. Your chances of actually figuring out what a 6th century
>BCE writer had in mind are minute in the extreme.
>
You are making too many unwarranted assumptions.
>> All you are saying is, that because you can't do
>>these things you refuse to believe.
>
>No, it's because YOU can't do these things I don't believe.
Unwarranted assumption!
You seers-
>of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
>I don't believe.
Interpretations by their very nature are inconsistent, otherwise there
would be no need for interpretation, would there now. Some interpretations
are perceived as better than others, depending on one's "maturity in the
spirit".
>
>> Believe what? It's all mumbo jumbo to
>>you anyway. Taking into acount that beliefs are suppositions that lack
>>sufficient evidence to make them facts, I have but one axiomatic belief,
and
>>that boils down to, that existence bids me well and I can trust it.
>
>Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
Metaphor.
>
>> Everything of interest to me about religion I have reduced to facts
>>requiring neither faith nor beliefs. I am aware however, that I may have
>>interpreted the Biblical authors incorrectly and I'm open to criticism in
>>that direction.
>
>If by some long chance you have interpreted them correctly, what
>reason have you to think they had anything important to communicate?
>
Because wisdom is meant to clarify principles which help to make sense
out of chaos.
>>
>> I know what you mean. The cook book format would be so much clearer,
but
>>a lot less than half as exciting.
>
>Are we seeking excitement or truth?
>
Both of course. Discovering truth is far more exciting and memorable
than having it spoon fed to you. That's why most religious texts are obscure
to a degree, to make you think and find. You obviously haven't found
anything of value yet, or you wouldn't ask why I thought wisdom contained
anything valuable.
>>
>> He is starting to go wrong here. Nobody interpreting Revelation
rejects
>>Revelation, for that is not interpretation.
>
>If you can read it any old way you want, (and if it's vague enough you
>can do just that) they reject what they don't want without even being
>aware they're doing it. They just see what they want to see.
>
You are making progress. That's the way interpretation works to a
degree. One usually has a notion for what one is looking for.
>>
>> This is where he falls overboard. He compare those interpreting
>>Revelation with those deciding whether to accept Revelation as valid or
not.
>
>Other way around. They are rejecting (or accepting) the
>interpretation. It is always assumed by the faithful that Revelation
>is inerrant. It's the interpretation step where the fatal flaw is.
>
All art is "inerrant". Revelation is a somewhat abstract word painting
and I don't see you fulminating against abstract art, nor against art
critics who wax eloquent in their interpretation of it. Heidegger, the
famous Philosopher, could speak volumes without expressing a single idea,
and people flocked to his lectures because of the music his words made, the
cadence, the rythm etc.. Try that sometimes, and you will quickly realize
that it is extraordinarily difficult.
>>"Repudiating the whole of Revelation" has has nothing to do with
>>interpretation of it whatever.
>
>Ah but it does. I repudiate revelation as valueless, not on the
>grounds that it is wrong, but on the grounds that it is not
>consistently decipherable.
If you treat abstract art that way you are just being gauche. No art
worthy of the name is "consistently decipherable". In fact the more
inconsistent the opinions on it, the greater the art.
If all you Bible believers presented a
>common viewpoint, I couldn't do that and I would have to accept or
>repudiate Revelation on its merits.
>
Common viewpoints are not the aim of interpretation. I look at a cloud
and say: That looks like the face of a horse. You will say no, it looks more
like a dog. There are similarities for sure, but interpretations by their
very nature cannot be consistent.
>IOW my argumet is that the Revelation is spurious, not that it is
>wrong. It really isn't Revelation at all, just men's imaginings.
That's why it's called Revelation, because imagination to "reveal" the
interpretation is needed.
>
>> Just gratuitous belly aching and sour grapes by someone with an
>>atheistic agenda.
>
>Atheistic! Good heavens man! The guy was a Church of Rome apologist!
>
Hardly one in good standing for rejecting Revelations in toto, not just
versions of interpretations.
>>>
>> The only difference is, you don't know beans about what your reject.
>
>Nor do you. Nor does anyone else. That's why I reject it.
>
Totally unwarranted assumption.
>>Of necessity religious, moral and social philosophy is written in code,
>
>Do tell! What's the necessity?
>
To make you think and discover.
>> and
>>some are unable to decode. Most atheists are stimied by anything abstract,
>>that is beyond the cook book format.
>
>And so are all theists, as their dissent amply demonstrates.
>
Unwarranted assumtion. Some interpretations are better than others.
Therefore dissent is essential for spiritual growth.
>>Those who believe God exists and those
>>who do not are both equally far from the truth.
>>Chuang Tsu
>
>Now that observation I will nod agreement to.
>
I wonder why, since you are so sure, that God has no "existence" but is
just mythology pure and simple.
Frank A.S.
-------------------------------------------------
A SYNOPSIS OF QUANTONICS:
Pirsigean mnemonics used in the text:
DQ - Dynamic Quality
MoQ - Metaphysics of Quality
SQ - Static Quality
Quantonics is about a new way of thinking for Millennium III.
Quantonics sees our current Western culture trapped in a paradigm which
we might characterize thus:
o our current paradigm is mostly classical (i.e., language, science,
religion...)
o there is an ongoing culture war between absolute truth and relative
truth
o either assumes absolute truth in one assumed global context,
o or assumes relative truth in any or some ill-defined context
o our perceptions of absolute truth hinge on an incoherent
subject-object split
o truth may only be assessed absolutely based upon substance
o insubstantial, subjective truth may not be assessed
o our concept of change is incoherent (flow of time)
o our concept of time is incoherent (classical mass, length, time
undefined)
o our concept of reality is closed (classical reality depends on this)
(for more on the last few items, see our review of Irving Stein's, 'The
Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics.')
Quantonics wants to (begin the) move to a new paradigm like this:
o the new paradigm is is mostly quantonic:
o both assumes a quantum science reality-model child,
o and assumes a ~Pirsigean philosophy parent (more highly evolved
SQ)
o assumes a philosophy and science partnership
o the new paradigm uses Pirsig's MoQ to unify the subject-object split
under SQ
o change (flux) is absolute; change is Pirsig's DQ
o change creates value, both static value (SQ) and dynamic value (DQ)
o truth is relative to locally-defined context
o mass, length, time are now defined: m, l, t, are functions of flux
o m = f(flux) - rate of flux is a proxy for mass
o l = f(flux) - wavelength of flux is a proxy for length
o t = f(flux) - any count of flux periods is a proxy for time
o reality is open
The new way of thinking for Millennium III distinguishes itself via its
practitioners understanding and teaching the differences you see in the
two lists above.
The above is vastly oversimplified, but it can be simpler even:
Classical paradigm: Truth reigns. :( "Status quo is the way to go." )
Quantonic paradigm: Change reigns. ( i.e., "Flux is crux!" :)
The starting assumptions, about 2500 years ago, by the Greek
philosophers depended upon that single, simple, classical edict. Those
starting assumptions all derive from that edict. They gave us the
classical reality-model we in Western culture presume today. (See
Pirsig's, 'The Birth of SOM,' on our site.)
The Quantonic axiom fits what we know about quantum reality today.
Pirsig's MoQ philosophy fits it too. That is our benchmark for the
goodness of the Quantonic paradigm for Millennium III.
If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to let us
know.
--
"Truth is always a DQ-changeable Static Pattern of Value."
DQ: Dynamic Quality
Doug Renselle, July 20, 1998.
qua...@on-net.net
ONEstar
John Ings wrote in
<snip>
>>I understand your reasoning, in part, as you seem to require an answer no
>>one is able to provide.
>No, I do not require an answer. The question is unanswerable.
That is, what I wrote, yes.
>> The question remains and so will your doubt remain.
>Exactly. So what I am decrying is the smug assurance on the part of
>the theist that having declared "God created all" he has answered the
>question of our origins.
Circular reasoning is the default when one does not have knowledge of the
where the circle begins.
>>>>It appears your belief is foundless as those you accuse.
>>>Not quite. My belief is founded on logic.
>>>Theirs is founded on an emotional need for a father figure in the sky.
>>You will excuse my observation that no matter the level of logic utilized,
>>your question remains unanswered thus your belief remains unfounded.
>My belief is that proposing a deliberate act by a deity to explain an
>otherwise extremely unlikely event is not sufficient. It is not "the
>only possible explanation" as the devout insist. Even if the universe
>was so created, all you have is a still greater improbability. Now how
>is that unfounded?
Yes, I understand your position, however that does not make your assertions
accurate. Unfounded, is when you accuse others of stupidity when you have
no more knowledge than they.
ONE
John Ings
<NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>>No it doesn't Frank. You have your belief that there is treasure
>>within scripture at the start, and are certain that you will find it.
>>So you do. Your chances of actually figuring out what a 6th century
>>BCE writer had in mind are minute in the extreme.
>
> You are making too many unwarranted assumptions.
That assumption is quite warranted. The very nature of the Hebrew
system of writing forces the reader to asess the context of the word
he is working on in order to guess which word it is. He cannot
determine exactly what is meant unambiguously because the words have
their vowels left out and there are no spaces between words and no
punctuation. 20 centuries or more removed from the author's mileu,
reading someone else's translation, you haven't a hope of divining
what a Bronze Age writer was thinking.
>>> All you are saying is, that because you can't do
>>>these things you refuse to believe.
>>
>>No, it's because YOU can't do these things I don't believe.
>
> Unwarranted assumption!
Again, fully warranted. If by some chance you did stumble on the
original writer's intended meaning, and by some remote chance that
meaning had some value, you wouldn't know it. Your fellow believers
would be waving their differing interpretations about and there would
be no way of determining who is right. There is no standard, no
arbitrator, no referee standing by to assign a victor. The best you
can do is that meaningless claim that "we're all right in our own way"
or "I've found my truth which is just different from your truth".
>You seers-
>>of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
>>I don't believe.
>
> Interpretations by their very nature are inconsistent,
And therefor valueless.
>otherwise there would be no need for interpretation, would there now.
Yes there would. When someone who knows interprets for someone who
does not, that's valuable. When the blind lead the blind all fall in a
ditch.
> Some interpretations
>are perceived as better than others, depending on one's "maturity in the
>spirit".
Or depending on his bigotries and biases, prejudices and
preconceptions, motives ulterior and otherwise.
>>> Believe what? It's all mumbo jumbo to
>>>you anyway. Taking into acount that beliefs are suppositions that lack
>>>sufficient evidence to make them facts, I have but one axiomatic belief,and
>>>that boils down to, that existence bids me well and I can trust it.
>>
>>Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
>
> Metaphor.
Bad metaphor.
>>> Everything of interest to me about religion I have reduced to facts
>>>requiring neither faith nor beliefs. I am aware however, that I may have
>>>interpreted the Biblical authors incorrectly and I'm open to criticism in
>>>that direction.
>>
>>If by some long chance you have interpreted them correctly, what
>>reason have you to think they had anything important to communicate?
>>
> Because wisdom is meant to clarify principles which help to make sense
>out of chaos.
Yeah but where's the wisdom? Where's the clarification? What are the
principles? All we get from you theists is smoke and mirrors! No
results!
>>> I know what you mean. The cook book format would be so much clearer,
>>>but a lot less than half as exciting.
>>
>>Are we seeking excitement or truth?
>>
> Both of course.
No. When you get excited you leap to conclusions, see things that
aren't there, and get so obsessed you start reading what you want
to see into what's not clear, like Percival Lowell seeing canals on
Mars.
>Discovering truth is far more exciting and memorable
>than having it spoon fed to you. That's why most religious texts are obscure
>to a degree, to make you think and find.
Or to take in the suckers more easily?
>You obviously haven't found anything of value yet, or you wouldn't ask why
>I thought wisdom contained anything valuable.
No no. I asked why you thought the Bible contained anything valuable.
If it has wisdom it's obviously valuable, but the assumption that
because it was written BCE in an obscure language means it contains
wisdom is entirely unwarranted.
>>> He is starting to go wrong here. Nobody interpreting Revelation
>>> rejects Revelation, for that is not interpretation.
>>
>>If you can read it any old way you want, (and if it's vague enough you
>>can do just that) they reject what they don't want without even being
>>aware they're doing it. They just see what they want to see.
>>
> You are making progress. That's the way interpretation works to a
>degree.
That's why it's useless. Seeing what you want to see in a search for
truth is self-delusion.
> One usually has a notion for what one is looking for.
And therefor finds it. Has the concept of clinical detachment never
been explained to you? Ever heard of double blind tests? They are
specifically designed to eliminate just that sort of thing.
>>> This is where he falls overboard. He compare those interpreting
>>>Revelation with those deciding whether to accept Revelation as valid or
>>>not.
>>
>>Other way around. They are rejecting (or accepting) the
>>interpretation. It is always assumed by the faithful that Revelation
>>is inerrant. It's the interpretation step where the fatal flaw is.
>>
> All art is "inerrant".
Nonsense.
>Revelation is a somewhat abstract word painting
Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
speaking to us.
>and I don't see you fulminating against abstract art, nor against art
>critics who wax eloquent in their interpretation of it.
They're not proposing a moral code for me to live by, or trying to
take over the minds of our children with their lies.
> Heidegger, the
>famous Philosopher, could speak volumes without expressing a single idea,
>and people flocked to his lectures because of the music his words made, the
>cadence, the rythm etc. Try that sometimes, and you will quickly realize
>that it is extraordinarily difficult.
I betch you loved Marshal McLuhan. That man could talk for hours
without a soul understanding what he was saying, but everybody was
impressed.
>>>"Repudiating the whole of Revelation" has has nothing to do with
>>>interpretation of it whatever.
>>
>>Ah but it does. I repudiate revelation as valueless, not on the
>>grounds that it is wrong, but on the grounds that it is not
>>consistently decipherable.
>
> If you treat abstract art that way you are just being gauche.
We're talking about wisdom Frank, not art appreciation. It's all very
well for you to make the assertion that the Bible is an abstract art
form and be snobbish about people who don't appreciate it, but this is
the real world not an art gallery. Millions have died over the
interpretation of that damn book! I don't know of anyone who has been
murdered for his interpretation of a Picasso or burned at the stake
for disparaging cubism.
>No art
>worthy of the name is "consistently decipherable". In fact the more
>inconsistent the opinions on it, the greater the art.
And the more useless as a standard of morality.
>If all you Bible believers presented a
>>common viewpoint, I couldn't do that and I would have to accept or
>>repudiate Revelation on its merits.
>>
> Common viewpoints are not the aim of interpretation.
Ergo, understanding is not the aim of interpretation.
Ergo it's useless for just what it purports to be good for, a manual
on the subject of how to live a good life. No wonder it has failed so
dismally at being such.
>>IOW my argument is that the Revelation is spurious, not that it is
>>wrong. It really isn't Revelation at all, just men's imaginings.
>
> That's why it's called Revelation, because imagination to "reveal" the
>interpretation is needed.
No that's not what the word means.
rev·e·la·tion (revÅà l€ÆshÃn), n.
1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.
2. something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of
something not before realized.
3. Theol.
a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.
There's nothing in there about guessing games. No mention of
interpretation of art.
>>> Just gratuitous belly aching and sour grapes by someone with an
>>>atheistic agenda.
>>
>>Atheistic! Good heavens man! The guy was a Church of Rome apologist!
>>
> Hardly one in good standing for rejecting Revelations in toto, not just
>versions of interpretations.
You dropped the ball on that one Frank. He was arguing for the Roman
Church's authority to interpret.
>>> The only difference is, you don't know beans about what your reject.
>>
>>Nor do you. Nor does anyone else. That's why I reject it.
>>
> Totally unwarranted assumption.
Conclusion, not assumption.
>>>Of necessity religious, moral and social philosophy is written in code,
>>
>>Do tell! What's the necessity?
>>
> To make you think and discover.
People won't think unless teased with riddles? Claptrap!
I can think of some valid reasons scripture is written in code, but
that isn't one of them.
On second thought, yes that is one of them. Some people are more
easily hooked by con-men when there are mysteries and secrets and
hidden meanings. Like a bunch of Masons at a conclave exchanging
secret handshakes.
>>> and
>>>some are unable to decode. Most atheists are stimied by anything abstract,
>>>that is beyond the cook book format.
>>
>>And so are all theists, as their dissent amply demonstrates.
>>
> Unwarranted assumtion.
Conclusion. Demonstrated.
>Some interpretations are better than others.
>Therefore dissent is essential for spiritual growth.
Can you grow spiritually by deluding yourself and others?
>>>Those who believe God exists and those
>>>who do not are both equally far from the truth.
>>>Chuang Tsu
>>
>>Now that observation I will nod agreement to.
>>
> I wonder why, since you are so sure, that God has no "existence" but is
>just mythology pure and simple.
Strawman alert! I never said any such thing.
>A SYNOPSIS OF QUANTONICS:
I sent a reply to your post on that privately.
Do we want to discuss it here?
## The easiest person to deceive is oneself.
John Ings
wrote:
>Yes, I understand your position, however that does not make your assertions
>accurate. Unfounded, is when you accuse others of stupidity when you have
>no more knowledge than they.
When they make an unfounded assumption and I don't because of a lack
of knowledge, I'M guilty of unfounded reasoning?
## Confused as a baby in a topless bar.
Quire
John Ings wrote in message <369d5cdb...@crc-news.doc.ca>...
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:22:34 GMT, "ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, I understand your position, however that does not make your
assertions
>>accurate. Unfounded, is when you accuse others of stupidity when you have
>>no more knowledge than they.
>
>When they make an unfounded assumption and I don't because of a lack
>of knowledge, I'M guilty of unfounded reasoning?
>
sort, perceptual or conceptual; its >>>basis is neither direct observation
nor any kind of theoretical argument. . . Since an arbitrary statment has
>>>no connection to man's means of knowledge or his grasp on reality,
cognitively speaking such a statement >>>must be treated as though nothing
had been said. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever.
>>>The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a
context' the false is pronounced >>>false becauser it contradicts the
evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or
>>>context. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to
reality; it has reached the field of human >>>cognition, although it
represents an error -- but in that sense it is closer to reality than the
brazenly arbitrary.
nada_v...@altavista.net
nospam.j...@ottawa.com (John Ings) wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:22:34 GMT, "ONEstar" <ONE...@GalaxyCorp.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I understand your position, however that does not make your assertions
> >accurate. Unfounded, is when you accuse others of stupidity when you have
> >no more knowledge than they.
>
> When they make an unfounded assumption and I don't because of a lack
> of knowledge, I'M guilty of unfounded reasoning?
>
< convulsed ROFL ehehehehehehehehehehe....HALTING PROBLEM>
>
> john...@ottawa.com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ONEstar
John
>>Yes, I understand your position, however that does not make your
assertions
>>accurate. Unfounded, is when you accuse others of stupidity when you have
>>no more knowledge than they.
>When they make an unfounded assumption and I don't because of a lack
>of knowledge, I'M guilty of unfounded reasoning?
My suggestion is that both are as guilty. A lack of knowledge is the
counterpart of any knowledge one might think he possesses, thus both
individuals operate at similar levels. Any assertion contrary is merely
perspective speaking, and focus almost always changes as does the position
of the one who views.
ONE
Frank Schierenberg
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:22:37 +0800, "Frank Schierenberg"
><NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>That assumption is quite warranted. The very nature of the Hebrew
>he is working on in order to guess which word it is. He cannot
>determine exactly what is meant unambiguously because the words have
>their vowels left out and there are no spaces between words and no
>punctuation. 20 centuries or more removed from the author's mileu,
>reading someone else's translation, you haven't a hope of divining
>what a Bronze Age writer was thinking.
>
I guess that would apply to all ancient writings, including the even
more ancient Greek philosophers on which much of our civilization is based.
The important part of the Bible has to do with man's psychological make-up
and that has not changed appreciably over the millennia. The social,
historical and scientific parts are merely the matrix in which spiritual
truth is embedded. To say that happiness, gladness and joy etc. had a
different meaning then as now is an unwarranted assumption.
>>>> All you are saying is, that because you can't do
>>>>these things you refuse to believe.
>>>
>>>No, it's because YOU can't do these things I don't believe.
>>
>> Unwarranted assumption!
>
>Again, fully warranted. If by some chance you did stumble on the
>original writer's intended meaning, and by some remote chance that
>meaning had some value, you wouldn't know it. Your fellow believers
>would be waving their differing interpretations about and there would
>be no way of determining who is right. There is no standard, no
>arbitrator, no referee standing by to assign a victor. The best you
>can do is that meaningless claim that "we're all right in our own way"
>or "I've found my truth which is just different from your truth".
>
That's the way psychology works. There are no two people exactly alike
and therefore the golden rule will have as many interpretations as there are
people. To expect psychological / spiritual uniformity is of course
ludicrous. At the same time to say: Forget about being good or decent, kind
and loving, because it can't be defined accurately and uniformly is even
more ludicrous. Your "scientific realism" derails here, John.
>>You seers-
>>>of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
>>>I don't believe.
>>
>> Interpretations by their very nature are inconsistent,
>
>And therefor valueless.
>
That is YOUR interpretation, which I interpret to be indeed "valueless".
>>otherwise there would be no need for interpretation, would there now.
>
>Yes there would. When someone who knows interprets for someone who
>does not, that's valuable. When the blind lead the blind all fall in a
>ditch.
>
So there is only "value" when a minimum of two believe approximately the
same thing? That's the philosophical base of main line churches, but it is
not mine, nor of fundamentalists who believe in the leading of the holy
spirit, while each studies the Scriptures himself. So yes, there will be
diverse interpretations, but each respects the other's interpretation
because we all know it to be sourced by the same Holy Spirit in accordance
with a person's needs and readiness to receive. The results are innumerable
full gospel churches, all essentially the same in their total reliance on
the Bible as the sole authority, yet diverse in their interpretation.
Denominations are formed for administrative purposes and as minimal control
to assure that ONLY the Bible is being used as the authoritative text.
Otherwise full gospel churches are largely autonomous. That's the way it
should be all the way through Christendom, and will be if the present trend
continues.
>> Some interpretations
>>are perceived as better than others, depending on one's "maturity in the
>>spirit".
>
>Or depending on his bigotries and biases, prejudices and
>preconceptions, motives ulterior and otherwise.
>
Sure, anything is possible, if one has absolutely no faith in human
nature and wants desperately to be negative about it. Is that your aim?
>>>Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
>>
>> Metaphor.
>
>Bad metaphor.
>
Just YOUR usual, negative interpretation. All I said was: I believe
existence means well by me. It is good English using a figure of speech, and
has no literal meaning.
>>>If by some long chance you have interpreted them correctly, what
>>>reason have you to think they had anything important to communicate?
>>>
>> Because wisdom is meant to clarify principles which help to make sense
>>out of chaos.
>
>Yeah but where's the wisdom? Where's the clarification? What are the
>principles? All we get from you theists is smoke and mirrors! No
>results!
>
That's exactly your problem. You can't see anything for looking. Nobody
can spoon-feed you wisdom.
>>>> I know what you mean. The cook book format would be so much clearer,
>>>>but a lot less than half as exciting.
>>>
>>>Are we seeking excitement or truth?
>>>
>> Both of course.
>
>No. When you get excited you leap to conclusions, see things that
>aren't there, and get so obsessed you start reading what you want
>to see into what's not clear, like Percival Lowell seeing canals on
>Mars.
>
Sorry. Wisdom doesn't come in cook book or text book format. That wisdom
is therefore "valueless" is a valueless conclusion.
>>Discovering truth is far more exciting and memorable
>>than having it spoon fed to you. That's why most religious texts are
obscure
>>to a degree, to make you think and find.
>
>Or to take in the suckers more easily?
>
Why would "suckers" go for "truth" to begin with?
>>You obviously haven't found anything of value yet, or you wouldn't ask why
>>I thought wisdom contained anything valuable.
>
>No no. I asked why you thought the Bible contained anything valuable.
>If it has wisdom it's obviously valuable, but the assumption that
>because it was written BCE in an obscure language means it contains
>wisdom is entirely unwarranted.
>
Of course it is. The Bible does not contain wisdom BECAUSE it was
written BCE, but it is assumed to contain wisdom. All art is not only wholly
true but contains wisdom as well, the art for the interpreter is to
recognize it and interpret it as such. It's a given that many will not see
it and either have to believe interpreters or if they don't,
keep on looking blankly at, to them "meaningless" art.
>
>That's why it's useless. Seeing what you want to see in a search for
>truth is self-delusion.
>
You delude yourself all day long believing advertisers, that their
products are superior, or, as in this case that their ideas / ideals,
method, philosophy and interpretation are superior. Even testing them cannot
assure you of absolute truth. Think what would happen, if you were to insist
on not only wanting to check out the complete history of some medicine which
has been prescribed, but do all the testing yourself again to make sure it's
effective and safe.
Most often however, you will choose to go by reputation and precedent,
rather than testing out everything yourself. In other words you choose to
believe and trust others on faith. Personally I would rather trust a text
book like the Bible, than the interpretation of it from even the most
learned theologians.
>> One usually has a notion for what one is looking for.
>
>And therefor finds it. Has the concept of clinical detachment never
>been explained to you? Ever heard of double blind tests? They are
>specifically designed to eliminate just that sort of thing.
>
See above. How many double blind tests do you conduct yourself, to rule
out all "bigotries and biases, prejudices and preconceptions, motives
ulterior and otherwise", only to substitute your own, probably?
>
>> All art is "inerrant".
>
>Nonsense.
>
Irrelevant opinion.
>>Revelation is a somewhat abstract word painting
>
>Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
>speaking to us.
>
Glad you believe that. However most of it will remain meaningless, till
the Holy Spirit sees fit to enlighten.
>>and I don't see you fulminating against abstract art, nor against art
>>critics who wax eloquent in their interpretation of it.
>
>They're not proposing a moral code for me to live by, or trying to
>take over the minds of our children with their lies.
>
But they do. Check children's literature.
>
>I betch you loved Marshal McLuhan. That man could talk for hours
>without a soul understanding what he was saying, but everybody was
>impressed.
>
That is the art of political speech making. Except Heidegger went nazi.
>>
>> If you treat abstract art that way you are just being gauche.
>
>We're talking about wisdom Frank, not art appreciation.
It's 'interpretation' John, not "appreciation" necessarily. It's what an
art critic does for a living.
It's all very
>well for you to make the assertion that the Bible is an abstract art
>form and be snobbish about people who don't appreciate it, but this is
>the real world not an art gallery. Millions have died over the
>interpretation of that damn book! I don't know of anyone who has been
>murdered for his interpretation of a Picasso or burned at the stake
>for disparaging cubism.
>
They did not die "over the interpretation of that book" but for reasons
of power and control. That is the way it is in politics. Read Machiavelli
and learn about the reasons for forcing a particular belief system on a
population.
>>No art
>>worthy of the name is "consistently decipherable". In fact the more
>>inconsistent the opinions on it, the greater the art.
>
>And the more useless as a standard of morality.
>
Not so. You are never out of view of God, but to circumvent secular
prohibitions is considered a sport by many, because of concealment
possibilities.
>
>> Common viewpoints are not the aim of interpretation.
>
>Ergo, understanding is not the aim of interpretation.
Equating "common viewpoints" with "understanding" is ludicrous.
>Ergo it's useless for just what it purports to be good for, a manual
>on the subject of how to live a good life. No wonder it has failed so
>dismally at being such.
>
Failure is part of a grading system, where you have to specify what the
pass mark is. Failing that, it only failed from your point of view. Or do
you consider that a "common viewpoint"? I certainly don't think it is.
>>
>> That's why it's called Revelation, because imagination to "reveal" the
>>interpretation is needed.
>
>No that's not what the word means.
>
>rev·e·la·tion (revÅà l€ÆshÃn), n.
>1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.
>2. something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of
>something not before realized.
>3. Theol.
> a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
> b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
> c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
> d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.
>
>There's nothing in there about guessing games. No mention of
>interpretation of art.
>
The "revelation" was to John, not us. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit
to make the revelation to John intelligible to us, same with the whole of
the Bible.
>
>> Hardly one in good standing for rejecting Revelations in toto, not
just
>>versions of interpretations.
>
>You dropped the ball on that one Frank. He was arguing for the Roman
>Church's authority to interpret.
>
Again, RCC is just another bunch of humans trying their best to
interpret. They have no holy mandate from God guaranteeing inerrancy, though
they might believe they do.
>>>> The only difference is, you don't know beans about what your reject.
>>>
>>>Nor do you. Nor does anyone else. That's why I reject it.
>>>
>> Totally unwarranted assumption.
>
>Conclusion, not assumption.
>
Conclusion not based on evidence. What is your grading parameter? At
what point does anyone fulfill your criteria of knowing what they are
talking about? Especially when it's not "scientific realism", but deals with
abstract concepts of behavioural standards, I.e. care, love, honesty,
loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. etc.
>>>>Of necessity religious, moral and social philosophy is written in code,
>>>
>>>Do tell! What's the necessity?
>>>
>> To make you think and discover.
>
>People won't think unless teased with riddles? Claptrap!
>I can think of some valid reasons scripture is written in code, but
>that isn't one of them.
>On second thought, yes that is one of them. Some people are more
>easily hooked by con-men when there are mysteries and secrets and
>hidden meanings. Like a bunch of Masons at a conclave exchanging
>secret handshakes.
>
Why would anyone need to be "hooked by con-men" to believe in the
desirability to live up to abstract concepts of good behaviour and have
their conscience (in the form of an incorruptible God) judge their
performance? You sure know how to interpret, -but only and always
negatively, don't you?
>>>> and
>>>>some are unable to decode. Most atheists are stymied by anything
abstract,
>>>>that is beyond the cook book format.
>>>
>>>And so are all theists, as their dissent amply demonstrates.
>>>
>> Unwarranted assumption.
>
>Conclusion. Demonstrated.
>
"All theists"? A small minority may be. Most are quite able to decode
the essentials into facts. The rest they are willing to accept on faith.
Like Rush Limbough decodes political clap trap "his way", we all take such
stuff with a sense of humour, knowing there are other interpretations
extant, which may be just as valid.
>>Some interpretations are better than others.
>>Therefore dissent is essential for spiritual growth.
>
>Can you grow spiritually by deluding yourself and others?
>
How do you "delude yourself" about what it means to be a good person
within the Biblical parameter? Or that one cannot be good by one's own
volition and in self-justification, but needs Christ Jesus?
Frank A.S.
I care not much for a man's religion
whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
John Ings
<NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>>That assumption is quite warranted. The very nature of the Hebrew
>>system of writing forces the reader to assess the context of the word
>>he is working on in order to guess which word it is. He cannot
>>determine exactly what is meant unambiguously because the words have
>>their vowels left out and there are no spaces between words and no
>>punctuation. 20 centuries or more removed from the author's mileu,
>>reading someone else's translation, you haven't a hope of divining
>>what a Bronze Age writer was thinking.
>>
>
> I guess that would apply to all ancient writings,
Many, but not all. Real-estate on vellum or papyrus was precious I
guess, they didn't want to expend resources on extras like vowels and
spaces.
>including the even
>more ancient Greek philosophers on which much of our civilization is based.
No. Greek doesn't suffer from so much of that problem. The Greek
philosophers thought more clearly and did not make so much use of
muddy metaphor and obscure mysticisms.
>The important part of the Bible has to do with man's psychological make-up
>and that has not changed appreciably over the millennia.
Non sequitur. The problem lies in divining what the writer probably
meant. That depends on what you think he believed. For instance the
modern Jew or Christian may inappropriately assume the writer of a
passage in Genesis was a monotheist when in fact he was a monolatrist.
In some cases he may even have been a polytheist. Judaism did not
become monotheistic until long after tradition claims it did.
>The social,
>historical and scientific parts are merely the matrix in which spiritual
>truth is embedded.
And knowledge of these is vital to understanding. That matrix changed
over time, yet with many parts of the Bible, we aren't sure when
cetain passages were written, or by whom.
>To say that happiness, gladness and joy etc. had a
>different meaning then as now is an unwarranted assumption.
As an example of how different the meaning such concepts of joy,
happiness and justice can be over just a few centuries let me quote to
you from the works of Jonathan Edwards.
"Can the believing husband in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving
wife in Hell? Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his
unbelieving children in Hell? Can the loving wife in Heaven be happy
with her unbelieving husband in Hell?
I tell you, yea! Such will be their sense of justice that it will
increase rather than diminish their bliss."
Now a preacher who said such things from the pulpit today would soon
have a damn sparse congregation, but Edwards could say such things to
a Calvinist congregation in 1738 and have them nod approval.
>>>>> All you are saying is, that because you can't do
>>>>>these things you refuse to believe.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's because YOU can't do these things I don't believe.
>>>
>>> Unwarranted assumption!
>>
>>Again, fully warranted. If by some chance you did stumble on the
>>original writer's intended meaning, and by some remote chance that
>>meaning had some value, you wouldn't know it. Your fellow believers
>>would be waving their differing interpretations about and there would
>>be no way of determining who is right. There is no standard, no
>>arbitrator, no referee standing by to assign a victor. The best you
>>can do is that meaningless claim that "we're all right in our own way"
>>or "I've found my truth which is just different from your truth".
>>
> That's the way psychology works.
And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
> There are no two people exactly alike
>and therefore the golden rule will have as many interpretations as there are
>people.
Thus rendering it meaningless. A rule of any kind is a standard,
something to be aimed at if not attained. If you can interpret a rule
to suit yourself it isn't a rule anymore. If you can aim in any
direction you please, the general population had better get out of
range.
>To expect psychological / spiritual uniformity is of course
>ludicrous.
Quite. Therefor to expect wisdom from that source is also ludicrous.
> At the same time to say: Forget about being good or decent, kind
>and loving, because it can't be defined accurately and uniformly is even
>more ludicrous. Your "scientific realism" derails here, John.
Science has nothing to say about morality. Philosophers have much to
say on the subject however, and without apealing to scripture and
imaginary gods.
>>>You seers-
>>>>of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
>>>>I don't believe.
>>>
>>> Interpretations by their very nature are inconsistent,
>>
>>And therefor valueless.
>>
> That is YOUR interpretation, which I interpret to be indeed "valueless".
So demonstrate how inconsistent interpretations can be of value. Show
how the inconsistencies don't matter. Interpret the Bible's wisdom on
the subject of birth control for me as I asked. Show me how it
benifits mankind to have dissent on the issue.
>>>otherwise there would be no need for interpretation, would there now.
>>
>>Yes there would. When someone who knows interprets for someone who
>>does not, that's valuable. When the blind lead the blind all fall in a
>>ditch.
>>
> So there is only "value" when a minimum of two believe approximately the
>same thing?
I think you need a better consensus than that.
> That's the philosophical base of main line churches, but it is not mine,
>nor of fundamentalists who believe in the leading of the holy
>spirit, while each studies the Scriptures himself.
And then spend the rest of the time despising each other.
>So yes, there will be
>diverse interpretations, but each respects the other's interpretation
>because we all know it to be sourced by the same Holy Spirit in accordance
>with a person's needs and readiness to receive.
Oh come on now! You know better than that! Such tolerance is
practically non-existent.
> The results are innumerable
>full gospel churches, all essentially the same in their total reliance on
>the Bible as the sole authority, yet diverse in their interpretation.
And each certain their rivals are headed streight to hell. And ALL of
them are sure you're headed in that direction.
>Denominations are formed for administrative purposes and as minimal control
>to assure that ONLY the Bible is being used as the authoritative text.
Now that's the best laugh I've had in a week! Are you sure we're
living on the same planet Frank?
>Otherwise full gospel churches are largely autonomous. That's the way it
>should be all the way through Christendom, and will be if the present trend
>continues.
On Mars.
>>> Some interpretations
>>>are perceived as better than others, depending on one's "maturity in the
>>>spirit".
>>
>>Or depending on his bigotries and biases, prejudices and
>>preconceptions, motives ulterior and otherwise.
>>
> Sure, anything is possible, if one has absolutely no faith in human
>nature and wants desperately to be negative about it. Is that your aim?
Its my experience.
>>>>Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
>>>
>>> Metaphor.
>>
>>Bad metaphor.
>>
> Just YOUR usual, negative interpretation. All I said was: I believe
>existence means well by me. It is good English using a figure of speech, and
>has no literal meaning.
As I said. Meaningless.
>>>>If by some long chance you have interpreted them correctly, what
>>>>reason have you to think they had anything important to communicate?
>>>>
>>> Because wisdom is meant to clarify principles which help to make sense
>>>out of chaos.
>>
>>Yeah but where's the wisdom? Where's the clarification? What are the
>>principles? All we get from you theists is smoke and mirrors! No
>>results!
>>
> That's exactly your problem. You can't see anything for looking. Nobody
>can spoon-feed you wisdom.
Wisdom can be demonstrated Frank. It produces results. It works. If
you can't deliver, you ain't got it.
>>>You obviously haven't found anything of value yet, or you wouldn't ask why
>>>I thought wisdom contained anything valuable.
>>
>>No no. I asked why you thought the Bible contained anything valuable.
>>If it has wisdom it's obviously valuable, but the assumption that
>>because it was written BCE in an obscure language means it contains
>>wisdom is entirely unwarranted.
>>
> Of course it is. The Bible does not contain wisdom BECAUSE it was
>written BCE, but it is assumed to contain wisdom.
Why? Give me ANY reason.
> All art is not only wholly true but contains wisdom as well,
Comes automatically with the designation apparently. Now why should we
believe that?
> the art for the interpreter is to
>recognize it and interpret it as such. It's a given that many will not see
>it and either have to believe interpreters or if they don't,
>keep on looking blankly at, to them "meaningless" art.
I have seen authors shaking their heads in disbelief because some
airheaded reviewer has read into their work meanings never intended.
That must be the same technique you advocate.
>>That's why it's useless. Seeing what you want to see in a search for
>>truth is self-delusion.
>>
> You delude yourself all day long believing advertisers, that their
>products are superior, or, as in this case that their ideas / ideals,
>method, philosophy and interpretation are superior.
I may. But I may also disbelieve, and I might even disbelieve one who
in fact has a superior product. It is an accurate observation that
advertisers put into their ads things that they know their readers
want to see. That they will interpret favorably.
> Even testing them cannot assure you of absolute truth.
But it's a better way than "interpreting".
> Think what would happen, if you were to insist
>on not only wanting to check out the complete history of some medicine which
>has been prescribed, but do all the testing yourself again to make sure it's
>effective and safe.
Doctors do that all the time. They just don't tell the patient.
> Most often however, you will choose to go by reputation and precedent,
>rather than testing out everything yourself. In other words you choose to
>believe and trust others on faith.
Truncate that sentence my friend! It should read: "In other words you
choose to believe and trust others." No faith involved.
>Personally I would rather trust a text
>book like the Bible, than the interpretation of it from even the most
>learned theologians.
The more easily to delude yourself.
>>> One usually has a notion for what one is looking for.
>>
>>And therefor finds it. Has the concept of clinical detachment never
>>been explained to you? Ever heard of double blind tests? They are
>>specifically designed to eliminate just that sort of thing.
>>
> See above. How many double blind tests do you conduct yourself, to rule
>out all "bigotries and biases, prejudices and preconceptions, motives
>ulterior and otherwise", only to substitute your own, probably?
That tells me you DON'T know what a double-blind test is. Its main
purpose is just that, to eliminate your own biases.
>>> All art is "inerrant".
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
> Irrelevant opinion.
Then expalin how it is sense. Define "art" and define "inerrant".
>>>Revelation is a somewhat abstract word painting
>>
>>Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
>>speaking to us.
>>
> Glad you believe that. However most of it will remain meaningless, till
>the Holy Spirit sees fit to enlighten.
Then its useless and best ignored.
>>>and I don't see you fulminating against abstract art, nor against art
>>>critics who wax eloquent in their interpretation of it.
>>
>>They're not proposing a moral code for me to live by, or trying to
>>take over the minds of our children with their lies.
>>
> But they do. Check children's literature.
Children's literature is abstract art? Proposing a moral code?
>>> If you treat abstract art that way you are just being gauche.
>>
>>We're talking about wisdom Frank, not art appreciation.
>
> It's 'interpretation' John, not "appreciation" necessarily. It's what an
>art critic does for a living.
An interpreting scripture is what a priest does for a living. A whore
follows a more honest occupation than either of them.
>It's all very
>>well for you to make the assertion that the Bible is an abstract art
>>form and be snobbish about people who don't appreciate it, but this is
>>the real world not an art gallery. Millions have died over the
>>interpretation of that damn book! I don't know of anyone who has been
>>murdered for his interpretation of a Picasso or burned at the stake
>>for disparaging cubism.
>>
> They did not die "over the interpretation of that book" but for reasons
>of power and control.
That's a copout. Those who sought the power and control were aided in
their effort by that damn book and the bigotries and xenophobia it
encouraged.
> That is the way it is in politics. Read Machiavelli
>and learn about the reasons for forcing a particular belief system on a
>population.
And the Bible and the Koran do so facilitate that effort don't they?
>>>No art
>>>worthy of the name is "consistently decipherable". In fact the more
>>>inconsistent the opinions on it, the greater the art.
>>
>>And the more useless as a standard of morality.
>>
> Not so. You are never out of view of God, but to circumvent secular
>prohibitions is considered a sport by many, because of concealment
>possibilities.
I haven't noticed, in the history books, any indication that a fear of
gods has done any better.
>>> Common viewpoints are not the aim of interpretation.
>>
>>Ergo, understanding is not the aim of interpretation.
>
> Equating "common viewpoints" with "understanding" is ludicrous.
I'd like to see you trying to sell that one to even a first year
philosophy class. Let's tease it out. Twelve philosophers seek
understanding. Assume one has actually found it. If the other eleven
do not share his viewpoint, then they haven't found understanding.
A common viewpoint does not guarantee understanding, but lack of a
common viewpoint indicates that understanding is limited.
>>Ergo it's useless for just what it purports to be good for, a manual
>>on the subject of how to live a good life. No wonder it has failed so
>>dismally at being such.
>>
> Failure is part of a grading system, where you have to specify what the
>pass mark is. Failing that, it only failed from your point of view. Or do
>you consider that a "common viewpoint"? I certainly don't think it is.
Society does. That's how we make laws.
>>> That's why it's called Revelation, because imagination to "reveal" the
>>>interpretation is needed.
>>
>>No that's not what the word means.
>>
>>rev·e·la·tion (revÅà l€ÆshÃn), n.
>>1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.
>>2. something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of
>>something not before realized.
>>3. Theol.
>> a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
>> b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
>> c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
>> d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.
>>
>>There's nothing in there about guessing games. No mention of
>>interpretation of art.
>>
> The "revelation" was to John, not us. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit
>to make the revelation to John intelligible to us, same with the whole of
>the Bible.
And the Holy Spirit never fails . . . to incite dissent and
intolerance.
>>> Hardly one in good standing for rejecting Revelations in toto, not
>>> just versions of interpretations.
>>
>>You dropped the ball on that one Frank. He was arguing for the Roman
>>Church's authority to interpret.
>>
> Again, RCC is just another bunch of humans trying their best to
>interpret. They have no holy mandate from God guaranteeing inerrancy, though
>they might believe they do.
Which is why I reject their efforts along with the rest. But YOU said
they were rejecting Revelations in toto. You dropped the ball.
>>>>> The only difference is, you don't know beans about what your reject.
>>>>
>>>>Nor do you. Nor does anyone else. That's why I reject it.
>>>>
>>> Totally unwarranted assumption.
>>
>>Conclusion, not assumption.
>>
> Conclusion not based on evidence. What is your grading parameter? At
>what point does anyone fulfill your criteria of knowing what they are
>talking about?
By results. Christianity offers to teach us good moral standards, so
lets grade them:
1. Slavery- took Christianity 18 centuries to realize slavery is evil,
and the protestant and Catholic churches were still practicing it in
my country until the 1960's. Grade - F
2. Birth control- in an age when the global population is reaching
critical mass, the religions with the most influence in third world
contries (Catholicism and Islam) both come out against birth control.
Grade- F
3. Abortion- the churches can't agree yea or nay on that issue
either. Grade- F
4. Justice- The repentant true believer will be forgiven Christianity
teaches, while the innocent unbeliever will suffer eternal torment.
Grade- F
> Especially when it's not "scientific realism", but deals with
>abstract concepts of behavioural standards, I.e. care, love, honesty,
>loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. etc.
I go by the standards of the civilization in which I live, as do most
of us. That's all we CAN do. My idea of care, love, honesty,
loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. is not my father's, nor
was his that of my grandfathers, and I'm sure back there somewhere one
of my ancestors would have agreed with that malignant SOB Jonathan
Edwards.
> Why would anyone need to be "hooked by con-men" to believe in the
>desirability to live up to abstract concepts of good behaviour and have
>their conscience (in the form of an incorruptible God) judge their
>performance?
The don't NEED to be, but they WILL be!
>You sure know how to interpret, -but only and always
>negatively, don't you?
Read some history.
>>>>>some are unable to decode. Most atheists are stymied by anything
>>>>>abstract, that is beyond the cook book format.
>>>>
>>>>And so are all theists, as their dissent amply demonstrates.
>>>>
>>> Unwarranted assumption.
>>
>>Conclusion. Demonstrated.
>>
> "All theists"? A small minority may be.
The dissent is the indicator, and it's widespread.
>Most are quite able to decode the essentials into facts.
They just can't agree on what they are. Is Baptism nescessary? Faith?
Works? Faith and works? Must you be Born again? Will Mormans get to
heaven? JW's? Seventh Day Adventists? Catholics? Jews?
>The rest they are willing to accept on faith.
>Like Rush Limbough decodes political clap trap "his way", we all take such
>stuff with a sense of humour, knowing there are other interpretations
>extant, which may be just as valid.
Emphasis on the MAY.
>>>Some interpretations are better than others.
>>>Therefore dissent is essential for spiritual growth.
>>
>>Can you grow spiritually by deluding yourself and others?
>>
> How do you "delude yourself" about what it means to be a good person
>within the Biblical parameter?
Very, very easily.
>I care not much for a man's religion
>whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
>- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
What about his slave?
## Name two flaming Nazi gasbags--
## ans: the Hindenburg & Rush Limbaugh
Frank A. S.
>On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:17:09 +0800, "Frank Schierenberg"
><NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
>
>And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
>
Everything is always shit with you. "No wisdom" without a 'because'?
Tell us then what DOES "produce wisdom" in your view.
>> There are no two people exactly alike
>>and therefore the golden rule will have as many interpretations as there
>>are people.
>
>Thus rendering it meaningless.
In that case you just claimed, that love is meaningless. Great going
John!!!!
A rule of any kind is a standard,
>something to be aimed at if not attained. If you can interpret a rule
>to suit yourself it isn't a rule anymore. If you can aim in any
>direction you please, the general population had better get out of
>range.
>
That is why Christ was against living by the Jewish law, for it could be
circumvented by the smart and the sly. Caring love cannot and is always
true.
>>To expect psychological / spiritual uniformity is of course
>>ludicrous.
>
>Quite. Therefor to expect wisdom from that source is also ludicrous.
>
Cite your own source then. Or do you want to go so far as to claim the
word "wisdom" is meaningless?
>
>> At the same time to say: Forget about being good or decent, kind
>>and loving, because it can't be defined accurately and uniformly is even
>>more ludicrous. Your "scientific realism" derails here, John.
>
>Science has nothing to say about morality. Philosophers have much to
>say on the subject however, and without apealing to scripture and
>imaginary gods.
>
The "imaginary god" is of YOUR imagination.
>>>>You seers-
>>>>>of-mysticism within scripture seldom agree on what you see. That's why
>>>>>I don't believe.
>>>>
>>>> Interpretations by their very nature are inconsistent,
>>>
>>>And therefor valueless.
>>>
>> That is YOUR interpretation, which I interpret to be indeed
"valueless".
>
>So demonstrate how inconsistent interpretations can be of value. Show
>how the inconsistencies don't matter. Interpret the Bible's wisdom on
>the subject of birth control for me as I asked. Show me how it
>benifits mankind to have dissent on the issue.
>
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Bible does not mention "birth control".
However Christian consensus is, that once you permit ANY interference in the
reproductive process, the interference WILL progressively increase and
eventually result in a "Brave New World". Also birth control trends to
promote licentiousness, and when sex comes cheap and easy, it tend to lose
it's exhilaration and emotional fulfillment. It becomes just another
consumption item in a boring life.
>> That's the philosophical base of main line churches, but it is not mine,
>>nor of fundamentalists who believe in the leading of the holy
>>spirit, while each studies the Scriptures himself.
>
>And then spend the rest of the time despising each other.
>
>>So yes, there will be
>>diverse interpretations, but each respects the other's interpretation
>>because we all know it to be sourced by the same Holy Spirit in accordance
>>with a person's needs and readiness to receive.
>
>Oh come on now! You know better than that! Such tolerance is
>practically non-existent.
>
Not in YOUR world, for you will always look for and cease on the
disharmonious. But in MY world the harmonious predominates, for that is the
Christian aim and purpose. Because in fundamentalist circles anyone's
interpretation of scripture, as the Holy Spirit leads, is regarded as valid
as any other, including those of the most learned of theologians. The only
reference permitted is the Bible itself, never a commentary, therefore
interpretations can vary widely without raising an eyebrow. Actually, more
than accurate interpretation, enthusiasm for the faith and love of the Lord
are counted as the most important.
>> The results are innumerable
>>full gospel churches, all essentially the same in their total reliance on
>>the Bible as the sole authority, yet diverse in their interpretation.
>
>And each certain their rivals are headed streight to hell. And ALL of
>them are sure you're headed in that direction.
>
Again, totally untrue and just something you WANT to believe.
>>Denominations are formed for administrative purposes and as minimal
control
>>to assure that ONLY the Bible is being used as the authoritative text.
>
>Now that's the best laugh I've had in a week! Are you sure we're
>living on the same planet Frank?
>
Tell me about your church. Mine are that way.
>>Otherwise full gospel churches are largely autonomous. That's the way it
>>should be all the way through Christendom, and will be if the present
>>trend continues.
>
>On Mars.
>
Only in your imagination.
>>>> Some interpretations
>>>>are perceived as better than others, depending on one's "maturity in the
>>>>spirit".
>>>
>>>Or depending on his bigotries and biases, prejudices and
>>>preconceptions, motives ulterior and otherwise.
>>>
>> Sure, anything is possible, if one has absolutely no faith in human
>>nature and wants desperately to be negative about it. Is that your aim?
>
>Its my experience.
>
It's your purpose in life to find and highlight the negative. He who
seeks will find, and you must have done a very thorough search yielding lots
of data, but keeping it secret, except for the results which are invariably
negative. Right?
>>>>>Bad axiom. 'Existence' couldn't care less about you.
>>>>
>>>> Metaphor.
>>>
>>>Bad metaphor.
>>>
>> Just YOUR usual, negative interpretation. All I said was: I believe
>>existence means well by me. It is good English using a figure of speech,
and
>>has no literal meaning.
>
>As I said. Meaningless.
>
To you, yes, but not to most other people on this planet. I cannot help
you lack of comprehension, and your conviction of the "meaninglessness of
life".
>
>Wisdom can be demonstrated Frank. It produces results. It works. If
>you can't deliver, you ain't got it.
>
But I demonstrate it and it has tremendous results in my life. Can I
help that you are blind to it?
>>>
>> Of course it is. The Bible does not contain wisdom BECAUSE it was
>>written BCE, but it is assumed to contain wisdom.
>
>Why? Give me ANY reason.
>
Because of its reputation as a book full of wisdom.
>> All art is not only wholly true but contains wisdom as well,
>
>Comes automatically with the designation apparently. Now why should we
>believe that?
>
>> the art for the interpreter is to
>>recognize it and interpret it as such. It's a given that many will not see
>>it and either have to believe interpreters or if they don't,
>>keep on looking blankly at, to them "meaningless" art.
>
>I have seen authors shaking their heads in disbelief because some
>airheaded reviewer has read into their work meanings never intended.
>That must be the same technique you advocate.
>
I will bet my bottom dollar, that most visual artists are quite
flabbergasted reading their art critic's reviews and never knew that their
work had such deep meanings, pro or con.
>>>That's why it's useless. Seeing what you want to see in a search for
>>>truth is self-delusion.
>>>
>> You delude yourself all day long believing advertisers, that their
>>products are superior, or, as in this case that their ideas / ideals,
>>method, philosophy and interpretation are superior.
>
>I may. But I may also disbelieve, and I might even disbelieve one who
>in fact has a superior product. It is an accurate observation that
>advertisers put into their ads things that they know their readers
>want to see. That they will interpret favorably.
>
>> Even testing them cannot assure you of absolute truth.
>
>But it's a better way than "interpreting".
>
>> Think what would happen, if you were to insist
>>on not only wanting to check out the complete history of some medicine
which
>>has been prescribed, but do all the testing yourself again to make sure
it's
>>effective and safe.
>
>Doctors do that all the time. They just don't tell the patient.
Non sequitur. You are no doctor and the doctor is NOT the one taking the
medicine.
>
>> Most often however, you will choose to go by reputation and precedent,
>>rather than testing out everything yourself. In other words you choose to
>>believe and trust others on faith.
>
>Truncate that sentence my friend! It should read: "In other words you
>choose to believe and trust others." No faith involved.
>
I have faith that my wife is faithful to me. Why? Because my faith is
based on extrapolations of past experiences. You will NOT succeed in
invalidating the word "faith" and get it removed from our vocabulary, like
so many atheists want to.
>
>>Personally I would rather trust a text
>>book like the Bible, than the interpretation of it from even the most
>>learned theologians.
>
>The more easily to delude yourself.
>
Your "delusion" is another man's salvation.
>>>> One usually has a notion for what one is looking for.
>>>
>>>And therefor finds it. Has the concept of clinical detachment never
>>>been explained to you? Ever heard of double blind tests? They are
>>>specifically designed to eliminate just that sort of thing.
>>>
>> See above. How many double blind tests do you conduct yourself, to
rule
>>out all "bigotries and biases, prejudices and preconceptions, motives
>>ulterior and otherwise", only to substitute your own, probably?
>
>That tells me you DON'T know what a double-blind test is. Its main
>purpose is just that, to eliminate your own biases.
>
Since you don't believe 'love' exists, because it cannot be precisely
defined and codified, devise a DB test to test its existence. We will see
whether you can eliminate your own biases.
>>>> All art is "inerrant".
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>>
>> Irrelevant opinion.
>
>Then expalin how it is sense. Define "art" and define "inerrant".
>
Art is anything created for the edification of humanity. Anything
created for edification is always 'inerrant'.
>>>>Revelation is a somewhat abstract word painting
>>>
>>>Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
>>>speaking to us.
>>>
>> Glad you believe that. However most of it will remain meaningless,
till
>>the Holy Spirit sees fit to enlighten.
>
>Then its useless and best ignored.
>
Only to those who ignore the Holy Spirit.
>>>>and I don't see you fulminating against abstract art, nor against art
>>>>critics who wax eloquent in their interpretation of it.
>>>
>>>They're not proposing a moral code for me to live by, or trying to
>>>take over the minds of our children with their lies.
>>>
>> But they do. Check children's literature.
>
>Children's literature is abstract art? Proposing a moral code?
>
Last I read it was mostly didactic, and none of the art work was in any
way representative of reality.
>
>An interpreting scripture is what a priest does for a living. A whore
>follows a more honest occupation than either of them.
>
Again, your utterly foul interpretation without rhyme not reason.
>
>That's a copout. Those who sought the power and control were aided in
>their effort by that damn book and the bigotries and xenophobia it
>encouraged.
>
That "damn book" has Christ's commandment: "Love each other as I have
loved you" in it. It takes a pathalogical negatifvist to read "bigotry and
xenophobia" into that.
>> That is the way it is in politics. Read Machiavelli
>>and learn about the reasons for forcing a particular belief system on a
>>population.
>
>And the Bible and the Koran do so facilitate that effort don't they?
>
What other belief systems do you advocate?
>
>I haven't noticed, in the history books, any indication that a fear of
>gods has done any better.
>
What would have happened without "fear of God" is not testable and you
have no data to support your contention.
>>>> Common viewpoints are not the aim of interpretation.
>>>
>>>Ergo, understanding is not the aim of interpretation.
>>
>> Equating "common viewpoints" with "understanding" is ludicrous.
>
>I'd like to see you trying to sell that one to even a first year
>philosophy class. Let's tease it out. Twelve philosophers seek
>understanding. Assume one has actually found it. If the other eleven
>do not share his viewpoint, then they haven't found understanding.
>A common viewpoint does not guarantee understanding, but lack of a
>common viewpoint indicates that understanding is limited.
>
Not at all. The wisest of men hold, that the more you know, the more
your realize how little in known.
>> Failure is part of a grading system, where you have to specify what
the
>>pass mark is. Failing that, it only failed from your point of view. Or do
>>you consider that a "common viewpoint"? I certainly don't think it is.
>
>Society does. That's how we make laws.
>
Society doea NOT make laws covering civil behaviour, such as kindness,
caring, love, courtesy, respect etc. etc.
>
>And the Holy Spirit never fails . . . to incite dissent and
>intolerance.
>
Don't you ever tire of making the invariabley negative judgment about
everything? You are such a downer. In your skin I would be chronically
depressed.
>
>Which is why I reject their efforts along with the rest.
Of course. That is expected from you.
But YOU said
>they were rejecting Revelations in toto. You dropped the ball.
>
RCC rejecting Revelations? I don't know they do. I would not be able to
drop any ball on that one.
>
>By results. Christianity offers to teach us good moral standards, so
>lets grade them:
>
>1. Slavery- took Christianity 18 centuries to realize slavery is evil,
>and the protestant and Catholic churches were still practicing it in
>my country until the 1960's. Grade - F
Bullshit.
>2. Birth control- in an age when the global population is reaching
>critical mass, the religions with the most influence in third world
>contries (Catholicism and Islam) both come out against birth control.
>Grade- F
Those are human institutions. The holy scriptures from either of them
has nothing to say on the matter.
>3. Abortion- the churches can't agree yea or nay on that issue
>either. Grade- F
Same as above.
>4. Justice- The repentant true believer will be forgiven Christianity
>teaches, while the innocent unbeliever will suffer eternal torment.
>Grade- F
>
Bullshit!
>> Especially when it's not "scientific realism", but deals with
>>abstract concepts of behavioural standards, I.e. care, love, honesty,
>>loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. etc.
>
>I go by the standards of the civilization in which I live, as do most
>of us. That's all we CAN do. My idea of care, love, honesty,
>loyalty, patience, generosity of spirit etc. is not my father's, nor
>was his that of my grandfathers, and I'm sure back there somewhere one
>of my ancestors would have agreed with that malignant SOB Jonathan
>Edwards.
>
Incomprehensible non sequitur.
>> Why would anyone need to be "hooked by con-men" to believe in the
>>desirability to live up to abstract concepts of good behaviour and have
>>their conscience (in the form of an incorruptible God) judge their
>>performance?
>
>The don't NEED to be, but they WILL be!
>
Only a paranoid negativist thinks that way.
>>You sure know how to interpret, -but only and always
>>negatively, don't you?
>
>Read some history.
>
If you look for the negatrive, the history books are full of it, but
there is a great deal more positive stuff to be found. Sorry you missed it.
>>>
>> "All theists"? A small minority may be.
>
>The dissent is the indicator, and it's widespread.
>
Only in your mind. Probably from reading too much sensational tabloid
gossip.
>>Most are quite able to decode the essentials into facts.
>
>They just can't agree on what they are. Is Baptism nescessary? Faith?
>Works? Faith and works? Must you be Born again? Will Mormans get to
>heaven? JW's? Seventh Day Adventists? Catholics? Jews?
>
That is NOT for us to decide. You work on your own perfection and your
relationship with the Lord, and not on all those other issues which are
really quite periferal.
>>The rest they are willing to accept on faith.
>>Like Rush Limbough decodes political clap trap "his way", we all take such
>>stuff with a sense of humour, knowing there are other interpretations
>>extant, which may be just as valid.
>
>Emphasis on the MAY.
>
Of course! We are not robots for Pete's sake.
>>>>Some interpretations are better than others.
>>>>Therefore dissent is essential for spiritual growth.
>>>
>>>Can you grow spiritually by deluding yourself and others?
>>>
>> How do you "delude yourself" about what it means to be a good person
>>within the Biblical parameter?
>
>Very, very easily.
>
Then you have no idea what the Bible is all about.
>>I care not much for a man's religion
>>whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
>>- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
>
>What about his slave?
>
I always thought Lincoln emancipated slaves.
>
Frank A. S.
Custom wil reconcile people to any atrocity;
and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.
- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
John Ings
>>And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
>>
> Everything is always shit with you.
Not everything Frank! Just the stuff I get from you! :->
>"No wisdom" without a 'because'?
Let's recount the exchange in full:
I said-
>>>The best you
>>>can do is that meaningless claim that "we're all right in our own way"
>>>or "I've found my truth which is just different from your truth".
You responded:
>> That's the way psychology works.
And to that I replied:
>And it's why such psychology produces no wisdom.
Now you say you want a "because"?
BECAUSE Frank, there is only ONE truth. That's why it's truth.
You can't have truth that's individual, because then it isn't a
standard.
>Tell us then what DOES "produce wisdom" in your view.
Why? The argument is not about what produces truth, but rather what
truth is.
>>> There are no two people exactly alike
>>>and therefore the golden rule will have as many interpretations as there
>>>are people.
>>
>>Thus rendering it meaningless.
>
> In that case you just claimed, that love is meaningless. Great going
>John!!!!
You just can't figure out the difference between subjective and
objective can you Frank? Love is an emotion, it is subjective, it can
be different for every individual. A rule is an objective definition.
It must be the same for everyone, or it's useless.
>>A rule of any kind is a standard,
>>something to be aimed at if not attained. If you can interpret a rule
>>to suit yourself it isn't a rule anymore. If you can aim in any
>>direction you please, the general population had better get out of
>>range.
>>
> That is why Christ was against living by the Jewish law,
Except he wasn't, as he stated quite clearly (if you believe Matthew)
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the
prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one
letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all
is accomplished.
> for it could be circumvented by the smart and the sly. Caring love
>cannot and is always true.
Love is a subjective emotion. It is not an objective matter and the
word truth in relation to it has no meaning.
>>>To expect psychological / spiritual uniformity is of course
>>>ludicrous.
>>
>>Quite. Therefor to expect wisdom from that source is also ludicrous.
>>
> Cite your own source then.
Why? I'm not the one advancing sources of wisdom. You are.
> Or do you want to go so far as to claim the word "wisdom" is meaningless?
I'd go so far as to say its rather hard to define. The dictionary has
it thus:
wis·dom (wiz_duhm) n.
1. the quality or state of being wise; sagacity, discernment, or
insight.
2. scholarly knowledge or learning.
3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts.
4. a wise act or saying.
Now I will concede, at the outset, that the scholarly knowledge or
learning definition is not the one we're talking about. A man can have
much learning and not be wise. Having much insight and ability to
discern would be closer to the issue don't you think?
>>Science has nothing to say about morality. Philosophers have much to
>>say on the subject however, and without apealing to scripture and
>>imaginary gods.
>>
> The "imaginary god" is of YOUR imagination.
No, I don't imagine any gods. Jesus is the god of the Christian's
imagination, and you all imagine him differently.
>>So demonstrate how inconsistent interpretations can be of value. Show
>>how the inconsistencies don't matter. Interpret the Bible's wisdom on
>>the subject of birth control for me as I asked. Show me how it
>>benifits mankind to have dissent on the issue.
>>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but the Bible does not mention "birth control".
You don't disappoint me. I know it doesn't mention the subject. Its a
book about how to live a moral life in Bronze Age Judea and Iron Age
Rome. It's not about the 20th century.
>However Christian consensus is, that once you permit ANY interference in the
>reproductive process, the interference WILL progressively increase and
>eventually result in a "Brave New World".
No that's NOT the Christian concensus, as is easily demonstrated.
Christians buy more birth control devices than any other religious
group.
> Also birth control trends to promote licentiousness,
"Among the world's more peculiar perversions is chastity" a cynic once
remarked.
>and when sex comes cheap and easy, it tend to lose
>it's exhilaration and emotional fulfillment.
It should therefor be forbidden to the greatest degree possible?
Librarians should take care not to shelve books by female authors next
to those by male authors, unless the two are married? Believe it or
not, Victorian librarians used to do that.
> It becomes just another consumption item in a boring life.
Yeah. It's more fun if it's a guilty sin huh? Women should wear ankle
length voluminous gowns and head coverings as they do in Islamic
countries, so that a glimpse of hair or leg becomes a turn-on? Or even
hairy legs?:)
>>>So yes, there will be
>>>diverse interpretations, but each respects the other's interpretation
>>>because we all know it to be sourced by the same Holy Spirit in accordance
>>>with a person's needs and readiness to receive.
>>
>>Oh come on now! You know better than that! Such tolerance is
>>practically non-existent.
>>
> Not in YOUR world,
The real one . . .
>for you will always look for and cease on the
>disharmonious. But in MY world the harmonious predominates, for that is the
>Christian aim and purpose. Because in fundamentalist circles
Which isn't the real world, but a fantasy land where Creationists grow
row on row . . .
>anyone's
>interpretation of scripture, as the Holy Spirit leads, is regarded as valid
>as any other,
That sure isn't what I see here in these newsgroups over the past
decade or so Frank.
> including those of the most learned of theologians. The only
>reference permitted is the Bible itself, never a commentary, therefore
>interpretations can vary widely without raising an eyebrow.
Or even approaching anything resembling reason . . .
> Actually, more
>than accurate interpretation, enthusiasm for the faith and love of the Lord
>are counted as the most important.
Now that statement I will accept without a quibble.
I suspect that this is indeed just how you arrive at you exegesis.
>>> Just YOUR usual, negative interpretation. All I said was: I believe
>>>existence means well by me. It is good English using a figure of speech,
>>>and has no literal meaning.
>>
>>As I said. Meaningless.
>>
> To you, yes, but not to most other people on this planet.
I'm quite sure the majority or readers of the English language would
read "no literal meaning" to be the same as "meaningless".
>>Wisdom can be demonstrated Frank. It produces results. It works. If
>>you can't deliver, you ain't got it.
>>
> But I demonstrate it
No you don't. You just claim so.
> and it has tremendous results in my life. Can I help that you are blind to it?
Delusion can produce tremendous results too.
How are we to discern wisdom from delusion Frank?
Remember that double-blind system mentioned in other posts?
That's how. Apply that scientific method to prayer, astrology, fortune
telling, tea leaf reading or any other superstition and they fail the
test Frank. They don't work, except psychosomatically. They're
placebos. Sugar pills.
>>> Of course it is. The Bible does not contain wisdom BECAUSE it was
>>>written BCE, but it is assumed to contain wisdom.
>>
>>Why? Give me ANY reason.
>>
> Because of its reputation as a book full of wisdom.
It is assumed to contain wisdom because of its reputation as a book
full of wisdom. Tautology exemplified.
>>I have seen authors shaking their heads in disbelief because some
>>airheaded reviewer has read into their work meanings never intended.
>>That must be the same technique you advocate.
>>
> I will bet my bottom dollar, that most visual artists are quite
>flabbergasted reading their art critic's reviews and never knew that their
>work had such deep meanings, pro or con.
If they didn't put meaning in, it ain't there.
You guys are tea-leaf reading.
>>> Think what would happen, if you were to insist
>>>on not only wanting to check out the complete history of some medicine
>>>which has been prescribed, but do all the testing yourself again to make sure
>>>it's effective and safe.
>>
>>Doctors do that all the time. They just don't tell the patient.
>
> Non sequitur. You are no doctor and the doctor is NOT the one taking the
>medicine.
So I AM doing all the testing yourself again to make sure
it's effective and safe aren't I? And regularly some patients prove
allergic to the prescription.
>>> Most often however, you will choose to go by reputation and precedent,
>>>rather than testing out everything yourself. In other words you choose to
>>>believe and trust others on faith.
>>
>>Truncate that sentence my friend! It should read: "In other words you
>>choose to believe and trust others." No faith involved.
>>
> I have faith that my wife is faithful to me.
No, you have trust. Trust that can be withdrawn if she cheats. Faith
must be maintained even if she does cheat, over and over.
> You will NOT succeed in
>invalidating the word "faith" and get it removed from our vocabulary, like
>so many atheists want to.
The theist's faith is what's invalid, not the word.
>>> How many double blind tests do you conduct yourself, to rule
>>>out all "bigotries and biases, prejudices and preconceptions, motives
>>>ulterior and otherwise", only to substitute your own, probably?
>>
>>That tells me you DON'T know what a double-blind test is. Its main
>>purpose is just that, to eliminate your own biases.
>>
> Since you don't believe 'love' exists, because it cannot be precisely
>defined and codified,
Strawman alert!!!
>>>>> All art is "inerrant".
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>> Irrelevant opinion.
It remains nonsense until you define the word you correctly enclosed
in quotes to indicate a non-standard meaning. What the heck do you
mean by "inerrant"? Certainly not "without error".
>>Then expalin how it is sense. Define "art" and define "inerrant".
>>
> Art is anything created for the edification of humanity. Anything
>created for edification is always 'inerrant'.
So lets see now- Hitler's Mein Kamph and the propaganda of Goebbels
were both created for the "edification" of the German people. They
were therefor "art" and "inerrant"? What a ludicrous concept!
By that definition any lie is valid.
>>>>Revelation (with the R capitalized) refers to divine revelation. God
>>>>speaking to us.
>>>>
>>> Glad you believe that.
Believe what? That such a thing exists? I don't.
>>That's a copout. Those who sought the power and control were aided in
>>their effort by that damn book and the bigotries and xenophobia it
>>encouraged.
>>
> That "damn book" has Christ's commandment: "Love each other as I have
>loved you" in it. It takes a pathalogical negatifvist to read "bigotry and
>xenophobia" into that.
I'm talking about what it DOES, not what it says.
>>I haven't noticed, in the history books, any indication that a fear of
>>gods has done any better.
>>
> What would have happened without "fear of God" is not testable and you
>have no data to support your contention.
There are no atheist societies? What about Buddhist cultures? I have
not noted that they are particularly warlike.
>>A common viewpoint does not guarantee understanding, but lack of a
>>common viewpoint indicates that understanding is limited.
>>
> Not at all. The wisest of men hold, that the more you know, the more
>your realize how little in known.
Non sequitur. The latter sentence is correct in its assertion, but
irellevant to the issue.
> Society doea NOT make laws covering civil behaviour, such as kindness,
>caring, love, courtesy, respect etc. etc.
It certainly does.
Civil behaviour- by civil I presume you mean polite. Same as courtesy
and respect. Ever hear of contempt of court?
Kindness- heard of cruelty to animals?
Caring- heard of laws respecting child neglect?
Love- heard of breach of promise?
>>And the Holy Spirit never fails . . . to incite dissent and
>>intolerance.
>>
> Don't you ever tire of making the invariabley negative judgment about
>everything?
The Holy Spirit isn't everything. There you go with the sweeping
generalities again.
>> But YOU said
>>they were rejecting Revelations in toto. You dropped the ball.
>>
> RCC rejecting Revelations? I don't know they do.
But you said they did.
>>By results. Christianity offers to teach us good moral standards, so
>>lets grade them:
>>
>>1. Slavery- took Christianity 18 centuries to realize slavery is evil,
>>and the protestant and Catholic churches were still practicing it in
>>my country until the 1960's. Grade - F
>
> Bullshit.
Fact.
>>2. Birth control- in an age when the global population is reaching
>>critical mass, the religions with the most influence in third world
>>contries (Catholicism and Islam) both come out against birth control.
>>Grade- F
>
> Those are human institutions.
They're religions.
> The holy scriptures from either of them has nothing to say on the matter.
That's what I'm on about Frank! The way the Bible, which has nothing
to say about a lot of vital issues, and erroneous things to say about
many more, still inspires its idolaters to malignant behaviour. It
facilitates bigotry and hatred with its muddly ease of interpretation
to suit the reader. If someone was in favor of frying little babies
for breakfast they could probably find a Biblical passage to support
their belief.
>>3. Abortion- the churches can't agree yea or nay on that issue
>>either. Grade- F
>
> Same as above.
The bible is proposed by Christians as a moral guide.
So guide already!
>>4. Justice- The repentant true believer will be forgiven Christianity
>>teaches, while the innocent unbeliever will suffer eternal torment.
>>Grade- F
>>
> Bullshit!
Christian theology. Widely held, even if you don't hold it yourself.
>>> Why would anyone need to be "hooked by con-men" to believe in the
>>>desirability to live up to abstract concepts of good behaviour and have
>>>their conscience (in the form of an incorruptible God) judge their
>>>performance?
>>
>>The don't NEED to be, but they WILL be!
>>
> Only a paranoid negativist thinks that way.
Or a historian.
>>>You sure know how to interpret, -but only and always
>>>negatively, don't you?
>>
>>Read some history.
>>
> If you look for the negatrive, the history books are full of it, but
>there is a great deal more positive stuff to be found. Sorry you missed it.
Point it out then.
>>> "All theists"? A small minority may be.
>>
>>The dissent is the indicator, and it's widespread.
>>
> Only in your mind. Probably from reading too much sensational tabloid
>gossip.
Nah! Just newsgroups.
>>>Most are quite able to decode the essentials into facts.
>>
>>They just can't agree on what they are. Is Baptism nescessary? Faith?
>>Works? Faith and works? Must you be Born again? Will Mormons get to
>>heaven? JW's? Seventh Day Adventists? Catholics? Jews?
>>
> That is NOT for us to decide.
But you do argue about it incessantly.
>ou work on your own perfection and your
>relationship with the Lord, and not on all those other issues which are
>really quite periferal.
That's not what I read here in this forum, or others like it.
>>> How do you "delude yourself" about what it means to be a good person
>>>within the Biblical parameter?
>>
>>Very, very easily.
>>
> Then you have no idea what the Bible is all about.
Nor does anyone else.
>>>I care not much for a man's religion
>>>whose dog and cat are not the better for it.
>>>- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
>>
>>What about his slave?
>>
> I always thought Lincoln emancipated slaves.
Belatedly, and somewhat reluctantly. Read your history.
## A historian's first duties are sacrilege and the mocking of false
gods.
Alan Sindler
> > That is why Christ was against living by the Jewish law,
>
> Except he wasn't, as he stated quite clearly (if you believe Matthew)
> Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the
> prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
> 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one
> letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all
> is accomplished.
Here we have the great contradiction that fundamentalists find themselves in:
When someone points out verses in the Old Testament that are troublesome (such
as a woman having to marry her rapist, or the condoning of slavery), the
response is: "Oh, that was the old law, but we're under the new law (New
Testament), now.
Really? How do you reconcile that excuse with the above verse? Can't do it,
can ya?
Curiously yours,
Alan
mdhjwh
Modern evolutionary psychology has a great deal to say about
morality, loyalty , love , fidelity etc.
JOHN H.
PS. If you will excuse an observation from an outsiders
perspective- this debate is being carried out in a most uncharitable
and "unchristian" manner.
"
John Ings
wrote:
>"Science has nothing to say about morality."
>Wrong ,wrong,wrong.
>Modern evolutionary psychology has a great deal to say about
>morality, loyalty , love , fidelity etc.
That assumes you consider psychology a science.
And what the heck is "modern evolutionary psychology"?
>PS. If you will excuse an observation from an outsiders
>perspective- this debate is being carried out in a most uncharitable
>and "unchristian" manner.
Do you consider lying to be unchristian? Then yes, you're right,
because Creationists are liars, bigtime!
## The ICR believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
John Ings
Ings) wrote:
>>PS. If you will excuse an observation from an outsiders
>>perspective- this debate is being carried out in a most uncharitable
>>and "unchristian" manner.
>
>Do you consider lying to be unchristian? Then yes, you're right,
>because Creationists are liars, bigtime!
On further consideration, I think my last statement was unfair to
Frank, because I have not had any Creationist crap from him.
Since I am an atheist, you can expect an "unchristian manner" from me.
If Frank has one too, it doesn't bother me, we both use an abrasive
debating style and I don't twit him about it being "unchristian" for
that reason.
## We may forgive those who bore us, but never those we bore.