Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Well, like I say, I understand your metaphor and it's sensible as a tool, I was trying to express how I think about it as a chaotic example. In any case, in strict terms of your metaphor it would also predict (or at least suggest) that there should be reincarnation, right? How do you feel about re-incarnation? If that sounds "accusatory" I don't mean it so, but I think I remember you believing such a concept is pure fancy. If I'm wrong, apology in advance.

It could suggest re-incarnation and maybe many other things. But the point of bringing up the plant was not to prove resurrection as a possibility, it was to demonstrate that the concept of resurrection is reflected in a common experience/observation of nature.

In any case, your shell of life/soul example is not something which I object to as I freely admit that the source of LIFE is one's soul and not one's body. I had hoped my view was clear that I do not reject resurrection as a construct, but instead something that occurs in this reality.

How can you say that it is something that does not occur in this reality? Are you not limited by your time here on Earth to definitifely reject it as something that does not occur in reality?

As well it should, right? The entire point being that subjective reality MAY or MAY NOT describe Objective reality. I look at man's "purpose" indeed God's purpose as in part the understanding of what IS (objective reality) You know, we have discussed the idea that God is "infinity + 1" (as I call it, I think you call it Everything and more, or something like that) If we can pretend for the moment that God appreciates the reality that IS objective truth, and man can only ever "know" truth subjectively, can't we say that the paradigm works? Infinite ways to appreciate the infinte... seems to me self evident.

Actually I have come to realize that the concept of G-d as infinity+1 is not a correct representation of how I understand Him. If I were to use the same equation, I would have to say G-d is only the +1, but that +1>infinity, and +1 yields (present tense is intentional) infinity. As such, I can agree that there are an infinite number of ways to appreciate the infinite, because the infinite is only the creation (reality), which is separate from G-d. I see your approach as falling short of actually appreciating G-d because it has incorrectly identified what G-d is.

I also have a disagreement with the idea that man is limited to only knowing subjective truth, which I believe is true if we are left to our own merits, as I believe that G-d through divine revelation has given us a partial picture of the objective truth. If we can quiet our own subjective voice and listen only to His voice given in the divine revelation we can then approach the objective truth He has revealed to us.

In terms of "absolute value" there is admittedly no variance. However, I would suggest that this universe does not allow for EVERYTHING, it only allows for those things which occur.... A Metaverse means I have choosen both A and B, and that God can appreciate the consequences of each, whereas if this is it, I can only choose A OR B, and God cannot appreciate the reality of my choosing A if I opted for B... understand the consequence, sure. APPRECIATE? No. I think an "ALL" this and that God would appreciate EVERYTHING, not just some things. I need to clarify... when I say "allows" I don't mean whether or not any event is possible, as I would conceed that any particular event is possible, even if not realized. the point I'm getting to is ALL GODS THOUGHTS ARE REALIZED EVENTS somewhere. Or, God cannot "think" without doing... We are the Mind of God... or everything that IS must be GOD... indeed, we agree, there is nothing else. make sense?

What do you mean by appreciate?

How do you arrive at the idea that all of G-d's thoughts are realized events?

Your conception of divine revelation, to me, is unacceptable. I suppose it has something to do with our respective belief's in Jesus' purpose too, in a way. I need no go between between myself and God. I can approach Him without a nod to Jesus. You, on the other hand, believe that one must come to the Father through the Son. It stands to reason then, that you would seek an EXTERNAL source to provide direction (Bible) whereas I would not require the same.

Just as your concpetion of the divine is unacceptable to me. A god who is not interested in righteousness has zero interest to me and is in fact a cruel and horrible being. If everything just IS and there is no such thing as holiness or righteousness, then our existence is a horrible joke. When a man beats a two-year old child to death because she wouldn't stop crying or a mother throws a baby against a wall until it dies because she doesn't want it, or a madman wipes out millions of people because of his blind hate for them; and then you want to tell me that your god doesn't care and he won't hold anyone accountable for these things because it just IS, then such a being holds no interest and does not deserve my appreciation.

I must admit, Bgrad, I cannot understand how you can believe in an infinite God who cannot (or does not) allow us to appreciate him alone.... I do not "get" how God would be hidden from me, if he is truly EVERYWHERE. To me, and I dont mean this to be insulting, your God lives only in the pages of the Bible and to the extent that those pages are wrong, your God is dead.... actually, never lived... My God lives because the universe.. multiverse... is here. God speaks to me because I can SEE reality. Not because I can read. My idea of God would be as readily apparent to a Dolphin as He is to the Pope. Should not ALL God's creatures enjoy the benefit of God? Or is He just for us?

Does my reworking of the definition of G-d being only the +1 with its stipulations help?

As for G-d being limited to the pages of the Bible, well, only if you see the Bible as a collection of stories and opinions, which I do not. The Bible is a living Word in two senses. First, it lives in that it continues to inspire, guide, and teach me and millions of others. This of course is not unique, as other documents do as well. Second, I believe it lives as it is "G-d breathed", meaning it has the same animating life in it as we each do as a result of G-d breathing life into us.

Having not read it, I can't really comment. I would observe however, that I might just as soon come to grand conclusions about life and philosophy by considering the movie Star Wars. And actually, to be fair, I am perfectly willing to learn lessons about the nature of the universe from works of fiction.. in fact, what else could there possibly be to do with it?

I'm not coming to grand conclusions about life and philosophy based upon Tolkien's stories. Rather, his stories help present very etheral and elusvie concepts I hold in a more tangible medium.

[buckeyegrad]

Well, first I guess we'd have to agree that these events even happened. I would argue that the events did not happen literally, as I'm sure comes as little surprise. An example regarding Water and Blood (well, more like a theory).... An example of water from rock being natrural. I watched a show on the Science channel about a month ago which produced water from a rock by crushing it (the show was about going to Mars and using Mars itself once we get there). Man often "tells stories" embellishing things as they go....

Was the water from that rock enough to satisfy the thirst of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people?

Assuming we agree that they happened as literally described, I guess I don't see where the disconnect is at all. An event is either natural or it is not. If it is not natural, it is a miracle. I have zero evidence of this universe ever allowing an unnautral event occur. Even if God were to will a frog out of thin air, it would be natural.... and I would seek to understand how it's possible. Thus my belief that the fingerprint, if you will, of G-d is everywhere... you can't fail to see it, if you look.

This then is the disagreement, as I define a miracle as being natural as well and I agree that there is zero evidence of an unnatural event occurring, in fact it would be a contradiction by definition, which cannot exist. The difference is whose nature are we discussing. The miraculous is merely that which is natural to G-d, but not to us. Being that we are very different beings (despite being made in his image), we have very different natures. Our subjective perspective causes it to appear as unnatural, but that does not in itself mean that it is not objectively natural.

If you ask me, I think our fundemental misunderstanding stems more from an assumption I'm making about what you mean when you say you're a Biblical Literalist. That assumption being that you think G-d did these things as described... that marching around cities blowing trumpets caused the walls to fall... That there was an actual worldwide flood (incidentally, did you see the Ark Logistics thread?) and Noah did all those things he's alleged to have done.... This world you live in..... to me, it sounds as if it might change at any moment for no reason at all. that one day, you could easily find yourself waking up to blue sunshine and a yellow sky, if that be G-d's will for whatever reason.

Can't say no reason at all, if G-d has a reason for intervening in reality. We may not understand it, but that does not mean the reason does not exist.

As for the Ark Logistics thread, I remember reading it and found it full of a lot of assumptions about the Genesis account that are not actually in the text (I'll leave it at that as I don't want to get into it right now).

These things don't happen in my world, and if it did, there must be a natural explanation. The irony of it is, of course, I too believe G-d is in control of all these things. You, I would say, see Him as a micromanager... physically operating in a world which apparently is too damn stupid to get it without Him pressing the issue. (Calling in to question His ability to create intelligence) I see Him as ..... well.... he just IS... And whatever that IS cannot be avoided.

There must be a natural explanation? Whose nature? The disagreement is that you think G-d is part of the creation and therefore what you observe is observing G-d and therefore what you observe of nature is the nature of G-d. I on the other hand, contend that G-d is not a part of creation and is separate from it. Hence, what we observe as nature to us cannot be assumed to be nature to Him. Again, I see that such a conclusion is an effort to bring Him down to our level, and as such, make Him out to be a god rather than G-d.

Explainations.... I require them.. you do not.

It is not that I do not require explanations, I just seek different ones. You seek an explanation of how it occurred. I seek an explanation of why it occurred. We are both seeking the will of G-d in such questions, but we ask different questions because we fundamentally disagree on the nature of G-d.

[muffler dragon]

Personally, since I am awestruck by the natural, I consider it "miraculous". And when I say this, I mean from the point of view that there could very well be nothing. Since there is something other than nothing, I consider the fact that this something has laws, splendor and so forth to be miraculous.

But that's just me.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

It could suggest re-incarnation and maybe many other things. But the point of bringing up the plant was not to prove resurrection as a possibility, it was to demonstrate that the concept of resurrection is reflected in a common experience/observation of nature.

And, like I've said, I get that. It's not a demonstration, however. I've always, I think, said it's possible. It would be a demonstration if a plant's "body" and "roots" were sufficiently like a man's body and soul. But, it's not. To be sufficiently the same, the roots/bulb would have to be something different than the plant's body, as a soul is to man's body. While in your metaphor you have made it so, in reality the plant's roots/bulb are the same "substance" as the rest of the plant... The parameters are simply not the same, and thus we cannot assume a result. As I said in the beginning, I absolutely appreciate the benefit of the example, but it's not a demonstration. It's pretty good though. And frankly, I do find myself reconsidering my position on the nature of the similarity as I think about it more. I may end up changing my mind before this is all said and done.

EDIT: OK, I think I may have figured it out. The consequential dissimilarity is that when a plant root "resurrects" it does not re-animate the very same stalk which was killed before. Resurrection in the people sense means that the soul re-animates the SAME BODY it was in before that body was rendered dead. The plant metaphor, I think, would allow a reasonable belief that it is an iteration of of reality with respect to reincarnation, but ONLY if reincarnation commands that one thing may only ever "return" as the same type of thing. That is to say, a man would never become reincarnated as a dog, nor would a fish one day be reincarnated as a cow. For THAT to be "demonstrated" (in the philosophical, not scientific, sense) we would have to bear witness to a Hosta root producing, say Hostas one year and an Oak tree the next.

How can you say that it is something that does not occur in this reality? Are you not limited by your time here on Earth to definitifely reject it as something that does not occur in reality?

Of course, subjectively. I don't know if I can put a finer point on it... I have no evidence of a resurrection. None. I've never seen it happen, and as I discussed earlier, any metaphors which suggest resurrection as occurring here fail (Thankfully my edit above is convincing for me, or I'd have to have re-written this whole paragraph ). I would, of course, leave room for my having overlooked another explanation. I should also note, I try not to definitively accept or reject anything "long term" it's more a position statement than a judgment.

Actually I have come to realize that the concept of G-d as infinity+1 is not a correct representation of how I understand Him. If I were to use the same equation, I would have to say G-d is only the +1, but that +1>infinity, and +1 yields (present tense is intentional) infinity. As such, I can agree that there are an infinite number of ways to appreciate the infinite, because the infinite is only the creation (reality), which is separate from G-d. I see your approach as falling short of actually appreciating G-d because it has incorrectly identified what G-d is.

If G-d is NOT also his creation, then G-d is not EVERYTHING.

I also have a disagreement with the idea that man is limited to only knowing subjective truth, which I believe is true if we are left to our own merits, as I believe that G-d through divine revelation has given us a partial picture of the objective truth. If we can quiet our own subjective voice and listen only to His voice given in the divine revelation we can then approach the objective truth He has revealed to us.

OK, then why is G-d trying to give us divine revelation of things that are clearly erroneous?

Originally Posted by Matthew 27:3-5

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Originally Posted by Acts 1:18

Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Which is it?

Or, why can't G-d count?

Originally Posted by I Chronicles 3:22

The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six in all.

Let's see.. Huttush (1), Igal (2), Bariah (3), Neriah (4) and Shephat (5)

or add?

Ezra 2:64 (Nehemiah 7:66)
The whole assembly together was forty two thousand three hundred and sixty.

Adding up the lists in Ezra (2:3 through 2:60) reveals 29,818 while Nehemiah (7:9 - 7:47) list resolves to a count of 31, 089.

]
What do you mean by appreciate?

Know... Experience .. something along those lines.

How do you arrive at the idea that all of G-d's thoughts are realized events?

What else could they possibly be?

Just as your concpetion of the divine is unacceptable to me. A god who is not interested in righteousness has zero interest to me and is in fact a cruel and horrible being. If everything just IS and there is no such thing as holiness or righteousness, then our existence is a horrible joke. When a man beats a two-year old child to death because she wouldn't stop crying or a mother throws a baby against a wall until it dies because she doesn't want it, or a madman wipes out millions of people because of his blind hate for them; and then you want to tell me that your god doesn't care and he won't hold anyone accountable for these things because it just IS, then such a being holds no interest and does not deserve my appreciation.

Never said G-d isn't interested in righteousness. If I'm correct that WE are G-d, then I'd say G-d is extremely interested in it. But, to KNOW it, he has to DO it... And, of course, in my way of thinking, that is part of our purpose. Likewise, everything just BEING doesn't mean that Man can't decide that beating a 2 year old is unacceptable and needs to be punished. Everything just IS in a metaphysical sense... it is the HUMAN sense which ascribes value. Is killing wrong? I don't know. Seems to me if I suddenly decide to shoot my wife instead of my daugter for no reason, that's Wrong. However, if I am given the alternative of HAVING to shoot her or my daughter and I choose her, am I equally as depraved? Circumstance, it would seem, plays a big part. You, it seems, wish to ascribe some kind of absolute value where there is clearly none.

And, even if it's not clear, the decision is largely arbitrary.

Question: What fate is in store for a purely righteous man who does not believe in G-d (and/or Jesus)? Is moral behavior alone enough? If "no," why the fixation on morality?

Does my reworking of the definition of G-d being only the +1 with its stipulations help?

Not at all. A god that fails to be also that which he creates cannot correctly be said to be EVERYTHING. Thus, any such god is subordinate to a G-d who IS everything.

As for G-d being limited to the pages of the Bible, well, only if you see the Bible as a collection of stories and opinions, which I do not. The Bible is a living Word in two senses. First, it lives in that it continues to inspire, guide, and teach me and millions of others. This of course is not unique, as other documents do as well. Second, I believe it lives as it is "G-d breathed", meaning it has the same animating life in it as we each do as a result of G-d breathing life into us.

Like above, the "living word" sure does seem confusing in it's inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by I Kings 7:23-26 (II Chronicles 4:2-5)

23Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.

Pi = 3.14159.... and is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Since the diameter is 10 cubits ("10 cubits from brim to brim") and its circumference is 30 cubits ("A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely"), the value of Pi as defined by the passage above is 30/10 or exactly 3.

Seems to me mathematical error should be subscribed to MAN not G-d. Now, I do agree that the Bible is an inspiration to others and that's all well and good. My objections are NOT that it should be tossed aside. But, it is without a doubt a book by MAN about G-d, when it is about G-d at all. Sometimes, it's just about Jewish history. To the extent, however, that we're being counseled by the "breathing" word, seems we're being told to "just round everything off," or "make grave mistakes when doing math problems"

I'm not coming to grand conclusions about life and philosophy based upon Tolkien's stories. Rather, his stories help present very etheral and elusvie concepts I hold in a more tangible medium.

AS I said, totally fine with me. What else would be the use of any book but for thought provoking? Why not do the same with Star Wars.. the Matrix... Fargo?

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Was the water from that rock enough to satisfy the thirst of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people?

On what proof should this be the metric? I know you've got a Cite at the ready.. I didn't ask for a cite.. I asked for proof. Same old discussion we've had before, if I tell you I just fed both of my children a 7 course meal constructed entirely from one of my toenails, you have a choice.. believe me, or not.

This then is the disagreement, as I define a miracle as being natural as well and I agree that there is zero evidence of an unnatural event occurring, in fact it would be a contradiction by definition, which cannot exist. The difference is whose nature are we discussing. The miraculous is merely that which is natural to G-d, but not to us. Being that we are very different beings (despite being made in his image), we have very different natures. Our subjective perspective causes it to appear as unnatural, but that does not in itself mean that it is not objectively natural.

Agree. To me, it seems we should try as well as we should to come to know objective reality as best we can.

Can't say no reason at all, if G-d has a reason for intervening in reality. We may not understand it, but that does not mean the reason does not exist.

Of course on one level I'd have to accept this, but the truth is it sounds like a cop out. "Why doesn't your god make any sense?" A: He doesn't have to, we're just too stupid to understand. I see no reason why the universe would appear so orderly all the time (remember, I'm a nonlinear advocate, disorder has inherent order) and yet G-d would choose to make arbitrary decisions about things... Why flood the world when a snap of the "fingers" would accomplish the task?

As for the Ark Logistics thread, I remember reading it and found it full of a lot of assumptions about the Genesis account that are not actually in the text (I'll leave it at that as I don't want to get into it right now).

Well, if and when you desire, I'm all for you correcting my assumptions. Of course, I'd note the assumptions were actually those of Woodmorappe or whatever his name is, some creationist literalist who seems to think he's got it all figured out. But, like I say, I'd happily accept your numbers and try working the calculations.

There must be a natural explanation? Whose nature? The disagreement is that you think G-d is part of the creation and therefore what you observe is observing G-d and therefore what you observe of nature is the nature of G-d. I on the other hand, contend that G-d is not a part of creation and is separate from it. Hence, what we observe as nature to us cannot be assumed to be nature to Him. Again, I see that such a conclusion is an effort to bring Him down to our level, and as such, make Him out to be a god rather than G-d.

What else could I possibly be observing? Is G-d EVERYTHING or not? Sounds to me like he's only some things, one of which is NOT this universe. I reject a G-d who is not INFINITE. A God who is not EVERYTHING cannot be infinite. I'm not that good at math, but I'm good enough to know that not quite all does not equal All. That infinite must necessarily include ALL. And to be clear, my contention is not that G-d is nature and nature alone. He is infinity +1... That is, we agree that there is a component of G-d which man could never possibly hope to know. I call it +1, but I might as well call it +infinity... perhaps I should say G-d is AT LEAST infinity+1... It's just a construct, not meant to be a formula (I think you understand that, just trying to make it clear I make no intention of limiting G-d in any manner, but instead seek only to describe Him in a way which afford me the ability to discuss what I'm thinking. Again, make no mistake, I harbor no illusion that I could ever fully know G-d, or that by observing the universe.. indeed, by even learning and knowing EVERY objective truth in it (or the metaverse, for the matter) that I have come to know G-d.)

It is not that I do not require explanations, I just seek different ones. You seek an explanation of how it occurred. I seek an explanation of why it occurred. We are both seeking the will of G-d in such questions, but we ask different questions because we fundamentally disagree on the nature of G-d.

For sure there are different ways to view G-d, and neither my quest nor yours is superior. I should say, on the issue of "why" did it occur, I'm satisfied with "because G-d decided it should be so" Maybe I'll think more about the "why" but I will say it's really never crossed my mind. I've started with a question of "Why should there be anything at all?" And, I suppose I overlook the answer to that, if any, to get to the "and here's how it works" aspect.

So... am I right? Wrong? Why should there be anything at all? My answer, again, is: because G-d decided (willed) it to be so.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Let's see.. Huttush (1), Igal (2), Bariah (3), Neriah (4) and Shephat (5)

BKB:

If I may, I would like to show the Jewish tradition on this (Rashi's consideration):

1 Chronicles 3

22. And the sons of Shechaniah: Shemaiah, and the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, and Jigal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shafat-six.

and the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, and Jigal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat six They are, in reality, only five, but there is a reason, as is written below (25:3) concerning the watches of the Levites: “Of Jeduthun, the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Isaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah six,” but they are only five.

1 Chronicles 25


3. Of Jeduthun the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Isaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah-six, beside their father Jeduthun with the harp, who prophesied with [songs of] thanksgiving and praise to the Lord.

and Mattithiah - six But you will find only five. [The answer is that] his wife was pregnant with Shimei, and he saw through the holy spirit that he too was destined to be the chief of a watch; therefore he says “six.” And that is what is stated further: (verse 17): “The tenth: Shimei.” This is what the liturgical poet set down (in the Kedushah of Yozer of Parashath Shekalim): “Inscribed from the womb to be counted in the watch of the Sanctuary.”

Does this help?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

BKB:

If I may, I would like to show the Jewish tradition on this (Rashi's consideration):

1 Chronicles 3

22. And the sons of Shechaniah: Shemaiah, and the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, and Jigal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shafat-six.

and the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, and Jigal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat six They are, in reality, only five, but there is a reason, as is written below (25:3) concerning the watches of the Levites: ?Of Jeduthun, the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Isaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah six,? but they are only five.

1 Chronicles 25


3. Of Jeduthun the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Isaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah-six, beside their father Jeduthun with the harp, who prophesied with [songs of] thanksgiving and praise to the Lord.

and Mattithiah - six But you will find only five. [The answer is that] his wife was pregnant with Shimei, and he saw through the holy spirit that he too was destined to be the chief of a watch; therefore he says ?six.? And that is what is stated further: (verse 17): ?The tenth: Shimei.? This is what the liturgical poet set down (in the Kedushah of Yozer of Parashath Shekalim): ?Inscribed from the womb to be counted in the watch of the Sanctuary.?

Does this help?

Yes, and I'm glad you chimed in. When I read that "mistake" I was wondering what answer would solve the issue. In as much as a pregnant wife and a nameless child may exist with some, and not other (as other counts appear to be perfectly in order) of the people at issue in Chronicles, I am willing to accept the counting. That is to say, the author appears to be consistent, if we accept that both Shemaiah and Jeduthun's wives were pregnant when "counted" in his counting. I am aware of no reason to conclude they were not pregnant.

I would also state, when I'm talking about the other "problems" up there, it's in terms of a literal read. Please feel free to offer any correction of my understandings. I personally think there is a perfectly reasonable answer for the "pi problem" but it means that G-d isn't doing the talking. Doesn't mean - assuming my contention is correct - that the message(s) of the Bible are junk, of course.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Yes, and I'm glad you chimed in. When I read that "mistake" I was wondering what answer would solve the issue. In as much as a pregnant wife and a nameless child may exist with some, and not other (as other counts appear to be perfectly in order) of the people at issue in Chronicles, I am willing to accept the counting. That is to say, the author appears to be consistent, if we accept that both Shemaiah and Jeduthun's wives were pregnant when "counted" in his counting. I am aware of no reason to conclude they were not pregnant.

On thing that I found interesting in reading those two Rashi considerations is the allusion to "watches". I believe that this is because the days were split up into six watches.

Originally Posted by BKB

I would also state, when I'm talking about the other "problems" up there, it's in terms of a literal read. Please feel free to offer any correction of my understandings. I personally think there is a perfectly reasonable answer for the "pi problem" but it means that G-d isn't doing the talking. Doesn't mean - assuming my contention is correct - that the message(s) of the Bible are junk, of course.

I never thought otherwise.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

EDIT: OK, I think I may have figured it out. The consequential dissimilarity is that when a plant root "resurrects" it does not re-animate the very same stalk which was killed before. Resurrection in the people sense means that the soul re-animates the SAME BODY it was in before that body was rendered dead.

Actually, the Christian conception of resurrection holds that it will not re-animate the SAME BODY. While it will certainly be similiar, in that it will hold the natural form of man in both physical and spiritual contexts, it will also be different. How so? I can't say as that has not yet been revealed, but the promise exists.

The plant metaphor, I think, would allow a reasonable belief that it is an iteration of of reality with respect to reincarnation, but ONLY if reincarnation commands that one thing may only ever "return" as the same type of thing. That is to say, a man would never become reincarnated as a dog, nor would a fish one day be reincarnated as a cow. For THAT to be "demonstrated" (in the philosophical, not scientific, sense) we would have to bear witness to a Hosta root producing, say Hostas one year and an Oak tree the next.

I would agree.

Of course, subjectively. I don't know if I can put a finer point on it... I have no evidence of a resurrection. None. I've never seen it happen, and as I discussed earlier, any metaphors which suggest resurrection as occurring here fail (Thankfully my edit above is convincing for me, or I'd have to have re-written this whole paragraph ). I would, of course, leave room for my having overlooked another explanation. I should also note, I try not to definitively accept or reject anything "long term" it's more a position statement than a judgment.

Except there is the evidence of the Gospel accounts. I know you hold them in error, but my question would be at what threshhold could you accept the accounts? Consider this example: I have never been to Bhutan, nor I have I ever met anyone who has been there. Yet, based on accounts of people I will never know, I accept that it exists without having to go there and directly witness it. I assume you also accept that Bhutan exists, though your knowledge of it is from the same indirect knowledge of it that I have. If this is the case, then why do you automatically disallow the accounts of the Gospels? Are they not the same as the accounts of Bhutan's existence in that they are made by people we do not know and we have not personally witnessed it? Is it simply the fact you cannot accept human resurrection as having occurred that prevents you from accepting the accounts regarding Jesus? Or is there something else at play?

If G-d is NOT also his creation, then G-d is not EVERYTHING.

And there is the crux of our different understandings of G-d, I do not accept the idea that He is everything, in fact I do not even think He is a part of everything. Hence, why I said G-d is the +1. I realize this could be interpreted as saying G-d does not exist if He is not a part of everything or everything. However, the other option, the one I hold, is there is an inaccessible state of being to us that exists beyond everything, beyond infinitiy, beyond reality.

OK, then why is G-d trying to give us divine revelation of things that are clearly erroneous?
Which is it?

See here for the explanation of Judas: Judas Iscariot Deah -- Matthew vs. Acts

or add?

Adding up the lists in Ezra (2:3 through 2:60) reveals 29,818 while Nehemiah (7:9 - 7:47) list resolves to a count of 31, 089.

See here for one possible understanding, but more importantly, a description of how biblical literatists approach paradoxes and surface contradictions in the Scripture: Ezra 2 vs. Nehemiah 7

Never said G-d isn't interested in righteousness. If I'm correct that WE are G-d, then I'd say G-d is extremely interested in it. But, to KNOW it, he has to DO it... And, of course, in my way of thinking, that is part of our purpose. Likewise, everything just BEING doesn't mean that Man can't decide that beating a 2 year old is unacceptable and needs to be punished. Everything just IS in a metaphysical sense... it is the HUMAN sense which ascribes value. Is killing wrong? I don't know. Seems to me if I suddenly decide to shoot my wife instead of my daugter for no reason, that's Wrong. However, if I am given the alternative of HAVING to shoot her or my daughter and I choose her, am I equally as depraved? Circumstance, it would seem, plays a big part. You, it seems, wish to ascribe some kind of absolute value where there is clearly none.

I still don't see how you can claim righteousness exists in your understanding if everything just IS. To say everything just IS, is also to say everything is righteous, which is to say nothing is righteous. Hence the act of drowning an individual is equal to the act of feeding someone about to die of malnurishment and both are somehow part of god. After all, if god is everything as you claim, then he is present in acts of murder, rape, theft, etc.

As for my understanding righteousness, circumstance is always involved in applying the absolute values that I believe G-d has given us. For instance, you circumstance of having to chose between killing wife or daughter, the righteous act would be to do neither and face the consequences.

Question: What fate is in store for a purely righteous man who does not believe in G-d (and/or Jesus)? Is moral behavior alone enough? If "no," why the fixation on morality?

Such a man does not exist.

Like above, the "living word" sure does seem confusing in it's inaccuracy.


Pi = 3.14159.... and is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Since the diameter is 10 cubits ("10 cubits from brim to brim") and its circumference is 30 cubits ("A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely"), the value of Pi as defined by the passage above is 30/10 or exactly 3.

Seems to me mathematical error should be subscribed to MAN not G-d. Now, I do agree that the Bible is an inspiration to others and that's all well and good. My objections are NOT that it should be tossed aside. But, it is without a doubt a book by MAN about G-d, when it is about G-d at all. Sometimes, it's just about Jewish history. To the extent, however, that we're being counseled by the "breathing" word, seems we're being told to "just round everything off," or "make grave mistakes when doing math problems"

You are assigning a demand of exactitude that would have been irrelevant to the audience of I Kings. Your subjective standards should not be used to evalute the subjective standards to which divine inspiration must address. The author of objective reality must meet us within our subjective realities if we are to understand anything at all.

Got to run...I'll try to respond to the other stuff later.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Actually, the Christian conception of resurrection holds that it will not re-animate the SAME BODY. While it will certainly be similiar, in that it will hold the natural form of man in both physical and spiritual contexts, it will also be different. How so? I can't say as that has not yet been revealed, but the promise exists.

When Jesus is said to have been resurrected, who's body did he "come back as?" Careful... if he was seen as a vision, he's a Ghost, and you already said you don't believe in those.

Except there is the evidence of the Gospel accounts. I know you hold them in error, but my question would be at what threshhold could you accept the accounts? Consider this example: I have never been to Bhutan, nor I have I ever met anyone who has been there. Yet, based on accounts of people I will never know, I accept that it exists without having to go there and directly witness it. I assume you also accept that Bhutan exists, though your knowledge of it is from the same indirect knowledge of it that I have. If this is the case, then why do you automatically disallow the accounts of the Gospels? Are they not the same as the accounts of Bhutan's existence in that they are made by people we do not know and we have not personally witnessed it? Is it simply the fact you cannot accept human resurrection as having occurred that prevents you from accepting the accounts regarding Jesus? Or is there something else at play?

I don't automatically disallow the Gospel accounts. I don't believe them because they do not A) make sense, B) correspond to the reality I see around me. If people claimed Bhutan existed despite any evidence at all, I would not believe it existed. But, alas, I can look at a map, and say "Yep, there appears to land there. It may or may not be called Bhutan, but it sure enough is there." If maps are not to be trusted, I can look at satellite images, etc. The Gospels have nothing by way of proof but for the very same people who believe they are true arguing they are true. For example, I don't deny Paul may have been in Damascus. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I don't deny Paul had visions, or whatever. I do deny that Jesus ever performed a miracle, and on the issue of divinity, the idea of a secondary to G-d is ridiculous (to me). At best, it just weird, at worse it's the worship of a god before G-d and the worship of an idol.

And there is the crux of our different understandings of G-d, I do not accept the idea that He is everything, in fact I do not even think He is a part of everything. Hence, why I said G-d is the +1. I realize this could be interpreted as saying G-d does not exist if He is not a part of everything or everything. However, the other option, the one I hold, is there is an inaccessible state of being to us that exists beyond everything, beyond infinitiy, beyond reality.

Then, quite simply, your idea of G-d is not infinite. "Beyond infinity" has no meaning that I can discern, especially in light of your refusal to accept multiple universes owing to their being impossible to observe.

See here for the explanation of Judas: Judas Iscariot Deah -- Matthew vs. Acts

Hanged and the rope broke, eh? I guess that would be believable if either one of them made such a claim. Neither of them did, and now I'm to believe they both did? IAs if they were writing in concert? Hanged himself in Matthew means he was overcome with emotion? And yet, after he hangs himself, Judas' name does not appear again? Seems like a great deal of bending and twisting to cover up differing accounts to "make" some kind of consistent inerrant work. In any case, with all these explanations needed, where's the literalism?

See here for one possible understanding, but more importantly, a description of how biblical literatists approach paradoxes and surface contradictions in the Scripture: Ezra 2 vs. Nehemiah 7

Maybe I missed the point? Literalists say A) they must be counts taken at different times (yet, Azgad misses by 1,100) or B) simply assume there must be an explanation. Literally - the numbers do not add up.

Why not simply assume that if we had enough information we'd see the Earth is actually be made out of chocolate?

I still don't see how you can claim righteousness exists in your understanding if everything just IS. To say everything just IS, is also to say everything is righteous, which is to say nothing is righteous. Hence the act of drowning an individual is equal to the act of feeding someone about to die of malnurishment and both are somehow part of god. After all, if god is everything as you claim, then he is present in acts of murder, rape, theft, etc.

I don't have many other ways of trying to describe the concept. Its a separation of a metaphysical reality from a human reality. In any case, no one is any more likely to know what the hell is "righteous" than anyone else. I know killing is "wrong" in my heart... you apparently need a finger pointing at you from 2,000 years ago and saying "Don't do that."

Yes, all things emanate from G-d. Good and "evil" or whatever label you want to use. I don't know why you want to argue otherwise. It makes your conception of G-d all the weaker and less Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. I don't know, maybe you seriously think there is some question as to "who" wins the battle between this "good" and "evil" G-d or the imaginary Satan?

As for my understanding righteousness, circumstance is always involved in applying the absolute values that I believe G-d has given us. For instance, you circumstance of having to chose between killing wife or daughter, the righteous act would be to do neither and face the consequences.

You avoided the issue by changing the parameters. Please don't do that, and face the crux of the issue. In case that's not obvious, the issue is justified killings. Why is one killing OK, and not another?

Such a man does not exist.

My hypo assumes he does. Don't change the hypo. What is your answer?

You are assigning a demand of exactitude that would have been irrelevant to the audience of I Kings. Your subjective standards should not be used to evalute the subjective standards to which divine inspiration must address. The author of objective reality must meet us within our subjective realities if we are to understand anything at all.

Got to run...I'll try to respond to the other stuff later.

I'm what? Assigning a demand for exactitude that was irrelevant to the audience of I Kings? Aren't WE the audience, or is the Bible not for us afterall? Is it inerrant, the work of man, or what? You gloss over the problem by saying "Who are you to question that which you can't understand." Well, I CAN understand Pi. Let me put it like this.... You don't understand my explanation of righteousness as it relates to good and evil, right? Suppose my answer was "Well, that's because you're too stupid to understand. Just accept it at face value and believe." This is what your literal belief in the Bible requires of you. You may as well choose ANY book...say, the Book of Mormon... why not.... people seem to think it's "real" and look past the whole idiotic idea that Smith saw these plates and now their just missing....

Would you be likely to believe my view if I said "I know all this because G-d revealed it all to me inscribed on a pair of stones in my backyard which I found after having a vision of multiheaded beasts" Of course not. You'd recommend the loony bin for me... which, of course, is exactly where we send all the present day Jesus Christ's.... well... unless we just leave them in prison.

Likewise, I have to insist, you cannot believe in an infinite G-d, even by suggesting He's "Beyond infinity." Any G-d that is not everything is not infinite by definition. You've already gone on record unequivocally as saying your G-d is not also his creation. He is thus not infinite, and word play with undefined terms does not bring you out of that. You conceive of a G-d which is wholly unknown, can only ever be wholly unknown. Completely removed from us.... and I'm to believe he "Cares?" What is "righteousness" to this creature, and how can you ever suggest you could possibly have even the foggiest idea. Your G-d aint here... you've said as much....

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

When Jesus is said to have been resurrected, who's body did he "come back as?" Careful... if he was seen as a vision, he's a Ghost, and you already said you don't believe in those.

Why would I say he was a ghost? There is nothing to recommend such a conclusion. Furthermore, I said we would receive new bodies, but that they would remain similar (I just don't know how) to what we now know in both the physical and spirit. Why would I conclude a ghost when I am expecting a physical component?Perhaps it is an amplification of what we now know--but that is just speculation.

I don't automatically disallow the Gospel accounts. I don't believe them because they do not A) make sense, B) correspond to the reality I see around me. If people claimed Bhutan existed despite any evidence at all, I would not believe it existed. But, alas, I can look at a map, and say "Yep, there appears to land there. It may or may not be called Bhutan, but it sure enough is there." If maps are not to be trusted, I can look at satellite images, etc. The Gospels have nothing by way of proof but for the very same people who believe they are true arguing they are true. For example, I don't deny Paul may have been in Damascus. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I don't deny Paul had visions, or whatever.

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that the only proof that is offered is that those who believe it to be true as arguing it is true. Isn't that the case in ever assertion? In other words, those people who made the maps where you would look to find Bhutan obviously believe it is true that such a place exists. For example, what if a European mapmaker in 1494 didn't believe Columbus had actually founded a new world. He would not have included it on his map, but if he did believe Columbus' account, he would have included this new land mass. The satellite pictures can certainly show us where Bhutan is claimed to exist, but we are still reliant to interpret those pictures on the claims of those who hold that Bhutan's existence is a truth. Otherwise, that area of land could easily just be a part of China or India.

I do deny that Jesus ever performed a miracle, and on the issue of divinity, the idea of a secondary to G-d is ridiculous (to me). At best, it just weird, at worse it's the worship of a god before G-d and the worship of an idol.

Christianity does not hold Jesus to be a "secondary to G-d" and no where in the New Testament is he presented as such. I'm not sure where you are getting that concept?????

Then, quite simply, your idea of G-d is not infinite. "Beyond infinity" has no meaning that I can discern, especially in light of your refusal to accept multiple universes owing to their being impossible to observe.

If beyond infinity has no meaning, then what is the +1 of your infinity+1 equation for G-d? In your equation infinity=God-1, so the "1" has to represent something outside or beyond infinity.

Hanged and the rope broke, eh? I guess that would be believable if either one of them made such a claim. Neither of them did, and now I'm to believe they both did? IAs if they were writing in concert? Hanged himself in Matthew means he was overcome with emotion? And yet, after he hangs himself, Judas' name does not appear again? Seems like a great deal of bending and twisting to cover up differing accounts to "make" some kind of consistent inerrant work. In any case, with all these explanations needed, where's the literalism?

There is no claim by the Gospels that they present a 100% account of what occurred. Obviously a three-and-half year ministry and all surrounding events by any individual cannot be given a complete account, especially over four books that can be read in afternoon.

As a lawyer, you surely understand that if you ask two witnesses to describe an event, you will have some variations, and not everything that occurred at the event will be described. Doesn't mean they have contradictory statements, even if they appear so on the surface. It also doesn't mean that what either of them say is false. However, we can triangulate their different descriptions to understand more completely what actually did occur.

Maybe I missed the point? Literalists say A) they must be counts taken at different times (yet, Azgad misses by 1,100) or B) simply assume there must be an explanation. Literally - the numbers do not add up.

Again, the Bible does not give you a 100% picture of everything occurring in an event.

I don't have many other ways of trying to describe the concept. Its a separation of a metaphysical reality from a human reality. In any case, no one is any more likely to know what the hell is "righteous" than anyone else. I know killing is "wrong" in my heart... you apparently need a finger pointing at you from 2,000 years ago and saying "Don't do that."

How do you know killing is wrong? Is it the result of the cultural context in which you were raised? If so, then whether it is from your present culture or one from 2000 years ago has little relevence. Or do you believe G-d put that command on your heart (as Christianity teaches). If it is placed on our hearts by G-d, then why do people still kill? Or is it that god is in everything as you claim, and therefore it is also on our hearts to kill? After all, is not your god present in both killing and not killing if he is everything?

Personally, I would argue that it isn't always wrong to kill. Circumstances as you pointed out earlier play a big role in determining if it is wrong or not. Now, murder on the other hand is always wrong, but as I've pointed out in other threads, murder (as understood in the original Hebrew of thou shall not murder) is by definition circumstancial.

Yes, all things emanate from G-d. Good and "evil" or whatever label you want to use. I don't know why you want to argue otherwise. It makes your conception of G-d all the weaker and less Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

It only makes G-d less if you restrict His being to reality. If He exists beyond reality (in the +1), then such a conception makes no sense.

On a side note, I would like to know how you see god in the rape of a 7 year old girl.

I don't know, maybe you seriously think there is some question as to "who" wins the battle between this "good" and "evil" G-d or the imaginary Satan?

You should know from other discussions that I do not hold this and I have explained exactly why.

You avoided the issue by changing the parameters. Please don't do that, and face the crux of the issue. In case that's not obvious, the issue is justified killings. Why is one killing OK, and not another?

You know my answer. G-d has entered into reality to interact with His creation and in that interaction has given us a glimps of the objective reality that makes some killings "okay" and others murder. However, I thought we were talking about righteousness, so I gave you the answer of what righteousness would require.

My hypo assumes he does. Don't change the hypo. What is your answer?

Your hypothetical is a non-reality from my perspective, so there is no answer.

I'm what? Assigning a demand for exactitude that was irrelevant to the audience of I Kings? Aren't WE the audience, or is the Bible not for us afterall?

The Bible is written for all, but each book is written to specific audiences. This is what you don't understand about a literatlist interpretation of the Bible. You want to box such an understanding into a concept it is not. I have always argued that textual and cultural context is essential to understanding what the Bible says in its literal voice. To read just the plain words of the Bible is to read one's own perpsective into it because it doesn't account for the fact that our understanding of reality differs from those to whom the divine revelation was given. As such a literalist should reject plain readings of Scripture. Consequently, if I am to read I Kings and try to understand what the divine voice was saying through the author, I must try to enter the mind of the audience that directly received it. That audience did not require the exactitude your subjective view wants to place upon the scripture; furthermore, it even held a different understanding of pi.

An excellent article on the ancient Hebrew understanding of pi:
On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of

Is it inerrant, the work of man, or what? You gloss over the problem by saying "Who are you to question that which you can't understand." Well, I CAN understand Pi.

While I have used this explanation before where appropriate (usually in metaphysical speculations), I am not here. What I am saying is that even our understanding of mathmatical priciples is subjective and therefore we it is in error to place our understanding upon others. You may understand pi, but it is still a subjective understanding.

Would you be likely to believe my view if I said "I know all this because G-d revealed it all to me inscribed on a pair of stones in my backyard which I found after having a vision of multiheaded beasts" Of course not. You'd recommend the loony bin for me... which, of course, is exactly where we send all the present day Jesus Christ's.... well... unless we just leave them in prison.

I would not recommend the loony bin or prison. I would measure what you have to say against the divine revelation as we have in the Bible. If it is a contradiction, I would dismiss you as a fasle prophet.

Likewise, I have to insist, you cannot believe in an infinite G-d, even by suggesting He's "Beyond infinity." Any G-d that is not everything is not infinite by definition. You've already gone on record unequivocally as saying your G-d is not also his creation. He is thus not infinite, and word play with undefined terms does not bring you out of that. You conceive of a G-d which is wholly unknown, can only ever be wholly unknown.

I do not conceive of a G-d that is wholly unknown because I hold that he has revealed Himself to us through His chosen people and by entering into that creation and becoming a part of it through the mystery of the incarnation.

Completely removed from us.... and I'm to believe he "Cares?" What is "righteousness" to this creature, and how can you ever suggest you could possibly have even the foggiest idea. Your G-d aint here... you've said as much....

Where do you get that I think G-d is completely removed from us when I consistently say that He has given us a divine revelation of the objective reality. I have used this quote of Pascal's before, but it shows that although G-d is not a part of His creation, He does interact with it: The G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not the god of the philosphers and scholars. I hold very seriously that it is possible to have a very intimate relationship with G-d.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Why would I say he was a ghost? There is nothing to recommend such a conclusion. Furthermore, I said we would receive new bodies, but that they would remain similar (I just don't know how) to what we now know in both the physical and spirit. Why would I conclude a ghost when I am expecting a physical component?Perhaps it is an amplification of what we now know--but that is just speculation.

OK, fair enough. Let's back up then. What Biblical evidence do you have which suggests, then, that Jesus was some other body upon his resurrection?

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that the only proof that is offered is that those who believe it to be true as arguing it is true. Isn't that the case in ever assertion? In other words, those people who made the maps where you would look to find Bhutan obviously believe it is true that such a place exists. For example, what if a European mapmaker in 1494 didn't believe Columbus had actually founded a new world. He would not have included it on his map, but if he did believe Columbus' account, he would have included this new land mass. The satellite pictures can certainly show us where Bhutan is claimed to exist, but we are still reliant to interpret those pictures on the claims of those who hold that Bhutan's existence is a truth. Otherwise, that area of land could easily just be a part of China or India.

The key difference is that you're trying to compare a physical assertion of truth with a non-physical assertion of truth. If I were so inclined, I could go to Bhutan and see for myself it is there. I cannot go to Jesus' time and see if he's there, much less if he's the son of G-d. I have little trouble believing the man Jesus existed and was active enough that his name and acts have been preserved in history. That does not compell the conclusion that he is God incarnate. I don't think you argue that compulsion, but I guess I don't see the point of the example in this context if you're not.

Christianity does not hold Jesus to be a "secondary to G-d" and no where in the New Testament is he presented as such. I'm not sure where you are getting that concept?????

Yeah, I know that no Christian would suggest that Jesus is "secondary to G-d" The claim is Jesus is G-d. But.... and since Muffler is much more acquianted with the Jewish understanding of the Bible than I am, I hope he chimes in... the OT describes G-d as ONE, not three. I understand the idea that G-d has different components - indeed, even Jews discuss the different names of G-d (names being akin to Aspects), but my understanding is that these are for dicussion purposes only, that G-d is still only ONE. In any event, and as you know I don't rely on the Bible for my inspiration to these problems (that's not to say I ignore it, just I don't RELY on it), I see absolutely no reason for G-d to become a man. None. Not for redemption purposes, or anything else. It just simply makes no sense.

Christians, it seems, view man as inherently corrupt incapable of goodness, in need of saving. Even as pessamistic towards human nature that I am, I cannot subscribe to this view. I don't need Jesus to save me... I just talk to G-d directly.

If beyond infinity has no meaning, then what is the +1 of your infinity+1 equation for G-d? In your equation infinity=God-1, so the "1" has to represent something outside or beyond infinity.

I figured this would come up. The 1 does indeed describe something. I have no idea what it is. It's simply the assertion that there is something that G-d keeps to himself... something that makes him different than the universe. (more on this below)

There is no claim by the Gospels that they present a 100% account of what occurred. Obviously a three-and-half year ministry and all surrounding events by any individual cannot be given a complete account, especially over four books that can be read in afternoon.

I'm not the literalist. To those that purport to be, I am at a loss to understand how it's OK to go outside the Bible for explainations and still call ones self a literalist. Once you start doing that, you might as well ignore the whole thing.

As a lawyer, you surely understand that if you ask two witnesses to describe an event, you will have some variations, and not everything that occurred at the event will be described. Doesn't mean they have contradictory statements, even if they appear so on the surface. It also doesn't mean that what either of them say is false. However, we can triangulate their different descriptions to understand more completely what actually did occur.

Yes, and no. Bias plays a huge role in discerning the "truth" of what happened. Both Matthew and Acts suffer the same bias. I don't understand your "triangulate" idea in this context. It would be similar to if I had two witness making claims about the color of a traffic light...

One says: It was Red.
Antoher says: It was Green

The truth IS NOT somewhere in the middle. I cannot take from this that the light must have been yellow... It was red, or it was green. Who do I believe? I might choose to believe niether. It depends on a lot of issues.

Again, the Bible does not give you a 100% picture of everything occurring in an event.

The word of G-d is incomplete?

How do you know killing is wrong? Is it the result of the cultural context in which you were raised? If so, then whether it is from your present culture or one from 2000 years ago has little relevence. Or do you believe G-d put that command on your heart (as Christianity teaches). If it is placed on our hearts by G-d, then why do people still kill? Or is it that god is in everything as you claim, and therefore it is also on our hearts to kill? After all, is not your god present in both killing and not killing if he is everything?

I don't know if killing is wrong. I believe it is in my heart. As a human.

Yes, my G-d is present in each and every thing, act, etc. I don't know where I've been unclear... there is no such thing as good and evil. Is G-d infinite or not? I hold he is.... it's becoming increasingly clear to me that your conception of G-d is FAR from infinite.

Or do you believe G-d put that command on your heart (as Christianity teaches). If it is placed on our hearts by G-d, then why do people stll kill?

Not sure if you really want to ask me this.... You state Christianity teaches that G-d does indeed write the command on your heart... and then you recognize people still kill... how ineffective is your G-d?

Personally, I would argue that it isn't always wrong to kill. Circumstances as you pointed out earlier play a big role in determining if it is wrong or not. Now, murder on the other hand is always wrong, but as I've pointed out in other threads, murder (as understood in the original Hebrew of thou shall not murder) is by definition circumstancial.

Fair enough.... define murder. I know the legal definition, but as for a Biblical definitrion, I'll ask you what you understand it to be.

It only makes G-d less if you restrict His being to reality. If He exists beyond reality (in the +1), then such a conception makes no sense.

On a side note, I would like to know how you see god in the rape of a 7 year old girl.

Maybe, but I don't restict His being to reality.

How do I see G-d in the rape of a 7 year old girl? Hard to say.... Obviously the act is atrocious, certainly to us humans.... But, it's hard to say what "good" comes of it.... maybe the 7 year old girl, on account of this event, goes on to pass legislation that addresses rape in stronger ways?

You see the devil in this rape, right? I don't believe in the devil. I accept no "god-like" bad advesary to G-d. And, even if there is such an advesary, I cannot discern one reason to be the least bit worried about him.

In any case, your G-d allows it to happen... (Problem of good and evil, obviously) so... I'd ask you the same thing.... what "good" is in it, and if it's so evil... why doesn't your G-d put an end to it?

You should know from other discussions that I do not hold this and I have explained exactly why.

Then what's the big deal with good and evil?

You know my answer. G-d has entered into reality to interact with His creation and in that interaction has given us a glimps of the objective reality that makes some killings "okay" and others murder. However, I thought we were talking about righteousness, so I gave you the answer of what righteousness would require.

What evidence do you point to in an effort to support that your G-d who is completely OUTSIDE nature acts within it. Is it just self evident as his status as All Powerful?

Your hypothetical is a non-reality from my perspective, so there is no answer.

My Cousin was shocked to learn he did not exist. There is an answer, but it seems to me you just don't want to face the question.

The Bible is written for all, but each book is written to specific audiences. This is what you don't understand about a literatlist interpretation of the Bible. You want to box such an understanding into a concept it is not. I have always argued that textual and cultural context is essential to understanding what the Bible says in its literal voice. To read just the plain words of the Bible is to read one's own perpsective into it because it doesn't account for the fact that our understanding of reality differs from those to whom the divine revelation was given. As such a literalist should reject plain readings of Scripture. Consequently, if I am to read I Kings and try to understand what the divine voice was saying through the author, I must try to enter the mind of the audience that directly received it. That audience did not require the exactitude your subjective view wants to place upon the scripture; furthermore, it even held a different understanding of pi.

An excellent article on the ancient Hebrew understanding of pi:
On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of

Poppycock. Your literalist view of the Bible is pretty complicated... now not only are you trying to ascribe meaning to words in the Bible itself (which, of course, have been translated in to English by way of Latin) but you're trying to have .... what... some "literal" view of the mindset of a historical peoples?

Poppycock. That's quite an extended offer of proof, by the way, for something so "literal" Oddly enough, I'm willing to accept it... but, then, I'm not the literalist.

While I have used this explanation before where appropriate (usually in metaphysical speculations), I am not here. What I am saying is that even our understanding of mathmatical priciples is subjective and therefore we it is in error to place our understanding upon others. You may understand pi, but it is still a subjective understanding.

So, if I understand you, 1+1 may or may not be 2?

I would not recommend the loony bin or prison. I would measure what you have to say against the divine revelation as we have in the Bible. If it is a contradiction, I would dismiss you as a fasle prophet.

Fair enough.

I do not conceive of a G-d that is wholly unknown because I hold that he has revealed Himself to us through His chosen people and by entering into that creation and becoming a part of it through the mystery of the incarnation.

Where do you get that I think G-d is completely removed from us when I consistently say that He has given us a divine revelation of the objective reality. I have used this quote of Pascal's before, but it shows that although G-d is not a part of His creation, He does interact with it: The G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not the god of the philosphers and scholars. I hold very seriously that it is possible to have a very intimate relationship with G-d.

You have made it clear that you think G-d is outside of reality, and outside of reality alone. As such, such a G-d fails to be infinite. I don't know how else to say it... if G-d fails to "be" one thing, he is not infinite... being "beyond" infinity.... does not get you past the "he's failed to be infinite" problem... my conception of Infinity+1 includes a... what I'll call "superinfinity" I know that's meaningless... as well it should be, if I could understand that, I'd be G-d. I've been known to say that G-d is the entity behind the paradox... He is that which IS and that which IS NOT. maybe that's it.... I think of things which ARE NOT as things which "are" I know that is absurd, but then, so is the idea of adding 1 to infinity. Again, it's not an equation, it's merely for purposes of trying to talk about it.

Recognition of whatever might be G-d's "essential essence?" A recognition of that part of G-d which cannot be understood... whatever.... I should find someone who is schooled in Kabbalah to figure out what I mean. My guess is, however, that Kabbalah is not high on your list of respectable things. But, I'm just guessing.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Having re-read some of our exchange, I feel the need to say, to the extent that my posts sound in "I'm right and you're wrong!" I do not have such an intention.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Yeah, I know that no Christian would suggest that Jesus is "secondary to G-d" The claim is Jesus is G-d. But.... and since Muffler is much more acquianted with the Jewish understanding of the Bible than I am, I hope he chimes in... the OT describes G-d as ONE, not three.

The emboldened is true from a Jewish perspective.

Originally Posted by BKB

I understand the idea that G-d has different components - indeed, even Jews discuss the different names of G-d (names being akin to Aspects), but my understanding is that these are for dicussion purposes only, that G-d is still only ONE.

This is quite true as well. At the bottom, I will post a post made by an acquaintance of mine, and I'll try to add the basis behind said post.

Originally Posted by BKB

In any event, and as you know I don't rely on the Bible for my inspiration to these problems (that's not to say I ignore it, just I don't RELY on it), I see absolutely no reason for G-d to become a man. None. Not for redemption purposes, or anything else. It just simply makes no sense.

I couldn't agree more on this point. From the beginning of the Torah through the last words of the the Writings, the Jewish Tanakh is consistent about personal accountability and atonement. For the average individual, there is no need for a mediator. I make this distinction, because of the role of the High Priest (Kohen Gadol) for the nation of Israel. These two situations are not completely intwined.

Anyway... regarding the nature of G-d in Judaism. The following post is in response to a question posed by another about echad and yechid as it pertains to Scripture and tradition. If you have any questions, then let me know and I'll either answer or search it out. I will make some revisions so as to present the post properly for this forum.

So yechid is "one and only" while echad is not?

Do you realize that yechid only appears once in the Torah and it says (Devarim 32:5) "...the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were together (Yechid)."

It is used 48 times in all of Tanach. I'll use all of the 7 instances in Isaiah, since you Christians love him more than any other:

22:3 - "All of your rulers have fled yechid (together)"
27:4 - "...I would burn them yechid (together)"
42:14 - "...I will gasp and pant yechid (together)"
43:26 - "...let us plead yechid (together)"
44:11 - "...and they shall be ashamed yechid (together)"
45:8 - "... let them bring forth salvation and righteousness springing up yechid (together)..."
50:8 - "...let us stand yechid (together)..."

I think you get the picture now.

Echad is one. Yechid is a gathering. So the Shema speaks of one, despite what your christian teachers may have taught you.

So what about the Rambam and other's use of a gathering of yechid? That is because they come from a different point of view than you, that there is one G-d that is the Source of all, from which all emenate from the One, and when speaking of G-d as the One Source, they use yechid, and when referring to G-d from the Torah perspective of the one and only, the Rambam and others also switch to Echad.

But as you can see, since the Torah uses Yechid as a combining and Echad and one and only, you are simply repeating errors from those who see G-d as three, when Echad doesn't mean that at all, which Yechid is used to represent One expressing as an infinite outpouring.

The truth is that it doesn't mean anything other that one. In judaism, we declare that there are attributes of G-d (compassion, forgiving, etc.) and that we can experience a closeness to G-d by emulating and "grasping" one of these attributes, to be a reflection of it. But these are merely expressions, and they are not G-d, He is not composed of them, and we do not pray to expressions.

There was a pamphlet put out some time ago by a Missionary to prove that Jews really believe in a trinity, but that most don't know that. Of course, that is nonsense. In order to do that, he had to make a sungularity into a composite, and a composite into a singularity. But the truth is that all expressions of G-d are transient, they require Him at the Source, they cannot exist without Him, and therefore they are not Him.

That which is dependant upon the existance of G-d is not G-d.

And thus, He is the one-and-only.

If Jesus was dependant upon G-d for his sustenance and existance, then Jesus is not G-d. And Christian theology will not say that Jesus is but an attribute, because why pray to an attribute? And thus, they need Echad to be more than one, not because it is what Judaism believes, but because it is what they believe and thus they need us to believe that as well.

I underlined that one paragraph, BKB, because it goes along very well with what you had written before. At least, I think it does.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

OK, fair enough. Let's back up then. What Biblical evidence do you have which suggests, then, that Jesus was some other body upon his resurrection?

Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body He died in?

The key difference is that you're trying to compare a physical assertion of truth with a non-physical assertion of truth. If I were so inclined, I could go to Bhutan and see for myself it is there. I cannot go to Jesus' time and see if he's there, much less if he's the son of G-d. I have little trouble believing the man Jesus existed and was active enough that his name and acts have been preserved in history. That does not compell the conclusion that he is God incarnate. I don't think you argue that compulsion, but I guess I don't see the point of the example in this context if you're not.

Yes, there are differences between the examples, but I was trying to highlight the fact that much of what we hold as true is because we believe someone else's account of what is true. I was trying to discern why believe some accounts and not anothers. I know you allow for the possibility of resurrection in that it may be something we simply cannot yet explain "physically" or "scientifically. If this is so, why not believe this particular one is the realization of that possibility? Is it because you don't trust the people giving the reports? If so, why? Or is it something else?

Yeah, I know that no Christian would suggest that Jesus is "secondary to G-d" The claim is Jesus is G-d. But.... and since Muffler is much more acquianted with the Jewish understanding of the Bible than I am, I hope he chimes in... the OT describes G-d as ONE, not three. I understand the idea that G-d has different components - indeed, even Jews discuss the different names of G-d (names being akin to Aspects), but my understanding is that these are for dicussion purposes only, that G-d is still only ONE. In any event, and as you know I don't rely on the Bible for my inspiration to these problems (that's not to say I ignore it, just I don't RELY on it), I see absolutely no reason for G-d to become a man. None. Not for redemption purposes, or anything else. It just simply makes no sense.

I know Muffler disagrees with me, but I see no contradiction in the concept of a triune G-d who is also echad. In fact, I pray/sing the Shema every Saturday that proclaims G-d is echad.Now because of this understanding, my conception of a triune G-d is different than many other Christians. I don't see the "persons" of the trinity as holding different values, natures, or characteristics. Nor do I see them as different manifistations of G-d. Rather, the completeness and wholeness of G-d exists simultaneously in all three "persons" (I actually don't like that word for explaining the trinity, but every other word I've seen suggested--natures, modes, forms--fails to explain the concept as well). This view leads me to understanding many verses of the New Testament differently than many of my Christian brothers, but I believe it represents the view of those first century Jews who wrote the New Testament, who would have also held that G-d is echad.

Christians, it seems, view man as inherently corrupt incapable of goodness, in need of saving. Even as pessamistic towards human nature that I am, I cannot subscribe to this view. I don't need Jesus to save me... I just talk to G-d directly.

It's not that they are incapable of goodness; rather, it is that we are inclined to choose, through the free will G-d has given us, our "evil" inclination--yetzer ra. By "evil" though, I don't mean the opposite of good as typically understood in western civilization. Rather, it is a desire of selfishness, to seek what we want, rather than to submit to G-d's authority. (Why I have always argued that "evil" expresses an absence rather than an opposite.) This inclination to choose what we want over what G-d commands is what separate us from Him and requires an intercessor.

I figured this would come up. The 1 does indeed describe something. I have no idea what it is. It's simply the assertion that there is something that G-d keeps to himself... something that makes him different than the universe. (more on this below)

So then, we agree that there is something other than infinity. We simply disagree what that other is.

I'm not the literalist. To those that purport to be, I am at a loss to understand how it's OK to go outside the Bible for explainations and still call ones self a literalist. Once you start doing that, you might as well ignore the whole thing.

To be a literalist simply means that one accepts what the Bible says as absolute truth. It does not mean that you use the plain language of the Bible in translation as the absolute truth (e.g. just because it says the disciples were in one accord in Acts 1, does not mean they were driving around the streets of Jerusalem in a Honda). So, the question for the literalist becomes what is the text actually saying? In order to answer this, you have to go to its original language and you have to go to the original context to which it was written (understanding that the revelation would have had to speak to the original recipients for them to understand it). In my own studies, over 95% of the surface contradictions I have found are cleared up once you look at original languag and context.

In regards to instances like Judas' suicide, it is true that the harmonizing of the two accounts requires speculation on behalf of the reader. As such, the literalist should not elevate his/her interpretation to the level of inerrency (this is an error made by many) and admit that other explanations are also possible. For example, if I was teaching on Judas' suicide at my church's Wednedsay night Yeshiva/Bible Study (interestingly enough I will be doing just this in about 4-6 weeks as we will begin the book of Acts in January), I would be sure to state that this is my interpretation/speculation and should not be regarded as fact. What should be regarded as fact is that both accounts are true, but that how I have harmonized them, may or may not be true. However, what is important about the role of the speculation is that it shows that the two statements are not mutually exclusive of each other (which is really the claim being made by those who claim we have a contradiction) as a surface reading might suggest (again, the disciples are not driving Hondas around Jerusalem).

Yes, and no. Bias plays a huge role in discerning the "truth" of what happened. Both Matthew and Acts suffer the same bias. I don't understand your "triangulate" idea in this context. It would be similar to if I had two witness making claims about the color of a traffic light...

One says: It was Red.
Antoher says: It was Green

The truth IS NOT somewhere in the middle. I cannot take from this that the light must have been yellow... It was red, or it was green. Who do I believe? I might choose to believe niether. It depends on a lot of issues.

Triangulation, at least as it is used in qualitative research, does not assume that two varying accounts of the same event will produce a greater description of reality that is somewhere in the middle of the two. It is not a process of compromise. Rather it holds that it gives a richer, more deep, description of the event. This is what I meant by using triangulation.

As for the traffic light example, it does not work as a parallel. Green and red assume the two descriptions are mutually exclusive of one another. There is no other possibility. The two descriptions of Judas' suicide are not restricted to being mutually exclusive of each other.

I don't know if killing is wrong. I believe it is in my heart. As a human.

Yes, my G-d is present in each and every thing, act, etc. I don't know where I've been unclear... there is no such thing as good and evil. Is G-d infinite or not? I hold he is.... it's becoming increasingly clear to me that your conception of G-d is FAR from infinite

.

Yes it should be clear by now, I do not see G-d as being infinite. That is a pagan idea of what the divine should be, and I find the concept too limiting. (Interestingly enough, it has been these on-and-off discussions with you that have made me realize that I was limiting my understanding of G-d by trying to define Him as eternal or infinite.

Not sure if you really want to ask me this.... You state Christianity teaches that G-d does indeed write the command on your heart... and then you recognize people still kill... how ineffective is your G-d?

The best answer to this is read chapters 1-8 of Romans as Paul explains the "why" better than I could ever imagine to. However, the short of it is that just because it is on our hearts does not mean we listen to it. Rather there is something blocking what is written upon our hearts from what we do on a daily basis. This is why Paul spoke of needing to have a circumcized heart (not an original idea of Paul's as Moses spoke of such a thing); the blockage must be cut away.

Fair enough.... define murder. I know the legal definition, but as for a Biblical definitrion, I'll ask you what you understand it to be.

I've posted this before, but here you go: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" -- What Does It Mean?

How do I see G-d in the rape of a 7 year old girl? Hard to say.... Obviously the act is atrocious, certainly to us humans.... But, it's hard to say what "good" comes of it.... maybe the 7 year old girl, on account of this event, goes on to pass legislation that addresses rape in stronger ways?

You're speculation on how G-d might be present reminds me of Genesis 50, where Joseph tells his brothers that although they intended evil against him (i.e. selling him into slavery in order to do away with him) G-d used it for good (placing Joseph in a position to save his family from famine). However, this should not conclude that G-d was present in the evil act. Only that despite our selfish desires, G-d still works all things toward a greater good. In other words, G-d would still have saved Joseph's family by some other means and the suffering Joseph had to endure, in addition to the grief it caused Jacob, did not have to occur. But, because of the "evil" act of his brothers, those negatives also played themselves out. Interesting enough, you asked if Star Wars could be used to display some of these concepts I hold as truth. Here is such a place as the Anakin Skywalker's fulfillment of the prophesy to bring balance to the Force did not have to include the suffering it did, but because he chose to follow his selfish desires instead of the guidance of the force, the sufferings became attached to the fulfillment.

You see the devil in this rape, right? I don't believe in the devil. I accept no "god-like" bad advesary to G-d. And, even if there is such an advesary, I cannot discern one reason to be the least bit worried about him.

I don't see the ha'satan in the act. Rather I see the triumph of selfishness, self-love, yetzer ra. I see the absence of G-d and G-d's Will. My view of ha-satan is not as an advesary, but rather a proactive accusser (read the first couple chapters of Job to understand the conception).

In any case, your G-d allows it to happen... (Problem of good and evil, obviously) so... I'd ask you the same thing.... what "good" is in it, and if it's so evil... why doesn't your G-d put an end to it?

Been here before. 1) Not interfering with free will. 2) The problem of seeing only one instance of time versus the whole of time, where we see G-d putting an end to it.

What evidence do you point to in an effort to support that your G-d who is completely OUTSIDE nature acts within it. Is it just self evident as his status as All Powerful?

Divine Revelation (i.e. Bible).

My Cousin was shocked to learn he did not exist. There is an answer, but it seems to me you just don't want to face the question.

Which is? Seriously, you have lost me on this one. You accuse me of avoiding an issue, but I really don't know what issue you are addressing--my fault being too slow, I guess. I am contending you are setting a false premise, which I refuse to enter. As for you cousin, I never said he did not exist. I said (assuming from your comment that he did not know G-d) he was not righteous.

Poppycock. Your literalist view of the Bible is pretty complicated... now not only are you trying to ascribe meaning to words in the Bible itself (which, of course, have been translated in to English by way of Latin) but you're trying to have .... what... some "literal" view of the mindset of a historical peoples?

I would never say the literalist approach is simplistic. I acknowledge it is complicated and difficult. In fact, that is why I believe constant study and reflection of what one holds as the literalist view is necessary. A constant engagement of the text, re-reading verses and stories over and over, having the ability to doubt your conclusions (important emphasis on one's conclusions, not the text itself) they are all necessary. And even at the end of all this, I still believe it is not enough. Only through the Holy Spirit, and opening onself to the Holy Spirit, can the voice of the Bible speak on its own foundation.

So, if I understand you, 1+1 may or may not be 2?

Yes! Remember my argument that 1+1 can sometimes equal a larger 1 in the example of adding to balls of clay together to make a single, larger ball of clay. When we are saying 1+1=2, there are a lot of unspoken assumptions being made about the nature of "1" and "2". But what if another culture doesn't hold those same assumptions?

You have made it clear that you think G-d is outside of reality, and outside of reality alone. As such, such a G-d fails to be infinite. I don't know how else to say it... if G-d fails to "be" one thing, he is not infinite... being "beyond" infinity.... does not get you past the "he's failed to be infinite" problem... my conception of Infinity+1 includes a... what I'll call "superinfinity" I know that's meaningless... as well it should be, if I could understand that, I'd be G-d. I've been known to say that G-d is the entity behind the paradox... He is that which IS and that which IS NOT. maybe that's it.... I think of things which ARE NOT as things which "are" I know that is absurd, but then, so is the idea of adding 1 to infinity. Again, it's not an equation, it's merely for purposes of trying to talk about it.

Like I said above, I admit that G-d is not infinity or even a part of it. I have found that expression to be too limiting (ironically thanks to you). I hold that He is the creator of infinity. I hold that He is expressed in the concept of +1.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I anticipate addressing your post later tonight, Bgrad. Too close to 5:00 right now to get started.