sorry, are you more of a these kind of guy, I'm adaptable

BG, do you ever worry that such particular analysis of the words in a passage like this might not be possible given that its translated from another language? I don't know if you speak any other languages, but translation is always a process of trying to approximate the best one can and making choices that respect what you see as the meaning. This was done by humans... can we really read that much into the word choice?

When I was working in Hawaii building a golf course, the cultural anthropologist on the job and I became friendly. He worked on the translation committe working on the book of Ephesians for the NASB. He said there were a bunch of people working on just that one book, and that they had oversight committees etc.

I've read a tiny bit about the language of the New Testament, being a form of Greek common to the average street person etc., but I am no way qualified to make any declaration from personal knowledge of the validity of what many thousands of learned men have said that the translation into english is.

But I am comfortable with the knowledge that with all the efforts to find the most accurate translations, with all the efforts in textual criticism both higher and lower, I think that the words I read are as close to the original intent and meaning as is possible between two languages.

Really interesting story about how the English Bible came into being, and how right as their was the Tyndales and others trying to translate the Latin, with very poor success, the muslims invaded Constantinople, causing a max influx of people to coem to Europe who had Greek Bibles with much stronger accuracy, and that the Greek languages translates into English so much smoother and with greater accuracy.

More time has only stengthened that accuracy

Oh dear. This is farcical.

Let's recap. I say there are people for whom repentance is impossible and you say " they [could] make a calculated decision about their actions without feeling right or wrong?" and ask to be saved

Ephesians 2:9 actual supports my argument that an action without genuine intent is worthless. I'm not even going to bother to spell it out to you. Simply go to any Bible study group of your choosing online and let your fellow Christians spell it out for you

Better still lets ask Jesus if he values repentance

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Luke 13 1:5

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Luke 15:7
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Luke 15:10
In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Mark 1:15
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Matthew 11:20
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.

or Peter perhaps

Acts 3:19

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out

etc etc etc





You know what? I think you're getting it

The most favorite part of my day:


You have chosen to ignore all posts from: KramitDaToad.

· View this post
· Un-ignore KramitDaToad

I guess farcical was the word of the day on some internet site? Seems to be popping up alot around here...


And I would love to debate what the Bible means regarding anything you want.

Maybe there's a remote chance you can get past your confusion about what it says.

Maybe a good starting point is for you to explain why you have a grasp of what 'true intent' means.

In the mean time, I will grant you that I agree that the Bible has many verses that says a person must repent.
Now what does repentance mean? Can you repent of the sin of stealing, never ever steal again, and not have repented because you don't feel that stealing is wrong? Or can you repent, feel that stealing is really wrong, repent again, then steal something 5 years later? Which is more likely to qualify as repentance?

Don't look now but that's actually what we are doing and quite frankly it's not going that good for you



Now rewind back through the argument...


WTF? Try saying that again in English.





Although it looks like you are going to try and redefine the meaning of repent. If that's the case, don't bother. Let's just leave it at game set and match to the small green jedi.

If I'm the small green Jedi...then YES!




If not then I would ask you to consider that IF you are right, nothing changes for me, but IIIIFFFF you are wrong, you are going to suffer forever in hell, or Sheol in the Hebrew, unless you just please accept Jesus cause He died for your sins...Not for the foolish belief that we used to be monkeys...

I read 7 pages of crap to get to Pascal's Wager? I'm disappointed.

Pascal's Wager is nothing to quickly dismiss.

you're right, quick dismissal is too good for it. it's something to laugh at and mock.

Look at the post BG is responding to.

Taken in context, it shows you the reasons we love him to bits, despite his penchant for being wrong

...



Like shooting fish in a barrel

Yea.. I was kind of shaking my head there.

I knew you would get it. you brits have a good sense of humor.

I mean you eat spotted dick for crying out loud...

Of course Pascal's wager does have one small point that you guys seem to pretend doesn't exist.

One day you will die.

Pretending that you have found a loophole for why you don't have to worry about it isn't as much of a safety net as you guys pretend that it is.

Yes all atheists look forward to death. In fact, we are so flippant in the face of death that we are often found riding in cars without seatbelts just for the the thrill.

Life on earth is much more important when its the only one you have.

in the same sense as pretending you've found a loophole for why you don't have to worry about ending up in FSM pasta hell after you die isn't as much of a safety net as you pretend it is.

I don't think the word important means what you think it means in this context.

Sorry, but in the Pascal Wager deal, I am totally on freeroll.

I will die just like you

I will suffer either the same or better results though.

I also know that you will understand this eventually.

You keep forgetting about the true spiritual connection with nature you are missing out on due to your religious concepts.

and I take the transistion to PW to mean you guys admit to losing the ability to claim that morality evolved?

I mean you ( and by you I mean vb because the rest of you have failed to even remotely present any argument at all but instead have completely and totaly hidden behind the claim to authority defense that is the sign of a failed logical skill set) you have basically continued down the path of saying that man would pick the morality that has the best results, while ignoring all the moral issues that aren't results driven.

Such as the morality of letting an unhealthy child live. A child that is never going to be anything but a burden on a family, contributes nothing to the betterment of a society or a family, and is in fact a drain.

I am curious how you would argue that the marol decision to grant that this person's life is more important than the family's financial, emotional, and practicle well being could have evolved from a darwinian evolutionary beginning that all 'learned' men believe?

And you keep missing out on the reality that winning a game of solitair isn't going to make your life have meaning, especially when there is no meaning except for one that we stole from religions.


And I would compare my moments of true spiritual connection during normal worship at church to any you've experienced even when you were lying to break into a really cool buddhist monestary.

Although I do think a person can have these true spiriatual connections without being Christian...like you. I am curious how crow and kramit are going to accept the notion that spiritual connections (ie connectly intellectually and emotionally with outside sources of metaphysical truths) and how they reconcile the idea that there is value in this endeavour

Well I use that only to counter Pascal's Wager, which is an individual game.

The real tragedy is that humanity as a whole suffers the longer its mental concepts (e.g. "god", "self", etc.) keep it our of harmony with nature.

unless the FSM eternally punishes those who use pascal's wager.

better repent and stop using it just in case.

I'm just going with the flow here.



I don't quite understand the question here. In what circumstances do we "grant life" to such a person? Are you asking why we refrain from murdering a sick child?



this made me burst out in laughter, well done.

Sounds like someone is imposing his personal world view and experience on the value system that determine the meaning of life.

While arguing that there is no value system except for one that we invented

While also implying that there is a truth outside of us that our connection to would be benefitial to achieve.

While refusing to grant that this value system outside of us might want to invite us to fellowship with Him.

That's what it sounds like to me

I'm advocating the exact opposite. I'm saying that when we view the world only through the filter of our mental concepts we lose some connection to the actuality of what is there.



I argued that morality can be based on the objective truth of social life, not that we "invented it".



No I can't quite endorse that statement. What I am referring to is the transcendence of the boundary between "outside of us" and "inside of us" since there is really no difference. I think thats perhaps the deepest spiritual insight one can have, and its entirely supported by science.

by sick I mean permanently retarded, or like any thing else that makes the child always dependant on others for the rest of her life.

This is a much more realistic example of how morality evolving is fraught with errors.





Tell JJJ I need the points for my stats, even though I have no clue what stats are determined by etc.

Of course this implies that 1. we have knowledge of what is out there, 2. that it is different than what we connect with, and 3. the issue of having a bias makes us unable to see it for what it is, while knowing somehow that it is different than what we see.

In other words, you sound like a Christian arguing that God isn't understandable because we are fixed in a time space condition and are trying to understand something that is beyond our ability.

I fear you are going to get turned on soon by the athiest nazis soon.

you might want to get those yellow stars ready...




What is the objectice reason for not euthanizing severely retarded children then?



I would doubt you can suport with science almost any metapyschical truths, but even if I did, you have a filter of buddhism that is directing your opinions if you ask me. We are one blah blah all is one blah blah.

It's only a matter of time before you shave your head and take up an unnatural fascination with gerbils.

It was nice knowing you.

Sorry, I'm only tracking Off Topic General.

woah woah what?

I guess my point is getting lost because I described it quickly and its kind of subtle. Let me try a different way.

Our mental representations of the world are always going to be distinct from the world itself. The map is not the territory. We want our maps to be as good as possible, but we must not mistake them for the real thing.



I'll give some more thought to this example, but off the top of my head it seems to me that we don't want to live in a world where we fear being euthanized because we are not up to mental capacity. Also, the value of people is clearly not simply their level of intelligence.



Depends what you mean by "metaphysical", I haven't claimed anything supernatural or unconfirmable by observation.



Went through that phase already, about 15 years ago. My mom refused to look at me when I shaved my head because I "looked like a cancer patient".

the transition was your fault obviously. otherwise everyone was getting bored because your lack of comprehension about evolution was making it pointless.



you think no arguments have been made becuse you aren't capable of understanding them. as spade said when it comes to an objective understanding of even the most simple principals of something like evolution your brain is broke (that's not meant as an insult, it's a serious observation).



all moral issues are results driven if you specify exactly what you mean by morality. your argument depends on leaving morality as some vague thing floating around in the air.



because empathy-driven behavior has benefits for the psychological well-being of individuals and for social harmony. your example disregards both human emotion and the social benefits of valuing life and individual rights above all else. situations like this are way too complex to frame in terms of simple darwinian survival of the fittest genes.


sorry if this was posted already, don't remember -
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergoo...0506_deWaal.pdf

spritiual doesn't mean metaphysical in this case.

Figures....I feel like a rookie player playing a pick up game who pitches a no hitter at night against the starting lineup for the NY Yankeees while running for governor with a reverse pyschology platform of Don't Vote For Me.

Never have a chance

Wow you are completely blinded by yourself and you don't even see it.

but you would have to be to believe in what you believe so I don't know why I am surprised.

Of course not. No definition ever means what it means if in the meaning you would have to admit that something means something that you don't like the idea of it meaning that.

I go into all your posts expecting this now.

Sorry, I'll type slower in the future




This the whole "the observation of something changes it" theory? I never was sure I buy that...



I see the direction you are going, but we are needing to look at how this came about, not how we value it now.

2,000 years ago could you say that this notion that we don't want to value life based on it's input to society was a viable argument that held water in any civilization? If so, then keep going back in time till it didn't, then explain how it could have.




but if we observe it, we change it...


I don't know if that applies but I thought it was the correct response.



I teared up recently hearing about the school kids who all shaved their heads for a classmate who was going through chemo...but I cry at a dog food commercial now adays so there's that.

i teared up when desmond called penny on christmas eve. i admit it

No, not that. I guess I'll have to think of another way to explain it.



I guess there are two parallel issues going on here. One is about the origins of morality, (which I think started with genetic changes that bias towards empathy etc and later incorporated cultural practices, religion), and the other issue is what the correct morality.

I don't see why I have to justify everything everyone has ever considered moral, especially since I think some of them were wrong. Also, are you saying that people never euthanized very sickly children? I think thats probably not true.

good response.

has nothing to do with me. it's not exactly uncommon for people to refer to intense emotional connections or experiences as "spiritual" without meaning to imply metaphysical.
it has more than one meaning.

Have you ever even read Pascal's wager? In the wager itself it dismisses retarded logic, like some random all-powerful being that has never revealed itself to anyone being mad about something that only like 1% of the Earth's population has even heard about. You are no longer arguing against Pascal's Wager... it's someone else's wager.



This is an example that has absolutely nothing to do with Pascal's wager.



You're like the butler in Mr. Deeds. Holy crap man. You responded like 7 minutes after BG made his post.

No I don't want you to place value on individual moralities, in fact unless you hold that morality is seperate from ourselves, then no value exists for them because that would require an outside sytem of grading, any I think JJJ is busy right now.

We have been dancing aruond things because we are trying to keep generic, as if that makes it easier.

But the issue is: Where did morality come from.

you have held that it is an ever changing value system based on society's needs and wants.

I hold it is seperate from us and our attempts to align ourselves with it shows that we agree that there is a source of value that is greater than us, and seperate from us. I call this source God. you guys call it chance.

So this example, how did we eveolve into believing that a completely unfunctioning child who will never function has a right to live, has a right to live?

And crow's 'because we realized that being good was good' argument would be about the lamest direction you can go...so hopefully we can go a little better direction.

I don't know who that is.


That doesn't seem likely.

Everything does, and you dance around those meanings whenever you get stuck.

It's your MO

Like Telly Savalas and his sucker, opperate one way.

It doesn't really matter, but if you're serious.... John Turturro plays the butler in Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds. And no matter where Sandler is during the movie, even in different cities, whenever he needs anything, Turturro is right behind him ready to help.

I missed you man

Everyone did.

And yet..he was here in spirit.

Everytime someone made a judgement on another person's looks,
everytime someone made a judgement on another person's likes,
everytime someone made a judgement on another person's use of the search function...

In fact,



JJJ is one judgmemental son of a gun.

i don't believe pascal even considered the factor of multiple different possible gods.

obviously different people who think god has revealed himself think he has a lot of different, frequently mutually exclusive requirements for salvation. if you want to argue that simple majority of believers makes for the best odds of being right that's something beyond pascal (although no less silly), and it certainly isn't a freeroll.