Total posts: 3,052
-->
@Stronn
Yes, that is one way to resolve it.
The down side is having to work out a god-free moral theory
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's filed in my 'very weak evidence' folder. It's a very thick folder but i think that says more about people than about ghosts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
PS. The temple was not destroyed in 168BC.
pps - the text doesn't say it was destroyed - it implies desecrated.
Dan 9:27
...And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation
The principle sources are Josephus Antiquities of the Jews and 1 Maccabbees:
1:57 On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I suppose the idea us that if some of the bible is true it gives a bit more credibility to the rest. But it's rather like saying because there is a Baker Street(*) in London Sherlock Holmes must be real.
(*There is, but no 221b, apparently.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I'd hope the pictures you go to court with are a bit clearer!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
People are at their most reliable shortly after being slammed into the ground from 2000 feet. I'm surprised major head trauma isn't compulsory for witnesses in murder trials.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What "scholarship" are you referencing?
The scholarship (witout quotes) that interprets Daniel in terms of conditions in the C2 BCE.
That scolarship identifies the messiah in 9:26 as Onias III and the 'destruction' as the desecration of the temple in 168 BC.
I confess I am not familir with the Ezekiel references - i will remedy that forthwith!
Created:
Posted in:
I am not interested in talking about gods.
Fair enough.
Is it necessary for God to conscious? I'd say if X is not conscious calling X God would be pushing language way beyond sensible limits! There'd be no point worshipping or praying to X if it is incapable of even being aware of it.
So does 'the ultimate reality' have to be someting that is conscious? I think TUR is a piece of yet-to-be-discovered physics and as such no more conscious or aware than the 1st law of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics really do seem to control the cosmos and life, but no-one prays to them or calls them God.
Created:
-->
@janesix
You will know it when you feel it.
Which is why I said I hadn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I know God exists because The Ultimate Reality exists, and there is no other alternative that can even be entertained.
Is it necessary for a god to conscious? I'd say if X is not conscious calling X a god would be pushing language way beyond sensible limits! There'd be no point worshipping or praying to X if it is incapable of even being aware of it.
So does 'the ultimate reality' have to someting that is conscious? I think TUR is a piece of yet-to-be-discovered physics and as such no more conscious or aware than the 1st law of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics really do seem to control the cosmos and life, but no-one prays to them or calls then gods.
Created:
-->
@janesix
It was a semi-joke.
What is a 'spiritual experience'? I've been deeply moved by music and news stories etc but I'm sure they 'don't count'.
Created:
-->
@janesix
If I had I wouldn't admit it!
But no, I haven't,
Created:
-->
@janesix
Often I think of you the same but opposite, if you get me!
You are compassionate, curious and not (AFAICT) dogmatic - you're prefect rationalist material! :) I don't intend that as an insult; try not to take it as one.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Theistic religion is like smoking - it's a right but I think it's a mistake. I don't hate theists or smokers - I just think they'd be better off stopping.Religion is a right. You hate rights, you hate freedom, you hate theists. Good
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality exists.
I don't disagree, but i don't think TUR resembles what most people imagine a god to be like. I think TUR will turn out to more closely resemble a conservation law, but we're probably a generation or two from gettiing a useful handle on it.
I don't offer proof of that - it's my best guess, that's all.
Created:
-->
@janesix
if there was a 'slavery' forum would anti-slavers have to stay away?
Created:
-->
@Stronn
Easily resolved - there are no gods,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I think for you, a ghost has to manifest, sit down, and have a conversation about the afterlife with you.
Then please stop making assumptions! I don't know what would convince me, but a glowy blur and a handful internetter comments falls short of 'proof'. I'd hate to be convicted of murder on that sort of evidence!
Created:
-->
@Stronn
Consider god 'A' that allows eating cows but not pigs and god 'B' that allows eating pigs but not cows.
There are - allegedy- such gods so it does appear that the gods decide what is moral and what is not.
But gods are nothing special in that - we all find some things moral and other things immoral, whether it is eating meat, the death penalty or abortion on demand. It's generally not hard for someone to 'prove' the gods agree with their moral choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'd hope that anyone who does spend a few hours googling will see what i posted is not the view of a few fanatical anti-religionists but a precis of mainstream scholarship - I consider myself boringly conventional!
I suppose it all hinges on when Daniel was composed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I don't want to specify any particular criteria; I'd try to be open to a wide range of evidence. But the story strikes me to be a demonstration of the power of grief and wishful thining rather than ghosts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm happy to go at your pace. The problem is that there is often so much to discuss in a chapter one might never get onto the next one - that's just how things are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think you'll find "chakras" is an even older theory with no experimental support whatsoever.That is just an outdated theory, though, that doesn't hold water. It is pure speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
When you see a football (for example)) what happens is pattern of neurons and synaptic activity is set up in your brain. That pattern of neural activity isn't a football but it encodes 'football'. its not very different in principle from how a picture of a football is encoded as apattern of 1's and 0's inside a computer, but it's not always a great idea to draw parallels between brains and computers.
There has been some progress in being able to measure brain activity and 'decode' what someone is aware of.
Created:
Posted in:
There are studies that show that we make some decisions before we consciously think about them. Is this the right hemisphere making these decisions, before the left(which we think of as "I" has a chance to analyze and come to a decision? Is the right hemisphere the "subconscious"? Does this subconscious have it's own sense of "I"? Does everyone really consist of two minds in one, that are so integrated, you can't tell the difference?
I think the easiest way to approach this is to think about what it means to be conscious of something. If I am conscious of X then somewhere in my brain is a pattern of neural activity that 'encodes' X. It doesn't matter if X is in the world - unless X is encoded in my brain I will not be conscious of it and conversely if X is encoded in my brain i will be conscious of it even if X isn't 'out there'.
So if a decision is made by my brain i will not be conscious of having made it until it gets encoded in a form suitble for me to be conscious of it. That is one part of my brain makes the decision 'move left hand' and there is a small delay before that decision gets encoded elsewhere in the brain for purposes of consciousness.
Obviously making the decision to move your hand is something that happens within the brain, but its clear that it happening within the brain isn't enough to make you conscious of making a decision; the additional step of encoding 'A decision to move hand' is required to make you conscious of it and it appears that step takes about 1/2 a second.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I've lost 4 grandparents, 2 parents and a wife but I've never seen a ghost. But I know how much people want to because I'm human too - bereavement is not easy.
Consider all the people who have died... and not one unequivocal example of a ghost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ah, theology! I try not to do that - I'm more interested in history and literature. "There are no gods" is as far as my theology goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It's my view that because the early Christians wanted to connect their new religion with traditional judaism they re-interpreted the role of prophesy.
The OT prophets were not in the business of predicting the far future; they commented on their present time and the immediate consequences of what was happening right then, particuarly if what was happening was apostasy! The idea that prophesy is concerned with events hundreds of years ahead relies on very shakey parallels and disregrard for context and an unforced, natural reading of the prophetic books reveals their concern was for the present, not a half mllennium hence.
Daniel is a special case. I will not defend the late dating of Daniel but I accept the consensus it was written after not before most of the events it purports to predict. The reasoning behind the composition of Daniel was that its seeming accuracy about the past would give it credibility when it moved to predicting the future (past and future being relative to its time of writing).
To understand Daniel it is necessary to study the situation in Palestine when it was written, because that is why it was written. It wasn't written in Babylon about events 600 years in its future. It was written in Palestine in 2ndC BCE about events there and then.
However - don't take my word for it! If you're interested start googling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think Tradie is actually arguing along the lines of Pascal's wager. He argues if God is the Christian god he's covered because he believes. If there are many gods then presumably they will reward good works and Tradie is probably ok there too. If there is no god, he's lost nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet Cain was only exiled for killing his brother. One possible rationale is that way he serves the story as the source of the wickedness that prompted Noah's flood, but the writers of Genesis don't seem all that bothered with plot-holes! But it seems a bit strange Cain got off lightly.
We're going to come across other examples of un-brotherly behaviour between Esau and Jacob in chapters 26 and 27... in about 3 months time at this rate!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My take is that the priestly scribes who wrote Gen 4 - and the laymen it was written for - would have grown up in a culture where animal and vegetable sacrifices were both routine and low-quality sacrifices - of either sort - were not acceptable as offerings. We can get all that from leviticus.
Without its social context the passage can appear as ambiguous, but in its wider context it is not at all ambiguous. A Hebrew reading the story would know it wasn't about why the priests reject vegetable sacrifices (because they don't reject them!) but about why lower-quality offerings are rejected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Not really. It stems fromthe view that life and consciousness are physical processes. When the body or brain breaks life and consciousness cease, just as the current from a dynamo ceases if it breaks.the only reason one would shut themselves of to it[ie life after death] is bc there is something they hate about it..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm not a exppert on Levitical law either! but lev 16 describes grain sacrifice:
14 “‘These are the regulations for the grain offering: Aaron’s sons are to bring it before the Lord, in front of the altar. 15 The priest is to take a handful of the finest flour and some olive oil, together with all the incense on the grain offering, and burn the memorial[b] portion on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 16 Aaron and his sons shall eat the rest of it, but it is to be eaten without yeast in the sanctuary area; they are to eat it in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 17 It must not be baked with yeast; I have given it as their share of the food offerings presented to me. Like the sin offering[c] and the guilt offering, it is most holy. 18 Any male descendant of Aaron may eat it."
A special case ('annointing day') where the grain sacrifice is completely burned and not eaten is descibed next:
20 “This is the offering Aaron and his sons are to bring to the Lord on the day he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. 21 It must be prepared with oil on a griddle; bring it well-mixed and present the grain offering broken[g] in pieces as an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 22 The son who is to succeed him as anointed priest shall prepare it. It is the Lord’s perpetual share and is to be burned completely. 23 Every grain offering of a priest shall be burned completely; it must not be eaten.”
Note that the Hebrew Levites (priests) did not have land or animals of their own. They were supported by a tithe on the other tribes (Num 18:21) but no doubt the sacrifices were an added perk of the job!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Discipulus_Didicit
According to Leviticus 6, the priests ate the sacrifices so they might have been tempted to encourage sacrificing the good stuff!
lev 6:25 "The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the Lord in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
To hold this assumption as true would be like walking through life with a blindfold and would only serve to squash the potential of the holder.
It seems the choice is between rose-tinted spectacles and a blindfold!
The point is that if you can't see something it's not usually because one is wearing a blindfold - it's because it isn't there.
I'd say a blindfold is a good way to see God - a microcope or telescope won't help at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Which is not to EV's liking! i think he believes in a strictly independent, personal and direct relationship with God. I think you can read Matthew 18:20 as anti-church.
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Jesus was certainly anti-Priest, but that might have been because they were individully corrupt rather than through opposition to institutional religion.
Created:
Posted in:
Remember, the only difference between the two sacrifices is that one is of plant food and the other is of animal parts. The idea is that animal meat is simply better/more desirable than crops
V 3-4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.
There is an implication that Abel offered was of the best ('fat potions of the firstborn')but Cain's offering was not necessarily of the best ('some of'). That might be what displeased God rather than the difference between meat and veg.
It is also mildly interesting that the names Enoch,Methusalah and Lamech appear in both the Cain and Seth lineages.
Also Cain's worry that he might be killed is interesting - who is worried about? And where do all the wives come from?
It seems to me the writers tacitly acknowledge a belief that other gods and other people existed. However as the scribes were writing a patriotic 'history' of the Hebrew they studiously and deliberately avoided mentioning them!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Being pointless is a reason not to like something but not a reason to think it isn't so.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The Truth is not a story.
Yet a story can be true or false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes, in acts 14:3 we read "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust."
So it seems that Paul established churches with at least some organised formal structure before moving on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I believe that the church has a pretty good idea of how it was organized even early on.Even the first ecumenical council is depicted in The book of Acts chapter 15.
I am sure the church was organised early on... but we know hardly anything about the details, such as how its officers were selected or the form of worship practised.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So theologians have concluded! That being so, the apparent distiction between Jesus and god that a naive reader of the gospels might detect is disposed of by the invention of the concept of Trinity, which seems to have happened about 100 years after Jesus died and over-intellectual theorising became a profession.There is no reconciliation of a dilemma. There is One God. One object of worship. The One True God.
i don't want to give the impression i am talking about 'facts'. God and the divine Jesus are fictions so they have no real relationship. To give a metaphor of theology, in 'The Wrath of Khan' Khan recognises Chekhov, but Khan appeared in series 1 of TOS and Chekov was added to the cast in series 2. Star Trek 'theologians' have had great fun inventing ingenious explanations of that discrepancy within the frame work of the Star Trek universe, but the simple truth is that 'it's just a story'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Jesus was more a guru than any religious authority figure and was eventually murdered by them.
That is how J is presented in the gospels, but there are clear indications that some sort of organisation existed from quite early on with its 'HQ' in Jesusalem in which Peter and James (Jesus' brother) were senior figures. Converts to Christianity outside Israel also seem to have adopted a formal structure as 'Churches' rather than being independent individuals, but AFAIK nothing is known about how the early churches were actually organised in the first few years or decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think it may have physiological effects, such as lowering the level of adrenaline(?), which might be genuinely beneficial.
As I understand it, the objective of 'mindful meditation' is 'to be aware of awareness', ie not being aware of anything except awareness itself. If you find yourself starting to be aware of - or thinking about - anything in particular you should let that thought drift away and return to 'reflexive awareness'.
Absolute 'awareness of awareness' is impossible (at least to begin with) so Harris (and many other advocates of 'mindfulness') recommend 'breathing' as the subject of any thoughts you have, but that isn't the end point or goal; the ultimate ojective is being aware of awareness irself, not of being aware of what one is aware of in the naive sense. That way you come to appreciate the most important thing (the only important thing?) is awareness itself and all other considerations are distractions. One comes to learn peace and contentent resides in the fact one is aware - ie a conscious being - not in anything material or worldly.
What you are aware of in the world may be painful or ugly, but that you are aware of it at all is a precious gift.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't see how I could give you any answer a dictionary couldn't.
I'd hardly say Harris gave a dictionary definition there, Cas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't trust dictionaries. My guess is you didn't look up 'spiritual' before you started using it in sentences...I'm not bothered with what Dr Johnson or Mr Webster thinks 'spiritual' means - what do you mean when you say something is 'spiritual'?I don't see how I could give you any answer a dictionary couldn't.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
It seems to me the notion of trinity is only neccessary to reconcile the dilemma that Christianity is a "monotheism" with two objects of worship, with 'the holy ghost' adding to the confusion!
To this outsider it is interesting to trace how various attempts to reconcile that dimemma have waxed and waned in history, usually accompanied with deathson various scales.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I think so.Aren't even the scientists agnostic about it?
All I meant was that I don't have a view on the multi-verse. I'll argue passionately about, e.g. abiogenesis but on the question of multi-verses i'm happy to wait and see how it turns out.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I gave up on understanding 'trinity' a long time ago...I have no wish to re-open the 'Filioque' battles!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Energy cannot be dstroyed, but it can end up as low-grade disorganised heat.
Created: