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.
If parents are drug dealers they put their children at risk and the children are harmed. That is an outcome or consequence of the "sins of the fathers" being visited upon several generations. A cycle of violence crime harm abuse results and repeats. Is that a punishment or is it an outcome? Is it a punishment or a consequence?
The point is for us to take responsibility for our choices and actions and see how our actions affect others. To take responsibility for how we live our lives and not blame others.
How does the cycle of violence crime harm abuse ever stop or change ? When someone takes responsibility and seeks to do things differently. Then there is a different outcome a different consequence. If someone gets an honest job, stops engaging in criminal activity, gets into recovery for drug addiction then the quality of their life Is very different.
I agree. What we do impacts on ouselves and on others, including our children.
Now, one can pick a Biblequote to illustrate the point. Bur it doesn't make scripture more than a handy source of snappy epithets. One could as easily lift from Startrek "What does God want with a Starship?", Peanuts. "I'm doomed! One slip like that can cause the great Pumpkin to pass you by!", and LoR "The words of this wizard stand on their heads!", and does not imply any particular moral insights let alone any spiritual truth or unknown truths of science and cosmic beings or entities.
I see. So what we see in Exodus is God is taking responsibility for the relentless machinery of causation, which has nothing to do with personal fairness. God set the gears in motion; now he stands back and lets the chips fall where they may. I can accept that. In fact, if there is a God, then I'd say that this is probably what God has done.
A seven-year-old child who sees his family burning to death in a forest fire just minutes before he, himself, slowly dies in the flames is not being punished because he, himself, did anything wrong, but, rather, because he and his family were, simply, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The passage in Exodus is simply misleading insofar as it seems to imply that God's jealously is the reason for inequity being visited upon generations of people.
Was the great flood an impersonal accident that happened to kill everyone except Noah and his family? Or was that more like the actual punishment of a God who was pissed-off about the way things were going? BTW, on a different note: I've heard some Christians claim that no children or animals were actually harmed in the production of the Great Flood scene. Is that true?
one thing at a time.
we were talking about contradictions.
and whether a person understands what they are reading.
and what is their response or reaction when they see a contradiction.
and what do they think is the purpose of the book they are reading.
and whether a person (hard to say this without busting out laughing) calls other people lacking in intellect because he does not understand what he is reading
back to the examples:
the desert is hot, the desert is cold. H20 is a solid, H20 is a gas, H20 is a liquid.
that is a contradiction. what is the reader's response or reaction to finding this contradiction? Dismiss the source as unreliable? Label readers of the book as primitive ignorant and lacking intellect? Or maybe say "hmmm....how can that be? let's puzzle this out, let's think this through"
But you said it was easy. What makes it easy, tell us. Gaylen you of all people purport to be the poster child for critical thinking, and seem to have an interest in contradictions, how we respond to them, how we approach them, puzzle them out, make sense of them, how we resolve, reconcile, or understand them. It requires a person to look beneath the surface of the apparent contradiction. And you are right, it does utilize critical thinking skills.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-07-2017 at 11:39 AM..
I see. So what we see in Exodus is God is taking responsibility for the relentless machinery of causation, which has nothing to do with personal fairness. God set the gears in motion; now he stands back and lets the chips fall where they may. I can accept that. In fact, if there is a God, then I'd say that this is probably what God has done.
A seven-year-old child who sees his family burning to death in a forest fire just minutes before he, himself, slowly dies in the flames is not being punished because he, himself, did anything wrong, but, rather, because he and his family were, simply, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The passage in Exodus is simply misleading insofar as it seems to imply that God's jealously is the reason for inequity being visited upon generations of people.
Was the great flood an impersonal accident that happened to kill everyone except Noah and his family? Or was that more like the actual punishment of a God who was pissed-off about the way things were going? BTW, on a different note: I've heard some Christians claim that no children or animals were actually harmed in the production of the Great Flood scene. Is that true?
lots of things in lots of books are misleading if a person does not understand what they are reading, and is unable to identify what the purpose of the book is that he is reading.
if someone says it's misleading to say the desert is hot and the desert is cold, what would you tell them? If someone says it's misleading to imply something is liquid and gas and solid, what would your response be to them?
Your posts are great Gaylen, there is a lot in them, and they are deserving of attention, thanks for staying with the conversation.
I see. So what we see in Exodus is God is taking responsibility for the relentless machinery of causation, which has nothing to do with personal fairness. God set the gears in motion; now he stands back and lets the chips fall where they may. I can accept that. In fact, if there is a God, then I'd say that this is probably what God has done.,,,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
one thing at a time.
we were talking about contradictions.
and whether a person understands what they are reading.
and what is their response or reaction when they see a contradiction.
and what do they think is the purpose of the book they are reading.
and whether a person (hard to say this without busting out laughing) calls other people lacking in intellect because he does not understand what he is reading
back to the examples:
the desert is hot, the desert is cold. H20 is a solid, H20 is a gas, H20 is a liquid.
that is a contradiction. what is the reader's response or reaction to finding this contradiction? Dismiss the source as unreliable? Label readers of the book as primitive ignorant and lacking intellect? Or maybe say "hmmm....how can that be? let's puzzle this out, let's think this through"
But you said it was easy. What makes it easy, tell us. Gaylen you of all people purport to be the poster child for critical thinking, and seem to have an interest in contradictions, how we respond to them, how we approach them, puzzle them out, make sense of them, how we resolve, reconcile, or understand them. It requires a person to look beneath the surface of the apparent contradiction. And you are right, it does utilize critical thinking skills.
And the question concerning contradictions was on two passages:
Exodus 20:5,6: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
compared to Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Basically, your "analogy" concerns differences in statements when conditions change: all of the contradictions are false statements insofar as they do not specify the conditions under which there is a difference in the state.
Gaylen was questioning whether there IS any such change of condition in the two statements under consideration, and whether, if there is, all such imprecisely worded statements have any value whatsoever.
1. Show that there IS such a difference in condition between the two statements.
2. Show why such imprecise wording can be trusted in ANY case, or indeed have ANY value whatsoever.
What do you see is the purpose of a holy book? In your view, how is it used?
If a person doesn't know what a book is for, or how to use the book, then they aren't going to understand it.
Optimum results for a tool or guide or manual are obtained when a person understands what it is for, and understands how to use it, and uses it in the manner for which it is intended.
I with trout on this one.
don't let people that don't get it tell us that do get it. religious people need to police their own. But, I can tell you, the ones in your group your containing will bite. ours do. they aren't interested in logic, they are interested in biting.
I agree. What we do impacts on ouselves and on others, including our children.
Now, one can pick a Biblequote to illustrate the point. Bur it doesn't make scripture more than a handy source of snappy epithets. One could as easily lift from Startrek "What does God want with a Starship?", Peanuts. "I'm doomed! One slip like that can cause the great Pumpkin to pass you by!", and LoR "The words of this wizard stand on their heads!", and does not imply any particular moral insights let alone any spiritual truth or unknown truths of science and cosmic beings or entities.
i agree with you that without critical thinking skills, without an understanding of what they are reading, without an ability to identify the purpose of the book they are reading (any book as Gaylen astutely reminds us), then yes a person stays in the very superficial realm of "snappy one liners" "not a lot of wisdom on offer" and inability to make sense of "contradictions." That is entirely a function of what the reader brings to the table, and determines the extent to which a person can access and understand what Trans calls "particular moral insights, spiritual truth, unknown truths of science and cosmic beings or entities."
the desert is hot, the desert is cold. H20 is a solid, H20 is a gas, H20 is a liquid.
that is a contradiction.
Whoa! Perhaps here is part of the problem. These are not contradictions. Maybe, to someone who hasn't thought about these things very much, the hot/cold claim might initially seem like a contradiction, but - plain and simply - it is not. A contradiction would be: X is Y and X is not-Y at the same time, all else being equal.
Example:
Premise #1: "X=3"
Premise #2: "X does not = 3"
These two premises are contradictory.
Another example:
Premise #1: "X=3"
Premise #2: "X=5"
These two premises are contradictory, but only because the definitions of "3" and "5" imply a third premise:
Premise #3: "5 does not equal 3"
Now compare:
"X is hot"
"X is cold"
This is not necessarily a contradiction. Why not? Because "hot" and "cold" are inherently relative terms. E.g., The meaning of the word "hot" always implies a "hidden premise", that can be fleshed out as X is hot with respect to Z (where "Z" might be, for example: "My sense of touch" or "Boiling water" or "An ice cube" etc.).
Quote:
what is the reader's response or reaction to finding this contradiction?
For the critical reader, the first response must be this question: "How are the terms being defined?" (Or "How are the terms being used in this sentence?) Depending on how the terms are defined/used, a sentence might or might not indicate an actual contradiction.
Quote:
But you said it was easy. What makes it easy, tell us.
Recognizing that two claims are not necessarily contradictory is generally easy, as in the case with your hot/cold example. All you have to do is recognize that the terms are vague or ambiguous. (E.g., in your hot/cold example, you never specified "hot" relative to...)
On the other hand, achieving certainty about whether or not two claims are contradictory tends to be a bit more difficult - especially for people who have not taken any logic classes. The hardest part, generally speaking, is to get all parties to agree on a set of definitions for the key terms of the claims being made. (It's a process of negotiation.) You can almost always define your terms in such a way so as to get the conclusion that you want - easy peezy for practically anyone. But the effort is pointless if you define your terms in such a weird way that no one accepts the definitions. (Sometimes people simply point out that, using your definitions, your conclusion is a tautology, in which case your audience just rolls their eyes and laughs; you haven't convinced anybody of anything.)
A major problem with holy books as guides to factual information about the world or morality is that they are riddled with vagueness and ambiguity. They are basically more like poetry than prose; ultimately more metaphoric rather than literal (whether that was the intention of the writers, or not).
You ask "Why do you read a holy book?" If your answer is "For spiritual inspiration or to stimulate creativity or to evoke feelings..." then all is well. We are on the same page. Let's all hug and sing kumbya.
But if someone insists that, in public schools, we need to teach our kids that the Earth can't be more than 10,000 year old, or that animal species were created fully-formed and distinct from one another" then I'm going to say "No! That's not rational! All of our best evidence indicates otherwise!" and so on. And if you insist that "Homosexuality is immoral because a holy book says that God doesn't like it" then I'm going to say "No! That's not rational." You are welcome to argue that homosexuality is immoral, but if you present words from a holy book as your evidence, I'm going to say "That's not good enough! That is not a reliable source for morally sound judgments!" And so on.
Yes, holy books can have a lot of great advice on morality, and they can often inspire moral behavior, but they are inconsistent. Sometimes they tell you it's okay to hack children to pieces with a sword while they suckle at their mother's breast. Some critical reading is required. Some up-to-date sources are good to consider.
Whoa! Perhaps here is part of the problem. These are not contradictions. Maybe, to someone who hasn't thought about these things very much, the claim might initially seem like a contradiction, but - plain and simply - it is not.....
EXACTLY.
thank you.
that is my point exactly
they are not contradictions. they may "seem like contradictions to someone who has not thought about these things very much"
thank you thank you thank you Gaylen. That is exactly what I was getting at. A seeming contradiction invites a person to look more in depth, to think more deeply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...For the critical reader, the first response must be this question: "How are the terms being defined?" (Or "How are the terms being used in this sentence?) Depending on how the terms are defined/used, a sentence might or might not indicate an actual contradiction......
Yup, again, a person has to identify what is the purpose of this book or article or passage; what is it talking about; how are the terms being used.
exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...But the effort is pointless if you define your terms in such a weird way that no one accepts the definitions. Sometimes people simply point out that, using your definitions, ....your audience just rolls their eyes and laughs; you haven't convinced anybody of anything......
yes yes and again yes. The effort is pointless if a person is looking in a cookbook to find out how to repair a car, and yes I agree your audience just rolls their eyes and laughs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...You ask "Why do you read a holy book?" If your answer is ....
No, I asked "In your view what is the purpose of a holy book" "What do you see is the purpose of a holy book? In your view, how is it used?"
Although the question you pose is also valuable "Why do you read a holy book"
Answering that is answering that for yourself and yourself alone.
Because a person can never know why another reads it, unless they actually ask the person and then actually listen to their answer.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-07-2017 at 04:37 PM..
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.
