Religion II

[boxcar]

This morning, as I was having my devotions in the Word, the good Lord led me, in his providence, to Psalm 9 which sheds more revelation on Light's [supposed] concern that the saints' blissful, joyful, peaceful, loving experience in heaven will be marred with memories of loved ones suffering the torments of hell for all eternity. So, in addition to the biblical reasons I gave in 9185 to allay such fears, I have found additional strong evidence to support what I have already written.

The 9th Psalm is a psalm of David, and as often is the case with Davidic Psalms, there are deep messianic undercurrents running through this particular psalm. Just as king David had more than his fair share of troubles and enemies during his reign, likewise the Son of David, the ultimate heir to David's throne, had his, as well, during his first advent. We can easily tell that this is ultimately a messianic psalm due to the obvious eschatological overtones, e.g. all the future tense verbs.

But even more than this, the title to this psalm is very revealing. In the NASB it reads: For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of David. The translators of the NIV tranlsated "Muth-labben" as The Death of the Son. Again,the parallels in the typology are striking. For just as David lost his beloved son Absalom to a disobedient traitor within David's ranks, likewise God the Father lost his beloved Son to a treacherous traitor within the ranks of Jesus' own disciples.

I'll quote this relatively short psalm in full and highlight the particularly salient parts.

Ps 9
1 I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart;I will tell of all Thy wonders. 2 I will be glad and exult in Thee;I will sing praise to Thy name, O Most High.

3 When my enemies turn back,They stumble and perish before Thee. 4 For Thou hast maintained my just cause;Thou dost sit on the throne judging righteously. 5 Thou hast rebuked the nations;Thou hast destroyed the wicked; Thou hast blotted out their name forever and ever. 6 The enemy has come to an end in perpetual ruins, And Thou hast uprooted the cities; The very memory of them has perished.

7 But the Lord abides forever;He has established His throne for judgment, 8 And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity. 9 The Lord also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, A stronghold in times of trouble, 10 And those who know Thy name will put their trust in Thee;For Thou, O Lord, hast not forsaken those who seek Thee.

11 Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion;Declare among the peoples His deeds. 12 For He who requires blood remembers them; He does not forget the cry of the afflicted. 13 Be gracious to me, O Lord;Behold my affliction from those who hate me,Thou who dost lift me up from the gates of death; 14 That I may tell of all Thy praises,That in the gates of the daughter of ZionI may rejoice in Thy salvation. 15 The nations have sunk down in the pit which they have made; In the net which they hid, their own foot has been caught. 16 The Lord has made Himself known; He has executed judgment.In the work of his own hands the wicked is snared. Higgaion Selah.

17 The wicked will return to Sheol,Even all the nations who forget God. 18 For the needy will not always be forgotten,Nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever. 19 Arise, O Lord, do not let man prevail; Let the nations be judged before Thee. 20 Put them in fear, O Lord;Let the nations know that they are but men.
NASB

Note carefully in v. 8 how it tells us the Lord will judge the world in righteousness -- clearly revealing the messianic undercurrents and eschatological overtones.

Mr. Greyfox, has the biblical evidence I've presented here and earlier regarding your concerns about the eternal states of the saints been adequately addressed?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Considering the source of this endorsement, I most definitely won't waste my valuable time.

Won the Nebula award in 1967.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"You experience some type of quale-like, subjective, qualitative, 1st Person experience (pain, exhilaration from Justify's Derby win, etc.). You flinch from the felt pain, or clap for Justify, etc. The 1st person qualitative sensation can have nothing to do with your reaction, since a physical brain state can only have a causal role in bringing about other physical states (recoil, clap).

If qualia have been reclassified as non-existent in the objective, external world, how can the qualitative experience (pain, exhilaration) be in any way
related to the physical reaction (recoil, clap, etc.)?

From M-W

quale*noun :*a property (such as redness) considered apart from things having the property.

What does this even mean?

Red is a narrow band of wavelengths of electro-magnetic waves. Objects that are red simply absorb all other wavelengths within the visible spectrum while reflecting the red wavelengths.

We flinch at pain because it is a signal that our body is being damaged or is in danger of being damaged. Both the signal and our reaction to it are the results of evolution.

Likewise we experience exhilaration because a complex set of signals is interpreted (i.e., processed by the brain) as beneficial. The process of interpretation is likewise the result of evolution.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Won the Nebula award in 1967.

Who did? And what is the Nebula award?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Who did? And what is the Nebula award?

Google both.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Google both.

I don't do Google.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't do Google.

You're always telling me to google. A case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You're always telling me to google. A case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

"Google" is for all practical intent and purposes synonymous with "web search".
If I told merely you to go "search" for something, God only knows where you'd start looking, so in my kindness I try to narrow it down for you and save you time.

[Actor]

#9234

The God Hypothesis: There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. – Richard Dawkins

The God Hypothesis is the ultimate example of the Fallacy of the Non-Testable Hypothesis. It can never be proven either way, although many have tried.

The god which I write about is the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic god. I limit my discussion to this one deity for the simple reason that this is the god which pervades the culture which I grew up in, ergo, it is the only one for which I have more than a passing knowledge. I know little to nothing about the Hindu gods or the teachings of other religions.

The believers in this god commonly give him several attributes, including omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence. As described in the Bible he (she? It?) also has needs, e.g., a need to be glorified, a need to be praised, and (very significantly) a need to be feared. Note that these needs are exactly those of a human monarch. A human monarch needs these things as a preventive measure against being usurped. In fact the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic mythology is built around a tale of a celestial civil war in which the winner was God (Yahweh) and the losers “fell” thus causing all the troubles which humanity suffers today. But if God is omnipotent then why could he not prevent the rebellion before it began? If God is omnibenevolent they why is punishment (even of the innocent) the way he chooses to make things right? Does he even want to make things right? Or is he more interested in salvaging his bruised ego?

The similarity of Yahweh to a human monarch points to the concept that God is a human construct. God (the gods?) did not create man in his (their?) image, rather man created god in his image. The world is a hierarchy with the common man at the bottom, the nobility above, the monarch above that, and the deity at the top.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

From M-W

quale*noun :*a property (such as redness) considered apart from things having the property.

What does this even mean?

Red is a narrow band of wavelengths of electro-magnetic waves. Objects that are red simply absorb all other wavelengths within the visible spectrum while reflecting the red wavelengths.

We flinch at pain because it is a signal that our body is being damaged or is in danger of being damaged. Both the signal and our reaction to it are the results of evolution.

Likewise we experience exhilaration because a complex set of signals is interpreted (i.e., processed by the brain) as beneficial. The process of interpretation is likewise the result of evolution.

Standard reply of modern philosophy of science which doesn't question the origins (Descartes, et.al., wanting to quantify nature in order to control it, so rejected qualia [subjective experience]).

That is, give the 3rd person, objective mathematical description of nature ("Red is wavelengths") sans the 1st person , conscious subjective experience of it ("Red is...[fill in the blank for everyone's conscious, unique experience of that shade of color]").

Like Dennett, you assert everything as utterly knowable from a physicalist presupposition. Like Dennett, one must explain away consciousness and subjective experience (qualia) in order to do so.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

#9234

The God Hypothesis: There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. – Richard Dawkins

The God Hypothesis is the ultimate example of the Fallacy of the Non-Testable Hypothesis. It can never be proven either way, although many have tried.

The god which I write about is the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic god. I limit my discussion to this one deity for the simple reason that this is the god which pervades the culture which I grew up in, ergo, it is the only one for which I have more than a passing knowledge. I know little to nothing about the Hindu gods or the teachings of other religions.

The believers in this god commonly give him several attributes, including omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence. As described in the Bible he (she? It?) also has needs, e.g., a need to be glorified, a need to be praised, and (very significantly) a need to be feared. Note that these needs are exactly those of a human monarch. A human monarch needs these things as a preventive measure against being usurped. In fact the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic mythology is built around a tale of a celestial civil war in which the winner was God (Yahweh) and the losers “fell” thus causing all the troubles which humanity suffers today. But if God is omnipotent then why could he not prevent the rebellion before it began? If God is omnibenevolent they why is punishment (even of the innocent) the way he chooses to make things right? Does he even want to make things right? Or is he more interested in salvaging his bruised ego?

The similarity of Yahweh to a human monarch points to the concept that God is a human construct. God (the gods?) did not create man in his (their?) image, rather man created god in his image. The world is a hierarchy with the common man at the bottom, the nobility above, the monarch above that, and the deity at the top.

Your premise for the Christian God specifically is wrong, thus making the rest irrelevant.

God doesn't "need" anything. The love between the Persons of the Trinity "overflows" to the love for creation. God doesn't will man's "fear" in the sense of master-slave, but filial adoption in the sense of Father-son/daughter. Man is to share in the eternal, Trinitarian exchange of love. How that is realized in a progressive, revelatory way through a few millennia, via the Hebrew and Christian vehicles for transmitting that concept, would take more than a combox post.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... combox post.

Define "combox". It does not seem to be in any on-line dictionary or in any printed version that I own. Do you mean "combo box"?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define "combox". It does not seem to be in any on-line dictionary or in any printed version that I own. Do you mean "combo box"?

Sorry, Actor.

In my frequenting numerous other sites, some with comments often substitute the phrase when referring to "comment box".

On a cozy afternoon in St. Loo with plenty of snow around, it's a good day to begin initial preparations for my fairly serious fantasy baseball draft 10 weeks from now. I won't press on in our brief discussion, but there are questions about dualism, immaterial intellect or no, the hard problem of consciousness as labeled by physicalist David Chalmers, mental and physical intentionality (vs. only the "appearance" of design) , free will (Dennett [compatibilist] differs from Coyne [last I checked, incompatibilist], determinate thought within quantum indeterminacy, and many other issues which provide other materialists (Chalmers, Pigliucci, Thomas Nagel ("I don't want there to be a God"), et.al...

https://newrepublic.com/article/1124...us-philosopher

...with a bit pause, without abandoning their commitment to materialism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I doubt you''ll sell many volumes simply by regurgitating The Four Horsemen ...

I would not simply regurgitate anything. Rather I would present my own take of the subject by presenting my own personal story of how I came to my present beliefs. There is definitely a market out there for this category of literature.

In particular I want to refute the claim that my beliefs are the consequence of my simply being born evil, a position which boxcar espouses.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Your premise for the Christian God specifically is wrong, thus making the rest irrelevant.

What premise. I can't see that I stated any premise at all. I simply made observations.