Law of noncontradiction

[David M]

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Law of non-contradiction)

This article uses forms of logical notation. For a concise description of the symbols used in this notation, see List of logic symbols.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica as:

\mathbf{*3\cdot24}. \ \ \vdash. \thicksim(p.\thicksim p)[1]

The law of non-contradiction, along with its complement, the law of excluded middle (the third of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of the three laws). Because the law of identity partitions its logical Universe into exactly two parts, it creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.

If you are going to use this as a basis of logical discussion, then make sure there is no ambiguity in your propositions.


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

Interpretations

One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions. For instance, if time is not explicitly specified as part of the propositions A and B, then A may be B at one time, and not at another. A and B may in some cases be made to sound mutually exclusive linguistically even though A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time. However, it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same fixed quality.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If you are going to use this as a basis of logical discussion, then make sure there is no ambiguity in your propositions.
David
You mean like:

There would be a contradiction if P were true and yet P were not true?

[Guido Fawkes]

It helps me to understand better by comparing a real world example to an abstraction of the concept. Please give a real world example of an ambiguity in a proposition (i.e. one wherein P is true and yet P is not true?)

Thank you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It helps me to understand better by comparing a real world example to an abstraction of the concept. Please give a real world example of an ambiguity in a proposition (i.e. one wherein P is true and yet P is not true?)

Thank you.
There is none, of course. I posted it because David has spent over two years insisting that that formulation is "ambiguous." It all started with this innocent little question I asked him on September 27, 2012:


Good morning David,

I don't understand your last post. Could you please tell me which of these two propositions you agree with?

P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

By the Law of the Excluded Middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) (also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction), you must agree with one of those propositions, P or Not P.

The Law simply states that for any proposition P, either that proposition is true, or its negation Not P is true.

Thanks,

Richard

David answered, in part, by saying "The law that you now state (above) I do not disagree with. I am rejecting both of your statements, because the paradox that is at the center of this present discussion does not exist. I have explained to you that your premise is wrong. You are saying that angels can sin and I am saying that God's Angels do not sin." (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49625#post49625))

He says he doesn't disagree with the law of non-contradiction, and then directly contradicts both it and himself by rejecting both both P and Not P! Oy vey. The conversation went downhill from there, and remains unresolved to this day after many hundreds of posts on that one topic.

Richard

[Guido Fawkes]

There is none, of course. I posted it because David has spent over two years insisting that that formulation is "ambiguous." It all started with this innocent little question I asked him on September 27, 2012:



David answered, in part, by saying "The law that you now state (above) I do not disagree with. I am rejecting both of your statements, because the paradox that is at the center of this present discussion does not exist. I have explained to you that your premise is wrong. You are saying that angels can sin and I am saying that God's Angels do not sin." (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7&p=49625#post49625))

He says he doesn't disagree with the law of non-contradiction, and then directly contradicts both it and himself by rejecting both both P and Not P! Oy vey. The conversation went downhill from there, and remains unresolved to this day after many hundreds of posts on that one topic.

Richard

Richard,

Aha! I should have realized that there was some history there. Thanks for the explanation.

[David M]

David M

Law of non-contradiction

If you are going to use this as a basis of logical discussion, then make sure there is no ambiguity in your propositions.


You mean like:

There would be a contradiction if P were true and yet P were not true?


It helps me to understand better by comparing a real world example to an abstraction of the concept. Please give a real world example of an ambiguity in a proposition (i.e. one wherein P is true and yet P is not true?)

Thank you.

This is hilarious. Richard is missing the point. It appears the guru of logic (Richard) cannot apply the words "contradiction" and "ambiguity" correctly. No wonder that for two years I have been going round in circles with Richard. He has not taken notice of the warning I have quoted from Wikipedia.

Mark wants an example of a proposition which is true and not true. In that case, the example would not be ambiguous, it would be contradictory.

Note; Wikipedia says regarding the Law of non-contradiction; One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions.

According to the dictionary, the word proposition as applied to logic, is defined as;
Logic. a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.

Also this;
proposition in Technology

logic
A statement in propositional logic which may be either true or false. Each proposition is typically represented by a letter in a formula such as "p => q", meaning proposition p implies proposition q.

P and Q only represent the propositions. The proposition has to be stated in words. The ambiguity resides in the words.


dictionary.com

ambiguity

noun, plural ambiguities.
1. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention:
to speak with ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner.
2. an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression, meaning, etc.:
a contract free of ambiguities; the ambiguities of modern poetry.



http://muse.dillfrog.com/ambiguous_words.php

Ambiguous Words

Here's a bunch of words that, by themselves, have a handful of meanings. Because of this flexibility, they can be instrumental in titles for your songs/poems/stories/etc.

In other words, we cut you a break by breaking the breaks on "break" and a bunch of other ambiguous words, without taking a break!

break
cut
run
play
make
light
set
hold
clear

(DM. list is truncated here for brevity. One word not in the list on the website is "angel")

Word meaning database kindly provided by WordNet
Web site © 2009-2010 dillfrog.com except where noted.


David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This is hilarious. Richard is missing the point. It appears the guru of logic (Richard) cannot apply the words "contradiction" and "ambiguity" correctly. No wonder that for two years I have been going round in circles with Richard. He has not taken notice of the warning I have quoted from Wikipedia.

Mark wants an example of a proposition which is true and not true. In that case, the example would not be ambiguous, it would be contradictory.

Note; Wikipedia says regarding the Law of non-contradiction; One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions.

Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard

[sylvius]

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.



Unless it is God's will that his subjects do sin.

[David M]

Unless it is God's will that his subjects do sin.

That is what you have to prove. Can you prove it from God's word?

[David M]

Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard

Please state your proposition.


I notice you have included the "and yet" again, which you pointed out to me you had dropped from your recent quotation of that sentence.

"and yet" is grammatically incorrect. As was found, the fact that the two words according to their placement can mean something different to what you intend. Different meanings lead to ambiguity. All you have to do, is re-word your statement (sentence) removing anything with more than one meaning, or first agreeing the meaning with the other party.

[sylvius]

That is what you have to prove. Can you prove it from God's word?

"and God saw that it (sin) was good" (Geneis 1:12)

Without sin and death no resurrected one (Messiah).

[David M]

Hello Sylvius


"and God saw that it (sin) was good" (Genesis 1:12)
I suspect not even you really believe that "it" refers to sin. As you know, the phrase is used six times in that chapter and every time, "it" refers to what has gone before in the verse.


Without sin and death no resurrected one (Messiah).
God has set it up such that man is capable of sin, but equally capable under the correct guidance to not sin. That is why the perfectly righteous man, Jesus, vindicates God against those who think it is impossible.

It is good, that we have Jesus, and he has paid the penalty for the sins of man, and redeems man. How much better it would be for the world if man had not sinned at all.

If no man had sinned, we would all be like Jesus and be the perfect sons of God.

David

[sylvius]

Hello Sylvius


I suspect not even you really believe that "it" refers to sin. As you know, the phrase is used six times in that chapter and every time, "it" refers to what has gone before in the verse.


God has set it up such that man is capable of sin, but equally capable under the correct guidance to not sin. That is why the perfectly righteous man, Jesus, vindicates God against those who think it is impossible.

It is good, that we have Jesus, and he has paid the penalty for the sins of man, and redeems man. How much better it would be for the world if man had not sinned at all.

If no man had sinned, we would all be like Jesus and be the perfect sons of God.

David

Genesis 1:11, And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

v.12: And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

Rashi:

fruit trees: That the taste of the tree should be like the taste of the fruit. It [the earth] did not do so, however, but“the earth gave forth, etc., trees producing fruit,” but the trees themselves were not fruit. Therefore, when man was cursed because of his iniquity, it [the earth] too was punished for its iniquity (and was cursed-not in all editions). - [from Gen. Rabbah 5:9]

Moreover, the Hebrew word "tov" (= good) in Genesis 1:12, is the 153rd word from the beginning (of the Hebrew bible).

Gematria of "tov" being 17, and 153 being triangle 17.

If the earth had brought forth "fruit trees producing fruit" instead of "trees producing fruit" then the "tov" in Genesis 1:12 would have been the 154th word, which wouldn't have been good at all.

It's the big secret of creation, even Satan doesn't know.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard
Please state your proposition.

My proposition is P = God's Will is done in heaven.

By definition: There would be a contradiction if P and yet Not P.

Now define Q = God's Angels in heaven could sin.

If God's Angels in heaven could sin, then God's will would not be done. This means that Q implies Not P and we can substitute it into my formulation:

There would be a contradiction if P and yet Q.

Substituting the definitions back in, we arrive at my original formulation:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

I have explained this to you many time in minute detail. E.g. last year on October 26, 2013 in post #272 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131) of the Can God's Angels in Heaven sin? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131) thread.

Please explain the ambiguity in proposition P.

Thanks!

:sunny:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"and God saw that it (sin) was good" (Geneis 1:12)

Without sin and death no resurrected one (Messiah).
That's a classic Christian understanding of the Fall. It goes back all the way to Augustine.

Here's how the wiki explains it:

Felix culpa is a Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) phrase that comes from the words felix (meaning "happy," "lucky," or "blessed") and culpa (meaning "fault" or "fall"), and in the Catholic tradition is most often translated "happy fault," as in the Paschal Vigil Mass Exsultet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet) O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem, "O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."
The Latin expression felix culpa derives from the writings of St. Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine) regarding the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man), the source of original sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin): “For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” (in Latin: Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere.)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa#cite_note-1) The phrase appears in lyric form sung annually in the Exsultet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet) of the Easter Vigil: "O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer." The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa#cite_note-2) cited this line when he explained how the principle that "God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom" underlies the causal relation between original sin and the Divine Redeemer's Incarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)), thus concluding that a higher state is not inhibited by sin. The Catholic saint Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose) also speaks of the fortunate ruin of Adam in the Garden of Eden in that his sin brought more good to humanity than if he had stayed perfectly innocent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa#cite_note-Haines.2C_Victor_1982-3) In the appendix to Leibniz's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz)Theodicy, he answers the objection concerning he who does not choose the best course must lack either power, knowledge, or goodness, and in doing so he refers to the felix culpa.

[Rose]

Hello Sylvius


I suspect not even you really believe that "it" refers to sin. As you know, the phrase is used six times in that chapter and every time, "it" refers to what has gone before in the verse.


God has set it up such that man is capable of sin, but equally capable under the correct guidance to not sin. That is why the perfectly righteous man, Jesus, vindicates God against those who think it is impossible.

It is good, that we have Jesus, and he has paid the penalty for the sins of man, and redeems man. How much better it would be for the world if man had not sinned at all.

If no man had sinned, we would all be like Jesus and be the perfect sons of God.

David

Good morning David,

Using your reasoning, just think how much better it would have been if your god would have created man without the ability to sin. According to the Bible there has not been one man (aside from Jesus) who has not sinned, so from the very beginning your god knew that his creation was flawed and he would have to send a redeemer to save them. So, under your belief system the whole creation thing has been one BIG colossal waste of life! And Revelation doesn't give any hope of things getting better before they get much, much worse ... :lol:

Kind regards,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Good morning David,

Using your reasoning, just think how much better it would have been if your god would have created man without the ability to sin.You might think so. It is a hypothetical situation, which we cannot test. How else could God test man? God needed to find out if man would be obedient out of choice and love.

I have been saying that God's Angels are sinless. Besides that, they are immortal, and possibly sexless. That is why it does not make sense for Angels to sin and for God to have created two sets of beings both sinful. Angels do God's will, and are his ministering spirits. Man on the other hand has been given a freedom Angels did not have. There is no rebellion from God's Angels.


According to the Bible there has not been one man (aside from Jesus) who has not sinned, so from the very beginning your god knew that his creation was flawed and he would have to send a redeemer to save them. That is correct and that is why Jesus was in the mind of God from the beginning he thought of creating man. It was inevitable, that at some time, man would sin.
It is God's judgment whereby he selects according to the benchmark that is Jesus. God will accept some and reject the rest. Reprobates will not be saved.
The creation of man was exactly as God planned it, and so it is untrue to say that God's creation was flawed. His creation was all "very good" as he wanted it to be.


So, under your belief system the whole creation thing has been one BIG colossal waste of life! And Revelation doesn't give any hope of things getting better before they get much, much worse ... :lol:There has been a great loss of life and more loss to come as those who are figuratively destroyed for eternity in the Lake of Fire. That is when Satan/Devil/Serpent also are finally done away with in the Lake of Fire and you are left with immortal humans that can no longer sin. Eventually, what you propose God could have done from the beginning, he will accomplish by a selection process. That is a wonderful time to come, when all you accuse God of not doing, you would have no complaints in the Kingdom of God.

Here is something to think about. If God created men and women sinless and to procreate, no-one would die and maybe we would be overcrowded more than we are. You could end up in situation of having limitless numbers of men and women forever procreating. God would have to plan things differently, if that were the case. Again, you can have your ideas, but as the late Jim Rohn would say; "when you can create your own planet, you can do things your way".

All the best
David

[David M]

My proposition is P = God's Will is done in heaven.

By definition: There would be a contradiction if P and yet Not P.

Now define Q = God's Angels in heaven could sin.

If God's Angels in heaven could sin, then God's will would not be done. This means that Q implies Not P and we can substitute it into my formulation:

There would be a contradiction if P and yet Q.

Substituting the definitions back in, we arrive at my original formulation:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

I have explained this to you many time in minute detail. E.g. last year on October 26, 2013 in post #272 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131) of the Can God's Angels in Heaven sin? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131) thread.

Please explain the ambiguity in proposition P.

Thanks!

:sunny:.
There is no ambiguity in your proposition P. Why keep inserting the "and yet"? The proposition Q can be simply written. God's Angels sin.

Now proposition Q contradicts proposition P.

Why complicate matters by adding superfluous words that also introduce ambiguity? Also, why use the auxiliary verb "could" when it is not necessary?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard


There is no ambiguity in your proposition P. Why keep inserting the "and yet"? The proposition Q can be simply written. God's Angels sin.

Now proposition Q contradicts proposition P.

Why complicate matters by adding superfluous words that also introduce ambiguity? Also, why use the auxiliary verb "could" when it is not necessary?
You have not shown any ambiguity in my statement.

Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

[Rose]

Hello Rose
You might think so. It is a hypothetical situation, which we cannot test. How else could God test man? God needed to find out if man would be obedient out of choice and love.

I have been saying that God's Angels are sinless. Besides that, they are immortal, and possibly sexless. That is why it does not make sense for Angels to sin and for God to have created two sets of beings both sinful. Angels do God's will, and are his ministering spirits. Man on the other hand has been given a freedom Angels did not have. There is no rebellion from God's Angels.

Hello David

What do you mean "How else could god test man?" ... the Bible says that god ordained the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of man, from the foundation of the world, so no testing was needed. According to the Bible god already knew that man would sin when he created him, and he did it anyway ... :p


That is correct and that is why Jesus was in the mind of God from the beginning he thought of creating man. It was inevitable, that at some time, man would sin.
It is God's judgment whereby he selects according to the benchmark that is Jesus. God will accept some and reject the rest. Reprobates will not be saved.
The creation of man was exactly as God planned it, and so it is untrue to say that God's creation was flawed. His creation was all "very good" as he wanted it to be.

Not only did god know that his creation would sin, but he knew every single human that ever lived would sin ... he even knew that after destroying all life on the whole planet because of sin, wickedness would return in full force as bad or worse then it was before ... !

If the creation of sinful man was exactly as god planned, then of course it was flawed! If I create a robot knowing that it will go against what I created it for, then I am the one guilty of creating a flawed product.


There has been a great loss of life and more loss to come as those who are figuratively destroyed for eternity in the Lake of Fire. That is when Satan/Devil/Serpent also are finally done away with in the Lake of Fire and you are left with immortal humans that can no longer sin. Eventually, what you propose God could have done from the beginning, he will accomplish by a selection process. That is a wonderful time to come, when all you accuse God of not doing, you would have no complaints in the Kingdom of God.

Like I said: the whole Bible from beginning to end is one great big colossal waste of life. Why did god even bother creating life in the first place if all he was going to do is destroy it in one way or another? If god isn't killing life, then people are killing each other, or diseases or natural disasters ... it's just one big bloody mess!

Now, if you believe in naturalism like I do, it's all perfectly understandable why there is killing and death, but to think that a deity intentionally created things that way is pretty hard to swallow.


Here is something to think about. If God created men and women sinless and to procreate, no-one would die and maybe we would be overcrowded more than we are. You could end up in situation of having limitless numbers of men and women forever procreating. God would have to plan things differently, if that were the case. Again, you can have your ideas, but as the late Jim Rohn would say; "when you can create your own planet, you can do things your way".

All the best
David


The Garden story seems to be saying that god created the first couple in a pristine environment with no sin, and there is no talk of offspring at all ... it is only after they are kicked out of the Garden that the idea of having offspring is introduced. So, if Adam and Eve had stayed in the Garden they may have never had any offspring ... :lol:

Kind regards,
Rose

[David M]

You have not shown any ambiguity in my statement.

Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

I have already told you the grammatically incorrect words that can be taken to mean something else, and therefore because of something else, we have ambiguity. You can find my post where I gave you the link to the website which I cited. You want to ignore the information I have given you. You do not recognize, or want to admit, that those words also are leading to your get-around and explaining away the paradox.

You keep repeating yourself as if you have not been answered. I have answered your questions, and given you my explanations. Why do you not answer all the questions I have presented to you in the last couple of posts? Your answers will help us drill down so we can put an end to this argument.

Please explain the construction of the sentence you use and why you insist on using it, when I have told which words are ambiguous and can mean something you do not intend to say? I have stated the two simple propositions P and Q which are contradictory, so why not accept those two propositions? Can you simplify them any more?

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hello David

What do you mean "How else could god test man?" ... that is for you to tell me. We either accept the way God has set things up, or you have to say how God should have done it.


the Bible says that god ordained the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of man, from the foundation of the world, so no testing was needed. According to the Bible god already knew that man would sin when he created him, and he did it anyway ... :pYou are just agreeing with what I have already said. The fact is that God also knew that man was capable of not sinning; it took Jesus to prove it.


Not only did god know that his creation would sin, but he knew every single human that ever lived would sin ... he even knew that after destroying all life on the whole planet because of sin, wickedness would return in full force as bad or worse then it was before ... ! So what? I have agreed with you on this before. The Flood was not the solution to eradicating sin. The Flood provided a fresh start. Not too dissimilar to when the Kingdom of God is established in the time to come when a new era/start will begin with everyone in the kingdom being immortal and sinless.


If the creation of sinful man was exactly as god planned, then of course it was flawed! If I create a robot knowing that it will go against what I created it for, then I am the one guilty of creating a flawed product.It is called; taking responsibility. God's design is not flawed; not when it is as designed. Man is a self-programming creature by what enters into the mind. A person's character is formed or programmed. The mind is a very complex subject, and is a remarkable creation. Man is playing God if he thinks he will be able to duplicate the mind. Man does not understand enough to do that. I admit knowledge is increasing, but you will never know whether whether man will achieve what he thinks might be possible.



Like I said: the whole Bible from beginning to end is one great big colossal waste of life. Why did god even bother creating life in the first place if all he was going to do is destroy it in one way or another? If god isn't killing life, then people are killing each other, or diseases or natural disasters ... it's just one big bloody mess! The Bible is a history of mankind and it shows both the good side and the bad side of man. What God has in store for man; God's Kingdom, has not changed.


Now, if you believe in naturalism like I do, it's all perfectly understandable why there is killing and death, but to think that a deity intentionally created things that way is pretty hard to swallow.If you, as Rose, do no violence, why is that? Why does not everyone do as you do? Why cannot everyone be as good as you? Please answer those questions.


The Garden story seems to be saying that god created the first couple in a pristine environment with no sin, and there is no talk of offspring at all ... it is only after they are kicked out of the Garden that the idea of having offspring is introduced. So, if Adam and Eve had stayed in the Garden they may have never had any offspring Then think of what could have happened. What if Adam and Eve had not sinned, Cain and Abel could still have been born. What does God do now, when Cain kills Abel? How do you know that Adam and Eve would not sin at a later date? What happens then? The vulnerability of man to sin had to be exposed at the beginning. We know God had the plan to redeem man; that is evident in Genesis 3:15

You really should concentrate on what God has in store for them that love and fear him. You are given the prospect of eternal life and you are throwing it away. That is your choosing and the fault is not God's.

All the best
David

[Rose]

Hello Rose


It is called; taking responsibility. God's design is not flawed; not when it is as designed. Man is a self-programming creature by what enters into the mind. A person's character is formed or programmed. The mind is a very complex subject, and is a remarkable creation. Man is playing God if he thinks he will be able to duplicate the mind. Man does not understand enough to do that. I admit knowledge is increasing, but you will never know whether whether man will achieve what he thinks might be possible.

Hello David

Yes, it's called taking responsibility and if your god were real he should take responsibility for creating humans with the desire to do bad things. Under your belief system, if god's design is not flawed then that means he intentionally designed humans in a manner that would allow them to "Self program" themselves to do wicked things. So, which is worse ... admitting to flawed workmanship, or intentionality in designing sinful creatures that delight in causing harm to each other?

I would much rather admit to a flaw in designing my robot that caused him to commit harmful acts, then to say I intentionally designed it in a manner I knew would result in negative actions.



If you, as Rose, do no violence, why is that? Why does not everyone do as you do? Why cannot everyone be as good as you? Please answer those questions.


All the best
David

Under naturalism, both nature and nurture are the determining factors in how we act. Our genetic make-up "Nature" coupled with the environment we are raised in "Nurture", governs how we perceive and react to the world around us. For example, if someone has a strong outgoing nature and they are indoctrinated with a religious mindset from the time of their youth, chances are that child is going to grow up and forcefully preach the doctrines of his religion, whereas a child with a demure and reclusive personality would react very differently given the same environment and circumstances. It's all about the push and pull between nature and nurture.

I was lucky to be born with a non-violent nature ... :D

Kind regards,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have already told you the grammatically incorrect words that can be taken to mean something else, and therefore because of something else, we have ambiguity. You can find my post where I gave you the link to the website which I cited. You want to ignore the information I have given you. You do not recognize, or want to admit, that those words also are leading to your get-around and explaining away the paradox.

You keep repeating yourself as if you have not been answered. I have answered your questions, and given you my explanations. Why do you not answer all the questions I have presented to you in the last couple of posts? Your answers will help us drill down so we can put an end to this argument.

Please explain the construction of the sentence you use and why you insist on using it, when I have told which words are ambiguous and can mean something you do not intend to say? I have stated the two simple propositions P and Q which are contradictory, so why not accept those two propositions? Can you simplify them any more?
Your claims are false. You have never provided any legitimate evidence supporting your assertion that "and yet" is bad grammar or ambiguous. I have conclusively refuted your assertions and showed that you ignored and/or dodged the evidence. The phrase "and yet" is defined as a synonym of "though" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is used in the definition of "paradox" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. It is used 35 times in the KJV. It was used by William Shakespeare. It is used by leading authorities on language in their peer-reviewed papers discussing the meaning of language. Your assertions are utterly absurd.

For your edification: Is "and yet" grammatically incorrect and ambiguous? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6182-Is-quot-and-yet-quot-grammatically-incorrect-and-ambiguous)

[David M]

Hello Richard

Your claims are false. You have never provided any legitimate evidence supporting your assertion that "and yet" is bad grammar or ambiguous. I have conclusively refuted your assertions and showed that you ignored and/or dodged the evidence. The phrase "and yet" is defined as a synonym of "though" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is used in the definition of "paradox" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. It is used 35 times in the KJV. It was used by William Shakespeare. It is used by leading authorities on language in their peer-reviewed papers discussing the meaning of language. Your assertions are utterly absurd.

For your edification: Is "and yet" grammatically incorrect and ambiguous? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6182-Is-quot-and-yet-quot-grammatically-incorrect-and-ambiguous)

I have responded to your new thread to include a couple of things you left out. A separate thread should have been started a long time ago so as to avoid hijacking threads with this long-running argument.

Now please continue to respond to my last post in which I have asked you to answer the questions in the previous posts.


Regards
David

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hello David

Yes, it's called taking responsibility and if your god were real he should take responsibility for creating humans with the desire to do bad things. Under your belief system, if god's design is not flawed then that means he intentionally designed humans in a manner that would allow them to "Self program" themselves to do wicked things. So, which is worse ... admitting to flawed workmanship, or intentionality in designing sinful creatures that delight in causing harm to each other?If God made flawed designs, then I would not have reason to trust God's design of anything. We know man's design is often flawed. I expect you travel on planes with flaws in them. Planes can crash because of time and chance we call accidents; they also crash because of flaws which eventually reach a critical point.


I would much rather admit to a flaw in designing my robot that caused him to commit harmful acts, then to say I intentionally designed it in a manner I knew would result in negative actions.I do not think you are capable of designing a robot to self-program; therefore you are speaking hypothetically. If you give your theoretical robot the freedom to self-program, then you have to expect anything that it is capable of self-programming.


Under naturalism, both nature and nurture are the determining factors in how we act. Our genetic make-up "Nature" coupled with the environment we are raised in "Nurture", governs how we perceive and react to the world around us. For example, if someone has a strong outgoing nature and they are indoctrinated with a religious mindset from the time of their youth, chances are that child is going to grow up and forcefully preach the doctrines of his religion, whereas a child with a demure and reclusive personality would react very differently given the same environment and circumstances. It's all about the push and pull between nature and nurture.

I was lucky to be born with a non-violent nature ... :DIt is good you have been born with nature that has turned out to be less violent than others. Also, you have been nurtured in the correct way and that can make a large difference. If you had been nurtured differently, then you might not be so passive as you are now. Consider what might have been if Jesus had not been nurtured by his mother or God; the situation could be different now.

The reprobate nations which God destroyed did not nurture their children correctly. You hold God to account instead of the reprobates. Those reprobates did not nurture their children in the correct way, but nurtured them to do exactly the same as the parents.

If we heed the lessons contained in the Bible, we should see that the Bible is actually nurturing us not to do evil, but to do good. We should all learn from other people's mistakes which the Bible tells us about. We should not learn to commit the same mistakes as those shown in the Bible of committing them.

All the best
David

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67671#post67671)
Hello David

So, which is worse ... admitting to flawed workmanship, or intentionality in designing sinful creatures that delight in causing harm to each other?


Hello Rose
If God made flawed designs, then I would not have reason to trust God's design of anything. We know man's design is often flawed. I expect you travel on planes with flaws in them. Planes can crash because of time and chance we call accidents; they also crash because of flaws which eventually reach a critical point.

Hello David

So, I guess if you think that your god's designs are not flawed, then you must believe he intentionally created humans with the desire to inflict harm.


I do not think you are capable of designing a robot to self-program; therefore you are speaking hypothetically. If you give your theoretical robot the freedom to self-program, then you have to expect anything that it is capable of self-programming.

The god who you believe created the universe, should be capable of anything ... What is the point of designing a product that turns bad 100% of the time?


It is good you have been born with nature that has turned out to be less violent than others. Also, you have been nurtured in the correct way and that can make a large difference. If you had been nurtured differently, then you might not be so passive as you are now. Consider what might have been if Jesus had not been nurtured by his mother or God; the situation could be different now.

I don't see how you can compare Jesus whom the Bible says was divinely conceived, with humans who are naturally conceived. Supposedly god chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus, because he knew she would raise him correctly.


The reprobate nations which God destroyed did not nurture their children correctly. You hold God to account instead of the reprobates. Those reprobates did not nurture their children in the correct way, but nurtured them to do exactly the same as the parents.

If we heed the lessons contained in the Bible, we should see that the Bible is actually nurturing us not to do evil, but to do good. We should all learn from other people's mistakes which the Bible tells us about. We should not learn to commit the same mistakes as those shown in the Bible of committing them.

All the best
David

How can you say that the Bible nurtures people not to do evil? When it is filled with laws that command and condone human rights violations ... especially against women!

Kind regards,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hello David
So, I guess if you think that your god's designs are not flawed, then you must believe he intentionally created humans with the desire to inflict harm.Yes Rose, but note that you are only picking out one aspect. You make it sound like we have all been programmed to do harm to others. That is not the case. Why is it that you are not programmed to harm others? But, have you ever harmed another person?


The god who you believe created the universe, capable of anything ... What is the point of designing a product that turns bad 100% of the time?You are using the word "bad" when the word "failure" or "not perfect" is equally appropriate. A person who has sinned in a minor way, cannot be compared to someone who deliberately sins constantly. By your definition, I must call you a "bad" person. Do you consider yourself "bad"?


I don't see how you can compare Jesus whom the Bible says was divinely conceived, with humans who are naturally conceived. Supposedly god chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus, because he knew she would raise him correctly.Divinely conceived by God's ability/power; yes. The fertilized egg in Mary was not made of any other substance than what is found in any other fertilized egg. Jesus was 100% human as Adam was. The only difference we might know of now is in the DNA of Jesus. Unless there is something in the make up of molecules and of atoms that remains undiscovered, then what I say is based on our present knowledge.


How can you say that the Bible nurtures people not to do evil? When it is filled with laws that command and condone human rights violations ... especially against women!OK Rose, begin by presenting one law in the Bible that commands violation against women and I will discuss it.

In answering the first few questions, the answer lies in God designing humans to have choice and make their own decisions. In so doing, humans have a choice to please self or serve others. A person starts of life with blank canvass, and their life is the picture they paint on the canvass. Some draw pictures in which their life is all good, and others paint pictures which show their lives are all bad. Everyone else fits between the extremes of totally good and totally bad.

When everything is analyzed, it comes down to people's motives. The biggest failing of man, is selfishness. Pride and greed are closely associated. This is what was behind the story of Eve. It was her selfishness to please her own desire that was the reason to eat of the forbidden fruit. No-one else was to blame but Eve. God had given a simple commandment; "do not ..." and Eve chose to disobey God and rebel.

God had planned for the inevitable. Was the inevitable for everyone? No! Jesus proved that it was not inevitable for everyone.

Sadly, we are living in a world where almost everyone, when "push comes to shove" (so to speak), people will show there true colors, when selfish pride and greed steps in. You only have to see how people's characters change when it comes to food and petrol shortages and how in their greed to be first in the queue and how fights break out, the bad side to people's nature comes out. Selfish pride and greed can be overcome, but it takes a deliberate effort (willpower) to overcome it. Jesus was not shielded from temptation, but he overcame temptation on every occasion. That is what God expects us to do. If that is not what you want to do, or if that is not your desire, then why would God want to select you, when he has others to select from?

It is not good that society is corrupt and evil. God is responsible for creating humans who are also responsible for their actions. The call from God is to come out of the world that is corrupt. The call is to be separate and come out of the "world".

You know these lessons, but now choose to ignore them. You want to ignore them and concentrate on presenting the blackest picture of God you can. The blame will always rest on humans for disobeying.

All the best

David

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67691#post67691)
Hello David
So, I guess if you think that your god's designs are not flawed, then you must believe he intentionally created humans with the desire to inflict harm.

Hello Rose
Yes Rose, but note that you are only picking out one aspect. You make it sound like we have all been programmed to do harm to others. That is not the case. Why is it that you are not programmed to harm others? But, have you ever harmed another person?

Good morning David

What I said was that the Biblegod created humans with the desire to do harm to others. A deity with the power to create life could give his creation the desire to only do good and still give them free will.

And yes, I have harmed others, maybe not physically but emotionally ... I am not perfect, though I try very hard to not harm others.


You are using the word "bad" when the word "failure" or "not perfect" is equally appropriate. A person who has sinned in a minor way, cannot be compared to someone who deliberately sins constantly. By your definition, I must call you a "bad" person. Do you consider yourself "bad"?

Yes, I used the word bad, but failure or not perfect would work just as well. My point is that humans fail 100% of the time in one way or another ... that is not a good track record especially when the Bible says that its god does not like it when people sin, yet that is the way he made them.


Divinely conceived by God's ability/power; yes. The fertilized egg in Mary was not made of any other substance than what is found in any other fertilized egg. Jesus was 100% human as Adam was. The only difference we might know of now is in the DNA of Jesus. Unless there is something in the make up of molecules and of atoms that remains undiscovered, then what I say is based on our present knowledge.

The point is that the Bible makes it clear that Jesus was conceived differently than all other humans, which gave him the ability to live a sinless life ... no other human had that advantage.



How can you say that the Bible nurtures people not to do evil? When it is filled with laws that command and condone human rights violations ... especially against women!
OK Rose, begin by presenting one law in the Bible that commands violation against women and I will discuss it.

There are so many biblical laws that violate women's human rights that it's hard to know where to start. :p A good verse that covers two violations is:


Exo.21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


The verse makes it clear that a father owns his daughter and is able to sell her. Secondly, it states that she is not allowed to "go out" as the men do. Both of those biblical laws totally violate the human rights of the woman being sold and bought.

A good place to get a grasp on what are considered to be human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).


In answering the first few questions, the answer lies in God designing humans to have choice and make their own decisions. In so doing, humans have a choice to please self or serve others. A person starts of life with blank canvass, and their life is the picture they paint on the canvass. Some draw pictures in which their life is all good, and others paint pictures which show their lives are all bad. Everyone else fits between the extremes of totally good and totally bad.

When everything is analyzed, it comes down to people's motives. The biggest failing of man, is selfishness. Pride and greed are closely associated. This is what was behind the story of Eve. It was her selfishness to please her own desire that was the reason to eat of the forbidden fruit. No-one else was to blame but Eve. God had given a simple commandment; "do not ..." and Eve chose to disobey God and rebel.

God had planned for the inevitable. Was the inevitable for everyone? No! Jesus proved that it was not inevitable for everyone.

Sadly, we are living in a world where almost everyone, when "push comes to shove" (so to speak), people will show there true colors, when selfish pride and greed steps in. You only have to see how people's characters change when it comes to food and petrol shortages and how in their greed to be first in the queue and how fights break out, the bad side to people's nature comes out. Selfish pride and greed can be overcome, but it takes a deliberate effort (willpower) to overcome it. Jesus was not shielded from temptation, but he overcame temptation on every occasion. That is what God expects us to do. If that is not what you want to do, or if that is not your desire, then why would God want to select you, when he has others to select from?

It is not good that society is corrupt and evil. God is responsible for creating humans who are also responsible for their actions. The call from God is to come out of the world that is corrupt. The call is to be separate and come out of the "world".

You know these lessons, but now choose to ignore them. You want to ignore them and concentrate on presenting the blackest picture of God you can. The blame will always rest on humans for disobeying.

All the best

David

Since you believe that god is responsible for creating humans, then he is also responsible for the desires he created humans to have. When people breed animals like dogs to be super aggressive to use in Dog Fights, then the person who bred the dog is responsible for its behavior. The dog has no choice but to be aggressive because of its hormones that determine its actions. Why do you think people castrate male animals ... to make them more docile. So, if humans can change the behavior of animals, how much more should a creator be able to control and change the behavior of his creations?

Kind regards,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Good morning David

What I said was that the Biblegod created humans with the desire to do harm to others. A deity with the power to create life could give his creation the desire to only do good and still give them free will.That might be easier said than done. I am cannot speak for God, I can only try to understand the way things are.
Humans have freewill and can use their strength for good or evil. I only know that in the Kingdom of God, there will be no sin and humans will be immortal. Exactly what changes God has introduced into an immortal body, I am unable to say. God will certainly have humans in his kingdom that will not sin and will be perfect. Therefore, the way you think God should have created us now, he will do in the future.

How else do you suggest God selects people for his Kingdom? Take the 1st commandment. If we were programmed not to harm others, is God going to judge according to the 1st commandment only? What makes us selfish? I think this ought to be the subject of a new thread in which this conversation can continue and not distract from the subject of this thread.


And yes, I have harmed others, maybe not physically but emotionally ... I am not perfect, though I try very hard to not harm others.That goes for me too.
We could discuss other situations where say someone kills someone else by accident and the relatives want justice and revenge. Maybe to get people who do not get angry and retaliate and cause harm to others, God must reduce the number of emotions, but if God does that, we would be less than God's image. One thing we are bad at is; judging righteously.


Yes, I used the word bad, but failure or not perfect would work just as well. My point is that humans fail 100% of the time in one way or another ... that is not a good track record especially when the Bible says that its god does not like it when people sin, yet that is the way he made them.There is a flip side and the fact that humans might not be perfect, but God can still love them. God wants his love reciprocated voluntarily; alas humans reject God and do not love him.


The point is that the Bible makes it clear that Jesus was conceived differently than all other humans, which gave him the ability to live a sinless life ... no other human had that advantage.That is where I think your reasoning is wrong. Jesus was conceived by God, but the actual conception, was no different in the biological makeup of the fertilized egg. Jesus was born human, exactly the same as most humans who are not born with physical handicaps. The mother of Jesus certainly had good characteristics that Jesus would have inherited from Mary. We know she was a woman of great humility. I can only thing God would input the male characteristics that Adam started off with. Genetic defects on the male side could have been eliminated. None of this can be proven and the situation cannot be repeated. The one difference with Jesus is that he must have been told from an early age that he was God's son. That is why at a very early age, he knew God was his father and he had to be about his father's business.


There are so many biblical laws that violate women's human rights that it's hard to know where to start. :p A good verse that covers two violations is:


Exo.21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


The verse makes it clear that a father owns his daughter and is able to sell her. Secondly, it states that she is not allowed to "go out" as the men do. Both of those biblical laws totally violate the human rights of the woman being sold and bought.Since it is accepted that the woman is the weaker vessel, it can be seen that God is ensuring that women could get employment and her parents benefited in the process from the money received. In those days, could a woman survive on her own if she left her employment and become the target of evil men who had no regard for God, and had no regard to women's rights?


A good place to get a grasp on what are considered to be human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).I read that after you gave the link in another post and thread.


Since you believe that god is responsible for creating humans, then he is also responsible for the desires he created humans to have. When people breed animals like dogs to be super aggressive to use in Dog Fights, then the person who bred the dog is responsible for its behavior. The dog has no choice but to be aggressive because of its hormones that determine its actions. Why do you think people castrate male animals ... to make them more docile. So, if humans can change the behavior of animals, how much more should a creator be able to control and change the behavior of his creations?
If we only had halve of the emotions we have, we would not be made in the image of God. Since Jesus proved it possible to lead a perfect life and overcome selfish desires, which can result in acts of evil, then it should be possible for most people to be far better people than they actually are. God gave humans the ability of self control. If we do not apply self control, we cannot blame God. I think most of the problems in the world today are due to bad parentage and a lack of respect to authority which is God. Even now, we might know that we have bad habits, and we can change our habits. What is going to change a person's habits?

All the best
David

[Rose]

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67712#post67712)
There are so many biblical laws that violate women's human rights that it's hard to know where to start. :p A good verse that covers two violations is:
Exo.21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

The verse makes it clear that a father owns his daughter and is able to sell her. Secondly, it states that she is not allowed to "go out" as the men do. Both of those biblical laws totally violate the human rights of the woman being sold and bought.

Hello Rose

Since it is accepted that the woman is the weaker vessel, it can be seen that God is ensuring that women could get employment and her parents benefited in the process from the money received. In those days, could a woman survive on her own if she left her employment and become the target of evil men who had no regard for God, and had no regard to women's rights?


All the best
David

Hello David

I figured that would be the reason you would give, but no matter how you try to justify the discrimination against women found in the Bible, it is still a human rights violation! Women are not property and should not be owned by men for any reason!

Kind regards,
Rose

[Guido Fawkes]

Good morning David

What I said was that the Biblegod created humans with the desire to do harm to others. A deity with the power to create life could give his creation the desire to only do good and still give them free will.

And yes, I have harmed others, maybe not physically but emotionally ... I am not perfect, though I try very hard to not harm others.

Yes, I used the word bad, but failure or not perfect would work just as well. My point is that humans fail 100% of the time in one way or another ... that is not a good track record especially when the Bible says that its god does not like it when people sin, yet that is the way he made them.


Good Afternoon Rose,

Please pardon my interruption of your conversation with David.

I know I told you to remind me of what I said with regards to speaking about my beliefs, and my request still holds.

28 years ago I took one semester of formal debate in High School. It was not long enough to learn to be very good at it, but I did manage to learn a few of the basics of debate. One of the things that I learned was that you did not always get to debate the side for which you actually believed. I also learned that, in order to be prepared to properly debate your opponent you really had to know both sides of the debate very well. In essence, you had to study and prepare your opponent’s debate points first, so that you could prepare counter-points.

For the nonce, I would like for you to assume that we have both made that same decision to disbelieve in any god(s) so that we can discuss the reason for our mutual decision.

My reason would be solely based on the fact that there is absolutely no scientifically quantifiable/verifiable proof of the existence of god(s).

From your statements above, it seems like you base your reasons for disbelief on the actions of human beings. It's as if you are saying, ‘Because people are bad, good god(s) cannot exist.’ You seem to base your beliefs on things not being the way they ‘ought’ to be. Because there are no god(s), the actions and interactions of human are exactly as they should be. We both know that human behavior can be modified to be better than it is, but it can also be much worse.

I could use the analogy of a woman creating a sentient robot, but this analogy is exactly the opposite of god(s) creating human beings.
Sentient robots don’t actually exist, and creative human beings do.

Human beings do actually exist, and creator god(s) [for the nonce] do not.

The following comparison is imperfect, but it is the closest extant analogy I can think of.

Human beings cannot create life, however we can procreate. I believe that it is fair and just to call a serial killer evil. I know that a lot of people do so, but do we have the moral right to call the parents of a serial killer evil? Were Mao Zedong’s, Joseph Stalin’s, Adolf Hitler’s, Benito Mussolini’s, and Saddam Hussein’s parents evil because of the actions of their son? Were George W. Bush’s parents evil because…er…um…never mind.

The point is, do we have the right to call procreators evil because of the evil that they procreated? Now, I realize that not every parent raises their child in a loving and nurturing environment, but I also know that some parents who do raise their children with love and discipline, teaching them to know right from wrong, are sometimes shocked by what their children decide to do with their lives. It is very likely that at least one of the parents of the named dictators above were shocked by the brutality of their son. They may have even thought of their son as evil.

If we can blame imaginary god(s) for the evil that men do, should not real living, breathing, quantifiable, verifiable parents who procreate evil men be held so much more at fault?

Or, perhaps we should rightly lay the blame for the failing of human beings on those human being who actually do the evil deeds. Let’s quit blaming the phaser (you see what I did there...phaser's don't exist either) and start holding the man that pulled the trigger responsible for his own actions, otherwise we come off as being condescending to a person simply because of beliefs that he holds.

On any debate topic wherein no proof can be found either in support of or against the topic of debate, no one can legitimately claim the moral high ground.

P.S. My nose is so stuffed up right now that I'm thinking about calling RotoRooter out to see if they can unclog it.

[Rose]

Good Afternoon Rose,

Please pardon my interruption of your conversation with David.

I know I told you to remind me of what I said with regards to speaking about my beliefs, and my request still holds.


For the nonce, I would like for you to assume that we have both made that same decision to disbelieve in any god(s) so that we can discuss the reason for our mutual decision.

My reason would be solely based on the fact that there is absolutely no scientifically quantifiable/verifiable proof of the existence of god(s).

Hello Mark

I am happy you joined the conversation ... :thumb:


From your statements above, it seems like you base your reasons for disbelief on the actions of human beings. It's as if you are saying, ‘Because people are bad, good god(s) cannot exist.’ You seem to base your beliefs on things not being the way they ‘ought’ to be. Because there are no god(s), the actions and interactions of human are exactly as they should be. We both know that human behavior can be modified to be better than it is, but it can also be much worse.

Actually, that is not the case at all. I began to question god's existence when I opened my eyes to all the unjust and biased treatment of women found in the Bible. Many of these injustices were written into the laws that the Bible claimed were given from god, which told me that the god presented in the pages of the Bible was neither fair nor just in regards to women, which inevitably led me to the conclusion that the Biblegod was man-made.


The following comparison is imperfect, but it is the closest extant analogy I can think of.

Human beings cannot create life, however we can procreate. I believe that it is fair and just to call a serial killer evil. I know that a lot of people do so, but do we have the moral right to call the parents of a serial killer evil? Were Mao Zedong’s, Joseph Stalin’s, Adolf Hitler’s, Benito Mussolini’s, and Saddam Hussein’s parents evil because of the actions of their son? Were George W. Bush’s parents evil because…er…um…never mind.

The point is, do we have the right to call procreators evil because of the evil that they procreated? Now, I realize that not every parent raises their child in a loving and nurturing environment, but I also know that some parents who do raise their children with love and discipline, teaching them to know right from wrong, are sometimes shocked by what their children decide to do with their lives. It is very likely that at least one of the parents of the named dictators above were shocked by the brutality of their son. They may have even thought of their son as evil.

If we can blame imaginary god(s) for the evil that men do, should not real living, breathing, quantifiable, verifiable parents who procreate evil men be held so much more at fault?

Or, perhaps we should rightly lay the blame for the failing of human beings on those human being who actually do the evil deeds. Let’s quit blaming the phaser (you see what I did there...phaser's don't exist either) and start holding the man that pulled the trigger responsible for his own actions, otherwise we come off as being condescending to a person simply because of beliefs that he holds.

On any debate topic wherein no proof can be found either in support of or against the topic of debate, no one can legitimately claim the moral high ground.

P.S. My nose is so stuffed up right now that I'm thinking about calling RotoRooter out to see if they can unclog it.

There is a vast difference between creating life from "Whole cloth" as a deity would do and procreating. I would in no way hold a parent responsible for the evil deeds of their child, unless a direct connection could be made to some specific actions on the parents part that caused the child to "snap".

My point to David about god's responsibility in creating humans that do bad things, applies only in regards to said god being able to "program" his creation in any manner he chooses. I gave David an example of people who breed aggressive dogs specifically for fighting, so they are responsible for the behavior of the dogs they bred. Also, people castrate their male animals to make them more docile ... if humans can change the behavior of animals by altering their genetics or changing their hormones, how much more should a creator deity be able to design his creations with a gentle nature, while giving them free will.

Kind regards,
Rose

[Guido Fawkes]

Hello Mark

I am happy you joined the conversation ... :thumb:



Actually, that is not the case at all. I began to question god's existence when I opened my eyes to all the unjust and biased treatment of women found in the Bible. Many of these injustices were written into the laws that the Bible claimed were given from god, which told me that the god presented in the pages of the Bible was neither fair nor just in regards to women, which inevitably led me to the conclusion that the Biblegod was man-made.



There is a vast difference between creating life from "Whole cloth" as a deity would do and procreating. I would in no way hold a parent responsible for the evil deeds of their child, unless a direct connection could be made to some specific actions on the parents part that caused the child to "snap".

My point to David about god's responsibility in creating humans that do bad things, applies only in regards to said god being able to "program" his creation in any manner he chooses. I gave David an example of people who breed aggressive dogs specifically for fighting, so they are responsible for the behavior of the dogs they bred. Also, people castrate their male animals to make them more docile ... if humans can change the behavior of animals by altering their genetics or changing their hormones, how much more should a creator deity be able to design his creations with a gentle nature, while giving them free will.

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose,

Since we don't actually believe that god(s) created human beings, would it not be more intellectually honest to always say that all the evils that human beings do are the sole responsibility of human beings - rather than blaming god(s) of which we do not believe exist?

[Rose]

Rose,

Since we don't actually believe that god(s) created human beings, would it not be more intellectually honest to always say that all the evils that human beings do are the sole responsibility of human beings - rather than blaming god(s) of which we do not believe exist?


Yes, that is absolutely what I believe! All the evils done by people lie solely at the feet of humans for a variety of reasons, sometimes through mental illness, sometimes through brain-washing, sometimes for reasons of power and money and on and on it goes ...

Kind regards,
Rose

[Guido Fawkes]

Yes, that is absolutely what I believe! All the evils done by people lie solely at the feet of humans for a variety of reasons, sometimes through mental illness, sometimes through brain-washing, sometimes for reasons of power and money and on and on it goes ...

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose,

I agree with you 100%.

[SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777]

Hey Rose! :yo:

I've noticed most fundamentalist/evangelical christian belivers tend to defend their faith by taking one of the following paths:

~They formulate or recite some kind of cosmological argument.

~They point out the fact that reason-based enterprises such as science (you know, that that "sciency-stuff!" LOL.) can't fully explain the origins, world, morality, and the human condition in general, "and thus, faith (dogma-beLIEf) is required to fill in the gaps."

~They maintain that they have had such "meaningful religious-experiences" or "spiritual-trances" (answers to wishes, voices, prayer, miracles, vivid feelings and confirmations of salvation, love and joy etc.) that they could never doubt the existence of a good and loving supernatural "God Being."

It is "futile to try to object to their physics or to their feelings." While you cannot argue with their "Experiences," you can at least "try to point out that the conclusions and "confirmation-biases" they draw from their experiences "might not be trustworthy"

Confirmation-Bias is "how we ALL naturally look for evidence that only proves what we want to be true!" This is the window of opportunity "to raise the problem of evil." You cannot argue with their personal experiences, "but you can raise the problem of the psychological-barriers we all face when trying to make sense of these experiences."

C. B. is the fallacy that "confirms the success of many prayers and miraculous turns of events." One of the ways in which confirmation-bias " *desensitizes-believers to the problem of real human-suffering* is the causal-link believers create between moral vice and evil.

God is not at fault for allowing human suffering, "they think," because the suffering so many people face in life is due to their sinful choices!" By selecting and cherry-picking examples from a handful of individuals they know who have suffered because of personal-failures "they can easily avoid considering all the evidence to the contrary." But clearly their reasoning *completely-ignores* the inherently unequal-distribution of health, wealth, capital, and happiness based mainly on biological, geographical, and political-differences, "differences which are factual-conditions that go far more deeper than individual volitional-choice."

If "Retribution" is the rationale for suffering, then "the suffering of innocent victims is simply Unjustified." But many believers are in fact "comfortable with this situation!" They are "willing to accept" a world in which innocent-children suffer and "God is not responsible" for immediately interfering and helping them.

The first argument believers often give is that "God is like a parent (father) who cannot always intervene else the child will grow up too dependent and needy. God often needs to show "Tough Love!" (That's the same old twisted and trance logic.) Strangely this seems very inconsistent with the popular religious sentiment that being a person of faith means "depending on God for everything." Moreover, this is hardly an analogy that could stand up to any criticism. Suppose a parent allowed their child to run into a busy street leading to the child's immediate death. The parent could be prosecuted for a crime, that is, "held responsible for not acting."

If it became clear that while the parent wanted to help they could not due to a physical barrier (tripping and falling down, for example) then the situation would be accidental, not criminal. But if they could have prevented their child's death- "and did not"- surely we would deem them cruel and evil. This is the point of "Epicurus Dilemma." Either God is not powerful enough to help us, or God is cruel and indifferent to human suffering.

Would we let the human parent off the hook for saying they didn't help because they saw the value in tough love? (Hell No!) The other underlying problem is the best-of-all-possible-worlds thinking that so many fundy Christian beLIEvers maintain. God couldn't have created a world with less evil without minimizing some good. Which good would we lose? Surely it could not be something trivial like ice cream or sports cars.

But free-will, they contend, is worth it. Oh Yes, free will is such an important good that it was worth the risk. God knew countless innocent-children would suffer because of free will, but because God did not want robots we were created with the freedom to do either good or evil.

This is a very f'ed-up, twisted and "disturbing way of thinking" that Voltaire and Dostoevsky have both illustrated and critiqued in a way more effective way than I ever could! Now, I am not going to get into the metaphysical issue of whether or not we even have "free will," but let us just suppose that we do.

It is more productive to point out that even if we do have freedom there are several limitations we cannot ignore. No matter how hard I try I cannot fly, walk through walls, or disappear. No matter how hard I mentally try I cannot conceive of a square circle or a married bachelor. Has God deprived me of some good by not giving me freedom to do these things? Of course Not!

So, we do in fact live in a world in which our freedom is somewhat restrained. Surely even the most recalcitrant beLIEver must accept this fact. Correct.What is the point of all this? Well, could we conceive of a world in which we still have free will but lack the ability to harm innocent children?

Could we imagine a world without rape, murder, and disease, but still with anger, pride, personal failure, and greed? Yes, I think we could. Surely a God with his infinite resources and mental capacities "could have created a world with a more just distribution of suffering" to the ones (and only to the ones) who sin and transgress the law.

I could gladly give up my freedom to commit heinous acts and I think any morally serious person would as well. What would we really lose in return? I do not think we would lose anything of any serious importance...To use Nietzsche's language, God could have created a world without good and evil, but with good and bad. Because God did not do this then it seems "the believer must rationally justify their faith in God's transcendent-goodness."

Or they could take the more simple solution and recognize that believing that a supernatural parent can solve the problem of the existence of evil is as "useless as using such a creation as an explanation for the existence of evil in the first place."

In the future, I say, men will one day perhaps *not look upon* it as a sacred duty to herd like cattle together, on purpose to cultic-praise and glorify their Tyrant and Bloody Gore-God in the Sky.

Peace & Friendship,

L.V.X.
343/565

P.S. BY THE WAY, HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A HAPPY HALLLOWEEN! :)

[SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777]

1338

A Religion of Peace? Peace on earth??

Prince of Peace*, why do you allow wars and massacres on earth? By what mysterious judgment do you allow innocent people to be cruelly slaughtered? I cannot know.

Many Christians and non-believers alike extol the virtues of living peacefully, Yet: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." -
-Matthew 10:34) So much for the peace on earth stuff we keep hearing about from uninformed Christians.

The members of the world's militaries believe that their god stands solely on their side and they continually pray to this unproven deity to intervene on their behalf. Has prayer ever worked to stop the violence? Of course Not! Interestingly, religious violence usually stops because secular parties intervene to offer peace agreements [a freaking clue!].

Anyone who comes with the intent of a "sword" instead of peace can hardly give an example of living peacefully on Earth.

*Note: The title, "Prince of Peace" does not appear anywhere in the New Testament and only appears once in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6). The Hebrew scholars tell us the Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 9:6 appear in "the past tense." The title refers to the prophecy, not necessarily the man as "it could refer to any number of kings, past or future" (many other ancients also commonly referred to favored kings as the 'Prince of Peace'). Nor did He come to set up a government of peace (Isaiah 9:7). On the contrary, only intolerance and wars resulted from this belief.

Creating peace by blessing does not rely on caring about peace for others but because the do-gooder thinks he'll receive a future reward (going to Heaven, for example). One should do peacemaking acts or charitable works, not because of the candy one will receive but because it serves as the proper and decent thing to do. A peacemaker has my admiration for creating peace, not for the blessing bestowed upon him.

It's difficult to keep track of how many nations are eradicated by the will of Biblegod Yahweh-El. After Joshua makes further conquests, we get a look at God's thinking: "No city made peace with the Israelites (except the Hivites living in Gibeon); they had to conquer all of them, for the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel. He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy [my emphasis], as he had instructed Moses." (Joshua 11:19-20) Those slaughters didn't have to happen; they happened because God wanted them to happen. God purposely engineered things to ensure that genocide would be the result.

Whatever its causes, the decline of violence has profound implications. It is not a license for complacency: We enjoy the peace we find today because people in past generations were appalled by the violence in their time and worked to end it, and so we should work to end the appalling violence in our time.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Rose! :yo:

I've noticed most fundamentalist/evangelical christian belivers tend to defend their faith by taking one of the following paths:

~They formulate or recite some kind of cosmological argument.

~They point out the fact that reason-based enterprises such as science (you know, that that "sciency-stuff!" LOL.) can't fully explain the origins, world, morality, and the human condition in general, "and thus, faith (dogma-beLIEf) is required to fill in the gaps."

~They maintain that they have had such "meaningful religious-experiences" or "spiritual-trances" (answers to wishes, voices, prayer, miracles, vivid feelings and confirmations of salvation, love and joy etc.) that they could never doubt the existence of a good and loving supernatural "God Being."

It is "futile to try to object to their physics or to their feelings." While you cannot argue with their "Experiences," you can at least "try to point out that the conclusions and "confirmation-biases" they draw from their experiences "might not be trustworthy"

Yo! James! Hallowbrewhaha! Glad you came back for a visit! :anim_32:

Your comment reminds me of this quote from Michale Shermer:
We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.
The funny thing about that "sciency stuff" is that it can be verified. That's more than a little different from the "woowoo" religious stuff, wouldn't you say?



C. B. is the fallacy that "confirms the success of many prayers and miraculous turns of events." One of the ways in which confirmation-bias " *desensitizes-believers to the problem of real human-suffering* is the causal-link believers create between moral vice and evil.

Exactly correct. They remember all the "hits" when "God" (i.e. coincidence) answered their prayers and forgot all the misses.



God is not at fault for allowing human suffering, "they think," because the suffering so many people face in life is due to their sinful choices!" By selecting and cherry-picking examples from a handful of individuals they know who have suffered because of personal-failures "they can easily avoid considering all the evidence to the contrary." But clearly their reasoning *completely-ignores* the inherently unequal-distribution of health, wealth, capital, and happiness based mainly on biological, geographical, and political-differences, "differences which are factual-conditions that go far more deeper than individual volitional-choice."

Well stated. They also forget that their "Gospel" is incoherent. Or what? Did a light-cone of death arise from the event of the cruciFiction, where all those who could have heard but didn't believe were instantly condemned, whereas those who were outside that death light-cone (in the "OT" zone) would be saved through some other means that "believing in Jesus"?



If "Retribution" is the rationale for suffering, then "the suffering of innocent victims is simply Unjustified." But many believers are in fact "comfortable with this situation!" They are "willing to accept" a world in which innocent-children suffer and "God is not responsible" for immediately interfering and helping them.

Two words - cognitive dissonance.



The first argument believers often give is that "God is like a parent (father) who cannot always intervene else the child will grow up too dependent and needy. God often needs to show "Tough Love!" (That's the same old twisted and trance logic.) Strangely this seems very inconsistent with the popular religious sentiment that being a person of faith means "depending on God for everything." Moreover, this is hardly an analogy that could stand up to any criticism. Suppose a parent allowed their child to run into a busy street leading to the child's immediate death. The parent could be prosecuted for a crime, that is, "held responsible for not acting."

Exactly correct. Parents who "trust god" for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions.



If it became clear that while the parent wanted to help they could not due to a physical barrier (tripping and falling down, for example) then the situation would be accidental, not criminal. But if they could have prevented their child's death- "and did not"- surely we would deem them cruel and evil. This is the point of "Epicurus Dilemma." Either God is not powerful enough to help us, or God is cruel and indifferent to human suffering.

This exemplifies the fundamental incoherence in the dogma that God is like a parent. No rational and good parent would treat people the way the biblegod treats people. E.g. The Bible says Yahweh killed 70,000 of his own "children" because David took a census that wasn't even prohibited!



P.S. BY THE WAY, HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A HAPPY HALLLOWEEN! :)
I'm on vacation for the whole week. It's gonna be great!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

[SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777]

1339

1340


Mental bondage that comes with religion. Thinking freely feels like breathing freely. And having my freedom of "thought-bound"(religion) is like suffocation.

It's a whole hott-mess of confusion and such a mind-f**k of bondage. As for me, thankfully I never bought into it...I never drank the Purple Cool-aid! LOL. I can only judge what I read in the Bible about it's "purported God." I simply Report...You Decide.

And there's is no way to avoid that– anyone who reads and interprets what is written must "judge" the words, to understand what they mean. When I do that, I see that the actions and commands of said Lusty-Warrior God are utterly f'ed-up beyond all recognition. Think of all the Waste of human life and Suffering that caused.

And for what ultimate purpose? None whatsoever. It's all Nuts- a Nutty-Nutshell! Because when you're a Fundamentalist and Skanky Bible-Whore, God demands that you get it right or there will be hell to pay! Because it's Yahweh's or Highway's!

An infinite supernatural creator-god simply *Doesn’t Exist!* And cannot because it is "A Contradiction In Terms" to begin with. The absurd idea of an *infinite* theistic Demiurge-God makes absolutely no sense to me. Never has! (CLUE: COGNITIVE-DISSONANCE!)



It's all a very dangerous form of Pathological or Spiritual-Trance and Cognitive-Bondage. Discarding this Mental Bondage and Straight-Jacket opens the door to a whole new world!

[Guido Fawkes]

Whatever its causes, the decline of violence has profound implications. It is not a license for complacency: We enjoy the peace we find today because people in past generations were appalled by the violence in their time and worked to end it, and so we should work to end the appalling violence in our time.

You'll get no argument from me. I was a soldier for over 21 years...do you know what the common foot soldier hates more than anything? War. War and violence. No one in their right mind ever wants to engage in war and violence. So I say your dammed right--we should work diligently to end the appalling violence of our time.

At the same time we should recognize that each individual has the basic human right to defend himself/herself against violence.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1339

1340


Mental bondage that comes with religion. Thinking freely feels like breathing freely. And having my freedom of "thought-bound"(religion) is like suffocation.

It's a whole hott-mess of confusion and such a mind-f**k of bondage. As for me, thankfully I never bought into it...I never drank the Purple Cool-aid! LOL. I can only judge what I read in the Bible about it's "purported God." I simply Report...You Decide.

Good images. The bottom one has always been one of my favorites.

I drank deep of the Purple Kool Aid. This site is a testimony to that! And so now it is my genuine pleasure, duty, and honor to debunk every last bit of it! Have you seen my new banner bar for my old site? Here it is:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/bannerbar_debunked.png

Now ain't that sumptin? :lol:

A believer dun gone and debunked himself! Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/)

In my last blog post - The Bible Wheel: Patternicity on Steroids (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/12/patternicity/) - I talked about how it is making me a bit giddy:
I’m actually getting rather giddy debunking myself. The world brightens as blinders constricting my vision to the limits of The Pattern fall from my eyes. Belly laughs erupt as I recognize the folly of my former beliefs. This happened the other day when my wife Rose and I read some of my old writings. We laughed loud and clear for at least 15 minutes. I felt refreshed for days. It reminds me of the last scene in the movie Steppenwolf when Harry laughed along with his judges and so broke free from oppressive fantasies in the Magic Theatre of his mind.
It's hard to argue with laughter!



And there's is no way to avoid that– anyone who reads and interprets what is written must "judge" the words, to understand what they mean. When I do that, I see that the actions and commands of said Lusty-Warrior God are utterly f'ed-up beyond all recognition. Think of all the Waste of human life and Suffering that caused.

F'ed-up? Indeed! Some might even say Fucked Up! I know I would. And have. And will again.



And for what ultimate purpose? None whatsoever. It's all Nuts- a Nutty-Nutshell! Because when you're a Fundamentalist and Skanky Bible-Whore, God demands that you get it right or there will be hell to pay! Because it's Yahweh's or Highway's!

Skanky Bible-Whore? I won't have such language about Sister Saint Jan Crouch on my forum!

1341

She's a prophetess ya know! She dun tells me alls abouts the books of revelations!



An infinite supernatural creator-god simply *Doesn’t Exist!* And cannot because it is "A Contradiction In Terms" to begin with. The absurd idea of an *infinite* theistic Demiurge-God makes absolutely no sense to me. Never has! (CLUE: COGNITIVE-DISSONANCE!)

Indeed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You'll get no argument from me. I was a soldier for over 21 years...do you know what the common foot soldier hates more than anything? War. War and violence. No one in their right mind ever wants to engage in war and violence. So I say your dammed right--we should work diligently to end the appalling violence of our time.

At the same time we should recognize that each individual has the basic human right to defend himself/herself against violence.
Have you heard of the book The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/0143122010) by Steven Pinker? He claims that violence has drastically decreased as civilization advanced. You should check it out.

[SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777]

"THE SPIRITUAL OR PATHOLOGICAL-TRANCE"


Model Terms and Definitions

~C is used to specify a closed loop of thoughts. In general, c is a repeating subset of a thought sequence of an arbitrary length.
~M is repetition of closed thought-loop C
~Trance
~DTP is the collective latent awareness that is created by C. It is also referred as the dissociated trance plane (sometimes referred to as the DTP) of C loop thought-elements.
~TGL Trance Generating Loop a thought that is followed by a known sequence of thoughts, for which a subsequence eventually repeats.

What is a Trance? Trances are not difficult to produce. In fact, trances are quite common. Strong, spectacular and long-lasting trances have popularized the false notion that all trances are special states. Spectacular trances can be produced through the modification of specific conditions that produce trance.

Complex-human and ordinary activity such as believing god, religion, falling in love, orgasm, sex, music, being absorbed in a TV program, marching in a parade, and even commuting to work all involve "trances." For example, music, sex, enterainment & tv basically consists of many dissociative trance generating-loops consisting of the multiple rhythms and melodies and rhythms. As one listens to one specific rhythm or melody, when a certain value of m is reached, the melody is 'learned' and a dissociated trance plane is produced. When the dissociated trance plane is produced some cognitive functions are disabled and the 'conscious' mind is attracted to or picks another melody to listen to. The pattern repeats. The effect, mentally, is that the listener or viewer goes from one trance generating loop to the dissociated trance plane to another trance generating loop, etc

Trance is relaxing and enjoyable because "energy consuming critical-functions are disabled." That is to say, trance logic is operant. The awareness of the viewer is from the dissociated plane and not the generating loop. The effect of the trance helps to create the illusion that the images are "other," that is, that the images have an independent reality.

The Pleasure Reward-Circuit.

It is these multiple dissociations- "surfing on the trance planes," so to speak- that gives "pleasure" to the observor ecstasy or listener orgasmic, deep relaxation, euphoria, blissful-dissociation, religious, spiritual, out-of-body and near-death like experience.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with all those. It's Human Nature...a part at the deepest levels of the Human Psyche. It is the fundamental nature of the human "Pleasure Reward-Circuit." The pleasure(s) center lets us know when something is enjoyable and reinforces the desire for us to perform the same pleasurable action again. This is also called the "reward-circuit," which includes all kinds of pleasure, from sex, kissing, psychoactives-drugs, to food, to art, culture, civilization, to music, spirituality, religion laughter to certain types of drug use.

The brain has multiple pleasure centers. However, the nucleus accumbens is the among the most prominent. It mediates the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which underlies all pleasure and relaxation. But the dopamine itself is released from the VTA, another contender for the title of "Pleasure Center."

Both multiple- but countable- trance generating loops and dissociated trance planes exist. Although the trance generating loops are basically constant- they are part of the music- the dissociated trance planes come into existence and then disappear as the mind dissociates on each trance generating loop, the cognitive functions are disabled and the mind falls back into recognizing another aspect of rhythm or melody.

It should also be mentioned that as the mind is traversing and surfing one trance generating loop, it can certainly be attracted to another secondary trance generating loop. Attracted means that there was an intervening dissociation as well as a "disabling of a cognition."

When consciousness traverses thought- c1, there is a primary awareness e1. When onsciousness progresses to c2, awareness is e2, but there is also a residual awareness of e1 which is denoted as e12. At the end of the second repetition of c, m = 2, and at the same thought c1 there exists the primary awareness and the secondary latent awareness.
The collective latent sum awareness, of c, denoted as d, when of sufficient collective energy will be subjectively experienced apart from the trance generating loop.

It is this separate subjective experience we really define as trance, a third type of dissociation which is distinct from abstraction and from the automaton.

Dissociation as abstraction is "an energy efficient cognition for processing patterns." Dissociation as automaton "allows continuous patterns to be processed autonomously without conscious-awareness. Dissociation as trance is "an energy modification of awareness in order to process patterns in new ways."

Trance will occur under several conditions. It is helpful to discuss these conditions without regard to the specific content of the trance generating loop. The appearance of different types of trance or differing ASCs occurs because of a change in the underlying conditions of trance. This will become clear as the effect of varying conditions is discussed.

In the case of C = the mantra, "Om Mane Padme Hum," the thought-elements of C is four, and, if you repeat this mantra 108 times, this trance generating loop would have loops of 108. A Tibetan Lama may say, "One repetition may not be enough to achieve enlightenment, but 100,000 repetitions of 108 may be enough." In this case, the loops of c must be 10,800,000 to possibly achieve enlightenment, "or certainly an ASC (Altered State of Consciousness)."

If the strength of the trance or the duration of the effect of the trance depends partly on the number of repetitions and not on the content of the primary trance generating loop (TGL), then there are two possible reasons for the existence of trances with Spiritual content:

~The first reason is that dissociation produces a high-potential for hallucination etc.
~The second reason is that motivating a spiritual-seeker to generate trance generating loops with high repetition counts may be more possible when the content is "related to the effect and expectation one wishes to produce."

If you want to "see" God, Christ or Jesus, Allah, then it will be easier to use a name of God only because "you will be more motivated" to generate Trance Generating Loops (TGL) with higher repetition counts than if you were to repeat "light bulb" or "banana skin". However, the model implies that very high repetition counts of "banana skin" will also enable a devotee to "see" God or at least God-like banana skins.

The content of the Trance Generating Loop does not affect the primary production of the Dissociated Trance Plane (DTP); however, once the trance starts then the content of the Trance Generating Loop "will have hypnotic-like ans spiritual-magical effects" when specific elements of the TGL triggers other secondary DTPs or when the Primary TGL is modified.

The somewhat mechanical nature of "Spiritual-Trance" ("Hypnotic-Trance") seems to work regardless whether the content of the Trance Generating Loop relates to the Lord, Yahweh, Jesus, Satan, Allah, Buddha, Christ, Elvis Presley, the Earth Spirit or Zoraster etc.

This is howTrance Logic Works...

Trance logic is defined as an ability "to mix physical-perceptions with hallucinations," and that trance logic is "a form of dissociation." (That's a given.) If said rance can be created using a trance generating loop then the content of the trance generating loop can be "learned" uncritically and unthinking as soon as dissociation-occurs. The change in the energy requirements occurs in any trance, "but is more obvious in deep-strance!"

The implications of a change in energy requirements are as follows:-

1. Critical judgement is decreased or disabled.
2. There is a change in body awareness sensations.
3. There is an increase in literalism and primary process thinking (images and symbols more than words) increases.
4. Hypermnesia or perceived enhanced recall of memories; or amnesia, selective forgetting.
5. Disabling or limiting of volition.
6. Inaccurate sense of reality.
7. Vivification or Hallucinations.
8. Fixed attention.
9. Involvement in inner processes or contact with the unconscious mind.
10. Other cognitive changes.

When any of the above characteristics of trance logic are present, the existence of a trance is presumable. To determine more characteristics of the trance, it is necessary to discover the trance generating loop of the trance. When trance generating loops involve triggers, it is important to determine the trance generating loops of the underlying trances.

Awareness "shifts to the dissociated trance plane." Then the trance starts. In this case, trance-logic "occurs in the dissociated-part." Thought sequences C which the person experiences "are always experienced in a trance-like state."

Learning tends to be accelerated and "thinking less-critical." Hallucinations, religious visions, and voices could be present, "depending on the content of the original generating loop, and prior triggers." In other words, the "Spiritual Trance-State" also operates with "Trance-Logic," that is, "learning is accelerated and uncritical and UNTHINKING!"

Here are just a few examples below of Trance-Logic I found from the various comments from among Bible WheelBloggers:-

(Trance-Logic is definitely "OPERANT" Here!)

"Hallelujah! I just got Saved."
"God is such a God of love."
"Believe in Jesus and be saved."
"I just love God."
"I love the Lord."
"Jesus is Lord."
"God loves you."
"God loves everyone."
"Believe in Jesus."
"Believe in God."
"Yeshua is Jesus."
"Jesus is Messiah."
"God made man head of the woman."
"Personal relationship with Jesus."
"In the Almighty name of JESUS, our Lord and Savior."
"The Gematria value for Jesus in Greek (888). ABSOLUTE PROOF that Jesus is the same God!"
"Confirmations from the Hebrew prophecies in the OT that links His express image as the NT says (likeness 862 + Jehovah 26 = 888)."
"That gave Moses the Law...and fulfilled ALL of the major prophecies."
"What has been your purpose you ask? Like all of us it, has been to REVEAL JESUS...for to live is Christ...to live is 888." God Bless Your Divine "Purpose…from the foundation of the world. All things work together for good."
"The only real purpose in this...or in fact anything in life, is to see and believe Jesus in His Word...to discern His Body and find our place in it." "Seek FIRST His kingdom, which is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost."
"Desire to become like Him, which is His eternal plan...so that we all may become ONE with Him as He is with the Father."
"See and believe Jesus in His Word."
"Seek FIRST His kingdom, which is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost."
"May we become ONE with Him as He is with the Father."
"HE ANSWERED MY PRAYER AND HE CERTAINLY HAS brought me to a place of HIS WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING."
"HE IS A GOD OF WRATH/A JEALOUS GOD/A GOD OF RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENTS."
"Immediately the HOLY SPIRIT spoke to my heart" and said."
"The Beloved Savior & Redeemer, Jesus Christ which clearly ABSORBED almost every moment of my free time."
"The HOLY SPIRIT is the only TRUTH TEACHER."
'I am a born again believer of Jesus Christ."
"I can personally give you many instances of Jesus' faithfulness to answering prayer in my own life."
"God giving us his unmerited undeserved, unearned favor of His righteousness, goodness and blessing."
"inerrant and infallible Word of God."
"Jesus Christ IS the Son of God and He is the WORD."
"God IS REAL, and you know it."
"Believe in Jesus!"
"The Father has saved lives for Jesus all over the world. You have a great reward from the King...just receive it."
"Christians are saved thru grace by faith, grace being God enabling a person to perceive God revealing himself."
"Jesus said with men it is impossible but with God all things are possible."
"Unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of God."
'May God bless you and keep you. May God make His face shine upon you, and give you peace that surpasses all understanding."
"In the Almighty name of JESUS, our Lord and Savior. Amen and Amen."
"I am a Messianic Jew which is fancy for a Jew who knows Jesus is Lord."
"The truth is narrow and offensive by nature so you have rejected it as so many do."
"God judges the heart."
"There is more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar."
"Historically, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth walked this Earth than there is that Julius Ceasar had."
"And if Jesus was able to do all that He said He could do, I will trust in the one He trusted in, which is the Lord of the Hebrew scriptures."
"I maintain my personal relationship with Jesus not as a "Christian" but as His "Disciple" and His Son."
"God is a God of Justice and Mercy."
"God cast satan from Heaven to earth many angels fell with him."
"We live in a world where there are children of the devil and Children of a Holy God."
"Only A Soverign Holy God could know who-is-who and He must act accordingly."
"We shouldn't use human reasoning to understand the deep mysteries of God Almighty."
Please know that your Savior Jesus will not let the devil snatch you from His hand."
"Jesus doesn't care about a religion with you. He does want to continue a personal relationship with you; no lables neccessary."
"To this end I labour, to glorify the Triune God." to glorify the Father Almighty, Creator of all, to glorify His Son Jesus Christ my Saviour." "Hope, and to glorify the Giver of all divine gifts, my Comforter, Guide, Teacher and Friend, God the Holy Spirit."
"To You be the glory, thrice holy blessed God of Eternity! To You be the glory, now and forevermore. Amen. Amen. Amen."
"I remain eternally grateful to my Lord Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe, for shedding His Light upon me and guiding my path."
"Giving me both the burning desire and the ability to proclaim the neverending wonders of His Holy Word."
"Oh! The wonders of His Grace! Had He left me to myself, doubtless I'd be dead or wandering aimless and lost through this dark world."

When this is over with and the "Pathological-Trance" is terminated, "the associated abstracted patterns, the anchors and triggers," remain potential to "recreate both the dissociated-states" as well as the physical and hypnotic-experiences. These type of Spiritual Trances are not difficult and very easy to produce to produce.

In fact, these type of Spiritual-Trances are quite (very) common as can be seen by the "Pathological-Comments" Above!

When a dissociated trance plane is produced which is so strong that some cognitive functions are disabled "OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME," inappropriate behaviors, spiritual-hallucinations, limited-options and MANY OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF PATHOLOGY WILL BE SEEN other characteristics of pathology will be seen.

As another example of "how a trance generating loop may start" in traumatic-situations: let's a man rapes a woman. The woman repeats some thought-sequence C "this is not happening to me mentally" or emotionally to escape her fear and the pain. The trance generating loop creates a dissociated-state. The dissociated trance plane creates the subjective experience that "It Is Not Happening To Me!" (the Primary Trance Generating Loop) and the woman experiences the rape "while in this traumatic trance-state." The physical experience however is still happening, and "these experiences perturb" the Primary TGL and Trance State, that is, and "secondary and tertiary trance generating loops and dissociated trance planes are created."

The trance state (or any trance state) always operates with trance logic, that is, "learning is accelerated and uncritical!" When the rape is over and the trance is terminated, "the associated abstracted-patterns," the "anchors" and "triggers," all remain-potential to "recreate both the dissociated states as well as the physical experiences."

"God and Father loves me," and its variations "may be a trance generating loop for many people." While the number of elements C is say five, this trance generating loop in some cases "may have been mentally and emotionally repeated more than thousands and thousands of times. In such cases of large number of elements of the primary trance generating loop, I would suspect that "a very strong dissociated-trance plane could be produced along with concomitant potential-magical and spiritual-hallucinations" both negative and positive of all kinds.

When a auto-self hypnotic trance cannot be terminated "due to deep multiple secondary order trance generating loops, "the condition is PATHOLOGICAL!

That's the Gist of it.

:yo:

[David M]

Hello Mark and Rose

I see you are both in agreement. The blame lies with man. It has to, if as Rose believes that man has evolved.

Even if God created man, the blame still lies with man. That is why I say, that man has to be blamed first and not God. Whether the Bible is God's word or man's word, the argument rests on the words, which in this case is a law.

For the sake of human rights and what is written in the Bible, we can leave God out of this and concentrate on the words. Rose has her own wisdom, and the Bible presents another wisdom. Rose will argue that the Bible is man's wisdom, but where on a scale of one to a hundred would Rose's wisdom compare to say that of Jesus (another man)?

The question comes back to; is Exod 21:7 a violation of a woman's right? How do we know the woman is not in agreement? I expect a father would not trade his daughter unless he was struggling to support his family. In an ideal world (that will come by God's doing and not man's) everyone would stay at home and sit under their fig trade and have no worries.

What is the wisdom of that past age in making that rule (Ex 21:7)? Rose might think she can protect the human rights of the woman by taking away the rule that allows a daughter to be traded, but in so doing, I do not think Rose realizes the hardship for the family that would continue. The daughter in a poor household would benefit less and be trapped in poor household. What if the woman agreed to the transaction? Rose would be taking away her human right to agree to the transaction. It is pure opinion, if Rose thinks the woman had no say in the matter. That might be true of other nations that had no such laws.

If we leave God out of this, we can still conclude that the Hebrew society were more advanced in their laws that governed them. Let's say that the Hebrews were the first people to come up with the Golden Rule. Even if you take away the first three or four Ten Commandments, you are left with a framework of laws that override any other law that comes after. Given that Exod 21:7 is governed by the Golden Rule, then what is the harm? As I have already replied; making a contract where a father sells his daughter is not only producing an income to support his family and the daughter's family, it gives the daughter a secure job and secure future. The master of the maidservant still has to abide by the Golden Rule and treats her with respect.

To appease Rose, the last of the ten commandments can be modified to say; a person must not covet their neighbor's possessions, including that of their neighbor's spouse.

When you look at all the laws that Israel/the Jews/the Hebrews were to abide by, we see that the laws were there to protect the rights of people and fairness was the backbone of the laws. The law did not stop corrupt people flouting the law, but if caught, then they had to expect serious punishment.

Where in modern law and the secular laws that are applied to society today, is the Golden Rule stated?

All the laws that Israel were to follow, were all summed up by Jesus in the Two Great Commandments. Micah states God's requirement of man simply as; "to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God".

Think of all the laws that apply to using the roads these days. We have a highway code and if we break the highway code and get caught doing so, we get fined. Much of the highway code is adhered to if a driver uses the road with safety in mind, and drives according to the conditions and hazards and risk to life. Taxation could be simplified, but because of man's rebellion against laws and to those who try to circumvent the law by finding loopholes, so more laws have to be made. The law has now become cumbersome and burdensome. It is difficult to learn and remember all the laws that now apply in our society today. We have hundreds of thousands of laws, whereas in the Bible (so I am told) there are only 648 laws in total.

If Exod 21:7 is the strongest evidence found in the Bible of a law violating the human rights of a woman, then Rose does not have a strong case accusing the Bible (or God) of teaching laws that violate the human rights of women.

All the best
David

[Rose]

Hello Mark and Rose

I see you are both in agreement. The blame lies with man. It has to, if as Rose believes that man has evolved.

Even if God created man, the blame still lies with man. That is why I say, that man has to be blamed first and not God. Whether the Bible is God's word or man's word, the argument rests on the words, which in this case is a law.

For the sake of human rights and what is written in the Bible, we can leave God out of this and concentrate on the words. Rose has her own wisdom, and the Bible presents another wisdom. Rose will argue that the Bible is man's wisdom, but where on a scale of one to a hundred would Rose's wisdom compare to say that of Jesus (another man)?

Hello David

I think that is an excellent idea! For this conversation let us leave god out of the picture and just look at the words written in the Bible and see where they stand on human rights. As you know, my looking at the Bible from a purely man-made perspective is what led me to reject the Biblegod, because everywhere I looked gender bias and human rights violations abounded.


The question comes back to; is Exod 21:7 a violation of a woman's right? How do we know the woman is not in agreement? I expect a father would not trade his daughter unless he was struggling to support his family. In an ideal world (that will come by God's doing and not man's) everyone would stay at home and sit under their fig trade and have no worries.

What is the wisdom of that past age in making that rule (Ex 21:7)? Rose might think she can protect the human rights of the woman by taking away the rule that allows a daughter to be traded, but in so doing, I do not think Rose realizes the hardship for the family that would continue. The daughter in a poor household would benefit less and be trapped in poor household. What if the woman agreed to the transaction? Rose would be taking away her human right to agree to the transaction. It is pure opinion, if Rose thinks the woman had no say in the matter. That might be true of other nations that had no such laws.

If we leave God out of this, we can still conclude that the Hebrew society were more advanced in their laws that governed them. Let's say that the Hebrews were the first people to come up with the Golden Rule. Even if you take away the first three or four Ten Commandments, you are left with a framework of laws that override any other law that comes after. Given that Exod 21:7 is governed by the Golden Rule, then what is the harm? As I have already replied; making a contract where a father sells his daughter is not only producing an income to support his family and the daughter's family, it gives the daughter a secure job and secure future. The master of the maidservant still has to abide by the Golden Rule and treats her with respect.

You have presented reasons as to why you think laws and rules like those in Exo.21:7 might have been implemented, but this in no way invalidates my claim of them violating woman's human rights. If on a case by case basis, the woman was asked for her consent and agreement in the matter, then it would no longer be a law or rule but rather an issue of her choice. There is no reason why a woman should not be able to make her own choice in the matter of choosing a husband ... except for the fact that men want to dominate and control women's lives. Men can protect women without controlling them. Just like men, women should have the right of choice when it comes to marrying and having children.

Strictly keeping god out of the picture and looking at the Bible as man's wisdom, we know that it is never a good idea to allow only one gender to decide on all the laws and rules that apply to both genders. Humans are by nature biased and we know that men are more aggressive and domineering then women, so of course if men are left to make up all the laws and rules they are going to have their own interest in mind. Egalitarian rule is the only fair way to decide how men and women should conduct their lives when living in a society. Equal Human rights apply to all people ...


To appease Rose, the last of the ten commandments can be modified to say; a person must not covet their neighbor's possessions, including that of their neighbor's spouse.

When you look at all the laws that Israel/the Jews/the Hebrews were to abide by, we see that the laws were there to protect the rights of people and fairness was the backbone of the laws. The law did not stop corrupt people flouting the law, but if caught, then they had to expect serious punishment.

Where in modern law and the secular laws that are applied to society today, is the Golden Rule stated?

All the laws that Israel were to follow, were all summed up by Jesus in the Two Great Commandments. Micah states God's requirement of man simply as; "to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God".

Think of all the laws that apply to using the roads these days. We have a highway code and if we break the highway code and get caught doing so, we get fined. Much of the highway code is adhered to if a driver uses the road with safety in mind, and drives according to the conditions and hazards and risk to life. Taxation could be simplified, but because of man's rebellion against laws and to those who try to circumvent the law by finding loopholes, so more laws have to be made. The law has now become cumbersome and burdensome. It is difficult to learn and remember all the laws that now apply in our society today. We have hundreds of thousands of laws, whereas in the Bible (so I am told) there are only 648 laws in total.

There are many laws and rules contained in the Bible that are good, including the last six commandments, but there are also many laws and rules that violate human rights ... especially those of women. A good measure with which to compare the equality and justness of biblical laws would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... tossing out those things that don't measure up to the standard. We are all human and we all deserve equal human rights!



If Exod 21:7 is the strongest evidence found in the Bible of a law violating the human rights of a woman, then Rose does not have a strong case accusing the Bible (or God) of teaching laws that violate the human rights of women.

All the best
David

By no means is Exo. 21:7 the only or strongest case, I used it because it contains two very good examples of human rights violations in a very short verse. As you know I have written a booklet on Gender Bias in the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/) so there should be no doubt of the abundance of evidence I have for gender bias and human rights violations found in the Bible.


Kind regards,
Rose

[Guido Fawkes]

As you know, my looking at the Bible from a purely man-made perspective is what led me to reject the Biblegod, because everywhere I looked gender bias and human rights violations abounded.

...it is never a good idea to allow only one gender to decide on all the laws and rules that apply to both genders. Humans are by nature biased and we know that men are more aggressive and domineering then women, so of course if men are left to make up all the laws and rules they are going to have their own interest in mind. Egalitarian rule is the only fair way to decide how men and women should conduct their lives when living in a society. Equal Human rights apply to all people ...

A good measure with which to compare the equality and justness of...laws would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... tossing out those things that don't measure up to the standard. We are all human and we all deserve equal human rights!


Rose,

Do you not consider the Constitution of the United States of America to also be biased because it too was written by men who made up all the laws and rules based on their own self interest?

I realize that the U.S. Constitution is a living document that has changed over time, but in its original conception women did not have the right to vote and slavery was legal.

If we can accept that the interpretation of our U.S. Constitution has changed as the society of the U.S. has grown to accept a better paradigm of freedom, why do we so easily reject that the interpretation of the Bible cannot change as society grows to accept the same better paradigm of freedom?

The founding fathers of the U.S. got some of the very same things wrong that the biblical patriarchal 'fathers' got wrong in their day. Would it not be just as right to use some of the lessons in the bible as examples of what NOT to do within our 'modern' society?
Exo 21:7 "And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

If we do as you asked and leave god out of it, then this verse is just stating the way that the men of Israel were to conduct business with regards to female slaves (which was a legal practice at the time with the people of Israel, much like early American history).

I am guessing that you don't really have a problem accepting the bible as a strictly historical document. Just the same as you likely have no problem accepting any American history book that deals with the issues of slavery and women's suffrage.

So, what is the problem?

My educated guess is that your disdain of the bible stems, in part, from your disagreement with any god that would allow slavery to be codified, rather than codifying the outright banning the practice. The same likely holds true for the codifying of inequality between the sexes.

In case you're thinking of asking...I don't have the answers to these any of these conundrums.

But I do recognize that the state of Israel as it exists today, no longer practices these ancient customs. Slavery is illegal in Israel today. The women of Israel are free to choose whom they will or will not marry today. Israel has outgrown the ancient customs which their forefathers lived by.

[Rose]

...it is never a good idea to allow only one gender to decide on all the laws and rules that apply to both genders. Humans are by nature biased and we know that men are more aggressive and domineering then women, so of course if men are left to make up all the laws and rules they are going to have their own interest in mind. Egalitarian rule is the only fair way to decide how men and women should conduct their lives when living in a society. Equal Human rights apply to all people ...
Rose,

Do you not consider the Constitution of the United States of America to also be biased because it too was written by men who made up all the laws and rules based on their own self interest?

I realize that the U.S. Constitution is a living document that has changed over time, but in its original conception women did not have the right to vote and slavery was legal.

If we can accept that the interpretation of our U.S. Constitution has changed as the society of the U.S. has grown to accept a better paradigm of freedom, why do we so easily reject that the interpretation of the Bible cannot change as society grows to accept the same better paradigm of freedom?

The founding fathers of the U.S. got some of the very same things wrong that the biblical patriarchal 'fathers' got wrong in their day. Would it not be just as right to use some of the lessons in the bible as examples of what NOT to do within our 'modern' society?

Hello Mark

If you will notice in my comment I said "It is never a good idea to allow only one gender to decide all the laws", as is done in patriarchal societies ... I am not saying all laws made by men are biased, but if there is not a balanced view things naturally get skewed in one direction. Look how long it took for women to get the vote, or to be able to attend the college of their choice after the constitution was written ... if women had been part of that process, things would have changed much more quickly.




Exo 21:7 "And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

If we do as you asked and leave god out of it, then this verse is just stating the way that the men of Israel were to conduct business with regards to female slaves (which was a legal practice at the time with the people of Israel, much like early American history).

I am guessing that you don't really have a problem accepting the bible as a strictly historical document. Just the same as you likely have no problem accepting any American history book that deals with the issues of slavery and women's suffrage.

So, what is the problem?

My educated guess is that your disdain of the bible stems, in part, from your disagreement with any god that would allow slavery to be codified, rather than codifying the outright banning the practice. The same likely holds true for the codifying of inequality between the sexes.

In case you're thinking of asking...I don't have the answers to these any of these conundrums.

But I do recognize that the state of Israel as it exists today, no longer practices these ancient customs. Slavery is illegal in Israel today. The women of Israel are free to choose whom they will or will not marry today. Israel has outgrown the ancient customs which their forefathers lived by.

First off, I don't disdain the Bible ... it is an historical book that records a portion of our human history. The problem I have is with people's interpretation of the Bible as the "Word of God", what I am trying to do is expose all its human rights violations, and biases to show its man-made nature. When the Bible is viewed as a product of human endeavors it can be used as a tool to help humans see the error of their ways and change, when it is viewed as "God given" it remains frozen in time and unchangeable.

Modern Israel is a secular state, the government does not base its laws on the Bible, but as I'm sure you know the orthodox Jews do live their lives according to the same biblical laws that have been followed for thousands of years without change.

Kind regards,
Rose

[Guido Fawkes]

Good Evening Rose,


Hello Mark
If you will notice in my comment I said "It is never a good idea to allow only one gender to decide all the laws", as is done in patriarchal societies ... I am not saying all laws made by men are biased, but if there is not a balanced view things naturally get skewed in one direction. Look how long it took for women to get the vote, or to be able to attend the college of their choice after the constitution was written ... if women had been part of that process, things would have changed much more quickly.

Absolutely!



First off, I don't disdain the Bible ... it is an historical book that records a portion of our human history.

I didn't really believe that you did ... because I knew (based on your other posts) that you must recognize that it has historical value.



The problem I have is with people's interpretation of the Bible as the "Word of God", what I am trying to do is expose all its human rights violations, and biases to show its man-made nature. When the Bible is viewed as a product of human endeavors it can be used as a tool to help humans see the error of their ways and change, when it is viewed as "God given" it remains frozen in time and unchangeable.


The bible is better used as a series of historical accounts that as a club...I agree.



Modern Israel is a secular state, the government does not base its laws on the Bible, but as I'm sure you know the orthodox Jews do live their lives according to the same biblical laws that have been followed for thousands of years without change.

Honestly, no I was not aware of this. I have not ever made of study of Orthodox Judaism.

[Rose]

Good Evening Rose,


The bible is better used as a series of historical accounts than as a club...I agree.




Well, it looks like we are of like mind on the historical value of the Bible ... what's next?

Kind regards,
Rose

[davidjayjordan]

If you are going to use this as a basis of logical discussion, then make sure there is no ambiguity in your propositions.



David

Logic is math, its SET THEORY or better stated it is SET LAW. You have to know math to make logical statements.

Its the geometry of inside and outside a boundary.

Logic is not semantics and tiwsting of words and definitions, and spiritualization into nothingness with or without time.

Logic makes sense and is straight forward and simple. Logic does not confuse but makes decisions and principles easy to understand.

Biblically, it is called precept upon precept..... or greater and greater wisdom with each new precept or law learned.

If your steps or laws are LAW and REAL, then you make headway.

If you have been illogical and unspiritual and devoid or mislead in your present circumstance, then you have to backtrack and find your error..LOGICALLY before yuou cvan make progress in that field or in your life.

Dont let the evolutionists, atheists, religionists, and agnostics use semantics and word twistings to confuse you, know your principles and stick with them and make progress.

David