Total posts: 905
-->
@n8nrgmi
What kind of answer are you looking for? If you start with a theistic bent, conferring to the biblical text a divine authority, then you can connect the decision to Ex 4:22 -- that the Egyptians killed all the Jewish boys and that Israel, the object of the Egyptians murderousness, is considered a "first born."
If you want to look at it sociologically and talk about first borns representing future and foundational thinking, that is one way to consider it.
If you are not a theist and see the text as, at best, mythologizing child slaughter then I'm not the one to answer you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
A quick note --
the verse is not saying "a day OR two" according to Jewish understanding. If a day would suffice, then saying "two" would be unnecessary. If 2 are required then listing one is wrong. The verse is clarifying what it means by "day" as in other cases, "day" means until the end of a given day. This text, therefore, means "a day that goes beyond the day, into a second" -- meaning a 24 hour period even if it straddles 2 calendar days. One commentator explains that the term for the second day is listed so as to eliminate any consideration of a third day even though elsewhere, textually, the reference is made to the third day being most painful so one would assume that the death on the third day would be directly because of the injury caused.
Created:
Posted in:
So creation ex nihilo makes perfect sense but somehow you draw the line at a boat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
For the Jew, Sunday is no big thing because the Jewish Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday night. If the job saves lives, the Jew would go, regardless of its being the Sabbath. If the job isn't about saving lives then an observant Jew would not go (and would not have signed a contract without making that clear). Jews, for many years, had to balance the potential for losing a job/income against their belief system.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
OK, but if you ever want to explore the way a religious Jew thinks and learn about it by asking questions, feel free to let me know.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Do you not think that's actually unhealthy?"
No more unhealthy than being born with brown hair. It is an aspect of my identity. I'm not sure what blackmail you refer to. My parents never asked my opinion about all sorts of parts of who I am. They inculcated me with all sorts of social norms, mores and ideals. My medical "journey" through vaccinations and such was never upon my consent, nor was compulsory education (state curriculum or otherwise). I didn't choose where I lived. Why should one part of my identity suddenly have to be based on my agreement and participation? Unless we see faith and belief in a religious code (as opposed to a political structure, a general societal-moral code or a scientific code) as external, we don't have to see education in it as blackmail.
Judaism is both a belief system and a part of genetic identity. I was born Jewish under Jewish law. I was also born an American citizen, under American law, and no one asked me at the age of 2 if I felt represented by my congresspeople or if the local judicial code was something I consented to.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"So am I correct in saying that you regard Judaism as a way of life, a choice more than a duty?"
It is a way of life (in addition to a religion) but no, it is no choice. It is an identity incumbent upon me by birth. Though there are Jews by choice, I am one by birth so I am who I am.
"I ask as you identified as Orthodox, implying severe devotion to the cause and I presumed you to hold Judaism as an ultimate truth of sorts."
Well, devotion to my understanding of the religious obligations. Others who follow other denominations might claim the same devotion but to a different understanding of the religion. I'm not sure what it would mean to hold a religion as an ultimate truth so I can't really answer that. Judaism does not say that all other religions are wrong but it does claim to have an understanding of what God wants of the world.
"This journey that you speak of, is it one that we ought to all take or rather one that you pity those who don't take it?"
Have I spoken of a journey? That is a term I have had trouble with so I'm surprised if I spoke of it as something we are to be on.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"If no human can access truth and there is no real destination or even a path, then how can your destination be Judaism and how can God's ethos be sufficiently described in the scriptures of Judaism?"
Who said that Judaism is my destination? It is my identity and belief system. The scriptures in Judaism describe actions and behaviors and record statements, rules and events, many of which hinge on God's preference. Does that describe an ethos?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"what do you feel led you further down the path to divine truth than the average human being?"
Am I further down that path? If I have a received religious understanding -- not one that I developed on my own, but that I subscribe to as a matter of theological dogma, does that push me down a path, or just put me in a category?
"Do you find the path to be linear or more web-like in nature?"
Calling it a path intimates that there is a goal, an end or at least a way of progressing. But if my understanding is that the nature of God cannot be understood, is there any path at all? Sure, certain esoteric and mystical branches of Judaism aim to "understand" the nature of God, but even they admit that they are trying to come terms with things on a level very separate from the "truth" which no human can access.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Name you want to be addressed with (including Mr/Mrs/Ms etc): rosends
Religious label I affiliate with: (modern) Orthodox Jew
Motive to engage in the interview: helping others understand Judaism
In your opinion, if God/s is/are real, is/are he/she/it/they good, evil, neutral or a complex combination? Yes, God is real and none of the above. These are human labels which we use to try and wrap out finite brains around an infinite concept.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a major problem (for all private schools). If we are relying on distance learning then that levels the playing field between public and private schools. No concerns about dress code, or bullying in the hallway or peeling paint -- distance learning ends up looking mostly the same regardless of who is running it. Teams aren't playing. Bands and clubs aren't meeting. Everything is done via email or virtual classroom. If so, then what draws any student to any private school?
In fact, this same question could be asked about the existence of sites like k12.com which claims to set up virtual public school for people in many states. Get the free education without the downside of your local school.
Schools have to reinvent their mission and distinguish themselves to show value and it isn't easy. Parochial schools have it slightly easier because they can claim that the infusion into secular classes of religious themes, if important to families, can't be replicated by the public school (Zoom) experience. Private schools have to bank on the supposedly superior quality of educators and curricula, and find other methods of enhancing their offerings.
Created:
Posted in:
I think online education stinks in 90% of the cases and for 90% of the students.
All numbers invented to make a rhetorical point. They aren't far off, though, based on non-scientific and purely anecdotal evidence. YMMV.
Created:
Andwering from the POV of Orthodox Judaism:
Yes and no. While there is some value, especially psychologically, and in some exigent circumstances, connecting via technology can satisfy a religious obligation, for the most part, attending a service over the phone or video does not qualify as having been among a quorum required for certain prayers and obligations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrant_Rex
Maybe, but it doesn't take 100 years to build a phone booth. It had to have the veneer of reasonability in size, scope and shape (at least IMHO).
Created:
Posted in:
So the ark doesn't make sense but you are OK with the creation ex nihilo and all the rest of the miracles claimed in the text?
Just imagine the ark was a TARDIS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Must read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum to find it's most ardent user."
Fantastic book -- possibly my favorite. Read it for the first time in college and a couple of times since then. I'm still sure I have missed major chunks of meaning and reference. But still, the best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Melcharaz brought in the Hebrew word used in the 10 Statements, which is a word with the root r-tz-ch. I believe his point was to negate the mistranslation in the OP, as the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" but instead, "thou shalt not murder." The r-tz-ch root is usually translated as "murder" as opposed to the root "h-r-g" which is a root used for a more generic "kill" (though it is also a technical root meaning "beheading with a sword as a form of capital punishment") and I'm sure you can recognize that in English, the word "kill" and the word "murder" carry very different meanings even though they both include causing the death of another. Thus, when other people are "killed" there is still a distinction to be made between those deaths and "murders" which are proscribed.
I was simply pointing out that, textually, there are a couple of cases where a "r-tz-ch" word is used for someone/some act that is actually somewhat sanctioned under the law. If you need any other help understanding, please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
The particulars as they apply to the word with the r-tz-ch root (vs the h-r-g root) are very complex. The general notion that r-tz-ch is an extra judicial killing while h-r-g is (a type of) judicial or approved killing is only true MOST of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The debate section is for formal debates. I try to engage in enlightening conversation. If you are not interested in that, then don't engage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who made me "tester"? No one. But anyone who engages in a conversation is allowed to ask clarifying questions and figure out the implications of another person's statement. A forum can be a wonderful place in which to exchange ideas and present positions which invite feedback and, often, demand clarification. If you say "all dogs go to heaven" can't I ask "even evil dogs who kill people"? Are you the arbiter of what constitutes a conversation here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Actually, yes it is. It is incumbent on anyone who affirms any claim to use logic in support of their claim. The claim, "I have not seen proof that God exists" is entirely different from "God does not exist.""
Then you and I understand the "typical" atheist differently. To my understanding, it is someone who has been given no reason to know that God exists - an absence of belief not a rejection (a weak atheism to some degree). This typical atheist can go through his entire life not thinking about God's existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Your ending question regarding the demise of earth implies that you've already satisfied your own question whether or not God depends on man. Why ask?"
Again, you are missing the point. I am asking Alpheus, based on what ALPHEUS WROTE. My question to Alpheus was whether he was of the belief that God's existence is contingent on man's, as can be concluded by what HE WROTE. That ending question is a logical conclusion which I am presenting to Alpheus to see if his thesis stays consistent. None of this is about what I think, just about testing what Alpheus wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm not sure what "typical' atheism is. In one sense, atheism doesn't have to be rooted in logic as it isn't incumbent on one who has not seen proof that God exists to use logic and prove THAT God does not exist. It is also important to say that "typical theists" (if such a thing exists) are rooted in dogmatic belief, not logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Maybe you misread what my point was. I am not advocating anything but asking about the claim that "if there was no life there would be no God."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alpheus
We are the living proof of God's existence since if there was no life there would be no God.
Does that mean that there was no God during the days of creation before life was created? Or how about before the days of creation? Was there no God then? Making God's existence contingent on man's existence seems risky. If the earth blows up tomorrow, then does God disappear?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The opening statement is an unequivocal truism...So can theists be honest and accept it.
Claiming it to be an unequivocal truism doesn't make it an unequivocal truism. It is a nice statement with a basis in truth, but is incomplete.
I would rather word it
"Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist to any degree that would convince a believer, just as some theists cannot prove that a God does exist in a way which would be considered proof to an atheist, while other theists see God's existence as a function of belief and see no need to attempt a proof"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree, keeping in mind a phrase I once heard
For Those Who Believe, No Proof is Necessary. For Those Who Don’t Believe, No Proof is Possible.
In truth, I don't agree with this completely -- I think the problem is deciding what level of proof is agreed upon and what constitutes proof.
Created:
Posted in:
The definition of terms establishes parameters and limits scope of a question. Without the agreement as to what words mean and refer to, there can be no conclusion drawn.
Once words are agreed upon, a good way to advance understanding is to test claims by extending and expanding them and asking about the intended consequences. By whittling away wrong ideas, we move towards agreed upon right ideas. Questions are like whittling away wood. Each moves closer to a point, but more immediately, forces one to turn the wood, and ask from another angle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is an astute and accurate observation -- the definition of terms and the scope of argument were never laid out properly nor agreed upon which led to people arguing at cross purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If you can't follow the logic of an actual discussion, then step back, stay quiet and let the adults talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
No, that would still allow for other possibilities. What if there was no butter? What if you asked in the wrong language or too quietly so the one who asked never heard you. What if the other person was still using the butter. According to you, not getting the butter at the exact time, in the exact place and in the exact way that you ask for it means that asking doesn't work. Your false binary is still a false binary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
So would you apply that same definitive statement to any request that doesn't generate exactly what you want when you want it in the way you want it?
If someone says "pass the butter" but has to wait 5 seconds, or has it placed an inch higher than he expected it, asking doesn't "work"?
OK, if that's how you see things...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
OK, Seth. Since you are having trouble understanding thisanalogy, I’ll recouch it. Remember, your claim was:
Whichin effect is the same as them making excuses for why prayer doesn't work andclaiming that testing prayer won't prove that it does work. If it doesn't workthen it doesn't work. There is no third option.
If prayer does not generate the exact result that you havedecided is the measure of “work” it must not work. There is, according to you,no other option. This is still a reductionist vision of prayer and a false binary.
Imagine if you ask your parent (not imaginary, I expect) for adollar. The parent gives you that dollar. The request “worked.” But sometimes,the parent says “no.” This doesn’t mean the request doesn’t “work” just that itdidn’t get the result you wanted. This is now a third option, an option whichyou said didn’t exist. Sometimes, you ask and the parent doesn’t say “yes” butputs the dollar under that pile of laundry to see if you actually clean yourroom. You never put the laundry away so you never find the dollar, but themoney was given to you in response to your request. The prayer worked, you didn’t.Sometimes, the parent who would otherwise give you the dollar wants to see howmuch you need the dollar and whether you will ask a second time, so noparticular answer is given, but the request is registered with the parent.
There are plenty of third (and more) possibilities and scenarios. Parentseverywhere know the power of “we’ll see”. This doesn’t mean that the request doesn’twork unless you demand that “work” means “I get exactly what I asked for in theform I recognize at the moment I ask.”
If that is your measure of “work” then a whole lot of stuff inthe world won’t “work” so you should abandon every request you make to otherpeople because you don't always get exactly what you ask for at that moment, so asking must not work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
If the tooth fairy supplies the $10 why does it come from a human. Your experiment proves the non existence of the tooth fairy and the analogy to your god does you no favours.
You have, again, missed the forest for the trees. The question isn't whether the object of adoration exists, but whether the experiment to test the efficacy of petition can only have two possibilities. You said there was no third option. I showed many other options in an analogous case. I could do the same in the case of prayer -- if the petitioner is "not worthy" then the prayer isn't answered but not because the prayer doesn't "work." If the answer is presented by isn't the one the scientist is looking for, he won't see it, but the prayer "worked." And on and on.
Don't get lost in the "tooth fairy" part, but in the variety of possible variables which create more than 2 possible readings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Taking part of a quote out of context to contradict an established fact is not allowed under the rules of this site. And for good reason; it is dishonest and deceptive.
Please show me where I took part of a quote out of context. Please provide the part and the entire, and explain the context. Remember, part of this is what I said, so I know the context. I also provided references to the posts involved to make it easier for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
And maybe your method of reasoning revolves around constructing hypotheticals and multiple interpretations in order to deceptively avoid any given argument and never giving a direct argument on any given topic.Just maybe?
And maybe arguments are more complex than you want them to be and intelligent people don't conflate, simplify and reduce, but explore a variety of possibilities. This isn't called deception. It is called thinking.
Just maybe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You did not refer to any specific consensus whatsoever.
Sure I did -- I responded to a claim about the posters and limited my response (as you quoted) to "on this thread" (post 215, responding to 213). The posting of a survey (which, as noted, does not present any consensus) does not make a consensus "of the posters." Are you now claiming that I did not respond to that specific claim? Or that there IS a consensus of the posters? Or that a study which came to a conclusion presents a consensus of the general population?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
No, the tooth fairy's existence and the effectiveness of any appeal to the tooth fairy can't be disproven by that experiment. Thank you for appreciating the subtleties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Which in effect is the same as them making excuses for why prayer doesn't work and claiming that testing prayer won't prove that it does work. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. There is no third option.
Sure there is, and saying that there isn't creates a false binary. You are also creating a false equivalence which you justify with the phrase "in effect". However, that is an interpretive conclusion that you are drawing, not a scientific conclusion that is proven.
Explaining why a prayer did not have the effect that you were looking for in the exact way you were looking for it is not the same as "making excuses why prayer doesn't work." If my child loses a tooth and puts it under the pillow for the tooth fairy, but there isn't a 10 dollar bill the next morning doesn't mean that her faith was misplaced. There might be a bicycle outside that she will discover at another time. Maybe she was a brat yesterday and the tooth fairy decided to teach her a different lesson. Maybe she looked in the wrong spot and there is a 10 dollar bill there. There are plenty of other scenarios. Simply deciding that this means that her request is absolutely ineffective is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
which I pointed out that I had not done and that there is a"consensus of the posters is that prayer doesn't work"I really think you are getting a bit tangled up. You actually said:A consensus would indicate a general agreement and I have not seen one of those on this thread.To which I pointed to the survey that was quoted.
Try to follow along -- the claim was that there was a "consensus of posters" not a consensus of anyone else or anywhere else. I said I have not seen one of those "on this thread" as the posters do not all have a general agreement. Pointing to a survey of other people in other contexts is not relevant to what was being said about this thread. No doubt you will claim that "on this thread" relates to a survey you put up which is now part of the thread, but, if you were watching, my comment was about "the posters" and since I and others don't agree, there is no consensus of the posters. Stay focused.
Whichever way one chooses to define prayer or do a thesis on the different types of prayer:Prayer does not work.
Not only does that remain unproven regarding petitionary prayer, it has been shown to be false when it refers to other modes of prayer.
Therefore prayer is misleading and dangerous because it gives some people the false hope of some sort of miracle cure in the offing.
Now you are back to speaking only of petitionary prayer and jumping to the conclusion of what has not been proven. It really isn't that difficult:
1. Prayer has a variety of goals and forms
2. One goal is petition.
3. Other goals are praise or thanks
4. As the goal of "thanks" is to "say thanks" then just saying thanks means that the prayer accomplished its goal and works to achieve that aim. Same for praise.
5. Intercessory prayer can not be proven as effective or not effective (working or not working) so appealing to it or not is a function of faith, or non-faith.
Separate
1. Posters here are of a variety of opinions regarding prayer, so there is no consensus "of the posters" that prayer does not work.
2. Outside surveys are therefore not relevant to a claim made about posters here, regardless of their conclusions.
3. An outside survey with a proper sample could not conclude as a consensus that prayer does not work because a microcosm of the world population would have to include a chunk of those who subscribe to religion and whose faith tells them that prayer does work.
4. Any outside survey that reached a consensus that prayer does not work would have to have a limited-scope sample and thus not be representative of the overall population.
5. The outside study conducted tried to impose a scientific approach to quantifying the efficacy of prayer, but as has been shown, that attempt is a fool's errand at best. Its conclusions would not present a general consensus of any of those who use prayer (the ones studied) because they USE PRAYER so they must not agree that it does not work. So whom would that be a consensus of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Anything that cannot be proven without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't disagree but the claim was that
"You all make excuses for why prayers aren't answered"
which I pointed out that I had not done and that there is a
"consensus of the posters is that prayer doesn't work"
which there isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
I'm a religionist and I did no such thing. I concluded that prayer's efficacy can't be measured, proven or disproven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I don't think you meant to tag me in post #222 as I never said what you quoted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
You see what you are looking for, then, and miss the rest of it. Inventing a phantom consensus based on selective viewing isn't helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
I feel it might be prudent if you reread my posts (among others) again. Questions about quantifying "answers" and attempting to measure efficacy of a small subtype of prayer still abound. As the terms have yet to be agreed upon, many posters might not appreciate being characterized as making excuses for anything. I know I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Did you read what I was responding to?
The statement was that there was a "consensus of the posters." And you are now saying that there is a general agreement "in the form of a correctly quoted comprehensive survey further back in this thread"?
Please, pay attention. The claim wasn't about anything but the posters on this thread. As I am one of the posters and don't agree, and have been reading what others say, I don't see a general agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
A consensus would indicate a general agreement and I have not seen one of those on this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Would ten dead puppies mean "does not appear an effective method of affecting real world outcomes" is a reasonable conclusion?
Not to someone who is familiar with religious notions of prayer. In each system, there could be plenty of variables which explain why the prayer could not change real world outcomes. That doesn't reflect on the efficacy of prayer within the system, just this particular iteration of it.
Could we not rule this out via pre-experiment research? If they don't do intercessory prayer then why would I include them in my intercessory prayer experiment?
Who says they don't do intercessory prayer? They just do it in a different way (I wrote "There is nothing in Judaism which is purely petitionary"). So once you include the other elements of prayer, you are introducing the other limitations and expectations. Trying to judge, then, only the intercessory part is flawed.
I don't need to know the variables of the religious system: the adherents do. Why would the observer need to know? Again, super simple experiment: have religious kids pray for a puppy not to die under controlled circumstances in which it is OTHERWISE SURE the puppy would die. If the puppy isn't dead, then prayer seems effective. Why does the observer need to know anything about Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses to determine that the puppy is alive?
Sure, you don't need to, but how can you know that the prayer is done properly within the context of each religion then? The person you chose doesn't do it right, or the thing you want prayed for isn't within the scope of that religion's vision of prayer, or the result was actually the lengenthing of the lifespan by a small amount. The experiment you devise is doomed to be inconclusive. Feel free to go ahead with it, but don't expect the (lack of) results to be useful for anyone but you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How is asking five people to pray to five different deities for a single specified outcome that's outside the natural order of events, seeing that the outcome happened, not testing intercessory prayer? If we get an positive result, then we can start testing specific religions. What am I missing?
The moment you ask for the individuals to invoke the concept of prayer within each of those religious systems, you have to account for the entire context of religious prayer. Determining success by measuring against a standard ("change") which is not part of those 5 systems gives you a result which is useless.
Let's take an actual case:
You have your puppy situation and ask a Jew to pray. You have immediately called forth the Jewish concept of prayer. There is nothing in Judaism which is purely petitionary so what you are asking for is already flawed.
You have to look at all the variables about the person, the language of the prayer and the Jewish rules regarding "what we are allowed to ask for". Plus, you have to consider the Jewish concept of "no is an answer that signals success of prayer."
You can't start in a system but judge ignoring the variables of that system.
If I have 10 religions, I have to balance 10 different sets of variables. Getting a dead puppy after 10 sets of prayers might not reflect at all on some notion of generic prayer because none of the actual prayer was generic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
But it's not MY demand of no one in particular: the Muslim is praying to his god, the Chrisitan to his god, the Hindu to his god, etc.... it's specific to the adherents.
So then you aren't testing prayer. You want to test Muslim prayer (or Christian prayer) and all the other stuff is automatically included.
I wonder if we can test "does surgery work" simply by throwing a knife at no one in particular and seeing if he lives. (joking, but the image is fun)
Created: