Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mystic. How can you misrepresent the story like that? Or so it appears. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that God sighed with exasperation at Noah's superstitious sacrifice when He (God) liked it.
I am not misrepresenting it. God WAS frustrated at the ignorant, primitive, barbaric, and absurd blood sacrifice of some of the very animals Noah was charged to save. IF your mind cannot see the utter absurdity of it you are too indoctrinated into the original superstitious nonsense.
I am not misrepresenting it. God WAS frustrated at the ignorant, primitive, barbaric, and absurd blood sacrifice of some of the very animals Noah was charged to save. IF your mind cannot see the utter absurdity of it you are too indoctrinated into the original superstitious nonsense.
You're missing ther point and making personal claims presented as fact. I'm talking about your misreading of the text and what it actually says, not that you disagree with the custom, as I do myself. And you have to stop saying what in your opinion God likes or dislikes on the basis of your own views, and never mind your rewriting to bible to suit yourself.
You're missing ther point and making personal claims presented as fact. I'm talking about your misreading of the text and what it actually says, not that you disagree with the custom, as I do myself. And you have to stop saying what in your opinion God likes or dislikes on the basis of your own views, and never mind your rewriting to bible to suit yourself.
He does misread the text. And he misrepresents what the text says. He makes no distinction between the animals in sets of 2, and the animals in sets of 7 (for sacrifice). His reading of the text is not correct and he is unwilling to recognize that or admit it even when it is pointed out.
Since his reading of the text is not correct, the commentary is also flawed.
Some ideas are generalizable, and some not so much. I'm not saying "others don't know the mind of the ancients" in general terms. That would be silly. History and anthropology provide a lot of insight into this. The specific question on the table is how much did they know about the nature of consciousness. And, even with this narrowed focus, there is still plenty of room for overgeneralization. But I can say with fairly high confidence that they didn't know certain kinds of things. I doubt that they could have modeled neurodynamics, for example. Basically, they understood some important things, but probably not some other things. This does not seem like a controversial claim to me.
It is not a controversial claim, but Tzaph's claims about the ancients' knowledge IS not just controversial but silly.
Some ideas are generalizable, and some not so much. I'm not saying "others don't know the mind of the ancients" in general terms. That would be silly.
You just said that about me. And yes it is silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
..... I also see very little reason to believe that you have deep knowledge about the minds of the ancients. Perhaps you have these insights; I'm just saying that, from my perspective, I have little reason to believe that you do.
I also see very little reason to believe that you have deep knowledge about the minds of the ancients. Perhaps you have these insights; I'm just saying that, from my perspective, I have little reason to believe that you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
You just said that about me. And yes it is silly.
I think what I said was about as clear and precise as anything can be said. I don't know what is "silly" about it, but I'm curious to know why you think so. If you (or anyone here who understands Tza-ese) can explain what is silly about my statements, I'd appreciate it.
For whatever it may be worth, it might be interesting to bold the opposite end of the quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I also see very little reason to believe that you have deep knowledge about the minds of the ancients. Perhaps you have these insights; I'm just saying that, from my perspective, I have little reason to believe that you do.
You will probably want to say that science will never create life or true intelligence, and perhaps you are right. And perhaps the ancients understood consciousness in such a way that they already knew, back then, that science would ultimately fail at creating sentient life. But I don't think that you or the ancients actually know much of anything about this. If you were to confidently assert "Science will never create life" I would accept your assertion as being your belief, but I would not believe that you "know" your assertion to be true. You simply believe it with a lot of confidence. A lot of people used to believe, with high confidence, that we'd never fly to the moon in machines. Blah, blah, blah.
Ok. I'll take the bait. So why, precisely, is my statement not reasonable?
I'm going to take a guess: You might want to say that science can't create life and, furthermore, that even suggesting that science might create life is unreasonable. If this is what you are getting at, then I'll jump ahead and address the objection now: We already know that life emerges from organic soup. The meat 'n' tatters you eat for supper get broken down into an "organic soup" in your digestive track. The cells of your body then turn this soup into other living cells, some of which are gametes, which can combine to eventually create sentient intelligent life. So the basic concept of "organic soup" to "intelligent life" is well-tested. BTW: the organic soup is not living insofar as it is soup, so the old adage "only from life comes life" is not necessarily true - or, at least, it is not the whole story. The process I've just described is "from life to non-life and then to new life." Notice that the "non-life" portion in the middle leaves room for some nano-technological monkey business. If the functions performed by the living cells in your body can be performed by other means, then the "new life" portion of the process could emerge via technological process. This is not an unreasonable idea. (And, BTW, just because we haven't done it yet does not imply that we won't.)
You might want to just flat-out say "that can't happen" but I see no good reason to believe you.
BTW: Even if we grant the absolute necessity of some sort of "supernatural" or nonphysical intelligence or life-force or soul-stuff needed to make the "non-life to life" portion of the process work, it still would not follow that life can't emerge from technological processes. There is no logical restriction preventing God, or the life-force, or soul, or whatever, from performing its magic via technological means. And if it makes you feel any better, technology is not actually "dead" - it is just life extending itself in novel ways. Tech doesn't "just happen" - tech is made by living beings. Just sayin'.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-05-2018 at 07:18 AM..
Because you yourself said it is silly to make such a statement.
And because it is again an assumption about what a person or a people "doesn't know" or "didn't know." To me it is silly to state about a person or a people "it is unlikely they knew such things."
It is silly in the same sense that the suggestions in the opening post are silly; about humanity not having a conscience or not experiencing love for God. My observation is those types of assumptions are revealing about the mindset (thoughts and beliefs) of the person making those types of assumptions.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-05-2018 at 07:24 AM..
Ok. I'll take the bait. So why, precisely, is my statement not reasonable?
The part where you state "I don't think that you or the ancients actually know much of anything about this."
Because? Same as post #4639 above
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
