Post by: danickstr on April 17, 2008, 12:21:05 AM
The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory
Taken from Cornelis Mondt
In summary, the theory states that the basis for religious feeling is the crave in all human beings for a substitute to the ultimate protection offered in the embryonic state by the womb and in infancy by the parents.
The embryo, surrounded by the womb's fluid and warmth, receives almost complete comfort and protection.
At birth, the baby at first encounters the shock of coldness and bright light, but soon again finds the comfort embraced in the arms and held against the warm breasts of the mother. Though not quite as complete as in the womb, the baby still feels surrounded by a shell of protection and security.
Developing from an infant into a toddler the small human being perceives the parents as almighty beings, omnipresent, all-knowing and all-providing. The small child learns another phenomenon too - the parents anger. At times it he/she gets yelled at or even spanked. Sometimes the toddler consciously or subconsciously senses the reason for this anger and interprets it as punishment for improper actions. At other times the anger is seemingly without cause and is not understood. The child learns to accept these incidents of hurt or scare as integral part of that encompassing shell that attends, cares and shelters him as did the womb at the onset of life.
It is to be understood that the keyword is "shell", an omnipresent entity surrounding you. Even if the shell may occasionally hurt you, as the womb may have shaken, or the mother's hands may have hurt you, it is always there, reliable and sheltering from that threatening outside. The shell may show many faces, male and female, loving and punishing, giving and demanding, but it is always there to rely on.
(In this respect it may be interesting to note, as all who deal with family therapy have no doubt noticed, that children who were often spanked or even severely beaten by their parents in early childhood will often say: "still, I love them", while children whose parents left them or were hardly ever around to attend to them will express much more frequently feelings of hate and resentment. It would seem that breach of the shell is felt as a much worse abuse than the affliction of physical pain.)
Eventually of course, the child's eyes are opened to the world. It starts evaluating and comparing and soon it comes to realize the limitations of the parents power and
knowledge. It witnesses the parents inability at times to cope with difficult situations, solve problems or answer questions. At the same time it starts to fully appreciate and comprehend the enormous challenges paired with dangers that are posed by the world around him.
This is when that shell of absolute protection and safety that constituted an integral and perhaps central part of the life experienced so far, falls away.
And at that very moment the human starts craving for its replacement. The human mind, always self-protecting, will not allow a vacuum, perceived as dangerous to its equilibrium, to exist for too long. The process of compensation in general is well known and researched. If a vital component for the mental well-being disappears, a substitute is found. If no substitute is found - it is created by the mind. This lies at the base of many healthy as well as pathological mental processes.
And so - God or gods are created. They too may have many different faces, male and female, caring and punishing, giving and demanding. All those faces may reside in one God showing a different face at each occasion, or the god may actually have multiple heads. There may be many gods, each of them representing a different facet.
They may be clearly visualized as a parent's face is, or rather be invisible and amorphous as the womb, residing somewhere in the skies, the mountains or the trees.
In whatever variation, they are always there surrounding us, omnipresent and almighty. Sometimes angry and demanding, sometimes smiling and loving, but always there to turn to, to beg from, to talk to, to pray to. Always constituting that shell around us that satisfies the basic deep need to be looked after and cared for.
Even when bad times arise and disasters occur, we know that somewhere there is someone who takes it all into account and will eventually set it all straight.
This basic psychological process, is the cause of the fact that religion has existed in all its different facets throughout the centuries. That is why so many people feel this urging drive inside to believe in a god, to pray even against their own rational reasoning. It is because every human being through all times and all in all nations went through that same process in embryonic state, infancy and early childhood.
Because all, no matter what culture they grew up in, needed compensation for the loss of the blind belief in their parents' almightiness and of the shell they provided.
It is no wonder therefore that those few religions that do not embrace the clear concept of a God or gods (like some eastern religions) are those that stress the inner completeness of the human soul. They supply the compensation for the loss of the protective shell by training the human mind and body to be its own shell, to feel complete within itself, irrespective of outer occurrences.
We now also understand that the main force behind religion is not the attempt to explain the world, as often assumed by many atheists. This would maybe explain the onset of religion in primitive cultures, but would not explain it's thriving amongst advanced civilizations and highly educated people. No doubt religion offered answers to many otherwise unanswered questions and offered explanations for seemingly incomprehensible phenomena, but this is not the cause of it's existence. Rather; in this aspect religion continues the work of parents with the infant, initiating it into understanding the worlds complexity, teaching and guiding it along dangerous roads, setting behavioral rules and prohibitions. Always, of course, knowing better than the child.
Just as the child often thought different, but learned to accept the parents' command without further questioning as the prize to be paid for their sheltering and protection, so the college professor willingly adopts religious axioms, contrary to clear scientific proof and logical reasoning, in exchange for the ultimate protective shell offered by God. The shell he knew as an infant, an embryo.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 12:30:06 AM
OOOPPPS! I think I just said that outloud...
Post by: Podgorny on April 17, 2008, 01:53:18 AM
Post by: bruno putzeys on April 17, 2008, 03:48:09 AM
I can't understand how some non-believers manage to try supporting their position with speculation that's just as lacking in scientific rigour as that which they're hoping to drive out. This "theory" is an ad-hoc concoction that does not make falsifiable (=testable) predictions, and neither does any of its premises. This piece of epistemological rubbish isn't worth the hard disk space it's written on.
Current understanding of the psychology of religion is that the ability to believe in the supernatural is a logical consequence of how various nerve centers have evolved to handle real-world situations based on necessarily incomplete sensory data. Once this ability is in place, supernatural beliefs can start evolving through normal memetic evolution. None of this predicts or supposes a need to believe; subsequent emotional attachment to beliefs is a result of cognitive dissonance reduction or may simply be a part of specific religious memes. In fact, none of the standard claims made of religion (people believe for comfort, belief explains an incomprehensible world etc etc) holds up to scrutiny.
A good primer is Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained". One of the exceedingly strong points of this book is that it always explains the type of experiments done in order to obtain the data on which these theories are based. Also, like any good science book it lists its references so you're not just stuck with the author's interpretations, you know where to find the data and even how to duplicate the experiments.
Post by: maxim on April 17, 2008, 06:14:41 AM
that's a fascinating if somewhat far-fetched hypothesis, but no further fetched than the suggestion that jericho may have been felled by a salvation army band...
as a metaphorical poem, the idea of parent as god is fun and thought-provoking
in fact, imo, it's not far from the concept of society as god, which also has merit
imo, god is what we don't know
and that's a lot...
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 17, 2008, 06:26:40 AM
Oh, right. That's OK, then ....
Pardy awn, dudes!
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 06:50:40 AM
DS
Post by: bruno putzeys on April 17, 2008, 08:00:00 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 10:07:28 AM
Who'd a thunk it?
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 10:23:16 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 05:00 |
It is successful when it reliably predicts what reality will do under given circumstances. |
We shape our reality utilizing spiritual principles and working with in the spiritual laws of the universe.
Positive God thoughts and ideas followed right by words, actions and reactions yield happiness, health and wealth.
Here's a little scientific experiment for ya....
do this for a month with you indwelling God given zeal and enthusiasm and i personally guarantee you a new attitude about life, God and love.
Too Blessed to Be Stressed
•If you read and study more, the MIND will get stronger.
•If you pray, serve, seek spiritual wisdom and praise God, your SPIRITUAL Self will get stronger.
•If you eat properly, lift weights and exercise your muscles your BODY will get stronger.
•If you think and speak more positively about yourself, your Self-ESTEEM will get stronger.
•Thinking and speaking words that UPlift are mental exercises that make you stronger,
for example....
I am a problem solver
I am intelligent
I am loving
I am capable, worthy and qualified
I am creative
I am an overcomer
I can do it
I can make it
I can endure it
I am a child of God
I am rich with ideas, friends and possibilities
I am focused on my priorities
I am forgiven
I am valuable and appreciated
I make a difference
People are seeking my services
I am abundant
I am healed
I am always in the right place at the right time
I am a magnet for abundance, prosperity and love
I can begin again
My pain can change
I am enough whether I am in a relationship or not
I have great ideas and follow through
I am energized and empowered to do great things
I am improving every day
I am getting stronger in my discipline and desire. . .
to let go of anything or anyone that is not for my highest good
I complete what I start
I am full of peace and love
I am led and fed by the Spirit
I am Too Blessed to be Stressed!
EVERYDAY is a Blessed Day for me!!
Love, Peace, and God's Blessings, God.
Post by: i dig music on April 17, 2008, 10:39:12 AM
its kinda like the holy father, the holy mother, and the son of the holy father?
one would expect it works the same way with animals,
so we could then theorize.... there is a dog, cat etc.... god.
F&^king brilliant!
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 10:58:06 AM
DS
Post by: bruno putzeys on April 17, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 16:58 |
are Freud or Jung scientifically valid? |
Nope. Took generations of scientists to undo the damage.
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 12:13:28 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 09:06 | ||
Nope. Took generations of scientists to undo the damage. |
and quess who will have the last word?
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 12:18:28 PM
Thank you, thank you. No, really thank you. It was nothing really.
Post by: bruno putzeys on April 17, 2008, 12:24:29 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 18:13 |
and quess who will have the last word? |
Usually the one with most time on his hands, rarely the one who's right because they've got better things to do.
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 17, 2008, 12:26:41 PM
And that, right there, is why I have a problem with it.
Implicit in that is man's permission to subjugate and exploit animal-kind as he sees fit.
That's not very godly if you ask me.
Dan
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 12:35:10 PM
| MagnetoSound wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 09:26 |
That's not very godly if you ask me. Dan |
i don't see where anyone did.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 07:01:10 PM
| MagnetoSound wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 11:26 |
Only people have body, spirit and soul. We are made in God's image .... And that, right there, is why I have a problem with it. Implicit in that is man's permission to subjugate and exploit animal-kind as he sees fit. That's not very godly if you ask me. Dan |
In Genesis, God gives Mankind the governance and stewardship of the world. Why is it God's fault that people have screwed things up?
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 17, 2008, 07:30:19 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 00:01 |
Why is it God's fault that people have screwed things up? |
Barry,
Where did I say that?
I said that we were not particularly godly. At least, no more godly than the animal kingdom.
You shouldn't get the impression that I don't believe in God, by the way. Though I suspect that we may define it differently.
I think it is arrogant of mankind to say that 'He' made us in 'his' image. By and large, I don't think we behave particularly better, in moral terms, than any other creature.
That is just my opinion. We are all entitled to have one.
Dan
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 08:06:58 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 09:06 | ||
Nope. Took generations of scientists to undo the damage. |
Well...maybe. Also took generations of scientists to give pharma the ammunition to drug generations of people into a stupor, scientist and non. Who will undo that damage? I'm not sure we're better off without Freud and Jung.
DS
PS - I'm aware that this is more religious dogma, but the notion that animals are soulless is just ridiculous. I realize it makes things easy. The same excuse was used to justify , oh, slavery, genocide, etc., etc., etc. Gotta love that christian love!
Post by: Hallams on April 17, 2008, 08:33:18 PM
" The ways of science encompass finite reality. The ways of God encompass infinite reality,in which finite reality gains it's proper perspective."
" Accusations, more often than not, reveal more about the accuser than the accused."
And a third:
"False assumptions pave the way to prejudice"
I'm sure it is everyones desire that these discussions are productive and informative. They are an opportunity to develop communication skills, and like any skill some are better at it than others.
How do we know the nuance of another's belief system by mere typed words alone? We find it hard enough to describe the nuance of our favorite pre amp.
I believe in God, but it would take a close relationship with me, over time, for any of you to know what that really means for me.
Likewise for any other person who takes their own possition on such matters.
So let us go forth and communicate!
Post by: danickstr on April 17, 2008, 08:49:13 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 12:24 | ||
Usually the one with most time on his hands, rarely the one who's right because they've got better things to do. |
LMAO
This guy's approach is valid to me, and I guess that is where my faith comes in.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 08:58:01 PM
| MagnetoSound wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 18:30 | ||
Barry, Where did I say that? I said that we were not particularly godly. At least, no more godly than the animal kingdom. You shouldn't get the impression that I don't believe in God, by the way. Though I suspect that we may define it differently. I think it is arrogant of mankind to say that 'He' made us in 'his' image. By and large, I don't think we behave particularly better, in moral terms, than any other creature. That is just my opinion. We are all entitled to have one. Dan |
Dan I'm sorry if I said or implied you're not entitled to an opinion. I know there's a smilie but I want to state that.
I took the phrase "exploit" negatively as tho' Man was abusing animals. I'm sorry if I didn't get that.
And Mankind didn't say God made us in his image. GOD said he made us in his image. It wouldn't be nice to disrespect what God says....
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 09:24:49 PM
God, such as it is, speaks to us in other ways too, not just the writings that some, most definitely not all, believe to be the end-all word. I think the biblical instruction means to take care of the world, all of it, not consume it.
As in the other thread, I find myself increasingly creeped out by the tendency for folks to lay down absolutes, in a forum in which people of many paths and nations gather. Just sayin', y'know...
BTW, didja know America is the greatest nation in the world? Ever? Absolutely?! How do I know? Well, I live here!
DS
Post by: maxim on April 17, 2008, 09:38:44 PM
bruno,
while the electrochemical interactions within our central nervous system are under the same conditions as everything else in this universe, psychodynamics do not follow newtonian laws directly
eg, while every action has a reaction, it is not necessarily equal OR opposite
we have freud to thank for one of the great insights of the 20th century (imo, up there with einstein's mass=energy one)
our consciousness has layers
great insights should appear intuitively correct
the idea of a "subconscious" appears so intuitive, you'd wonder why noone ever thought of it before
but noone did...
Post by: maxim on April 17, 2008, 09:40:35 PM
woman in hers...
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 09:46:53 PM
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 17, 2008, 10:07:46 PM
| maxim wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 20:40 |
man creates god in his image woman in hers... |
I knew a boy in high school, he was the first boy I ever dated. And he confided in me that he was convinced God was a woman, because to his mind only a woman could be as cruel as God is. I don't think I have ever stopped being deeply hurt by that, to this day.
Jessica
Post by: danickstr on April 17, 2008, 11:24:12 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 11:27:53 PM
I don't say this to offend anyone. If I've done so I'm truly sorry. But I say this as it is the logical extension of that saying "Man creates god in his own image". Ultimately then, Man is his own god. Personally, I don't want to be my own god. I wouldn't trust myself with good judgment even as far as I could throw myself.
Post by: Hallams on April 17, 2008, 11:28:12 PM
| maxim wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 11:38 |
dog thinks therefore it is.. |
........I consume, therefore i am, i don't think.
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 01:57:47 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 20:27 |
I don't say this to offend anyone. If I've done so I'm truly sorry. |
You see why I like this guy?
The "that" referred to was the idea that god said he created mankind in his own image. I don't buy it. If we want to plumb the depths of what "image" might mean we might have a conversation here. But it sure don't mean looks. What it means is that in order to grasp the infinite, ineffable and truly unnameable, we reduce the window through which we try to look at it to human scale, to an image WE can manage.
But Jimi can (will?) probably provide us with a take on what man in the image of god might mean from a more mystical perpsective. The literal take helps not at all.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 11:41:32 AM
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 12:16:11 PM
For some, Jesus represents the intermediating consciousness between the genuinely inconceivable oneness and the human. For others its Krishna, god in human form. Yogananda promoted the idea of a personal god in order to be able to come to terms with it. There is an idea that when pure spirit speaks to the human mind it has to use concepts, words and images which are already in that mind.
Of course, Richard Dawkins would tell us something else entirely. He was very funny on Bill Maher this past week.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on April 18, 2008, 01:17:09 PM
God created man in his image LIKENESS.
you guys leave that out for some reason
likeness....
to me that means SPIRIT
God is a spirit
We have a spirit
because we are ONE with HIM.
and HE needs us.
he doesn't have hands and feet and arms as a spirit but with our oneness we can do HIS good work
amen?
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 18, 2008, 01:55:51 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 18:17 |
Lets get something straight here. God created man in his image LIKENESS. you guys leave that out for some reason likeness.... to me that means SPIRIT |
So, 'spirit' and 'image' mean the same thing?
Post by: studiojimi on April 18, 2008, 02:15:08 PM
| MagnetoSound wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 10:55 | ||
So, 'spirit' and 'image' mean the same thing? |
in the context of which i was speaking
YOU are made of the fabric (spirit) of Creative Intelligence
i think you are intelligent enough to understand this aren't you?
why waste valuable time and posting space on useless banter
tell us how YOU feel bro!
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 02:35:18 PM
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 03:10:36 PM
Who is this US? Plural?
And are we imagining a bunch of human looking gods standing around? Is that what's meant by image?
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 03:30:22 PM
The verse says "And God said..." I don't see how the conclusion is drawn that there are three humans standing around. Nowhere is it said the "images" are identical. The images just possess charicteristics of God. This might be similar to a child who is the "spitting image" of his father. Does that mean they are the same person? No. Does that mean they look identical? No. It means they both share characteristics (physical or otherwise) where another person can see a relationship between the two.
I don't believe we should get hung up on this point. I believe it to be relatively minor.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 18, 2008, 05:02:05 PM
In it's purest form we share much of God's nature and character. And as his image bearers, we reflect that glorious image to all of creation.
However, due to sin, that image was broken and is now distorted. Part of our salvation journey is to have the beauty of that image restored.
The Imago Dei has many ramifications for how we treat God, each other and all of creation. As his image bearers, we are like his ambassadors, his children, to use metaphorical description.
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 05:13:27 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:30 |
I don't believe we should get hung up on this point. I believe it to be relatively minor. |
I just wondered what you mean when you think of of image in this context. Jimi's explanation makes some logical sense.
DS
Post by: Bill_Urick on April 18, 2008, 06:12:18 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 21:24 |
Assuming one buys that. Sounds like typical human-centric arrogance to me, devised in a self-serving manner to make brutality as convenient as possible. |
I would venture that every species on earth is species-centric and that every member of those species is egocentric to the extent that their level of sentience permits. If one of us ever has the misfortune to killed and eaten by a lion or pack of wolves I don't think that there will me much debate on the lucky predator's part as to the level of brutality of their actions. I firmly believe we are the only species in the history of this planet to have individuals who feel guilty about their position on the food chain. Whether ordained by God or Darwinism, humans are the dominant species on the planet at this time and no amount of hand-wringing or self flagellation is going to change that.
An asteroid of sufficient mass could, however.
| Quote: |
As in the other thread, I find myself increasingly creeped out by the tendency for folks to lay down absolutes, in a forum in which people of many paths and nations gather. Just sayin', y'know... BTW, didja know America is the greatest nation in the world? Ever? Absolutely?! How do I know? Well, I live here! DS |
I do think that America is the greatest nation on earth because it is a nation made up of "people of many paths and nations".
Seriously, what's behind this "my species sucks" and "my country sucks" perspective? I would really like to understand.
Post by: studiojimi on April 18, 2008, 06:39:58 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:10 |
But: Who is this US? Plural? And are we imagining a bunch of human looking gods standing around? Is that what's meant by image? DS |
some think and interpret this to be THE Trinity
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 07:50:38 PM
| Bill Urick wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 15:12 |
Seriously, what's behind this "my species sucks" and "my country sucks" perspective? I would really like to understand. |
If you're asking me, you're asking the wrong guy. I never said either of those things. Didn't imply it either.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 09:25:50 PM
Other than that...
Post by: Bill_Urick on April 18, 2008, 09:38:46 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 19:50 | ||
If you're asking me, you're asking the wrong guy. I never said either of those things. Didn't imply it either. DS |
Cool. Some people do seem to feel that way and I would like to understand why.
Question: Is there such a thing as an evangelical Atheist?
Post by: PookyNMR on April 18, 2008, 09:48:51 PM
| Bill Urick wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 19:38 |
Question: Is there such a thing as an evangelical Atheist? |
Richard Dawkins
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 10:32:02 PM
Post by: studiojimi on April 18, 2008, 10:49:42 PM
were this very fundamentalist Christian "southern gentleman"
on the gurney
would you be able to muster up enough faith
to face his challenge???
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 10:58:48 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 19:32 |
How about a "born again" atheist? Someone who was, then wasn't and now is again... |
Oh yeah, I've met those. And these conversations are turning me into one.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 11:52:51 PM
I'd be happy if someone stopped this thread. Why do I keep posting? It's like climbing Mt. Everest - because I know it's there... It's a bit compulsive actually.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 11:56:12 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 21:49 |
IF you were this very fundamentalist Christian "southern gentleman" on the gurney would you be able to muster up enough faith to face his challenge??? |
I'm wondering why this guy is hurt so badly while in his "robe". And it is terribly ironic, as you know of course, that the people he hates are trying to save his life.
I must confess, if and when he got better, I'd want to play "peek a boo" with him and his hood. "Now I don't know who you are. Now I do! Now I don't know who you are. Now I do!" Hours of fun.
Post by: maxim on April 19, 2008, 12:50:29 AM
thank god....
Post by: danickstr on April 19, 2008, 12:54:43 AM
I remember seeing it written that if there was no god, we would be our own god, and while that would be nice, it is unrealistic from my point of view.
I think the implication is that it takes a big ego to be one's onw god, but I would think that the difference is simple:
Deists believe that we were created in an image of a perfect being.
Atheists believe that we were spawned in a pool of sludge, and crawled out of it, as we evolved from stupid, violent biological blobs.
I think that the bigger ego is obvious.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 19, 2008, 12:55:00 AM
Post by: Larrchild on April 19, 2008, 01:04:13 AM
Me, I'm going with the definable for now.
Post by: maxim on April 19, 2008, 05:41:42 AM
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 19, 2008, 07:26:05 AM
Post by: Bill_Urick on April 19, 2008, 07:28:03 AM
| danickstr wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 00:54 |
Re: KKK dipshit on gurney; I think it would be OK if they didn't try their hardest to save him. I remember seeing it written that if there was no god, we would be our own god, and while that would be nice, it is unrealistic from my point of view. I think the implication is that it takes a big ego to be one's onw god, but I would think that the difference is simple: Deists believe that we were created in an image of a perfect being. Atheists believe that we were spawned in a pool of sludge, and crawled out of it, as we evolved from stupid, violent biological blobs. I think that the bigger ego is obvious. |
Obvious and been said before, but if the Deists are right better to believe in God, if the Atheists are right, who cares? Believe whatever makes you feel good.
Re Larry's post, Galileo said, "Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."
I've read quite a bit on the subject of evolution which usually figures into these debates sooner or later. There really is no conflict between evolutionary theory and any religion that I'm aware of. Most religious people who take offense to the idea lack understanding of the subject and really, if you believe in an omnipotent God, couldn't he do pretty much anything he wanted? Including allowing species to evolve over time. It is very difficult for a being who only lives 100 years or so to grasp the geological time span in which evolutionary change takes place.
But you know what really kills me, spider webs. Watch a spider build a web and think about how it got to that point.
Post by: maxim on April 19, 2008, 08:48:57 AM
old one but a good one
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 19, 2008, 11:08:18 AM
| maxim wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 07:48 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc old one but a good one |
I really laughed a lot during that. I'd never seen it. It's hysterical.
Spiders: Man I hate those things. Doing good or not. Bam! They are so f+*king dead.
I have an agreement with bugs. You stay outside. I'll stay inside. If one of us comes into the other's territory, everyone's fair game.
Post by: mgod on April 19, 2008, 11:29:32 AM
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 19, 2008, 12:05:26 PM
It's OK if you post that link. And I'll watch it (hoping I'll make it all the way through). But I won't watch it before bed.
Post by: Harland on April 21, 2008, 05:19:06 PM
Maybe in todays world, but the article presumes evolution, and 'almost complete comfort and protection' is laughably naive as a description of prenatal existence over the evolutionary period. In view of the first sentence, the rest of the article is a useless read.
Post by: Hallams on April 21, 2008, 07:36:03 PM
| Harland wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 07:19 |
"The embryo, surrounded by the womb's fluid and warmth, receives almost complete comfort and protection." Maybe in todays world, but the article presumes evolution, and 'almost complete comfort and protection' is laughably naive as a description of prenatal existence over the evolutionary period. In view of the first sentence, the rest of the article is a useless read. |
A fine example of critical thinking, something we don't see enough of. If the assumptions, implied or stated, of an otherwise sound argument are proven to be wrong, then the whole argument crumbles.
For the purpose of philosophical debate that is centered around the existence or non existence of God we start off on a level playing field given that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God
Post by: cerberus on April 21, 2008, 08:40:51 PM
chris; many may not agree with the article's thesis; but why are you questioning the assertion that
the womb provides relative comfort and safety compared with the world
outside the womb? is that statement contentious?
scientists are not concerned with what does not exist, so they don't tend to exert
effort to prove that god or anything else doesn't exist. the scientists' role
is to always examine what others claim as proof; and to put it
through the rigors of the scientific method; to learn if an
assertion, conjecture, hypothesis, theory,
or "proof" is scientific, or not.
do you believe in theories espoused by:
pythagorous?
copernicus?
gallileo?
newton?
einstein?
(assumedly "yes", we are people of reason. some of us are artists; many
of us claim to be engineers. some even claim to be expert engineers.)
do you believe in: chaos theory and string theory?
do you believe that there are dimensions in
the universe that we cannot see?
none of that is proven.
the big bang? many big bangs?
this is not proven... i think
it looks like there was at
least one "big bang",
even to a layperson.
what do you see?
i do not understand why anyone feels a need
to assault science. especially on an
engineering forum.
jeff dinces
Post by: Jay Kadis on April 21, 2008, 10:39:16 PM
Post by: maxim on April 21, 2008, 10:43:20 PM
yes and maybe (even if it's not true, i love the metaphorical implications)
imo, chaos theory is pretty unassailable...
Post by: Hallams on April 21, 2008, 11:13:02 PM
| cerberus wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 10:40 |
harland; i am confused by your words. what is "the evolutionary period"? chris; many may not agree with the article's thesis; but why are you questioning the assertion that the womb provides relative comfort and safety compared with the world outside the womb? is that statement contentious? scientists are not concerned with what does not exist, so they don't tend to exert effort to prove that god or anything else doesn't exist. the scientists' role is to always examine what others claim as proof; and to put it through the rigors of the scientific method; to learn if an assertion, conjecture, hypothesis, theory, or "proof" is scientific, or not. do you believe in theories espoused by: pythagorous? copernicus? gallileo? newton? einstein? (assumedly "yes", we are people of reason. some of us are artists; many of us claim to be engineers. some even claim to be expert engineers.) do you believe in: chaos theory and string theory? do you believe that there are dimensions in the universe that we cannot see? none of that is proven. the big bang? many big bangs? this is not proven... i think it looks like there was at least one "big bang", even to a layperson. what do you see? i do not understand why anyone feels a need to assault science. especially on an engineering forum. jeff dinces |
Hi Jeff. The first part of my comment was mainly referring to Harland's example of critical thinking. It is to the point and avoids the unnecessary use of the emotive to get a point across. Anyone can directly reply to such a post by showing, if you believe so that his argument is flawed. For example, you could take the line that the original argument he refered to does not presume evolution.
My second statement points to the Cosmological Argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Here are two small exerpts from wiki;
The argument
Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.
The cosmological argument can only speculate about the existence of God from claims about the entire universe, unless the "first cause" is taken to mean the same thing as "God". Thus, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe — generally assumed to be God — is that explanation.
In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
=====================================================
Scientific positions
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of Newtonian physics and its earlier predecessors — the idea that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside source. However, while Newton's ideas survive in physics since they conveniently and easily describe the movement of objects at the human (that is, not cosmic or atomic) level, they no longer represent the most accurate and truthful representations of the physical universe. Some scientists feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.[14]
Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any moving body, seriously undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument, that every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying it is easily dismissed by the laws of conservation of mass and energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He quotes one of many examples — "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.[15] It does not provide an explanation for the reason those molecules exist in the first place however. Some argue a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into being, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effects so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[16] However many cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before and caused the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of branes to give a cause of the Big Bang, although such hypotheses are highly speculative.
[edit]
================================
Now this is all interesting stuff but i must say in all this i have not directly adressed the first post of this thread.
To me "The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory" is not the stuff of science, rather an attempt to explain "the basis for religious feeling" seemingly inbuilt in Humans.
As an aside i would use the word spiritual rather than religious. The word religion to me points to the structural or institutional organizations formed as a response to individual spiritual quest, or journey.
Now the rigors of science should be able to test "The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory",and I have just thought of one likely test, a study of people who are known to have experienced significant fetal distress. Not a problem.... the results would be enlightening.....has such a study been done by Cornelis Mondt to test his theory.... Come to think of it, what scientific tests has he done to test his theory?
Post by: Harland on April 22, 2008, 01:23:51 AM
| cerberus wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 20:40 |
harland; i am confused by your words. what is "the evolutionary period"? i do not understand why anyone feels a need to assault science. especially on an engineering forum. jeff dinces |
Hi Jeff,
The evolutionary period would be the time through which the human organism evolved into its present state. Life expectancy even a very short time ago was quite short, and many more pregnancies failed than do now. If we evolved from barbaric upwards to civilized, then it's a fair assumption that the fetal life of man was no picnic.
As for 'a need to assault science', I don't have that at all. I see very little science, if any, in the opening statement. I think the role of the scientist is the search for understanding in those things which can be sensed and measured.
I think it far more likely that man has an innate sense or knowledge of his own spirituality that makes him try to connect with the cause of the universe.
Post by: cerberus on April 22, 2008, 07:03:19 AM
| Hallams wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 23:13 |
Now the rigors of science should be able to test "The Embryonic and Parental Shell Theory",and I have just thought of one likely test, a study of people who are known to have experienced significant fetal distress. Not a problem.... the results would be enlightening.....has such a study been done by Cornelis Mondt to test his theory.... Come to think of it, what scientific tests has he done to test his theory? |
not a theory. i think a theory asks for more than one proof, it looks
like this is a hypothesis. and not very popular.
i hadn't heard of the cosmological argument before now. the way i read the wiki
article; it immediately doesn't appeal to me personally because
i can tolerate plato and aristotle's polytheism without
questioning it.
jeff dinces
Post by: cerberus on April 22, 2008, 07:13:37 AM
| Harland wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 01:23 | ||
Hi Jeff, The evolutionary period would be the time through which the human organism evolved into its present state. Life expectancy even a very short time ago was quite short, and many more pregnancies failed than do now. If we evolved from barbaric upwards to civilized, then it's a fair assumption that the fetal life of man was no picnic. As for 'a need to assault science', I don't have that at all. I see very little science, if any, in the opening statement. I think the role of the scientist is the search for understanding in those things which can be sensed and measured. I think it far more likely that man has an innate sense or knowledge of his own spirituality that makes him try to connect with the cause of the universe. |
harland; i agree, except where it seems you think primitive women were not being
"protected". i mean, why do you think males of our species are so
aggressive toward one another? while women are culturally,
politically, and spiritually "on venus"? (know any
hillary supporters? my mom is one, all she
wants is a woman president, more than
anything else. so i leave it alone...)
perhaps that is related to how i am noticing that every
successful culture grew from sexist practices, maybe
there was a useful purpose in that, as in parts
of the world that have yet to experience the
industrial and information revolutions
firsthand, we find women are not
granted equal rights. and they
don't complain. it bothers
us, not them.
so i can imagine why men go mountain biking and cut themselves and laugh
about it. while women don't complain about the pain of childbirth
as much as it really hurts, i think we know now that women
have a higher threshold for pain than men.
and yet they are not as
warlike as men. so
i still say:
the womb is a -relatively- protected and comfortable place
for every human who has ever lived.
jeff dinces
Post by: maxim on April 22, 2008, 07:20:04 AM
Post by: CHANCE on April 22, 2008, 08:59:05 AM
Post by: maxim on April 22, 2008, 10:54:37 AM
Post by: Jay Kadis on April 22, 2008, 10:57:35 AM
| CHANCE wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 05:59 |
. Wouldn't you be relieved knowing that those four people were actually on their way home from a late night bible study? |
Post by: Harland on April 22, 2008, 12:34:12 PM
| cerberus wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 07:13 |
the womb is a -relatively- protected and comfortable place for every human who has ever lived. jeff dinces |
I think the womb has been a terror and a hell for millions of fetuses who have managed to survive despite alcohol abuse, drug abuse, accidents, domestic violence, attempted abortion, rape, the terror of the mother due to any number of things like war, ethnic cleansing, racial exterminations - and that all in our 'civilized' world, nevermind what went on in the thousands or millions of years prior to civilization.
The 'return to the womb' thing is a worn out idea which is completely off the mark.
Post by: mgod on April 22, 2008, 01:01:34 PM
| Harland wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 09:34 |
I think the womb has been a terror and a hell for millions of fetuses who have managed to survive despite alcohol abuse, drug abuse, accidents, domestic violence, attempted abortion, rape, the terror of the mother due to any number of things like war, ethnic cleansing, racial exterminations - and that all in our 'civilized' world, nevermind what went on in the thousands or millions of years prior to civilization. |
That might account for all the wildly differing ideas about god though.
DS
Post by: cerberus on April 22, 2008, 05:03:28 PM
| Harland wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 12:34 | ||
|
harland; i will be honest. i am not convinced of monotheism.
because maybe there is more than one universe.
maybe there is not one singular... anything?
a biblical contradiction that imo will never be solved here:
try to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. i think
that would be quite impossible. or does it happen?
and here we all are in hell. nobody is going
to argue matthew out of the blatent
hypocrisy we all see everywhere.
unless the physicists can reach their unified theory, then prove it.
so many want this. i wonder if it will ever happen. einstein
spent the end of his life looking for it , unsuccessfully.
some say he wasted years, he -believed-. i hope
that might be solved in my lifetime.
dan; is the qu'ran in your stack of books? i always can find
something better to do than read the qu'ran
(and i claim that i am "tolerant").
jeff dinces
Post by: maxim on April 22, 2008, 05:28:38 PM
there are >5,000,000,000 universes, and that's just within the human race...
Post by: cerberus on April 22, 2008, 05:43:03 PM
in it's lyrics, and i am moved to tears when i hear this song:
not only this, but i feel "god". a space is filled when i
hear beatle george sing about his own death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1E5XPzBSBY
to the believers in the "word". the word is love.
but i feel cold to the bible. it does not do
for me what one five minute song
can do. i am sorry. (but i am in
the right forum for this...)
jeff dinces
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 22, 2008, 06:25:49 PM
| cerberus wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 22:43 |
max; i just went looking for this beauteous song which has that very idea in it's lyrics, and i am moved to tears when i hear this song: not only this, but i feel "god". a space is filled when i hear beatle george sing about his own death. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1E5XPzBSBY to the believers in the "word". the word is love. but i feel cold to the bible. it does not do for me what one five minute song can do. i am sorry. (but i am in the right forum for this...) jeff dinces |
Jeff, perfect post, thanks.
Dan
Post by: Harland on April 22, 2008, 06:27:22 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 22, 2008, 06:48:12 PM
Post by: Bill_Urick on April 22, 2008, 07:52:12 PM
Post by: mgod on April 23, 2008, 11:23:21 AM
| cerberus wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 14:03 |
dan; is the qu'ran in your stack of books? i always can find something better to do than read the qu'ran (and i claim that i am "tolerant"). jeff dinces |
Hi Jeff, no its not, but thats only because I don't know where to start. I have a new friend moving to town this summer who's a bit of an expert on the Gita, and who also has problems with the qu'ran, and I'm hoping we can do something together.
There're so many translations. Where to begin? The only copy of the NT I have was a gift from Jim Keltner, which he gave me so we could read passages together over the phone. I wouldn't have known where to start picking one, but getting one from someone who loves me is a logical place. Jim is the only person in the music world who would have the conversation with me without trying to force his view on me. I believe Bob Zimmerman was the first who'd have the conversation with Jim, back in the "Serve Somebody" days.
Thanks btw for the George. He's always the reason for the season for me. JK gave me a copy of the Joshua Green book about him, "Here Comes the Sun". A very interesting read. I recommend it. Some years ago Jim and I would be deep into these talks and he'd get a beep, and come back and say "Its George, I'll ask him what he thinks..."
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on April 23, 2008, 08:57:42 PM
Post by: wwittman on April 23, 2008, 11:19:32 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 03:48 |
Fascinating perhaps in the same way that some of the more colourful religions are fascinating. What utter drivel! I can't understand how some non-believers manage to try supporting their position with speculation that's just as lacking in scientific rigour as that which they're hoping to drive out. This "theory" is an ad-hoc concoction that does not make falsifiable (=testable) predictions, and neither does any of its premises. This piece of epistemological rubbish isn't worth the hard disk space it's written on. . |
I tend to agree with you... but of course that puts it exactly on par with every religion.
Post by: cerberus on April 24, 2008, 01:50:29 AM
i believe that has nothing to do with me.
jeff dinces
Post by: studiojimi on April 24, 2008, 10:14:55 AM
| CHANCE wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 05:59 |
WOW this is a hard topic. Something I have discovered is that you can not force God on someone. Before I became a Christian (a real Christian), many people kept trying to shove Jesus down my throat. I now know that it doesn't work that way. It wasn't until I started seeking (truly seeking), that I found this amazing gift. It in no way can be explained. The bible calls it "a peace that surpasses all human understanding". This has had a great influence on our planet. If anyone doubts it, just imagine that your car breaks down late at night in a bad part of town. You then see four large people walking toward you. Wouldn't you be relieved knowing that those four people were actually on their way home from a late night bible study? |
this was a great post
there is a miracle available in each and everyone of us
no matter what the need....that peace is there patiently waiting not forcing Itself on anyone.
got ailment?
YOUR HEALING IS TODAY.
Today
is a great day to affirm:
I am healed!
I am healed!
I am healed!
(say it out loud if you really wanna rock your world!)
Healing
is your gift from God.
There is
no charge or free for it.
It is your divine birthright.
No matter your circumstances,
diagnosis or prognosis,
you can choose
to cling to the Trith that:
I am healed!
I am healed!
I am healed!
Around the world
there are scores of pepole
who are praying with you
and
knowing this Truth
with you.
They give of their time
to lift others in prayer.
You can contact them
by reaching out right
where you are
and silently or verbally
saying something as simple as
"Pray with me today!"
As soon as you ask,
God responds
by moving upon hearts
all over the world
to respond to your request.
Like a warm blanket
these prayers comfort you
and
help to clarify God's message
in your heart.
You then rest
in the assurance
that God has heard you
and
hears you always.
You know
that you are blessed.
Take a moment
and
give thanks
that this is so.
God bless you.
" . . . pray for one another, so that you may be healed . . ."
James 5:16
Post by: mgod on April 24, 2008, 10:17:37 AM
| cerberus wrote on Wed, 23 April 2008 22:50 |
nathan; ok, chapter two: the cow. re: animal sacrifice. i believe that has nothing to do with me. jeff dinces |
Well, that was sort of my point about not knowing where to start. One man's "reliable" is another's sacrilege. How many versions of the NT are there? And of course some are just incorrect, depending upon the rock you're standing on or the prison you find yourself contained in, again according to interpretation - that's the danger of religion of course. I think there's so much controversy in the west about the qu'ran that personally I'm not interested in what one guy says is "reliable" - especially someone outside that faith. I need a teacher, and I believe that teacher has to be sought - someone who has done more than read the words, but who knows the meaning. And again, of course, there might be many meanings to be sifted through.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 24, 2008, 12:34:48 PM
Here, for instance, is the first chapter of Genesis:
Genesis 1 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Copyright
Post by: studiojimi on April 24, 2008, 12:55:55 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 07:17 |
I need a teacher, and I believe that teacher has to be sought - someone who has done more than read the words, but who knows the meaning. And again, of course, there might be many meanings to be sifted through. DS |
"when the student is ready...the teacher will appear."
Post by: PookyNMR on April 24, 2008, 02:31:59 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 08:17 | ||
Well, that was sort of my point about not knowing where to start. One man's "reliable" is another's sacrilege. How many versions of the NT are there? And of course some are just incorrect, depending upon the rock you're standing on or the prison you find yourself contained in, again according to interpretation - that's the danger of religion of course. I think there's so much controversy in the west about the qu'ran that personally I'm not interested in what one guy says is "reliable" - especially someone outside that faith. I need a teacher, and I believe that teacher has to be sought - someone who has done more than read the words, but who knows the meaning. And again, of course, there might be many meanings to be sifted through. DS |
There's not different "versions", but rather different translations.
Each translation has a different bent and has different reasons for being. Some are paraphrases to be in more modern conversational English to make it easier to read, some are more literal word-for-word (or as much of that as you can do). But you for sure are not going to find any major disagreements that change any of the message in any way. It's about taking ancient texts and making them accessible to different audiences with different needs of people.
If you look at the Qu'ran translations, you're not going to see a divergence in the message, maybe a few variations in some of the English words to convey they ideas.
Post by: studiojimi on April 24, 2008, 02:45:24 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 11:31 |
It's about taking ancient texts and making them accessible to different audiences with different needs of people. |
exactly
the reason for the gospels and the versatility of the different disciples gifts and approaches....
Post by: bruno putzeys on April 24, 2008, 03:02:22 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 18:34 |
For any in this thread looking for shades of meaning in the words as translated into English, may I suggest an "amplified" Bible. Great care is taken there to convey all nuances. |
This gives some indication of what bible translators wrestle with hugely, but it still presents the problem as being rather simple.
What it covers is the semantic side of the issue, where any word will cover a range of meanings, and when you're translating a word into another language you'll find that no single word in the target language covers exactly the same range of meaning. A simple non-biblical example would be the English word "table". I'm sure we're now all thinking of an elevated horizontal surface posed on four feet. The Dutch word for that is "tafel". Simple? Hang on, the word "tafel" is never used to mean a rectangular list of numbers, and neither does it describe the imaginary surface below which ground water is found. The difference gets subtler, when some "tafels" are benches but not all benches are "tafels" etc. Almost no word in one language matches 100% with another word in another language. That means that listing a bunch of possible translations, as the Amplified Bible apparently does, will probably cover the original range of meaning in its entirety, but will fail to delineate it. The reader is in peril of deducing a meaning which was never meant in the original.
Another complexity that's rarely appreciated (and that I don't see addressed in the Amplified Bible) is grammatical. Not all languages have the same kind of past, present and future tenses. Semitic and Arabic languages use "aspect", denoting whether we're talking about the start of an action, the course of an action (and whether that includes the start, the end or both) or the end of an action, with indications as to actual time given explicitly ("yesterday").
Problems with cultural context in translations should be obvious, but a problem specific to Bible translations is theology. As just one example, whether a translator believes in the holy trinity or not has quite a profound impact on some translations, most notably on the opening verses of the gospel of John.
The upshot is that Bible translations come in a wide variety. In one extreme we find interlinear translations where literal translations (with links to glossary terms to look up the exact scope of each Hebrew or Greek word) are interlined with the Greek or Hebrew original. Such translations are for scholarly use only. Lacking special cultural or linguistic knowledge a layman is guaranteed to misinterpret it. On the other hand an interlinear translation is almost free from translator bias. On the other extreme are heavily reworded bibles for use by the faithful but which are almost specific to denominations. I get the impression the amplified bible targets the ordinary faithful, while staking a claim to the neutrality of an interlinear translation. Instead, it puts the reader at the same risk posed by an interlinear (misinterpreting glosses) whilst not guaranteeing the translator hasn't imported his personal belief into it.
A good read in this respect is "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation" by Rolf Furuli. The book somewhat tows its own line (that of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation to be precise), as reflected in its choice of examples, but it is nevertheless very informative if you want to get a sense of the breadth of issues to be dealt with during translation.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 24, 2008, 07:32:24 PM
Just as you know the nuances of Dutch, so do the translators know the nuances of the original text used to create the Bible. To address the issues you raise, there is an exhaustive concordance that goes with the translation. Readers can learn more by referring to the concordance.
You're not giving the same credit to the translators that you give yourself. The translators are not stupid people. They are experts at what they do. And the "committee" (which is a word lacking in full meaning of the job they did)was comprised of scholars and pastors so there would be an accurate translation as well as one which conveyed the spiritual meaning.
To my mind this "inaccuracy" thing is a circular argument. It is proposed by many that the Bible was somehow corrupted at some point as tho' any man has more wisdom and power than God that he could subvert God's purpose and plan. When people say the Bible has been corrupted (due to one reason or another)those critics remain in a limited humanly realm of understanding. As such they continually seek errors as a means of discounting what God has said and done. It is God who gives understanding and meaning to the text and he gives it to every person seeking to know the truth. God can not be subverted no matter how hard people try or claim it to be so. That's why he gets to be God...
Post by: CHANCE on April 24, 2008, 08:45:56 PM
66 books, written by 40 authors, over thousands of years, across several continents.
All with the exact same theme.
When they found and verified the book of Isaiah in the dead sea scrolls and compared the writings to the old testiment in todays bible, the only change was the equivalent to a coma.
Post by: maxim on April 24, 2008, 10:01:57 PM
Today, like every day, we are ruined, ruined (by "wine")
Don't open the door of worry, but take up the lute!
There are a hundred kinds of prayer, bowing, and prostration
For the one whose prayer-niche is the beauty of the Beloved.
--From "The Rub
Post by: mgod on April 24, 2008, 10:03:10 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on April 24, 2008, 11:14:38 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 13:02 |
Problems with cultural context in translations should be obvious, but a problem specific to Bible translations is theology. As just one example, whether a translator believes in the holy trinity or not has quite a profound impact on some translations, most notably on the opening verses of the gospel of John. |
For sure there are biases, understandings of context, theologies that can affect translation. However, that's why translations are done (mostly) by large groups of scholars to peer review work.
As for the Gospel of John, whether or not one believes trinitarian theology would have no impact on translating that from the original Greek. The language is quite clear - and particularly clear when you put it in the context of the rest of that gospel. As you will learn in exegesis or translation classes, words by themselves are meaningless and can only be understood within their contexts. If one were to take the context of the entirety of John's writings, it would be hard to deny that John is very much speaking of a trinitarian idea. So whether or not you agree with that idea, you'd have to be extremely poor (or dishonest) in your scholarship to try and present John's writings from any non-trinitarian idea.
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 13:02 |
Lacking special cultural or linguistic knowledge a layman is guaranteed to misinterpret it. |
Which is exactly why were taught the scholarly process of exegesis.
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 13:02 |
A good read in this respect is "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation" by Rolf Furuli. The book somewhat tows its own line (that of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation to be precise), as reflected in its choice of examples, but it is nevertheless very informative if you want to get a sense of the breadth of issues to be dealt with during translation. |
Absolutely, the process of translating ancient texts is difficult. I've studied under a bona fide translator. But the process is not impossible.
Post by: mgod on April 25, 2008, 01:14:51 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/ dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=12 09099976&sr=8-1From
Booklist:
The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections. Bryce Christensen Copyright
Post by: Edvaard on April 25, 2008, 01:35:02 AM
Some were delivered by God, some were delivered by the devil, some were delivered by a toothless bearded hag. *can't we all just get along?*
Post by: bruno putzeys on April 25, 2008, 02:29:23 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 25 April 2008 01:32 |
The translators are not stupid people. They are experts at what they do. |
That is exactly my point. A translation that simply lists alternate translations for each keyword undoes the added value of a translator (conveying meaning, not words). For everyone but trained exegetes a "normal" translation is highly preferable over one that attempts to be complete in such a na
Post by: dcollins on April 25, 2008, 05:39:07 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 23:29 |
That is exactly my point. A translation that simply lists alternate translations for each keyword undoes the added value of a translator (conveying meaning, not words). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
It's a hoax.
DC
Post by: studiojimi on April 25, 2008, 10:06:14 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 23:29 |
. Trying to argue the factual accuracy of any text based on linguistics alone is about as meaningful as trying to argue the boiling point of water based on nothing but logic. |
Translate this simple text:
God loves you.
So do I.
Studiojimi
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 25, 2008, 10:27:25 AM
I'm sorry to have misunderstood some of your points. Whether you're a believer or not does not have any bearing (I hope) as to how I understand and reply to your postings. You make an excellent point as to how well things can be translated and then understood by the reader.
There are in fact many different attempts ("styles") to make the Bible understood for each type of reader, as Nathan stated previously. The Amplified Bible has its place for those wanting that kind of translation.
Let me re-state something I've said in several postings (other threads), many Christians believe the Bible to be the very word of God - and they believe it to be inerrant in the original writing. That last phrase is very important. BUT. Belief in the Bible's accuracy has nothing to do with salvation. One can be saved never having known of the Bible, read it or believe it to be the inerrant word of God. So how it is understood or not ultimately means little. Again, however, understanding it is a gift from God who guides and explains.
Let me also say how much I appreciate your taking time to join this kind of conversation. I greatly respect you, as I do the others, and am glad you participate here.
Post by: maxim on April 25, 2008, 09:23:33 PM
well said, barry!
Post by: Brian Kehew on April 26, 2008, 06:03:28 AM
The mind is a funny f***er. Every time you "know" something, or have figured it out, you are on the way to being wrong, your mind has created a little inflexible box of its own.
(Or maybe not - as I just stated something I "know", therefore... See how hard it is?)
Post by: studiojimi on April 26, 2008, 10:29:33 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 24 April 2008 23:29 |
I can't see where I was trying to make that point. I'm saying that translating *any* text is a highly difficult balancing act, and that trying to render a translation more accurate by simply listing alternative meanings is counterproductive. |
Mr. Putzey and other seekers of truth:
(who will find if they seek)
there is no need to ramble and complicate a very simple Truth.
God is love.
God is the Ultimate Creative Intelligence (UCI)
God so loves you.
His LAW of reciprocation (giving and receiving)
requires you to work with it to be happy, healthy and free
of negative challenge.
We all all have negative challenge as we all break the LAW.
But IF
one works with and puts in some study time diligently
in order to become educated to fully understand
the LAW of the grand design of UCI (the GREAT computer),
you will be happier and more prosperous.
there will be no degrees or mensa awards given for this.
just a peace that surpasses all human levels of understanding
as the hunger of the soul and spirit in each and everyone of us
craves the peace of God's love defined by God's LAW
whether the realizing has occured yet or not.
This LAW is unfailing and everlasting.
Hence, it might be a good idea to love back that which loves you
so much to have created you as wonderfully as UCI has.
It's only right.
Would you only take love from your wife and not give to her?
Reciprocation is required
to have a perfect outworking of the LAW but not enforced as wonderful you have UCI's gift of free will
which also when used properly to Realize
(with your real eyes--your spiritual eyes)
your oneness with UCI.
God's love law--(a mighty swift sword of great goodness)
of giving and receiving is the Ultimate piece of GEAR.
the plugin (if you will) of your wildest dreams.....
the following meditation
is a way to affirm and demonstrate one's choice
to say yes to love and affirm
the Truth of abundance and prosperity
that is your Divine Birth Right as a child/creation of UCI.
The following is from a daily inspiration book i read.
i read them aloud with a gratitude attidude of power dominion and authority for best results and highest levels of consciousness awareness raising.
i hope you enjoy it and will try it.
my hope and prayer is for you all
to have a most prosperous and eventful day!
i know i will
for i have invested in the LAW
by loving you right now with these words.
(most quantum physicists believe in some form of UCI)
UCI is known by many names and answers all calls.
This one is written
by a terrific Jamaican lady named Sheila McKeithen
and is a great ushering technique to show love for that which loves YOU like the best thing He/She/It every made:
I LOVE YOU!
Dear God,
I love you!
I love you for the many blessings
experienced over the years.
Some of these blessings
have faded from my memory
while others linger
so clearly
in my awareness.
I love you
for them ALL.
I just love you.
I love you, God!
I love you
in times of seeming trouble.
I love you
when I 'm standing tall
perceiving the lavish abundance
everywhere.
I love you
when I think
of the unlimited access
that every person has
to your unlimited bounty
of good.
I just love you.
I love you, God!
I love you for being God;
for being the good
that every soul seeks;
for being the life,
love, wisdom, and power
of everyone everywhere.
I love you
for being the very substance
from which formed existence
emerges.
I love you for being
Omnipresence (everywhere),
Omnipotence (all the power)
and
Omniscience (all the knowledge).
I just love you.
I know
that you love me, too."
" . . . I have loved you with an everlasting love . . . "
Jeremiah 31:3
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 26, 2008, 12:17:35 PM
(Or maybe not - as I just stated something I "know", therefore... See how hard it is?)
For the most part I agree with you. I find that to be true every day of my life. The only difference in this instance is God. He identifies the truth and explains it.
For everything else I don't know shit from Shinola.
Post by: studiojimi on April 26, 2008, 01:56:13 PM
there is nothing arrogant preachy about knowing what you know
Post by: CHANCE on April 26, 2008, 02:32:16 PM
The Gospel in Genesis
Meanings Of The Names In Genesis 5
We frequently use the familiar term, gospel, or good news. Where is the first place it appears in the Bible? The answer may surprise you.
An Integrated Message
The great discovery is that the Bible is a message system: it's not simply 66 books penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, the Bible is an integrated whole which bears evidence of supernatural engineering in every detail.
The Jewish rabbis have a quaint way of expressing this very idea: they say that they will not understand the Scriptures until the Messiah comes. But when He comes, He will not only interpret each of the passages for us, He will interpret the very words; He will even interpret the very letters themselves; in fact, He will even interpret the spaces between the letters!
When I first heard this, I simply dismissed this as a colorful exaggeration. Until I reread Matthew 5:17 and 18:
"Think not that I have come to destroy the Torah and the prophets; I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
(A jot and tittle are the Hebrew equivalent of our dotting an i and the crossing of a t.)
An Example
A remarkable example of this can be glimpsed in Genesis Chapter 5, where we have the genealogy of Adam through Noah. This is one of those chapters which we often tend to skim over quickly as we pass through Genesis it's simply a genealogy from Adam to Noah.
But God always rewards the diligent student. Let's examine this chapter more closely.
In our Bible, we read the Hebrew names. What do these names mean in English?
A Study of Original Roots
The meaning of proper names can be a difficult pursuit since a direct translation is often not readily available. Even a conventional Hebrew lexicon can prove disappointing. A study of the original roots, however, can yield some fascinating insights.
(A caveat: many study aids, such as a conventional lexicon, can prove rather superficial when dealing with proper nouns. Furthermore, views concerning the meanings of original roots are not free of controversy and variant readings.)
Let's take an example.
The Flood Judgment
Methuselah comes from muth, a root that means "death";1 and from shalach, which means to bring, or to send forth. The name Methuselah means, "his death shall bring".2
Methuselah's father was given a prophecy of the coming Great Flood, and was apparently told that as long as his son was alive, the judgment of the flood would be withheld; but as soon as he died, the flood would be brought or sent forth.
(Can you imagine raising a kid like that? Every time the boy caught a cold, the entire neighborhood must have panicked!)
And, indeed, the year that Methuselah died, the flood came.3
It is interesting that Methuselah's life, in effect, was a symbol of God's mercy in forestalling the coming judgment of the flood.
Therefore, it is fitting that his lifetime is the oldest in the Bible, speaking of the extensiveness of God's mercy.
The Other Names
If there is such significance in Methuselah's name, let's examine the other names to see what may lie behind them.
Adam's name means man. As the first man, that seems straight forward enough.
Seth
Adam's son was named Seth, which means appointed. Eve said, "For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."4
Enosh
Seth's son was called Enosh, which means mortal, frail, or miserable. It is from the root anash, to be incurable, used of a wound, grief, woe, sickness, or wickedness.
It was in the days of Enosh that men began to defile the name of the Living God.5
Kenan
Enosh's son was named Kenan, which can mean sorrow, dirge, or elegy. (The precise denotation is somewhat elusive; some study aids unfortunately presume that Kenan is synonymous with Cainan.)
Balaam, looking down from the heights of Moab, uses a pun upon the name of the Kenites when he prophesies their destruction.6
We have no real idea as to why these names were chosen for their children. Often they may have referred to circumstances at birth, and so on.
Mahalalel
Kenan's son was Mahalalel, from Mahalal which means blessed or praise; and El, the name for God. Thus, Mahalalel means the Blessed God. Often Hebrew names include El, the name of God, as Dan-i-el, "God is my Judge", etc.
Jared
Mahalalel's son was named Jared, from the verb yaradh, meaning shall come down.7
Enoch
Jared's son was named Enoch, which means teaching, or commencement. He was the first of four generations of preachers. In fact, the earliest recorded prophecy was by Enoch, which amazingly enough deals with the Second Coming of Christ (although it is quoted in the Book of Jude in the New Testament):
Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against."
Jude 14, 15
Methuselah
Enoch was the father of Methuselah, who we have already mentioned. Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah.8 Apparently, Enoch received the prophecy of the Great Flood, and was told that as long as his son was alive, the judgment of the flood would be withheld. The year that Methuselah died, the flood came.
Enoch, of course, never died: he was translated 9 (or, if you'll excuse the expression, raptured ). That's how Methuselah can be the oldest man in the Bible, yet he died before his father!
Lamech
Methuselah's son was named Lamech, a root still evident today in our own English word, lament or lamentation. Lamech suggests despairing.
(This name is also linked to the Lamech in Cain's line who inadvertently killed his son Tubal-Cain in a hunting incident.10)
Noah
Lamech, of course, is the father of Noah, which is derived from nacham, to bring relief or comfort, as Lamech himself explains in Genesis 5:29.
The Composite List
Now let's put it all together:
Hebrew English
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.
That's rather remarkable:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
Here's the Gospel hidden within a genealogy in Genesis!
(You will never convince me that a group of Jewish rabbis conspired to hide the Christian Gospel right here in a genealogy within their venerated Torah!)
Evidence of Design
The implications of this discovery are more wide spread than is evident at first glance.
It demonstrates that in the earliest chapters of the Book of Genesis, God had already laid out His plan of redemption for the predicament of mankind. It is a love story, written in blood on a wooden cross which was erected in Judea almost 2,000 years ago.
The Bible is an integrated message system, the product of supernatural engineering. Every number, every place name, every detail every jot and tittle is there for our learning, our discovery, and our amazement. Truly, our God is an awesome God.
It is astonishing to discover how many Biblical controversies seem to evaporate if one simply recognized the unity the integrity of these 66 books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years.
It is remarkable how many subtle discoveries lie behind the little details of the text. Some of these become immediately obvious with a little study; some are more technical and require special helps.
Look behind every detail: there's a discovery to be made! God always rewards the diligent student. What other messages lay hidden behind the names in the Bible? Check it out.
Post by: studiojimi on April 26, 2008, 02:37:33 PM
that is great stuff
check out the MBD for a reference
i have one
a big fat book
MBD
Metaphysiacal BIBLE Dictionary
the Charles Fillmore Reference
Charles is the founder of NT
not New Testiment ....NEW THOUGHT
the whole truth.
Post by: Larrchild on April 26, 2008, 03:09:35 PM
Is that what you mean by metaphysical?
And if so, what size mallet does it take to hammer that into the framework of the Bible so that they square-up?
Post by: studiojimi on April 26, 2008, 03:24:07 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 12:09 |
To me, metaphysical represents things like reincarnation, a collective consciousness of energy among creatures that is akin to a god and all that karma stuff. Is that what you mean by metaphysical? And if so, what size mallet does it take to hammer that into the framework of the Bible so that they square-up? |
it all resonates quite well with my soul man
as far as metaphysical in definition
is means as i have studied and learned from many new thought Christianity classes (almost enough to be a minister but not quite)
looking beyone the physical appearance to the spiritual truth of the matter
i've defined and repeated this numerous times in these threads.
in other words...there is a flood experience for you
there is blinding light experience
a crusifixion experience
a ressurection experience
a healing experience
ad infinitum.
Post by: Larrchild on April 26, 2008, 03:35:40 PM
Gotcha.
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 26, 2008, 05:13:59 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 20:09 |
a collective consciousness of energy among creatures that is akin to a god and all that karma stuff. |
To me, that is precisely what 'God' is - a collective consciousness that has a positive interest, or something like 'the force for good and balance in the universe'.
Although I would extend 'creatures' to include the trees, the elements, the whole living planet.
In that sense, God is all around, all-seeing, all-knowing ....
Where I have a problem is with God as a 'He' - ie an external authority. I see God as more of an element of us. One that we need to embrace a little more, perhaps, but maybe in a somewhat more enlightened manner. I do not feel that the language of the bible even comes close to adequately conveying what God actually is, and I believe that is why it has lost credibility in the modern world.
| Quote: |
And if so, what size mallet does it take to hammer that into the framework of the Bible so that they square-up? |
Indeed.
Post by: CHANCE on April 26, 2008, 07:27:53 PM
| MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 14:13 |
I do not feel that the language of the bible even comes close to adequately conveying what God actually is, and I believe that is why it has lost credibility in the modern world. |
When you say this, it seems that you have been studying the bible to arrive at this conclusion. Don't give up man, you're almost there, keep studying and you will see and know what and who God is.
The bible lost credibility? To some yes. It is a sign of our times. When you turn on a TV and see a preacher telling old ladies to send him their money, and in return he will send them a hankerchief with his sweat on it makes me sick. He is accountable for his actions and one day he will recieve judgment. God doesn't need money. A true bible believing group of people (a church) will never demand or make a priority out of money. The bible says "God loves a cheerful giver" To give out of compulson is not what God desires. (end of sermon LOL).
Post by: studiojimi on April 26, 2008, 07:40:42 PM
| CHANCE wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 16:27 |
When you say this, it seems that you have been studying the bible to arrive at this conclusion. Don't give up man, you're almost there, keep studying and you will see and know what and who God is. |
and even more profoundly and astoundingly for me
whose YOU are.
or in my case
whose I AM.
"tell them I AM the I AM"
Post by: Larrchild on April 26, 2008, 08:13:07 PM
I am's what I am's!
Woah Olivge!
Awk ka ka ka ka!
Post by: studiojimi on April 26, 2008, 10:27:30 PM
prayer and medition is spinach
and it's goods to da finich
but not dem danes.
arch arch arch arch
Post by: danickstr on April 26, 2008, 11:32:36 PM
LOL it was creative, at least. Many ways to smack the shit out of someone. But I recall discussions about the unwed Olive Oyl and her sailor boyfriend and their child, Sweet Pea. A bit controversial for the 30's ,but true to life in an urban port city of low income, uneducated derivations.
Post by: Larrchild on April 27, 2008, 12:55:41 AM
Austin Powers: No, only sailors wear condoms baby.
Vanessa Kensington: Not in the '90s Austin.
Austin Powers: Well they should, those filthy buggers. They go from port to port.
Austin Powers: Yeah, baby, yeah
Post by: studiojimi on April 27, 2008, 11:12:26 AM
This link will answer a lot of questions.
Larry I now believe you are really on to something here
Post by: cerberus on April 27, 2008, 03:41:51 PM
so many of us were raised according to a philosophy which claims that spinach
contains ten times the nutritional value that it really does contain. that false
premise became a popular myth. imo, popeye should look into switching
to a better, cheaper, and more plentiful food source.
and the song could go more like: "i eat lots of seaweed; but they
still beat me up, 'coz i'm weird. i'm popeye the sailor man."
jeff dinces.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 27, 2008, 06:19:00 PM
I eats lots of seeweed
but I'm still a dillweed
I'm Popeye, vegetarian
Post by: studiojimi on April 27, 2008, 06:20:20 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 27 April 2008 15:19 |
my version based on yours (I plagiarize all the time...) I eats lots of seeweed but I'm still a dillweed I'm Popeye, vegetarian |
blasphemy!