Religion II

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Whatever man. You can't have it all ways.

Learn Hebrew. That's all I have to say to you. If you learn Hebrew, you'll know what it really means.

I would think a man such as yourself, so dedicated to the Bible, would have learned Hebrew as a matter of course so that you could read what the Old Testament says in its native tongue. Not all these various translations by earthly translators. If you're going to read an earthly writer of such an important book, don't you think you should be reading it in its original language, and not some translated source with all its inherent biases attached?

I told him to learn Greek, for the same reason...and he told me that he knew the Greek language better than me.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Actor

There is no guarantee that any predictive model is correct. Nor is there any guarantee that there is only one correct predictive model. Nor is there any guarantee that there is even one correct predictive model. This does not matter. What is important is not whether a certain predictive model is correct but whether it works. The atomic model works. It has allowed us to build everything from computers to rockets that put men on the moon.

Carl Sagan said “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Cosmos is synonymous with universe. The universe consists of an enormously huge (but finite) number of particles each of which interacts with every other particle in the universe through four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. The most influence is exerted by gravity and electromagnetism. At any given time each particle has a given mass, position (in three dimensions), velocity (in a given direction), charge, and spin. These completely determine its state. Its state at the next instant in time is the result of net force acting upon it. Net force means the forces (gravity, electric, strong, weak) from every other particle in the universe. The state of the universe at any given time is the sum-total of the states of every particle in the universe at that time. In principle if one knew the state of the universe at any given time then one could determine its state at any future time. Thus the future is predetermined. I say “in principle” because we finite humans could never gather the (infinite for all practical purposes) data nor perform the (infinite for all practical purposes) calculations.

Adherance to the above would make one a "strict determinist"...

"Strict determinism may refer to:

In physics: Strict determinism (physics), the assumption that given a known set of initial conditions, future states can be computed

In computing: a strict property of deterministic context-free grammars

In philosophy: Strict determinism (philosophy), the notion that there is no free will, or human autonomy" - Wikipedia.

My questions are, that there appear to be "things" for lack of a more precise term, that "exist" also for a lack of a more precise term, like "will" or volition that appear to not be completely deterministic..... Actor, in your own words, what do you believe to be the fundamental building blocks of "the will"...?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I told him to learn Greek, for the same reason...and he told me that he knew the Greek language better than me.

Actually....I think I said the Greek language scholars who translated the NT knew Greek better than you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Whatever man. You can't have it all ways.

Learn Hebrew. That's all I have to say to you. If you learn Hebrew, you'll know what it really means.

I would think a man such as yourself, so dedicated to the Bible, would have learned Hebrew as a matter of course so that you could read what the Old Testament says in its native tongue. Not all these various translations by earthly translators. If you're going to read an earthly writer of such an important book, don't you think you should be reading it in its original language, and not some translated source with all its inherent biases attached?

Oh...okay...so if the bible language scholars who have studied the original languages for many years have biases, did they pick those biases up from their professors, and wouldn't I pick up those biases unwittingly from my professors?
This is why I have many different versions of scripture at my disposal since all the various versions were put together by different teams of scholars over the course of many years.

I know what it means because as I I keep telling you, my interpretation of those OT passages harmonize with the entire bible. No back fitting. No squeezing round pegs into square holes. This is why the Word of God is my Rock upon which my house is built.

Matt 7:24-27
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. 25 "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. 26 "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. 27 "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall."
NASB

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...okay...so if the bible language scholars who have studied the original languages for many years have biases, did they pick those biases up from their professors, and wouldn't I pick up those biases unwittingly from my professors?

So you're saying teachers of the Hebrew language would have it in the back of their head to teach you a biased version of Hebrew to make sure you don't get the impression that the OT contains the seeds of the three-pronged godhead? They've been taught to make sure that nasty little fact gets buried with the "revised" version of the Hebrew language that they are teaching?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So you're saying teachers of the Hebrew language would have it in the back of their head to teach you a biased version of Hebrew to make sure you don't get the impression that the OT contains the seeds of the three-pronged godhead? They've been taught to make sure that nasty little fact gets buried with the "revised" version of the Hebrew language that they are teaching?

I'm saying everyone has biases. Yeah...even you with natural born antichrist bias. The key is to realize and admit we have biases and then honestly work through them.

I'll stick with the "biases" of the the various teams of bible translators. Got too much on my platter to take up the study of the original bible languages.

[Light]

If you guys are still arguing about the trinity, that word (trinity) is NOT in either the OT or the NT. It's a human interpretation.

But I really don't think God gives a damn about that point. Understanding God intellectually doesn't get you closer to God.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

I think our perceptive abilities have become more questionable in terms of precision.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/f...?topic=31351.0
And when it comes to understanding the subtleties of human interaction and for instance just why a Bach composition or a masterpiece of literature may move us our scientific approach is even less precise than our shared "feelings" may provide. Poetry may EVENTUALLY become intellectually analyzable, but why bother waiting until it does? Compassion and sympathy for other sentient beings may be roughly explained by biology and evolution but the first hand experience of those emotions is more direct and a better way to expand our understanding of the why of certain truths that have existed for thousands of years in parts of religion.

In Zen the overly intellectual continuous use of the calculating aspect of mind is a diversion from the direct experience of compassion, empathy and love. And as wehave seen here it leads to convoluted intellectual dogma overly analyzing things like the nature of God.

A waste of time.

So although the "calculating" mind is a highly useful tool to learn about reality it is not always the best tool to use, or the most precise.

Agreed. Do you think I run through connecting thoughts in gazing upon my loved ones with the direct experience of gratitude, awe, and unconditional love?

One man's discursive on ancient literature is another man's charts and graphs about why Trump is a disaster.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Doc, doc, quit pulling my leg. I asked you a very simple "yes or no" question regarding Deut 6:4. Were you watching the Blues 24/7 that you couldn't answer such a theologically-challenging question? In your RCC theology the plurality of persons in the Godhead is so "obscure" that you could only say that Moses taught Israel that God is one person because of the lack of clear revelation at the time.

We all have access to the Hebrew. It was a question that has been addressed often and long before you, and I trust the overwhelming opinion from all corners for centuries that the Trinity, though hinted at in the Hebrew to once again quote your fellow Reformed Sproul, required the direct revelation of Christ to pass Trinity 101. I would have rather watched the NHL and Keeneland, while searching for a replacement for Marte, not to mention behaving somewhat like a husband and father at times to my family, rather than foster yet another fruitless discussion like now.

After your Dt 6:4 in the Pentateuch, we get decades of major prophets warning Israel time and again not to fall off the wagon re: their polytheistic neighbors. I guess while simultaneously being carefully instructed by the contemporary Boxcar of their day regarding Dt 6:4.

You state "Moses taught Israel". So he was up on the latest "eternal exchange of love between the communion of Persons whose love is life giving"? Or was he mainly a stenographer?

It's like Cool Hand Luke. It was fun for awhile, but it's time to escape. You need to put Dt 6:4 on the shelf for a day, and consider the Greek "tapeinoō" of Phil 2:8. Or perhaps 1 Cor 13. I'll do the same.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

We all have access to the Hebrew. It was a question that has been addressed often and long before you, and I trust the overwhelming opinion from all corners for centuries that the Trinity, though hinted at in the Hebrew to once again quote your fellow Reformed Sproul, required the direct revelation of Christ to pass Trinity 101. I would have rather watched the NHL and Keeneland, while searching for a replacement for Marte, not to mention behaving somewhat like a husband and father at times to my family, rather than foster yet another fruitless discussion like now.

After your Dt 6:4 in the Pentateuch, we get decades of major prophets warning Israel time and again not to fall off the wagon re: their polytheistic neighbors. I guess while simultaneously being carefully instructed by the contemporary Boxcar of their day regarding Dt 6:4.

You state "Moses taught Israel". So he was up on the latest "eternal exchange of love between the communion of Persons whose love is life giving"? Or was he mainly a stenographer?

It's like Cool Hand Luke. It was fun for awhile, but it's time to escape. You need to put Dt 6:4 on the shelf for a day, and consider the Greek "tapeinoō" of Phil 2:8. Or perhaps 1 Cor 13. I'll do the same.

You're showing your disdain for the authoritative, infallible word of God. Not surprised given your religion. This is all you Catholics can do: Try to play one reformed Christian against another and denigrate Holy Writ. But here's a newsflash for you: Sproul's teachings aren't infallible. I receive gladly from him what is biblical; but I don't when I perceive something isn't; for I, too, have the Spirit of the Living God within me.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Acquinas did an excellent job proving logically from the Unmoved Mover that God must possess all the attributes scriptures ascribes to Him. I quoted a portion of Feser's book that laid out Acqinas' argument in condensed form. See my 28567 in the Religious thread.

No one who has Aquinas at his fingertips misspells his name twice in successive sentences. You were introduced to Scholastic metaphysics by yours truly, through my citing of something Edward Feser presented that was relevant to some discussion, probably involving Actor.

I mentioned to Showme in a PM that I was floored that the Catholic Aquinas, and the Catholic-turned atheist- turned reverted Catholic Ed Feser found favor with you. But then, Thaskalos states the case accurately just below your post I am responding to.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're showing your disdain for the authoritative, infallible word of God. Not surprised given your religion. This is all you Catholics can do: Try to play one reformed Christian against another and denigrate Holy Writ. But here's a newsflash for you: Sproul's teachings aren't infallible. I receive gladly from him what is biblical; but I don't when I perceive something isn't; for I, too, have the Spirit of the Living God within me.

Don't pick and choose. I clearly stated the overwhelming consensus on the topic. The only support you have is from "Jews for Jesus", and I suggested why. If you want to see two Reformed contrasted, refer to my post on the serious, biblically literate individuals who can't agree through sola scriptura regarding the life and death issue (for them as well, but one more than the other apparently) of embryonic stem cell research.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're showing your disdain for the authoritative, infallible word of God. Not surprised given your religion. This is all you Catholics can do: Try to play one reformed Christian against another and denigrate Holy Writ. But here's a newsflash for you: Sproul's teachings aren't infallible. I receive gladly from him what is biblical; but I don't when I perceive something isn't; for I, too, have the Spirit of the Living God within me.

FYI his religion is Christianity, the denomination is Roman Catholic. Also, Sproul's, as well as, your interpretations are fallible. Which means anything or all you try to teach may be in error. Which also means, having disdain for anyone's personal interpretations is not showing disdain for the Word of God.

Didn't Sproul have the Spirit of the Living God in him too? How about your fellow Reformed of other protestant denominations don't they have the Spirit of the Living God in them too, when they disagree with your interpretations? Of course they do.

Any Christian has the same right, as you claim, to their personal Holy Spirit led interpretation. So stop claiming anyone who disagrees with you is demonstrating disdain for the word of God.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Sure it can:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=88142

Be sure to change the display options at the bottom of the forum list to see older threads (if you want to look for them that way):

Is there another way?

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Click this

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Then scroll to the bottom and set it to 75 days, then sort by replies to see it right at the top...

Thanks!

Now I can point out to boxcar that his #28112 in the old thread is equivocation.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

From a Newtonian and Laplace perspective you have an argument and even Einstein bought into that for awhile. I doubt that he did in the end.
I certainly don't.
But I'm not here to argue with you.
I thought that you'd be interested in a new 10 part series on Einstein that airs this evening on the National Geographic channel.
I intend to tape it.


http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/genius/

I do not get network TV. I'd love to watch this but I will have to wait until it's available from Netflix or some other source.