Posts by adamah

6

Jesus did not take the 'two witness' rule literally. He was concerned with the overall evidence.

by yadda yadda 2 in

at first glance, jesus appears to strictly support the two witness rule here:.

john 8:16-18 but if i do judge, my decisions are right, because i am not alone.

i stand with the father, who sent me.

adamah

Interesting thought, yadda.

However, John 8 is not a criminal case being heard in the Sanhedrin, but Jesus addressing a crowd ('testifying' AKA preaching). The Pharisees were pointing out that Jesus was engaging in 'special pleading', and appealing on his own behalf as an individual.

Jesus also is seen engaging in evasive word games, relying on the ambiguity of the meaning of the word 'father': he didn't clarify whether he was talking about his mortal 'father', or referring to God. The crowd was left wondering which, since to claim to be the son of God was blasphemy (a stoning offense). That's why they asked him point-blank where his father was, in verse 19; Jesus gave them an evasive answer.

(Whether God or mortal father, Jesus was claiming to be the son who acted on behalf of the familial patriarch by serving as the redeeming agent authorized to act on the father's behalf. The redeemer (Hebrew word, go'el) is the same concept of a son (usually the eldest) who acts on behalf of the father to say, avenge the spilled blood of a member of the clan (the father was older, and would pick a younger member to chase after the killer of a member of the family), or to prevent a relative from being sold into slavery by paying off their debts.)

By John 10, people had enough of Jesus' evasiveness, and said they weren't stoning him for "his good works", but for blasphemy, claiming to be the 'Son of God'. Jesus came back by quoting Psalms 38, the passage where flawed mortals who acted as if they were 'gods' didn't intervene for the poor and downtrodden, etc, as Jesus had (eg feeding the masses, healing, etc). Jehovah refers to these mortal men as "Sons of God" in Psalms, so Jesus raises a valid point to defend against the charge of blasphemy.

(BTW, notice how Jesus often says, "your law", as if it doesn't apply to him, too.)

Per Pamela Barmash (a lawyer and OT scholar) in her book "Homicide in the Biblical World", Mosaic law generally didn't place any weigh on physical evidence in any significant way, for obvious reasons: forensics wasn't even a twinkle in the eye at the time of Moses. Hence the concern was not finding the actual guilty party, but mitigating the guilt incurred on the inhabitants of Nation of Israel by engaging in rituals (like the red heifer) to redeem the guilt.

There's a parody YouTube video that illustrates the point quite well (WARNING: contains many cheesy puns):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlpAW848BCA

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

-1x-1=1

Viviane said- Actually, not even in simple algebra. 1*-1 = -1. He tried to do a mathematical proof and blew up on the simplest thing of all.

Uh, in algebra, a negative number times a negative number gives a positive number...

From a site called, "Math is fun":

http://www.mathsisfun.com/multiplying-negatives.html

But in the immortal words of PeeWee Herman, you meant to do to that, right?

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Besty said-

go on phizzy - take a crack at the OP now you have had a beer :-)

Ahhh, Cofty won't allow that kind of thing, since he's already said people have to legitimately believe in their position in order to argue the theist position (you can find his words from a week ago or so, but he said something like "true theists only", and how he's not playing games).

BTW, I can't figure out where all the "true theists" went? You don't suppose few were willing to play a rigged game where the house is pre-destined to win?

Adam - Bart is either being ironic or moronic. I am inclined to believe its the former.

Do you understand classical symbolic logic?

Adam

37

Why would Adam or Eve choose the tree of knowledge instead of the tree of life.

by smiddy in

please help me out here .. in genesis 2:16 it says " and jehovah god also laid this command upon the man: from every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction.

17 but as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it , for in the day you eat from it ,you will positively die.. ok we get that , but what about this ?.

wouldnt it make more sense to forbid the eating of the tree of life first ?

adamah

Adam said- You're arguing on the basis of being an anachronistic interpretation, when the account itself disproves that assertion.

Consider how eating the fruit of the TOK worked: they ate of the fruit that bestowed wisdom, and "their eyes were opened" afterwards.

Apo said- That's a good point, but I still think it's more plausible that the tree of life represented a blessing, a continual provision to allow them to live forever, that was removed from them when they sinned, just as they were cursed in various ways. I don't see how that's anachronistic at all.

I think you're mixing my points, since you had suggested that some were anachronistically inserting a comic book version for the mechanism of the TOL, when I was pointing out how that WAS the mechanism presented in the story for the TOKOGAE, so it's not an anachonistic mechanism to the story, but actually a PART of the story, except for the other tree different. That was my point.

Now, you want to talk about which is more 'plausible', in a story with talking snakes and magic fruit that bestows wisdom, and another gives life?

We're into eisegesis land then, by adding elements to the story which aren't explicitly stated in the original. Most of the articles I've read on the original intent reflect the fruit of the tree of life isn't meant to be anything more complicated than giving the eater continued life (eternal life is implied, by God's statement that he'd have to tolerate mankind; the fruit of the TOKOGAE is also no mystery, since the Bible says it gives wisdom).

Here's an interesting article from the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1908, which suggests the original conception was of a "one-time dosage" for both:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14492-tree-of-life

Apo said- Why would they never have eaten from the tree of life if it was not forbidden to do so? And what purpose was it there for? Was God holding it in reserve until they were faithful a certain amount of time? I feel that a lack of explanation of these details indicates that the average listener in olden times was meant to assume that it was in fact a regular part of Adam and Eve's diet.

Disclaimer: what we're doing here is engaging in deductive logic, and trying to harmonize the details of the story via use of reasoning.

Well, if you watched the video in my post on pg 1, they offer some possibilities. I also brought up the similarities to other parables/fables in the region, but within the context of the Bible, it's interesting to compare the Adam and Eve account to the example of young King Solomon, who was asked by God what he wanted, and he answered 'wisdom'. Eve took the fruit without asking, so it seems to be as if God wants to play a game of "Mother, May I?" with his creations.... Who knows, maybe God wanted to do some beta-tests (which is inconsistent with a "perfect" being who possesses Divine omniscience; why need to test anything, when he already knows what will happen?).

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

jgnat said- I didn't say analogies were useless. I just said they are inferior. A + B = C is unambiguous. And always will be, much more than an analogy.

Sure, the limitations of analogies are well-known, since they allow more possibility of confusion. But I see Bart has already offered an interesting argument using classical symbolic logic to support his claim, based on the principle of God's 'perfect love'.

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Viviane, just ignore everything I write, and I'll do the same for you, m'kay? Problem solved.

37

Why would Adam or Eve choose the tree of knowledge instead of the tree of life.

by smiddy in

please help me out here .. in genesis 2:16 it says " and jehovah god also laid this command upon the man: from every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction.

17 but as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it , for in the day you eat from it ,you will positively die.. ok we get that , but what about this ?.

wouldnt it make more sense to forbid the eating of the tree of life first ?

adamah

Apo said-

For some reason everyone is making the assumption that the fruit in the tree of life would immediately grant a person the superpower of eternal life the moment they ate one. This is a very modern, comic book way of thinking and is not stated in the account.

You're arguing on the basis of being an anachronistic interpretation, when the account itself disproves that assertion.

Consider how eating the fruit of the TOK worked: they ate of the fruit that bestowed wisdom, and "their eyes were opened" afterwards. The first pair were ALSO blocked from eating it's fruit, too, so wouldn't that imply the first pair's cognitive capabilities slowly atropied until they reverted to their original foolish state?

There's so many logical errors with the account, it's laughable to believe anyone takes it as anything else but a fable (noting the prevalence of fools who still believe the story may SUPPORT Apo's interpretation of a reversion to their natural state, LOL!)

I wrote of the paradox of Adam and Eve, the continuity error that's been noted and swept under the rug by the JWs, attempting to bury the evidence of a problematic detail by use of a prior mistaken translation, in their New World Translation:

http://awgue.weebly.com/the-paradox-of-adam-and-eve-and-how-the-new-world-translation-fruitlessly-attempts-to-keep-it-hidden.html

Adam

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

adamah

Bohm said-

Holy cow that never occured to me before! Is this those brown people I keep hearing about? Did you know the moon is smaller than the sun but larger than an orange?

Uh, I was actually agreeing with your point, and providing an example?

Viviane said- Oh, it's not JUST doing that, it's casting in sharp relief the real underlying question, WHY is there absolutely no way to get information and why are any potential reason why so uncomfortable?

AND

Viviane said-Sorry, it should have read "reasons" in plural, not "reason" in singular. Otherwise, it makes perfect sense.

So what you really meant to write was this:

Oh, it's not JUST doing that, it's casting in sharp relief the real underlying question, WHY is there absolutely no way to get information and why are any potential reasons why so uncomfortable?

And that makes "perfect sense" to YOU?

PS on this:

Adam said- However, you went off the rails with the part in bold, falsely concluding my words were prescriptive, and not merely descriptive of the current situation. That's a classic example of the "naturalistic fallacy", confusing the description of 'what is' for an argument that is prescriptive, arguing for 'what ought' to be, as if I was defending theology).

Viviane said- Then perhaps you ought not write it as if that's what they should be doing, for example "Hence, the theist's refusal and/or inability to answer is NOT a sign of irrationality, but it's actually a step in the right direction, the ONLY rational response they could provide!". It's not a fallacy on my part if you are going to retconn strawman your own argument to say what you want it say, not what you actually said.

What you're referring to is "moving the goalposts", and I didn't do that, either. Try again.

Don't blame me for your extrapolating what was specific advice on a single issue (theodicy) to other areas (theism); you inappropriately over-interpreted my words, despite my repeated efforts to avoid such conclusion. That's ALL on your head, Jack.

That's silly, since as an atheist for the last half-century (who lost my JW family as a result of deciding to adopt a rationalist approach to go to college and eventually earn a doctorate), the odds are great I've likely had more motivation, time, and opportunity to investigate the question of theology than many here, including learning of physiology and psychological roots that explain WHY religious beliefs are so pervasive and tenacious within the human mind (even while many here were still knocking on doors with WT/Awake! in hand, trying to 'save' others!).

Viviane said- That's an interesting appeal to your own authority and special pleading for yourself all wrapped into one. Like I said before, yes, you're very smart, but so are a lot of people here, at least as smart as you. Your condescending attitude and acting like you are smarter than everyone else won't get you far. (You also commited the anecdotal and composition fallacies in that last statement. Do they give refunds on doctorates?)

Dude, r u 4 realz?

You've mastering the not-so-difficult art of getting yourself lost in the forest for the trees, since most anyone who possesses even a SHRED of intellectual honesty would simply apologize after someone pointed out their "naturalization" fallacy, rather than only digging themselves in deeper.

Instead, are you really trying to claim that people don't have the right to appeal to their personal experience to justify holding their own personal beliefs, whether atheists or theists?

Holy Hades, Viviane, that's absurd beyond imagination, since it's as if you're completely unaware of the 'freedom of thought' doctine, a fundamental liberty encapsulated in the Bill of Rights which guarantees to all the right to their opinion; it's a concept that is basis of many OTHER individual liberties (eg freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, doctrine of informed consent, etc)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought

I am telling YOU that I AM an atheist: you have NO INFLUENCE on my brain (and even less so, after seeing your 'command' of logic and reasoning), as it's not your brain to form an opinion.

NO ONE has the right to DECIDE for others, and no one needs to appeal to ANYTHING to justify THEIR personal beliefs to others, so your entire argument is hogwash and perhaps of value to those living in cookoo land.

It's almost as if you still carry some of that JW baggage, eg Jesus said people DIDN'T have the right to their own thoughts (eg looking at a women with lust in one's heart was tantamount to committing adultery)? Some here voluntarily sacrificed the right to their own beliefs by voluntarily joining a religious CULT which took away their freedom of thoughts...

Adam

122

Why doesn't god do anything tangible now?

by punkofnice in

i was always told that god did loads of stuff that was evidence of his existance.

ususally very brutal things too (b#st@rd).. jesus walked on water and raised the dead we are told.. it seems to me also that the older the story, the more exaggerated it is...y'know...talking snake......global flood.. there are those that claim god speaks to them now and they alone 'know' it.

(cuckoo!!!).

adamah

Kate said-

God is too busy creating things to bother about the suffering of humans, animals and other creations. God is indifferent IMO. Kate xx

God sounds like He's rather greedy, trapped in the throes of uncontrolled 'materialism' (and has hoarding issues), since He's wanting more 'toys' than he can ever manage to play with?

Adam

37

Why would Adam or Eve choose the tree of knowledge instead of the tree of life.

by smiddy in

please help me out here .. in genesis 2:16 it says " and jehovah god also laid this command upon the man: from every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction.

17 but as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it , for in the day you eat from it ,you will positively die.. ok we get that , but what about this ?.

wouldnt it make more sense to forbid the eating of the tree of life first ?

adamah

NY44 said-

Perhaps the Adam and Eve is just a story with a very powerful lesson. Knowledge is the ultimate pursuit of humans. We are willing to sacrifice our lives in the pursuit of knowledge. But more than just knowledge, Eve was looking for the understanding of the difference between good and evil. Isn't that is a pretty big aspiration. That overlays knowledge with ethics, which is a very human experience.

Would you be willing to sacrafice your life for this?

Yeah, it's actually a very-old story with a deep and profound message (aside from the obvious "do what God says, or else all Hell breaks lose" theme, which is the PERFECT message for writings (Torah) that contain boring legal civil and criminal codes). It's also a great origins story, to explain to early listeners how they came to find themselves in the situation they were in.

It worked within the context it was written in, but some people won't see it for what it is, and insist on taking it as literal history and having applicability to the current day and age.

Ironically, the story actually reflects the age-old tendency of humans to be unconsciously influenced by their pre-existing biases, believing what they WANT to be true (confirmation bias), and how trivially-easy it is for the clever serpent to deceive the foolish humans by getting them to accept a big LIE (based on the use of 'weasel words') after softening them up beforehand with a few 'truths'.

Unfortunately, that subtle message is lost on many believers, who fail to see their own Bible is telling them the techniques it uses in the chapters that follow, as if the Bible is hiding its manipulations "in plain sight".

Adam