Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
you wrote, "What kind of Jew are
you? What do you subscribe to?"
I am an orthodox Jew
you wrote, ""Some
Jews"...? You are already on your way to your first round of debate."
But that isn’t debatable.
It is a fact that not all Jews feel bound by what others claim is religious
Jewish law.
you wrote, "That is, lack of
scriptural & authoritative foundation for Hijab in any of the abrahamic
faiths. "
But since not all Jews
agree that the “authority” is the authority, some Jews would say that the rule
isn’t in the religion.
you wrote, "I have the sneaking
feelings that this topic will turn into an argument about authority, & not
an argument about Hijab. Since I'm trying to avoid this, we would have to agree
on 'authority' first. The Torah, the Talmud & the various commentaries. We
can't have "feelings". "
Some Jews see none of
these as an authority in the creation of the religion – some see the religion
as a human construct inspired by the Torah text but codified by men, and most
of those people would say that modest clothing and/or hair covering are not
found in the religion. This isn’t about feelings, but about understanding of
how religion exists and develops. A reform Jew, who claims that his understanding
of Judaism is valid as a religion, would say that there is no mention in his
code of any laws or texts of clothing, and any innovation by some
other person whom he does not see as an authority is useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Thanks for the clarification. In your post, you wrote,
Modest covering is indeed prescribed in all Abrahamic faiths. Modest = chaste & decent clothing, to avoid attracting sexual attention. Not necessarily a specific type, rather it's about not exposing most of the body, including the hair.
I can't speak about all Abrahamic faiths, but I can say that in Judaism, some Jews understand that there are rules governing dress including, for some people, some of the time, an obligation to cover the hair. All those "some" statements undermine any more general claim. If that's the case across other religions, then the claim is working backwards -- finding a common rule and then asserting the common thread as a function of membership in the Abrahamic group. That's a safe claim because it is self evident. So it would seem that your topic is more precisely
"In all Abrahamic faiths, there are certain denominations which understand religious authority to have devised rules regarding covering the body and in certain cases, this includes covering hair, for a variety of reasons."
This ends up being a report (substantiated by the various codes of law, easily quotable), not a topic for debate (at least as it relates to Judaism) so I'm still not sure what the topic of the debate would be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I'm still trying to understand. One cannot debate if one is speaking at cross purposes because grounds are not common. You wrote, " A religious duty is an act sanctioned by scripture &/or religious authority" but who decides what religious authority is binding? And you also wrote that " The 'Hijab' is modest covering, which includes head covering" - are you saying that there is an obligation for any form of "modest covering" in any Abrahamic religion (who defines what is modest?) or that there is an obligation of a specific type/piece? Is everyone required to include head covering?
I could present the argument that everyone is required to X because the law of ?????? says so, and the law of ?????? is binding on everyone because that law says so. But that isn't really a persuasive argument because someone outside of ?????? would deny a basic premise -- the authority of that system and its laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
May I ask a question?
One of the items you list is "The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions" and I'm not sure on what basis you can even make that claim. How would you define "religious duty" and "abrahamic religions" and on the basis of what would you make that claim?
Created:
Assuming that the reference to god is going to stay part of the pledge, I think that it is important to note that the pledge is written and recited in English. The use of an Arabic word (or any language's version of any word in the pledge) is unnecessary. And that's if I (naively?) assume that the use of this particular Arabic word is an innocent one, referring to the same generalized god concept and not, by dint of its use in Islam, to a specific reference to one local version of that concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Socialized children do not exist without benefit of a socializing force in their lives. A child wouldn't become verbal without a language guide. But a child born into an ethnic identity has that identity even before he knows it, and even if he doesn't like it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm in the mountains for a few days. If you feel like you want to man up and deal with the facts that I presented, the answers I have given and the questions I have asked you, feel free. If all you want to do is to continue hiding, evading, dodging and running, repeating the same ignornace, then feel free, but I can't help you if you don't know how to read the answers already given. I'll move on to help people who actually care to learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Are you expecting me to go through the gospel quotes? That's not going to happen. I went through the tanach ones already, all of them, one at a time. When do you plan on responding to what I said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
When I took them literally? Wasn't your whole point that I needed to prove the validity of my not taking them literally. Please clarify.
Also, just because you don't understand my answers doesn't mean they aren't answers. It just shows your ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You quote Ezekiel 7:2 and Isaiah 11:12 and have them with 2 different translations and yet the Hebrew for the two phrases is identical. So I guess you like interpretations when they suit you. You aren't very good at this, are you?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
so because other people say something to be the case, you hop right on the bandwagon and use it as evidence? If a Raelian said that his God was the same as the Christian God would you automatically accept it as fact? Are you always driven by whatever anyone claims in a text? The fact is, Judaism and Christianity don't agree on the essential characteristics of God and Judaism and Islam don't agree on the activities of God. But if you are happy reading some quotes and letting that substitute for your own thinking then party on, Garth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
funny thing -- not only did I go through the quotes and explained, but if you want to stick to "what the bible says, the bible means" literalism, then the bible never says that the world has corners, only that the land does. How can you defend a connotative understanding of the word a-r-tz (land) and expect only a literal one for k-n-f?
You are all confused. Sorry for making you look so foolish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You keep thinking I have run away because I gave you the wrong citation in the answer that I gave. You asked what the meaning of the Hebrew word was in those situations, and I pointed to the Targum Yerushalmi but I accidentally called it the Targum Yonatan, so that must have confused you. But now that I have clarified, just go back to message 45 and see the answer to your question.
BUT, if that's not enough, then that Targum Yonatan (yes, I mean Yonatan this time) on Isaiah 11:12 explains it as
תרגום יונתן על ישעיהו י״א:י״בוְיִזְקוֹף אָת לְעַמְמַיָא וְיַכְנֵישׁ מְבַדְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָלוּת יְהוּדָה יְקָרֵב מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחֵי אַרְעָא
and that is a really interesting explanation, right? By the way -- Isaiah 41:9 doesn't use the k-n-f root at all! It uses the q-tz-h root which Onkelos has as מִזַרְעִית and Klein has as both "end" and "extremity." No one has "corner" so your translation is totally wrong (unless the translator was using some sort of metaphor).
The Targum Onkelos on Iyov 43 uses the word סְיָפֵי so that should clear that up for you also, right? Especially when you couple it with אַרְעָא which, as you know, means "land" not "world".
Stop running away just because you don't understand something.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No to "jehova"
that is an Anglicization of a mispronunciation.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I thought their god was referred to as YHWH and didn't the god of Moses call himself as "I AM"?
The four English consonants might be those, but might not be. Either way, Jews don't refer to God by four English letters. Also, God never referred to himself as "I AM". The word means "I will be".
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
There is a third option. neither of the two religions are perfect and both have faulty recollections of what occurred. It does not need to be an either/ or. This does need to mean that both of these religions do not have some truth about what happened.
if an essential theological point is the accurate transmission of the text from divine to man, then it isn't an issue of recollection.
Then surely - both gods are identical until then - when the deviation takes place.
So you are saying that at that moment, a new God is created? I guess that that's a different approach, but it means the same thing -- the God worshipped by each is distinct.
After all, if Jews say "my god made the world". And Muslims say "my god made the world". And if both are correct - then surely there must a connection?
In this case, where the two actions are not mutually exclusive, there need not be two actors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey there skippy!
I guess your limited attention span made it impossible for you to read that I answered this set of reruns already, twice. That's really sad. I did see that you wrote this, claiming that I am "using insidious Hebrew apologetics and hermeneutics".
So if you are calling the use of the original Hebrew "insidious" and have a problem with hermeneutics then you have serious problems with understanding text. I'll just add that to the list. This would also explain why you keep avoiding the content of my responses. You must be getting triggered by all the facts and real information I provide.
Seriously, feel better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Oh look, another set of reruns! I know that you find comfort in the familiar and resist anything new so you like reposting the same mistakes. That's OK. With time and therapy, maybe you will broaden your world a little. Maybe.
Repeatedly quoting your translations of 3 Hebrew verses, not taking into account the actual Hebrew words is not very useful. Could you at least provide the Aramaic? I can if you would like me to. Anyhoo, let me know; I have a little time free and would be willing to school you some more in basic biblical ideas if you would like. :) tata!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Bro D -- nice to see you. I was worried that with your busy schedule you would not have a chance to review what I wrote and consider it.
I was right!
You wrote
-----------------
"1. You state that what a Jew reads directly as the normal definition of the word “corner,” as being a 90 degree angle, is not what is really proposed in an insidious Jewish apologetic spin! LOL!
2. You state that the word “corner” in insidious Hebrew apologetics has a "sense of being an actual corner,” but not in an absolute way! LOL!
3. You state that the word “corner” can have “other ideas” of its meaning, therefore again, not in an absolute way! LOL!"
--------------------
Item the first (or "A"): I said that the text doesn't use the word "corner" because it is in Hebrew and the Hebrew word has a variety of meanings. You must have missed that.
Second, or "B": As words often have both connotations and denotations, and contextual meanings which are variable, there is not always an absolute meaning of a word. For example, you used the word "state". Did you mean "nation state" or "condition" or "express in speech or writing"? Good thing we have context to help determine meaning!
3. In English, the word "corner" has a bunch of meanings. I'll provide just the noun meanings from one source:
noun
- 1.a place or angle where two or more sides or edges meet."Jan sat at one corner of the table"
- 2.a part, region, or area, especially one regarded as secluded or remote."they descended on the college from all corners of the world"
Glad that I could help you learn a little basic info about languages. If you need more help, ask a grown up to ask me!
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Don't worry -- I'm here to fix your ignorance. I care...I truly and deeply care and want you to become better so that you can leave the house wearing your big boy pants and without being ashamed of who you are and everything you don't know.
You wrote:
" now you insidiously propose that the Gods in question are not the same?"
I'll type slowly and use small words because I want you to be able to follow along and you might not have access to an aide who can help you with the tough parts. There are two components -- the God idea and the God character. If there are two accounts of the behavior, but both accounts are attributed to a character which has a singular set of characteristics, then there must be two separate parallel characters -- no one singular character can do two mutually exclusive actions. Islam claims that God, as a particular character, did certain things and Judaism claims that God did others things which are exclusive of what Islam claims God did (I provided an example of this, but I guess you had to go back to your room before you got to read it in the common area). But theologically (that's a big word, I know, but I'll wait while you look it up) the ideas behind the nature of God are the same in the 2 religions. Therefore, they must be pointing to 2 distinct characters but one idea of that character, unless you say that one entire account and the religion that follows it is wrong.
If two constructs disagree on the nature and characteristics of the divine figure, but attribute all the same actions to that figure, then they don't share an idea but have an actual figure in common. This is pretty basic stuff. I'm sure your cardboard "I can read, level 2" books can help you understand.
Your next bit of froth was an attempt to prove that three characters are the same because three texts all use the same language to describe that figure. Had you been paying attention, you would understand how irrelevant that is. I can attribute a characteristic to three different characters, or even an action and that doesn't make them all identical if I ALSO attribute something to only one of them. You quoted an idea in common. My cat and my dog can both be said to have 4 legs, but that's not where descriptions end, only where they start. I'm trying to reference animals because I sense that that is the limit of your daily interactions.
Keep on being adorable and don't forget to take your meds!
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
If Judaism teaches that the binding was of Isaac and the accepted idea in Islam is that God asked for Ishmael to be sacrificed, and only one of those claims is true of a particular God, as evidenced by the divine text then (if each religion says that its divine tradition is perfect) the two actors must be exclusive of each other. The other understanding is that one religion is just completely wrong which undercuts the entire idea of God's giving over a truth.
Created:
the two religions share a God concept but have different actual Gods in that each claims that the God did something that the other did not do, so they cannot be the same.
If I say "God did this" and you say "God did that, NOT this" and we share the idea that God is perfect and transmitted what he did to us, then there must be two Gods with identical characteristics who did different things.
Judaism and Christianity share a God character but not a God concept because the attributes are different but the character is ostensibly the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You're embarrassing yourself. I mean, that's a nice shtick, sure, but you must have missed where I pointed out that the root used in the 3 examples you cited is not the root for "corner" but a word that has the sense of "corner" along with other ideas. Did you miss my mention of p-a-h and q-r-n?
If your entire argument is based on the English translations (I note that you ignored the T"Y I quoted) then say so. If your entire position is a rejection of all that is Jewish thought, then just say so. I mean, we know what that would mean, but shhhhhhhh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You ask about a "Hebrew pocket Guide" and that's a great question! We actually have a few (and many pockets I guess). One which is very useful is the Targum Yonatan which states very clearly,
תרגום ירושלמי, במדבר ט״ו:ל״חוְיַעַבְדוּן לְהוֹן צִיצִין עַל צְנָפַת דְגוֹלַתְהוֹן לְדָרֵיהוֹן וְיִתְּנוּן עַל צִיצִין דְגוֹלַתְהוֹן שְׁזִיר דְתִכְלָא:
So when I glibly used the word "corner" in my initial response, I was speaking sloppily and for that, I apologize. I hope that the Hebrew pocket guide which I provided answers your question about the meaning of the specific root that was chosen (as opposed to the q-r-n and p-a-h roots).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The term in Hebrew is "arba kanfot" which literally means "4 wings" (compare with "kanfei nesharim" the wings of eagles), but the k-n-f root also means "utmost parts" or "edges" (as in "kanfei bigdeihem" the edges of their clothing). So the 4 "edges" could refer to the farthest points in 4 cardinal directions, or the for corners of a 2D representation of the 3D globe. The text doesn't use q-r-n or p-a-h which are words that mean similar things (corner and edge) and it is the choice of a word (and the non-choice of other words) which allows the text to be understood to be pointing to one thing or not another. The text, by not using a word that clearly means "corner" is indicating that it is not to be understood simply as "corner".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I'm glad you are ok. You took a while in answering so I was beginning to worry about you. I wonder if you think that the text is always literal. I wonder if you think that understanding any of the text to be anything other than literal is "rewriting". Literally speaking, the text never says that the world has 4 corners. Corner in "k-r-n" but the text in question uses the root k-n-f, a totally different word -- this is basic Hebrew. You DO know Hebrew, don't you? That's the language that the text was written in.
Wait, are you recommending relying on someone's rewriting of the text into another language? Why are you REWRITING that as "corner" when the word doesn't mean "corner"? You are asking me to defend something which isn't actually what the text says.
Why do you keep running away from the truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey, just to clarify -- (and don't think I have forgotten about your claim that your ass is a metaphor when it is decidedly not)
What do you think I have rewritten? All i have done is referred to texts which you don't know. How has that rewritten what any other text includes?
Just curious, because if you are moving in the direction which i guess you are (that the only valid appraoch is a literal approach) then you have a particular presentation of all of Judaism as wrong and problematic and that makes you an anti-Semite. Could you please just confirm that you are an anti-Semite, and one who doesn't appreciate his own ass?
Thanks ever so much!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I disagree. I firmly believe that your ass is literal! How dare you deny the actual creation of your body by God!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Unbelievable!
You former wife believed that there are 10 Flat Earths? I'm glad she is no longer your wife because that kind of thinking leads to bad, bad ends.
But the other picture is really cute and clearly to scale! Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Remember BroD, I am speaking as a Jew, using an understanding of "Inspired word of" God to include things you don't think count.
Speaking from that perspective, try reading some of the info here:
Created:
Posted in:
The bible does refer to the "four corners" of the world which some see as a reference to a flat earth. The phrase, though, is metaphorical and refers to the human visualization of the world, not of the world, itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
So just to be clear, are you saying god is not all-loving? And all-powerful? And all-knowing? Or are you saying that people misunderstand what "loving means". Or all powerful means? Or all-knowing means?Man is defined in this context as an human. Whether he is dead or not changes nothing.Do you deny that all humans are mortal? Are there people who do not die?Are you opposed to logic?
I am saying that there is nothing that says God is all loving, so claiming it as a premise is a flaw.
I am saying that the idea of being loving at all is undefined so the premise cannot be used to draw clear conclusions.
I am saying that if man is dead then he is no longer mortal as he cannot die so that syllogism, predicated on that definition fails.
If you can't allow for precision of language then you will not be able to draw logical conclusions.
Why, by the way, do you ask if I am "opposed" to logic if my point was not about being opposed to logic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I mean it in the Genesis 2:17 sense. “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Sound reasonably clear. Thing is neither of them did die " that day" if the BIBLE is to be believed? Adam we are told in the bible lived to nearly 1000 years!
But that's not what the Hebrew means. There is a Hebrew/biblical phrase for "on that specific day" (b'etzem hayom hazeh) and there is a phrase for "shall be subject to a death penalty" (mot tamut (or mot yumat)). The text is precise. The moment they ate, they were subject to a death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
The premises are not proper.
1. There is no statement that God is "all-loving"
2. Being all-knowing and allowing other beings freedom of choice do not contradict
3. Being all powerful does not mean doing whatever you think should be done
The problem is often not one of premises leading to logical conclusions, but a lack of agreed upon definitions of terms and expectations.
A child is taken to a doctor who gives the child a shot. The child yells at the parent "you don't love me because you let him hurt me."
If the child believed that the parent is "all loving" in a sense that the parent would never let any harm befall the child, can the child disprove the existence of the parent based on the pain of the shot?
If the parent lets the child try to ride a bike without any instruction or preparation, knowing that the child will fall, and the child falls, does this deny the parent's foreknowledge?
Socrates is a man
all men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
but define "man" first. If "man" is related to the presence of genitalia, DNA or something else, then is a dead man a man? The google dictionary has "an adult male human being" which says nothing about being animated. If so, that man who has already died is no longer mortal but is still a man so all men are not mortal. Precision in language is vital. So far, all living humans of either gender who have been born prior to 1905 have died in a biological sense. If Socrates was born before 1905, then he has died in a biological sense.
Created:
this question is not new -- why is there suffering? How can one believe in or have faith in a God who allows these things to happen?
But for some, these events actually strengthen faith.
If you want a full playing out of both sides of the argument, I recommend watching a wonderful movie called "The Quarrel" -- here is a vimeo link to it (with German subtitles? Irony...)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Matthew_18
And naturally, one is aware of the complexity of language and its subtleties and realizes errors and misunderstandings when they arise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Matthew_18
If one were more definite and more definitive in one's faith, we would not be witness to so many words of incertitude.
If one were more aware of the content of a discussion, we would have fewer mistakenly drawn conclusions and mischaracterizations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
We cannot say he is good or evil, just or unjust. We are simply not smart enough to say he's a good guy or a bad guy. Why then worship a question mark about whom nothing can be definitively known?
Maybe so. And maybe faith is that we worship him anyway because we attribute all of existence to him even without understanding his nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
But that judgment of "an enormous amount of suffering in the world is destructive suffering. It creates senseless death and pain that never yields any constructive result" is an expression of our human assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Judaism does not call God "omnibenevolent" without a large asterisk -- that we can't always know the larger plan within which God's behavior is benevolent. The infant can't understand why the shot administered by the doctor was actually a "good" thing. The infant only feels the pain and thinks the doctor is evil. God is a parent, and sometimes a parent spanks a child. God is a boss who makes demands and punishes a lack of obedience. His roles are complex and multi-faceted so we don't reduce things to a single dimension and then measure God against what WE think that role should entail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A religion is supposed to be an idea, a theory, a theological thesis that is believed by its adherents.
That is certainly one aspect to religion though not the only one. Judaism as a religion is that plus a set of rules governing every aspect of life and behavior, from birth to death. This includes demands of belief and of action.
You should not be born and raised as anything other than smart and considerate, you should get to make your own mind up about which god is real or fake and which set of values you feel most aligns with you.
That is not a truth in Judaism - as a function of theological supremacy. It might be your opinion about how a religion should be, but its power stops there. So it has no impact on the claim that Judaism is "more of a tradition and culture thing for their ethnicity than a theological religion"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
First, many Jews, as I stated, did lose their faith after 1945 so your claim "Surely it is Jews, as opposed to predominantly Christians, who truly should have lost their faith after what occurred there." should account for the truth that many Jews DID lose that faith.
As a side note, the founders of Israel were mostly not religious - they saw their religion as an ethnicity, but they were balanced by a respect for religion in a faith-based way. Some of the really religious groups didn't accept the validity of the state of Israel at all.
But there still was and is a chunk of Judaism which sees faith and God as central - the religion is as theological as can be so I'm still not sure what you mean when you say that "it's more of a tradition and culture thing for their ethnicity than a theological religion".
An attack on the religion is like an attack on any other subgroup -- if it singles out a group based on identity and membership, then it is labeled as what it is. If you feel a label is wrong, then use a proper label.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
you wrote,
The reason they didn't is that they need God to be true and it's more of a tradition and culture thing for their ethnicity than a theological religion.
I'm not sure exactly what that means. Many Jews DID lose their faith after the Holocaust (for an interesting discussion of that, watch the movie, "The Quarrel" -- here with subtitles and grainy video). What do you mean by the religion not as a theological one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
It is a "well known" characteristic within that particular belief system and you are asking your question focused on the contradiction, then, within that particular belief system. Just trying to get a sense of the parameters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The question is why God allowed this to happen. The answer is"wow, this exposes the contradiction within Christianity, guess God is a hoax".
Just so I understand, your sense of this as a contradiction is because you presuppose the label of "omnibenevolent" as a descriptor of God, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Attacking the site is warranted because it is amateur, cheap and radical and deserves absolutely no consideration
Then you haven't looked at the site. It makes a very convincing point about drawing conclusions from spurious correlations. If you can't see that then that's a problem you will have assimilating any data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
First, the tyler site is useful to show that correlation has nothing to do with causation. Attacking the site without understanding its use does not help.
If you still want to hang your hat on a test which does not have any practical value and on the genralizing of results, then so be it. The apparent correlation doesn't always (or necessarily) apply in any specific case, it isn't fruitful in predicting behaviors and there are no useful conclusions to draw from it. Therefore your initial question "why" is not arguable.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem is that statistics can be used to support a variety of hypotheses but statistics don't explain causality (and often, the positive correlation between statistics is coincidental).
A claim that "theists have lower IQs" is, first, incredibly reductionist. Next, it posits a truth based on a limited sample and the assumption that the IQ test is an objective arbiter of anything other than the efficacy of the IQ test. The IQ test asks for certain types of demonstration of "thinking" but not types that really capture a full sense of intelligence.
What if we started with a population, and, as any proper distribution would dictate, there are people with lower IQs. Those people, hoping to make sense of a difficult to understand world see religion as an anchor. The choice to be a theist is then not something that limits IQ but is a function of that lower IQ. The topic should then be "why do people with lower IQs choose to be theists?" and it would be a very different thread.
Or maybe, being a theist simply instructs people to think differently about the world and make decisions in a way which does not accord with the thinking required to score higher on an IQ test.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A baby lacks the vocabulary to discuss immunology with a doctor. This does not mean that the doctor has no over arching plan which justifies inflicting pain on the baby.
Both answers are predicated on faith. Neither can be proven. If that is a required element of the conversation then this will go no where. This is why I find the notion of "debating" about religious points to be fruitless as the baseline positions are too different.
Created: