Cain was actually the Serpent's son.

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 43
#31
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic


These reflected political divisions viz. Elohim vs. YHWH. Therefor, I know not to "believe" it was delivered to a Hebrew man (in reality probably an Egyptian Akhunatun) and therefor am aware there are many who "believe" the books of Moses to be something they are not.

I don't "disbelieve" the Bible, I learned enough of Hebrew to read it in its original "language". However I know that the Hebrew language is actually derived from a single form viewed from 22 different perspectives, thus the real "language" predates Canaanite-Hebrew, and so I read it accordingly. It is nothing like the "English" translation(s) or even the Hebrew "story". It is more like a book of equations. For example,

Genesis 1:1 is a torus field,
Genesis 1:2 is the 'state' before a stable torus field,
Genesis 1:3 is the three components of a stable torus field
etc. and creation is described from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in as people read it.

B'resh'yis (first word of Genesis) has over 900 ways to read/interpret. It can mean:
In the beginning...(English)
At the head of the summit...(Hebrew)
Son (of/that is) fire (is) over time...(Aramaic)
etc.

Understanding the language prior to the Hebrews "adapting" it eliminates any/all possible bias(es) and allows me to see the problem(s) in Judaism and when/where they first arose. These problems would later compound into Christianity/Islam.
And how does he know this? 


Again, God would speak on a different level in communicating with humanity (dumbed down) so that we, even those of lesser intellect, could understand Him (since He, by definition, knows all things). You can't have the same intellectual conversation with a two-year-old that you can with a thirty-year-old. Thus, you have to dumb down the conversation when speaking to the two-year-old (baby talk). 
Human beings have two ears and one mouth.
Two eyes too!



Abram had to head out of the land of Ur for a reason: if no listeny, no helpy.
God rewarded Abram through obedience. That obedience was credited to Abraham as righteousness.


That is because Isalm borrows from the Christian conceptual system of thought, not the other way around. Christianity expands and explains in more detail on the Judaic system of thought to make things clear in that it is a progressive revelation of the same God. It also explains why the Judaic system of worship failed. That reason is that Israel could not live up to the holiness and purity that is God by work or merit-based system in obeying Him (Exodus 24:3, 7). 

God brought some in Israel to the realization that His grace is sufficient for them and since they could not live up to work-based salvation, He not only met the requirements of doing that in Jesus Christ but also provided a better covenant of grace through Jesus, that those who reach out to Him can believe and live by. We, as Christians, live on the merits/works accomplished by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits to save us. 

The OT is a worked based demonstration that continually shows the failing of those who agreed to it to live up to it. 

How can the imperfect live up to the perfect?  Only because of and by His grace and mercy! 
It is true Islam "borrows" from Christianity, as well as (mostly) Judaism.
Aberrant Christianity that is, and a different interpretation of parts of the Judaic OT. As well as Zoroastrianism, as well as the pagan gods of the area. 


The rest is "belief"-based waffle.

Christians are not necessarily victims if they interpret the Bible correctly. That would mean they had a true knowledge in the aspect of teaching or doctrine. Explain how you know your statement is so as opposed to just believing it to be so?
Some did/do: Christ is certainly not an unreal thing.
The Messiah, the Christ, to be more specific, is a Person, not a thing.

It is just not a bloody man: it does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others (ie. transcending suffering of self) which only comes with knowing the original sin as it relates to blaming/accusing/scapegoating. Had Adam not attempted to blame another for his own fault, so-called evil would not have entered.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Evil is doing what is contrary to the goodness and nature of God. 


The implication of the book of Genesis is each carries in/of their own being, their own iniquities, and with them they remain until acknowledged/reversed. If this is not done consciously, there are laws in/of the cosmos that intervene.



The implications are that humanity has sinned and needs to either restore that relationship with God by their own means or allow God to do it on their behalf through the one sufficient means He has given - Jesus Christ. The OT is a demonstration that those who agreed to a covenant with God (OT Israel) were never able to live up to that covenant. 

#32
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
That is fallacious reasoning. There are many logical fallacies associated with these two statements. I'll list just a couple. 



It is a one-sided assessment with you as the final arbiter because you are stacking the deck and special pleading (https://www.thoughtco.com/stacking-the-deck-logical-fallacy-1692133).

It is just an assertion based on your belief and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Are you insane?

I did not even provide a reasoning, and did not / do not intend to (to yourself). I provided the method I used to falsify "belief in" them. If you wanted to, you could have asked for the reasoning, instead of assuming it, attempting to undermine (ie. making something out of nothing) and will probably assume the same attitude. If it becomes unbearable I will stop.

Again, all knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You, as a human being, have to start with a belief, with something you have to trust, to form other beliefs. Beliefs work on a web of other beliefs starting with a core belief. The question is whether the core belief is a justifiably true belief.

You can't know unless you first believe. 

When you say, "I know I know," not everything you think you know is known by you. If what you BELIEVE you know is proven to be false you did not really know it. It was a false belief. 
It is the other way around: belief is a subcategory of knowledge. You, as a human being, have to start with knowledge of your own existence. Else: belief, which "work(s) on a web of other beliefs starting with a core belief". What makes a belief justifiably true is whether or not there is any/all knowledge to the degrees of its uncertainty (ie. falsifiability) because belief necessarily contains one or more degrees of uncertainty. If any/all 'belief' has no knowledge of its own any/all possible ignorance, it is ignorant-in-and-of-itself, which is what happens to people who eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: believe, instead of knowing better.

Adam represent humanity (the federal head) in his choice to eat.
His eating wasn't the problem. It was his scapegoating / blaming of another for his own crime (ie. accuser is the accused).


It had implications for the rest of us too.
Indeed it does.

Again, Adam represented humanity so you are implicated in the judgment. You, like him, no longer enjoy that close relationship (that "walking" in the Garden with God). To once again experience that relationship Jesus told us we must be born again, restored to a right relationship with God
I do not worship the idols that you worship - including Jesus. It is such idol worship, and one can not even become a Christian less a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments. They are set in stone for a reason. I know not to bear testimony of a resurrection that happened thousands of years ago: it is insanity due to requiring insanity to defend it. The blood spilled over "mercy upon mankind" idols from the M/E is absolute insanity.


Knowledge is justified true belief. When Adam ate he knew the difference between good and evil. His belief corresponded to what is the case. He no longer enjoyed that close fellowship with God after that point in time.
Justified true belief contains knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty. Less: ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

Yes, and you are a believer. You just don't happen to believe the same things I do. So, the question is whether your belief-system is a justified true belief (or knowledge) or a false belief system.
his scapegoating / blaming of another for his own crime

I only believe in possibilities: certainly possible (ie. justified with certain knowledge).

False means falsifiable. I already told you I falsified Christianity and Islam. You reacted and tried to assume I provided a full reasoning (which I could do, if desired).

No, evil is evil. It has its own identity and that identity is not good. Calling evil good contradicts the law of identity. It does not make sense. 

Just because you can think something does not necessarily make it so. You have to believe what is true before your view corresponds to the truth.
Are you claiming to know evil is evil? If so, you are claiming the same status as god: knowing good and evil. Believing to know good and evil, rather than knowing good and evil, is the root of any/all ignorance. Those who choose to do it are as-ignorant-as towards any/all degree they believe to know it, while being wrong. It is the same cause of suffering and death: ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

A: B is evil!
B: A is evil!
C both A and B are ignorantly eating from the tree

It takes a believer to believe to know anything. The belief that one must first believe in what they know is pure insanity.

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief. <-*truth by way of negation towards *unfalsifiability

Truth of the way of the living is not a man to BELIEVE in or WORSHIP: it is a PRACTICAL METHOD. You know it, or you don't know it. If you "believe" in it, you certainly don't know it. If I stop believing in gravity, would it stop having an effect on me? No - I know that, you know that. That requires no 'belief' - it would take "belief" to "believe" otherwise.
#33
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
How can you know unless 1) you believe, 2) that belief corresponds to what is true.

If your belief does not correspond to what actually is the case your belief is not knowledge. It is false. Knowledge is that which is the case. 
How can you know what *not* to believe?
Can a belief be false? How do you know?

God is all-knowing. He never started with a proposition. He always knew/knows...

Don't bother trying to tell me what god is, knows or knew. I already know not to believe.

Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Knowledge is a true belief.
Knowledge negates belief: belief-based ignorance becomes knowledge via if/when knowing *not* to believe. Else: ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

True. The question is how you arrive at the "good" without God? Why is what you believe good? How do you KNOW?
I DO NOT BELIEVE TO KNOW GOOD OR EVIL - IT IS THE PROBLEM-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF

I know it is impossible to know either without knowing myself in relation to whatever may be.

And the same is true for any god.

I know satan (so-called) *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself.
I know any all-knowing god must know any/all *not* to believe.
So I know the same by knowing any/all *not* to believe.


The most basic of beginnings and a core-belief you suppose is either 1) God, or 2) chance happenstance is what we trace our origins to.

How you look upon that question is how your whole framework will be governed. One of those two positions is false, logically.
... sorry, don't follow whence the assumption of a god less "belief".

So you do not believe everything you wrote. You have refuted knowing what you claimed you knew if that is the case. 
No: I do not need to believe in things I know: I know them without needing to believe them. When I didn't know them, I needed to try to believe they were either true or false. Now I know whether they are true or false, so belief is not needed anymore.

belief - one or more degrees of uncertainty
knowledge - no degrees of uncertainty

I do not rely on belief: only ignorance would.

Do you believe truth is necessary to know something?
No: knowing what is not true does not require knowing what truth is.


Is truth something that is the case? If so, then there is a certainty of knowing it, once you understand what it is.

***

If a person "believes" something to be certain they are not ignorant if the belief is justifiably true. If it is justifiably true it is truly known.
Belief to a certainty is never justifiably true.


Do you know the laws of logic (the laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle) are necessary to believe before you can make sense of any communication? The laws of logic would be self-evident since to deny these laws (and make sense) is to use them. 

By saying, "I deny the laws of logic," you have used them in the denial. What you claim goes against what you actually say, so you refute your own statement. 
TRY TO believe. Do you understand (to / not to)?

I know to believe...
I know *not to* believe... <-*knowledge-in-and-of-itself

I don't deny the laws of logic: I know them, and their limitations.

Thus belief comes first!
Yes: then knowledge negates it if/when found untrue/false.

Not according to those closest to the writings. Jesus attributes the Pentateuch to Moses and what he wrote. So do others. But regardless, even if they were transcribed by others the words and thoughts are attributed to Moses and his revelation from God.  
I don't care about Jesus: it is idol worship. Jesus and the idolatry therefrom does not over-ride what real science has found to be false.

I really do not care to talk about Jesus: people are psychologically/emotionally/manifestly 'bound' to this idol, and it is incredibly binding. I do not have the patience for idol worshipers who defend their man-idols.

The Messiah, the Christ, to be more specific, is a Person, not a thing.
Here we go against with the IDOL WORSHIP.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Evil is doing what is contrary to the goodness and nature of God.
Here we go again with eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The implications are that humanity has sinned and needs to either restore that relationship with God by their own means or allow God to do it on their behalf through the one sufficient means He has given - Jesus Christ. The OT is a demonstration that those who agreed to a covenant with God (OT Israel) were never able to live up to that covenant. 
This notion that there had to be a 'sacrifice' for humanity is just so perverse and sick.

I repeated 'it takes a believer to believe evil is good' for a reason: an idol worshiper will believe evil is good by way of vehemently justifying their belief due to their attachment to their man-idol.

Hundreds of millions of people are dead due to the M/E idols of Jesus and Muhammad. That humanity still has not the sense to try the problem-in-and-of-itself of belief-in-and-of-itself leaves so much to be desired, hence what I do. The stupidity of those who don't even have a clue they are a problem, rather than the solution. It takes an ignorant believer to believe a problem is a solution.
#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @RationalMadman
I see two problems with your interpretation of biblical events. You have not demonstrated that anything resembling the events described did or even could happen and you have not established the historical existence of any of the characters.

--> @Mopac --> @PGA2.0 -->@anyone I missed
What exactly makes your interpretation more authoritative/correct?

It would save time if you avoid arguments about how many people agree with you (appeal to popularity)
or how far back the interpretation goes back historically (appeal to antiquity)
or what biblical expert, historical or contemporary, argues the virtues of the interpretation (appeal to authority)
or about context that rational is clearly missing (because I'm certain Rational has taken context into consideration amd merely begs the separate but related question what makes you interpretation of the context more authoritative/correct)?



Topic's author
#35
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
It's a fictional story, I am talking about within the story's universe.
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
In that case as is the case with many classical fictions, what the story says to you is no less valid than what it says to me or anyone. Thank you for hosting the topic.
Topic's author
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Same with reality. Reality is 100% a story that is interpreted from many perspectives.
#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
This is true of concencus reality but there is still.a very large difference between the way we view fiction and concencus reality. One of those differences is that our opinions are not necessarily equally valid. When we talk about fiction we agree that it is not a part of reality whatever that actually is, when we talk about concencus reality we are talking about  a collective confidence in a proposition based on what is independently observa and verifiable. Unless we assume solipsism (which cannot be ruled out but which provides no actionable data).
#39
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Everything is real to some degree or real within it's own context.

The concept is real enough within the context of a database.

Which is what the story was and what the story became.
#40
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Quick reminder guys....

Either.....
( GOD DOES EXISTS ) orrrrrrrrrrrrr ( GOD DOSE NOT EXISTS )
FULL STOP 








#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
To say that biblical figures existed the way that Voldemort exists and that biblical events happened the way that the war of the ring happened is an exceptionally low bar. Clearly there is a difference between what we mean when we say these things existed/happened and what we refer to as reality or nonfiction.
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
 Voldemort and God may or may not be comparable. That is the ensuing argument.





#43
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Unless one can be demonstrated as more than a simple fiction it is not an observable difference.