CONTEXT!!!!!

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 160
#151
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
...because Einstein was an intelligent man he was infallible.  It is a typical appeal to authority. Or in this case - celebrity. Since Einstein was not an authority on religion. 
As bright and informed as he pretends to be, one would think that he would know this. But I've noticed he often posts links AS arguments, and we are supposed to get what his link means by some magical process.

I used to think that Skeptical one worshipped science, but FLRW is like it's high priest.
#152
Wagyu
Wagyu's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 130
1
2
5
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
1
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
God created humanity very good.  There were no flaws.
Well clearly God didn't try hard enough. Think, if there was a perfect, flawless and good humanity, where does the bad come from? If everything was good and big man God made sure of it, surely bad is an impossible state to achieve. 

Your reasoning is faulty.  God did not created flawed people.  Show me in the bible - where God created unfaithful people - where God made faulty people.
Here, I'll present my argument better. 

P1. If humans are flawless, they are good. 
P2. Humans are not flawless, as they commit adultery. 
C1. God didn't create people good. 

If God created people to be good, then where did the bad come from? 

Free will is not a flaw.  Free will might lead to people sinning.  Yet, free will is not a flaw.  
Well that's rather awkward because I don't believe in free will. The following is an exert from something which I have heard Sam Harris say. 

==

Pick a random country. Any country. Notice this processes which you are going through. Notice the selecting and the choosing, and the "freeness "which you are going through. What if I were to say that this very processes proves that free will does not exist? 
 
In order to unpack this, we must first establish the options that one has topic. 
 
1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists. 
2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them
3)You can only choose what occurs to you
 
The first option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. You are not free to choose it, so to speak. 
 
The second option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers know about Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were not functioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what can you think about?
 
The third option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The first thing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you. But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring to you is unsolicited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you. 
 
Secondly, say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose for these two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why did you choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subject usually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way that they did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, this isn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has been hypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizarre reasons forwhy the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convinced of their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an American hotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is no justification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if you asked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". So why choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't you think "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China". This process of "choosing" because of your apparent "justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision for you and you being aware of this decision. 
 
You cannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you "chose" the option of which you did. 

==

#153
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Wagyu
God created humanity very good.  There were no flaws.
Well clearly God didn't try hard enough. Think, if there was a perfect, flawless and good humanity, where does the bad come from? If everything was good and big man God made sure of it, surely bad is an impossible state to achieve. 
Says you!!!! LOL! All it really seems is that you don't want to accept responsibility for your own actions.  You make me so pleased I am not an atheist.  I have indicated that the bible declares humanity in their initial created state to be very good.  Your notion that bad is impossible to arise from such a state has no basis to it.  The story of the creation story provides clearly that humanity in their very good state - and I would add non-flawless state, had the capacity - to choose good or to choose evil.  I would suggest that if having a free will does not provide both choices - then it is flawed.   Hence, after the fall, where the human free will is flawed, it cannot choose to do good. (Good defined as in accordance with God's will). Only a flawed free will would potentially prevent a choice to do good or bad. Only a non-flawed free will enable people to choose either good or bad. Otherwise - freedom means nothing.  Hence - it is my position that humanity was not flawed in the beginning.  Their choice to do evil - caused them to be flawed. 

Evil or bad is not a thing as such.  It is an action. And actions come from choices. 

Your reasoning is faulty.  God did not created flawed people.  Show me in the bible - where God created unfaithful people - where God made faulty people.
Here, I'll present my argument better. 

P1. If humans are flawless, they are good. 
P2. Humans are not flawless, as they commit adultery. 
C1. God didn't create people good. 
P.1 - humans initially were created flawless.  Without sin.  And with free will. That is what the bible declares and what I hold too. 

P.2 humans after the flaw did become flawed. Or sinful. This is why they commit adultery.

The question of course is how did the initial human in his unflawed state sin? And the answer is - free will. Free will gave him a choice and he chose poorly.  He believed a lie - that he could be like God if he ate of the fruit of which he was forbidden.  


If God created people to be good, then where did the bad come from? 
Explained above.  I never said God created people to be good.  This might be true - but that is not what I said.  God created people very good.  He created humanity to worship God and to love him freely. Not as robots.  Evil or bad came about - because Satan tempted humanity to ditch being human and try being God. Humanity - in its free will ditched humility and chose pride.  


Free will is not a flaw.  Free will might lead to people sinning.  Yet, free will is not a flaw.  
Well that's rather awkward because I don't believe in free will. The following is an exert from something which I have heard Sam Harris say. 
Yeah - - that does not surprise me.  Yet it is terribly inconvenient for you as well.  After all, if no one has free will, no one is responsible for their actions. Pedophiles sexually assaulting little children do so - not out of free will - but obviously something else.  According to your view. No one should have courts - no laws - just people doing stuff with no responsibility. 

And in that view - God is also not responsible.  He does not have free will after all.  So all of your taunts about God being evil - come to nothing. Either you believe in free will or you don't.   interestingly, if you don't believe in free will - then you being on site attempting to find resolution for anything - is well superflous to anything and a waste of time for me. 

1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists. 
2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them
3)You can only choose what occurs to you
 The first option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. You are not free to choose it, so to speak. 
 
The second option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers know about Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were not functioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what can you think about?
 
The third option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The first thing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you. But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring to you is unsolicited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you. 
 
Secondly, say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose for these two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why did you choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subject usually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way that they did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, this isn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has been hypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizarre reasons forwhy the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convinced of their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an American hotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is no justification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if you asked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". So why choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't you think "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China". This process of "choosing" because of your apparent "justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision for you and you being aware of this decision. 
 
You cannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you "chose" the option of which you did. 

I actually thought you were going somewhere with this. But you did not.  It is nonsense.  


It is obvious that you cannot choose something you did not know about - although it is also true that sometimes you choose things which you think you did know only to find out it was not what you chose in the first place.  But I do not see how this at all refutes free will. 

The question of free will is interesting. After all free will does not mean we have freedom to do whatever we want. It does not mean that we can suddenly do absurd things like fly. I want to fly - but I cannot. I want to speak in Russian but right now I cannot.  So free will is not just doing whatever you want.  Yet - people are responsible for their actions. Or do you disagree with this? DO you think it is fair that people who rape people should be put in prison or do you think they can justifiably say  - I don't know why it happened - like your example above? 

Why do people choose one thing over another? I reckon this answer is not as important as recognising that the choice is made and has implications attached to it. 

IF a robot - without a free will - killed a human being - it still killed a human being. Even without a choice it is responsible. And if we don't have a reason for its action- then we all the more ought to destroy it.  

A dog chooses to eat a chop of the table? What makes it do it? Instinct.  IT is not necessarily hungry - although it might be. But instinct - primal instinct makes things do other things. Evolution tends to teach that life survives because there is a natural instinct for flight or fight - or natural selection. Even that is choice.  

As reformed in my thinking I tend to argue against free will most of the time.  I think free will is flawed and that humans cannot choose to believe in God. 

Yet I do not believe in fatalism. Nor do I believe that such a view negates our responsibilities. 

I do thank you for this conversation. Yet I am puzzled why you bother to engage with people if you don't believe in free will.  Surely your attempts to engage with people and to obtain their ideas is an engagement with free will and an implied belief in it. 


Topic's author
#154
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
God created people very good. 

We were created in the image of the gods.  " "Let us make mankind in our image," , Therein lies another dilemma for you Reverend.

And I suppose it can be accepted that the image is one thing and the being is another. i.e.  we looked like the gods but didn't act like them. 

But notice very closely Reverend, that is was only AFTER the bite of the "apple"  that we  become  `LIKE THEM `.  "The man has now become like one of us". And began acting  just like them. 

But I know that YOU are going to ignore all of the ramifications that this implies. And won't even attempt try to explain the  "context" .
#155
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ Stephen

The Hebrew religion takes the view as does the Christian religion that the elohim word used here refers to ONE GOD, not many.   Sometimes Christians use the plural term to suggest Trinity. I think that is an incorrect usage of it. 

I reject your interpretation of the term elohim here to refer to gods.  And this is not because I dislike it, but because that is how it has historically been interpreted it in this context by the Jews and by others.  I take the view that persons such as yourself - who want to somehow rely on the word number as the overriding interpretative factor as a matter for yourself.  Others like the Jewish Scholars and Christian Scholars and even atheistic scholars typically take other factors including the context itself to interpret the word.   

You can go and argue it with the Hebrew Scholars.  That is a problem for you - not me. I will agree with them and not you.  

I also don't take the view that words here image and likeness is referring to how humanity looked or even acted.  Nor do the Hebrews.  And neither does the Christian religion. 

God is invisible.  Hence - to say it is used to describe what we look like is absurd and inconsistent with all of the understandings of it.  Again - you can go and argue with the Jewish scholars. It is no skin of my nose. 

But hey thanks for the thoughts.  

You still have not back to us about John. 


Topic's author
#156
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
LOL @ Stephen.....................................I reject your interpretation of the term elohim here to refer to gods.
Yes of course you do. But this is not the actual point that I am making, as you well know.    Whether it be god or gods plural, the story doesn't change. does it. We were made in his image and only became like THEM, HIM , OR  THE US  plural that is clearly mentioned. ,  AFTER taking of the fruit.  for which you offer no context, again.

And are you suggesting then the the bible has been misinterpreted?  

You can go and argue it with the Hebrew Scholars.. 

And I may well do if it were that I were to be talking about anything Hebrew.  But I am talking YOUR  god/s as in the  Christian scriptures ,Reverend. and you are offering no context. why is that? 



I also don't take the view that words here image and likeness is referring to how humanity looked or even acted.  Nor do the Hebrews.  And neither does the Christian religion. 

 Of course you don't , regardless  of what your own scriptures clearly state.  And  still no context.  


God is invisible. 

Not according to your scriptures.  Didn't Jacob actually "wrestle" with god? Did not  Moses spoke to him "face to face" ? I am sure there are at least 15 other examples of god not being invisible. 

And you keep ignoring that your god clearly states in `his`(or their) or "our"  "image".  



Hence - to say it is used to describe what we look like is absurd and inconsistent with all of the understandings of it. 
Then simply put it all into context. What's  your problem? 



You still have not back to us about John. 

 I have. 

#157
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
There are two separate issues here:

1. the perception that the -YM ending of a noun inevitably indicates the plural in Hebrew (it doesn't any more than ending in -s means inevitably a plural in English...have you ever seen a singular scissor?)
  1a. The belief that the -YM ending indicates inevitably a plural of the root noun -- Nachmanides disagrees, and understands the suffix to indicate a different plurality. He understands the structure of the word to be a singular meaning "master over all other forces" with the plural referring to the other forces which are inferior.
  1b. The belief that a single word always means a single thing. "Elohim" in the bible sometimes refers to God and sometimes refers to other gods. It even refers to judges (human) or a singular judge. Because meaning in Hebrew is often clarified by grammar, it is useful to look at the verb or a corresponding adjective or pronoun to see its number. If the verb or adjective or pronoun is in the singular, then the noun (in this case, elohim) is a singular noun. In the 10 Statements, the people are told not to have "elohim acheirim" -- other [plural] gods.

2. The use of the plural in Genesis in the discussion of the creation of man. Some see this as an indication that God is speaking of himself in the plural, justifying various polytheistic interpretations. It is important to note first that the actual verbs used for the creation are in the singular. Some people look at the verbs in the discussion and consider them an example of the "royal we" and others see it as God including his angels in the plenary process even though he did not need to, which sets an example for how we should include others even when we don't have to. In the later pronouns declaring that man is "like us" the Hebrew words for the ways in which man is like God and the angels are technical and show aspects of how man is elevated above other creations and shares attributes with divine creatures.

In Hamlet, there is a similar discussion "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! "
#158
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ronjs
Humans are one type of several living species of great apes. Humans evolved alongside orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. All of these share a common ancestor before about 7 million years ago.
#159
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@FLRW
Good story, but that's all it is.
#160
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Yes. I agree. 

So I hear what you are saying.  The way we interpret the word Elohim will depend upon the context.  It is not always singular. It is not always plural. It sometimes refers to gods, to the GOD, to angels, to judges, to humans.

Thanks Rosends.