[Hank]

Forge, on 16 January 2020 - 10:32 AM, said:

is that your final solution?

Huh? It is very difficult to prove a negative. I'm not making those claims, as in Judah != Jacob.

OccludeOlga, on 16 January 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:

Sure, tell your average modern Jew that if you identify as a Jew, you can. See how far that gets you.

I wrote Israeli, not Jew. Because Jew implies also the religion.
Btw. are you asking me to tell racists, to be American?

[Kyanos]

Forge, on 15 January 2020 - 08:14 PM, said:

not sure what's going onJacob = Israel (northern Israel)Judah = Judah in the land of Judea (southern Israel)Judah maintained bloodlines and traditions, Israel basically became the samaritans and other mudbloods.ex.Judeans were admonished from intermingling with Israelites after they were released from Babylon

OccludeOlga, on 16 January 2020 - 08:15 AM, said:

Go back through the Bible and everytime Israel is mentioned put Soros and Netanyahu there.You will quickly see the problem. Most descendants of Israel alive today do not know they are Israeli. One brother is claiming an identity beyond his actual claim, this is an ancient problem.

My ancestors were crowned upon Jacobs pillow, but in Scotland. Is Clan Chattan Israeli? Is Gaelic a Semetic language? Is the Phoenician naval academy still open at Tyre? So many questions, anyone here read Comyn Beaumont?

[Radar]

Hank, on 16 January 2020 - 10:30 AM, said:

You do realize that the portions of the Old Testament were written well after (1500 Years) the events took place? They may not be truly reliable factual history.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Hank, on 16 January 2020 - 10:30 AM, said:

I see no problem. It makes no difference, well, to me. If you identify as Israeli, you can. If you do not, well, then don’t. The only way to find out exactly who is decedent of whom is to round them all up, and do DNA tests.

There are Jews living today who take DNA tests and get 99% Ashkenazi Jewish results. I don't get why this blows people's minds. Jews in diaspora marrying other Jews in diaspora is just as common as Mexican-Americans marrying other Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans other Chinese-Americans, etc.

[Hank]

Radar 100 Watts, on 16 January 2020 - 12:25 PM, said:

[CITATION NEEDED]

Here is one.
https://answersingen...nt-mesopotamia/
If you read through it, Abraham could have lived anywere between 3000 BC to 2000 BC

As for when the Bible was written
https://www.biblegat...-bible-written/

Radar 100 Watts, on 16 January 2020 - 12:25 PM, said:

There are Jews living today who take DNA tests and get 99% Ashkenazi Jewish results. I don't get why this blows people's minds. Jews in diaspora marrying other Jews in diaspora is just as common as Mexican-Americans marrying other Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans other Chinese-Americans, etc.

Exactly.

[Forge]

OccludeOlga, on 16 January 2020 - 08:15 AM, said:

Go back through the Bible and everytime Israel is mentioned put Soros and Netanyahu there.

before or after Solomon?
because those are two different things

[Radar]

Hank, on 16 January 2020 - 01:02 PM, said:

Here is one.
https://answersingen...nt-mesopotamia/
If you read through it, Abraham could have lived anywere between 3000 BC to 2000 BC

As for when the Bible was written
https://www.biblegat...-bible-written/

I actually really like these sources.

[Jimmy]

Hank, on 16 January 2020 - 10:30 AM, said:

You do realize that the portions of the Old Testament were written well after (1500 Years) the events took place? They may not be truly reliable factual history.

Sure, you can play this game. How do you know that it was written after the events? You're just taking faith in something someone else wrote. Just like people who believe the Bible to a T.

Reading the Bible and other religious texts like it's Apocrypha, or the Tao Te Ching, or even something like the Hagakure is less about soaking in the information there and codifying it in your head, but rather it is a ritual wherein you interface with the Monad. People who deny God, Christ, the supreme goodness cannot interface with this consciousness and in effect, these texts are dead texts to them and hold no true meaning when they read them.

[Forge]

aristotle's dictum

[Kyanos]

HorseDongSub69, on 16 January 2020 - 11:32 PM, said:

People who deny God, Christ, the supreme goodness cannot interface with this consciousness and in effect, these texts are dead texts to them and hold no true meaning when they read them.

Well put. +1
Syncronisity through the ages. Prophecy uses the words to send the vision.

[Danukem]

Deniers often start out as open minded people simply asking questions. Then you get the "denier" label for asking the questions, or if you aren't satisfied right away with the answers you get. For example, I'm labeled as a global warming "denier" for asking questions about the evidence for the claimed catastrophic consequences of global warming. I don't even deny that global warming is a thing -- but I'm come to believe that it's exaggerated and that the consequences of it are being exaggerated. So now I'm a "denier".

How is this relevant? I find the same mentality amongst other religions. They don't like being questioned. It's hard work to try to convince someone of something for which there is inadequate evidence. Easier to label them and move on.

[Hank]

HorseDongSub69, on 16 January 2020 - 11:32 PM, said:

Sure, you can play this game. How do you know that it was written after the events? You're just taking faith in something someone else wrote. Just like people who believe the Bible to a T.

It's called research. Simple process. Enter a library and read books. In this specific case: find out who wrote a given text of the Holy Bible; find out when it was written; compare those dates with possible dates of the events described.

HorseDongSub69, on 16 January 2020 - 11:32 PM, said:

Reading the Bible and other religious texts like it's Apocrypha, or the Tao Te Ching, or even something like the Hagakure is less about soaking in the information there and codifying it in your head, but rather it is a ritual wherein you interface with the Monad. People who deny God, Christ, the supreme goodness cannot interface with this consciousness and in effect, these texts are dead texts to them and hold no true meaning when they read them.

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16 (NABRE) – My local priest said one eye opening thing about reading the Bible, "Son, The Bible needs to read in context, end to end, and with the help of our magisterium. This will lead you in the right direction to understand the literal, allegoric, moral and anagogical sense of the Holy Book"

Only fools deny something they can't prove. As I wrote before it is very difficult to prove a negative, like god does not exist. Religious text are far from dead, rather a quick way to get killed, under certain circumstances. Finally; the Holy Bible has meaning, at least for me, it’s a daily reminder to do good and fight against evil.

[Radar]

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 01:21 PM, said:

How is this relevant? I find the same mentality amongst other religions. They don't like being questioned. It's hard work to try to convince someone of something for which there is inadequate evidence. Easier to label them and move on.

Really? I love being questioned about my religion. Actually, most people who take their religion seriously do. There's an entire field in Christianity dedicated to this called Apologetics. I also know plenty of atheists who don't like being questioned about their beliefs, and get frustrated with believers. They will label us just as speedily for believing in the flying spaghetti monster or something.

[Forge]

the only thing worse and more dangerous than a religious zealot is a militant atheist

[Mark]

Forge, on 17 January 2020 - 08:12 AM, said:

aristotle's dictum

He said dictum.

[Danukem]

Radar 100 Watts, on 17 January 2020 - 02:55 PM, said:

Really? I love being questioned about my religion. Actually, most people who take their religion seriously do. There's an entire field in Christianity dedicated to this called Apologetics. I also know plenty of atheists who don't like being questioned about their beliefs, and get frustrated with believers. They will label us just as speedily for believing in the flying spaghetti monster or something.

I know.

Bad atheists and religious zealots are very similar in how they arrived at their beliefs and how they treat opposition.

A bad atheist is indoctrinated: Religion bad! Christians bad! God is an oppressive concept! Religion leads to wars and oppression! And so on. By the way, the spaghetti monster thing is a version of Russell's teapot argument which is about burden of proof, and it was popularized by Richard Dawkins. I have no doubt that many an atheist has trotted that out and used it as a straw man. It has a place, though, if deployed correctly.

[Radar]

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

I know.

Bad atheists and religious zealots are very similar in how they arrived at their beliefs and how they treat opposition.

A bad atheist is indoctrinated: Religion bad! Christians bad! God is an oppressive concept! Religion leads to wars and oppression! And so on. By the way, the spaghetti monster thing is a version of Russell's teapot argument which is about burden of proof, and it was popularized by Richard Dawkins. I have no doubt that many an atheist has trotted that out and used it as a straw man. It has a place, though, if deployed correctly.

Yeah I know it came from the God Delusion. My argument against Russel's teapot though would be that creation itself is evidence of a creator. For this reason even Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover. What ever it is that's out there that threw the universe into motion, that's God. Of course, that might not even be a person or a sentient being at all, but instead just physics or even metaphysics doing its thing. I've already mentioned to you that I can't prove that it was Yahweh/Jesus, and it would be silly to anyway. That's why it's called faith. The only person that can convince you about Jesus is Jesus himself.

[Jimmy]

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 01:21 PM, said:

Deniers often start out as open minded people simply asking questions. Then you get the "denier" label for asking the questions, or if you aren't satisfied right away with the answers you get. For example, I'm labeled as a global warming "denier" for asking questions about the evidence for the claimed catastrophic consequences of global warming. I don't even deny that global warming is a thing -- but I'm come to believe that it's exaggerated and that the consequences of it are being exaggerated. So now I'm a "denier".

How is this relevant? I find the same mentality amongst other religions. They don't like being questioned. It's hard work to try to convince someone of something for which there is inadequate evidence. Easier to label them and move on.

We're in the same boat, my man.

Hank, on 17 January 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

It's called research. Simple process. Enter a library and read books. In this specific case: find out who wrote a given text of the Holy Bible; find out when it was written; compare those dates with possible dates of the events described.

Right. You're putting faith in the things that are written in these books as if they are true. It's literally no different than believing in the Bible.

Hank, on 17 January 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16 (NABRE)

Inspired by God. Very well there could be things in the Bible that are not Godly. You'd be an absolute sucker to believe otherwise. This is why discernment is more important than any particular book. If you want to find God, he will find you.

Hank, on 17 January 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

My local priest said one eye opening thing about reading the Bible, "Son, The Bible needs to read in context, end to end, and with the help of our magisterium. This will lead you in the right direction to understand the literal, allegoric, moral and anagogical sense of the Holy Book"

Sounds like brainwashing but okay. Daily Reminder: The Catholic Church is run by demons and they fuck children and drink their blood. And they think it's funny.

Hank, on 17 January 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

Religious text are far from dead

That's not what I said, you did not understand what I meant.

Hank, on 17 January 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

rather a quick way to get killed, under certain circumstances.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Mark, on 17 January 2020 - 04:33 PM, said:

He said dictum.

Dictum? I barely know'em!

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

I know.

Bad atheists and religious zealots are very similar in how they arrived at their beliefs and how they treat opposition.

A bad atheist is indoctrinated: Religion bad! Christians bad! God is an oppressive concept! Religion leads to wars and oppression! And so on. By the way, the spaghetti monster thing is a version of Russell's teapot argument which is about burden of proof, and it was popularized by Richard Dawkins. I have no doubt that many an atheist has trotted that out and used it as a straw man. It has a place, though, if deployed correctly.

Funny you mention Dawkins because even he is realizing Atheism was a mistake. He helped destroy his shitty little pedo island country with Islam.

[Hank]

HorseDongSub69, on 17 January 2020 - 07:14 PM, said:

Sounds like brainwashing but okay. Daily Reminder: The Catholic Church is run by demons and they fuck children and drink their blood. And they think it's funny.

Thank you. You'll make a very faithful Jehovah's Witness. Believe or not.
Just in case, I actually 'preached' the same at age 7. Being one.

[Jimmy]

No fucking thanks, we've already been over this.

[Forge]

Bella Dodd

[Danukem]

Radar 100 Watts, on 17 January 2020 - 06:32 PM, said:

Yeah I know it came from the God Delusion. My argument against Russel's teapot though would be that creation itself is evidence of a creator. For this reason even Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover. What ever it is that's out there that threw the universe into motion, that's God. Of course, that might not even be a person or a sentient being at all, but instead just physics or even metaphysics doing its thing. I've already mentioned to you that I can't prove that it was Yahweh/Jesus, and it would be silly to anyway.

The idea of an unmoved mover, first cause, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't have much content. It's still somewhat doubtful that there is such a thing, since it's conceivable for there to be an infinite regress of causes or explanations, or for there simply to not be an explanation (in old philosophy speak, we would call that denying the principle of sufficient reason). The notion that everything has an explanation might be false. It could be that we are genetically programmed to believe that everything is explicable, because that belief has been evolutionarily advantageous (that makes sense because throwing up your hands and giving up never helps, but looking for answers often does). But let's grant that there is an unmoved mover or equivalent. That doesn't imply the truth of any actual religious doctrine. Even pantheism (which I regard as a species of atheism) can admit the existence of an unmoved mover.

Radar 100 Watts, on 17 January 2020 - 06:32 PM, said:

That's why it's called faith. The only person that can convince you about Jesus is Jesus himself.

This is where it gets a little tricky. I do make leaps of faith, as everyone does. For example, I believe in your existence and the existence of an external world that is occupied by other people, even though it's conceivable that I am a brain in a vat or an immaterial mind being manipulated into having various sensations and thoughts. Descartes notwithstanding, foundationalism doesn't seem to cut it as an epistemology and leaps of faith are still required, unless we want to retreat into only making claims about our own minds.

Where I draw the line though, is when a proposed leap of faith appears to be inconsistent with things I already think I know. The external world may not be provable, but at least it's consistent with and helps explain the things I perceive. Religious doctrines that I'm familiar with contain elements that are inconsistent with my other beliefs about the world (e.g. claims about miracles).

Your last sentence is interesting. If Jesus literally convinced me about Jesus, that would no longer be a leap of faith, it would be direct evidence. Some people say that religious experience is a sui generis type of experience, on par with sense experience or rational inference. If so, then it could constitute a type of evidence on its own. But if I don't have any such experiences myself, and I am simply being told about them, then that's not evidence I possess, and I am inclined to believe that reports of such experiences are merely flights of imagination or some such.

[Forge]

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

'conceivable for there to be an infinite regress of causes or explanations

infinite is a fallacy then. If there are infinite possibilities, then in one of those possibilities a God exists. If a God exists, then it's powerful enough to exist in all existences.

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

inconsistent with my other beliefs about the world (e.g. claims about miracles).

again infinite is a fallacy. Infinite possibilities = miracles are possible

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

Jesus literally convinced me about Jesus,

you are aware of the entity that is known as Jesus Christ and what he represents. Either he convinced you, or you denied him. He is the only thing that can convince you, not a book, a scholar, or some mouth-piece making posts on the internet.
Sudden states of euphoria and intense awareness/knowledge can probably be discarded as a sudden electro-chemical impulse in a certain section of the brain according to your religion. The subject ate a snickers, or had a V-8.

[Radar]

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

The idea of an unmoved mover, first cause, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't have much content. It's still somewhat doubtful that there is such a thing, since it's conceivable for there to be an infinite regress of causes or explanations, or for there simply to not be an explanation (in old philosophy speak, we would call that denying the principle of sufficient reason). The notion that everything has an explanation might be false.

God is often times described as infinite. Humans also cannot explain where God came from. You might not be that far off Dan.

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

It could be that we are genetically programmed to believe that everything is explicable, because that belief has been evolutionarily advantageous (that makes sense because throwing up your hands and giving up never helps, but looking for answers often does).

>implying humans are evolving

lol

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

But let's grant that there is an unmoved mover or equivalent. That doesn't imply the truth of any actual religious doctrine. Even pantheism (which I regard as a species of atheism) can admit the existence of an unmoved mover.

Which is exactly what I said. I don't claim to be able to prove any specific doctrine.

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

This is where it gets a little tricky. I do make leaps of faith, as everyone does. For example, I believe in your existence and the existence of an external world that is occupied by other people, even though it's conceivable that I am a brain in a vat or an immaterial mind being manipulated into having various sensations and thoughts. Descartes notwithstanding, foundationalism doesn't seem to cut it as an epistemology and leaps of faith are still required, unless we want to retreat into only making claims about our own minds.

Right. I believe I brought up some time ago that believing in the surrounding metaphysical world is an unconscious leap of faith in itself.

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

Where I draw the line though, is when a proposed leap of faith appears to be inconsistent with things I already think I know. The external world may not be provable, but at least it's consistent with and helps explain the things I perceive. Religious doctrines that I'm familiar with contain elements that are inconsistent with my other beliefs about the world (e.g. claims about miracles).

Are "miracles" really that fringe though? How did life come into existence? Where does the soul come from? If you believe in evolution, isn't abiogenesis a miracle? How did the conscious evolve? We take miracles for granted every day Dan.

Trooper Dan, on 17 January 2020 - 09:29 PM, said:

Your last sentence is interesting. If Jesus literally convinced me about Jesus, that would no longer be a leap of faith, it would be direct evidence. Some people say that religious experience is a sui generis type of experience, on par with sense experience or rational inference. If so, then it could constitute a type of evidence on its own. But if I don't have any such experiences myself, and I am simply being told about them, then that's not evidence I possess, and I am inclined to believe that reports of such experiences are merely flights of imagination or some such.

It is a unique experience for everyone. When I was born again, I had my own "imaginative flights" that I don't expect anyone to believe. I totally get that you can't base your beliefs on what someone else felt. It has to work for you. All I can say is: God calls on some, while others call on God; but God is always drawing people near.

[Jimmy]

The Double Slit Experiment is proof of miracles.

[Danukem]

Forge, on 17 January 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

infinite is a fallacy then. If there are infinite possibilities, then in one of those possibilities a God exists. If a God exists, then it's powerful enough to exist in all existences.

I think you are trying to say something like this: https://www.rational...ment-page2.html

Forge, on 17 January 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

again infinite is a fallacy. Infinite possibilities = miracles are possible

I never said that miracles are impossible. If miracles have happened, they are simply events outside of the laws of nature as we understand them. Since our observations are finite and our understanding is limited, it would be arrogant to presume that we have a full understanding of the laws of nature, let alone everything that is possible.

However, granting that miracles are possible and believing a specific claimed miracle has actually happened are two different things. For a rational person to believe in the miracle, strong evidence is required -- strong enough to overturn other well-confirmed beliefs about how the world works.

Forge, on 17 January 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

you are aware of the entity that is known as Jesus Christ and what he represents.

No, I'm only aware of very incomplete reports about him and his message, and they aren't even consistent.

Forge, on 17 January 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

Either he convinced you, or you denied him.

He never tried to convince me of anything.

Forge, on 17 January 2020 - 10:58 PM, said:

Sudden states of euphoria and intense awareness/knowledge can probably be discarded as a sudden electro-chemical impulse in a certain section of the brain according to your religion. The subject ate a snickers, or had a V-8.

No, I don't see how any observation of the brain could be conclusive. If a person does have a genuine religious experience that connects them to a deity, then I would expect it to correlate with brain activity. Just because there is brain activity doesn't mean that the brain activity is the only thing going on. But it doesn't mean that a deity is involved, either.

Also, I don't worship Science. If you must ascribe a religion to me, let it be Reason. Did you know that I am a Platonist? Most scientists would scoff at the idea of forms existing outside of spacetime.

[Forge]

Trooper Dan, on 18 January 2020 - 12:02 AM, said:

No, I'm only aware of very incomplete reports about him and his message, and they aren't even consistent.
He never tried to convince me of anything.

repeating back at me what I already posted isn't reasonable, it's pedantic
you are aware
you weren't convinced enough to warrant in further investigation to see if there were any merit to the reports.
I'm basing this on your claim of inconsistency. Which is a fallacy perpetuated by external entities that have a self-serving agenda.
A 'Platonist' should know better

[Radar]

Trooper Dan, on 18 January 2020 - 12:02 AM, said:

No, I'm only aware of very incomplete reports about him and his message, and they aren't even consistent.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Trooper Dan, on 18 January 2020 - 12:02 AM, said:

If you must ascribe a religion to me, let it be Reason.

Reason is just a tool. It is not an end; it is a means to an end, whether for good or evil.

[Forge]

Stalin had his "reasons"
he applied his religion and freed a lot of other religious people of their earthly bonds
sounds reasonable

[Danukem]

Yes, reason is a tool that can be used for either good or evil. But let's not immediately jump to the conclusion that every time someone gives an argument for doing a bad thing, it's an example of reason being used for evil. If it's a bad argument, it's an example of the opposite (i.e. it wasn't Reason being used for evil, but stupidity). In any case, I'm not suggesting that reason is good or bad in itself, but rather it's the thing I always turn to.

And guys, when I talk about "inconsistencies" in reports about Jesus, I'm referring in part to factual disputes about whether he rose from the dead and other stuff. Also, even though the message that has been handed down to us is clear in broad terms, there's certainly room for interpretation. You're making it sound like I'm buying into some kind of twisted narrative. So from now on, I'm not going to say whether I doubt or dispute something about Jesus unless it's a specific claim that came out of one of your keyboards.

[Radar]

Sure thing Dan. I would also mention that just because someone is religious, doesn't mean reason wasn't a tool that one used to arrive to that conclusion.