The Book of Exodus Overview - Part 1 of 2
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
 |
 |
| |
|
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
The first part of Exodus recounts how Abraham’s family ends up enslaved in Egypt. God raises up a deliverer to confront the evil of Pharaoh and to liberate the Israelites. From Egypt, they set out into the wilderness on the way to Mt. Sinai.
Even for the non religious reader, there is endless wonder, horror, wisdom and redemption. What a story!
The Bible is fascinating to unbelievers, and a myriad of industry dramas can and have in the past been extracted from these very old books of the canon! As you may agree, to the believers the pages take on nuances, depths, lengths, widths, and heights of internal meaning which can breathe life into tired old spirits everyday. You called it, "endless wonder" and I triple down on that!
A believer can read the Bible from cover to cover, walk away, and come back and do it all over again. And oh, the small group and large amphitheaters discussions which have taken place spanning centuries!!
But many believers never seem to critically challenge the divinity of the Bible. I understand why for the most part, but it seems odd that one can hold beliefs for years, actually read and discuss the Bible, and not ever seriously consider the rather likely possibility that this all might just be mere words on pages written by ancient men to advance their agendas. Indeed, one must often rationalize what is read to preserve the divinity yet the belief defies all critical analysis.
People all have the same basic biological brains but we certainly do use them differently.
The answer to that, is that somewhere on this planet right at this very instance I can confidently state somebody is coming to a life-changing faith in God. For that person, those individuals, a new journey begins similar in it own way to the life and death struggles which take place every hour of the day and night on our planet. They will be required to grow their faith life by placing one step and one day in front of the other.
For these men and women, boys and girls, mere words did not set him or her on a new path; not did some long dead men's local agenda. Those ancient men wrote of many aspects of their public and private lives from natural and spiritual points of view.
Many unbelievers deny themselves or have denied to them an opportunity to look at the books of the Bible from a different perspective or angle. Because, were they so able to change their angle of 'sight' they might see what these ancient men went through in life is very similar to what people continuously go through in modern times. Basically, the human condition has not changed and we remain in steady search of our Creator, that one which brought us here.
Ancient writers prepared for themselves persistent worldview/s. These ancient writers found something which remapped their attitudes and outlooks on the world. So they wrote that down in books for others to ingest, and see if it is good. If it would change their private lives in similar ways. These books do change lives for the long-term.
The Egyptians kept good records and would surely have noticed if all those people descended upon their country. Not to mention that the sheer volume of people would have left archaeological evidence in the desert.
What is your point?
So killing innocent children to prove a point is what a good god does?
Or threatening to kill the man (Moses) whom you said was your chosen one because he did not circumcise his son?
Or don't even get me started on how many total plagues again did he put upon all of Egypt?
Really cool cat that God...
Where was he again when the Americans were enslaving the Africans?
Yeah, God was supposedly so pissed off that pharaoh that he ... murdered all the firstborn human and animal males. smh
If you accept that all life is random, then all activities taking place on Earth have no meaning anyway. So, what is your point?
Hey, you're the one who started the discussion about Exodus. If you don't want to hear other people's opinions, why did you post it?
And I don't think my life has no meaning - I just think it's finite.
You did not deal with my comment.
If you accept that all life is random, then all activities taking place on Earth have no meaning anyway. So, what is your point?
I disagree with your statement that activities taking place on Earth have no meaning. But then, you don't understand atheists. We don't need gods to believe that things have meaning.
Katrix, is life on Earth random?
No, I don't think it is. Natural selection and chemistry are not random processes.
You don't think it is. Can you clarify what is your worldview, please?
First, why you think people hold life to be random? If the universe truly does operate on natural laws (approximated naively by our current understanding of physics) then life would be a consequence of incredibly complex and numerous interactions over great periods of time.
Not random, just likely undirected.
So let's presume life is a result of undirected, complex processes. Why would that mean that life has no meaning?
A person's worldview can hardly be summed up in a paragraph.
Here is the conclusions from the link you suggested:
Conclusions
[1] In summary, your worldview is the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of Reality that ground and influence all your perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. Your worldview consists of your epistemology, your metaphysics, your cosmology, your teleology, your theology, your anthropology, and your axiology. Each of these subsets of your worldview (each of these views) is highly interrelated with and affects virtually all of the others.
[2] I claim that you have a worldview and that your worldview (especially your axiology) is the basis for and therefore fundamental to what you believe about the particulars of reality and what you think and do. If you deny that you have a worldview, then you are naive, willfully ignorant, or simply misled; you cannot argue your case to the end, for to do so you must invoke more and more fundamental beliefs, leading you ultimately to what I have defined as your worldview. If you deny that your worldview fundamentally affects what you think and do, then you must acknowledge that your behavior is impulsive, reflexive, or emotional at best; ignorant or irrational at worst.
[3] Assuming that a worldview can be incorrect or at least inappropriate, if your worldview is erroneous, then your behavior is misguided, even wrong. If you fail to examine, articulate, and refine your worldview, then your worldview may in fact be wrong, with the above consequences, and you will always be ill-prepared to substantiate your beliefs and justify your acts, for you will have only proximate opinions and direct sensory evidence as justification.
[4] If you fail to be conscious of your worldview and fail to appeal to it as a basis for your thoughts and acts, you will be at the mercy of your emotions, your impulses, and your reflexes (not that such responsive behavior is always bad); you will be inclined to "follow the crowd" and conform to social and cultural norms and patterns of thought and behavior regardless of their merit.
[5] If you are unwilling to acknowledge and articulate your worldview, to make known your fundamental opinions, and to bring to the front of discourse your basic beliefs, you are being intellectually evasive at best or dishonest at worst. Those around you must always be in the dark concerning your underlying beliefs and motives. They will be forced to guess (perhaps wrongly) the true meaning of what you say and the purpose of what you do.
[6] If you consider a worldview a private matter and take steps to prevent the open discussion of worldviews, you are in fact imposing your worldview on others; by doing so you would deny individuals the opportunity to bring their own worldviews fully to bear on matters of common concern and the opportunity to examine their worldviews in the light of others'; you would effectively restrict public discourse to trivialities and ungrounded assertions.
[7] On the other hand, if you use a position of power or authority to impose your worldview on others or somehow force or coerce others into adopting elements of your own worldview, you are denying them the opportunity to seek out their own answers to the important questions posed above; you may be personally responsible for condemning them to life with an erroneous worldview; you may be denying truth and goodness a chance to manifest themselves in those who you are manipulating; and anyway, in the end, if and when your power over them wanes, they may come to reject, even abhor, the beliefs you have imposed upon them.
[8] Your worldview -- anyone's worldview -- is too important to ignore. If there is such a thing as obligation, we as knowing, thinking beings have an obligation to examine, articulate, refine, communicate, and consciously and consistently apply our worldviews. To fail to do so is to be something less than human. Socrates, during his trial for being impious to the Greek gods and corrupting the youth of Athens by his teachings, said "... the unexamined life is not worth living ..." (Plato, Apology). He was right, and without complaint he accepted the sentence of death to prove it. There can be no stronger testimony to the validity of these assertions than that.
*Emphasis CB
Katrix, I ask again:
What is your worldview, please?
I don't agree or disagree with the link I posted. I posted it to show that there are many aspects to define in a worldview.
What specifically do you want me to answer about mine? I'm not about to address 25 aspects. Here we go again, Calbab, with you playing the semantics game. Ask a specific question if you want an actual answer.
Katrix, perhaps you should read through your links before offering them to other folks. I don't know. I read it and got this information:
[5] If you are unwilling to acknowledge and articulate your worldview, to make known your fundamental opinions, and to bring to the front of discourse your basic beliefs, you are being intellectually evasive at best or dishonest at worst. Those around you must always be in the dark concerning your underlying beliefs and motives. They will be forced to guess (perhaps wrongly) the true meaning of what you say and the purpose of what you do.
What is your worldview, please?
When I have time to write a 10 page document outlining my worldviews in every single area mentioned in the link I provided, I'll get back to you.
In the meantime, which specific area are you asking about? Is it that relativism thing you're asking DRHunk about?
I had no idea this would catch you off-guard. Most people know their philosophical outlook on life - mine being Christian-theism. Yours could be, for example, materialism, naturalism, or a material-naturalism. If you do not know what those are you could look them up privately.
Apparently you didn't actually read the link I sent. A person's worldview consists of many different areas.
If you can't use a word properly, perhaps you could look it up privately.
And as you're probably well aware from prior discussions, my philosophical views align with material-naturalism. However, when you look up "worldview" you will realize that this is only one part of my worldview.
Cal, most people do not describe themselves with a label or labels. The main reason for this is that labels are necessarily stereotypes. They do not accurately represent the individual.
Further, some people will take advantage of a label and use it to try to create an intellectual trap such as: but since you are an 'X' it is a contradiction to believe 'Y'. Case in point, your attempts to get atheists to describe themselves as Humanists.
Katrix clearly is not interested in describing herself in terms of labels and does not wish to spend the time developing an accurate description of her worldview. She said 'no'.
It's been protracted enough simply to get this far with you on the topic, katrix.
[6] If you consider a worldview a private matter and take steps to prevent the open discussion of worldviews, you are in fact imposing your worldview on others; by doing so you would deny individuals the opportunity to bring their own worldviews fully to bear on matters of common concern and the opportunity to examine their worldviews in the light of others'; you would effectively restrict public discourse to trivialities and ungrounded assertions
Just because some human being writes his position down does not make it correct.
Further, katrix has done nothing to prevent discussion of world views. She has simply declined to answer your open ended question because her answer would require more effort than she is willing to put in a reply post. Not at all unreasonable.
She gave you the option to work with her: ask a direct, specific question.
I agree to disagree on your point. In fact, it is what people write which brings us here for discussion of it. Moreover, I am not discussing katrix or any other commenter with or through you.
DRHunk, if you are an atheist and I assume you are, what does any of that matter to you? For you, all life is relative.
I do not judge you, WallyW. I am so happy you are happy!
Yes, life on earth has meaning, that meaning for Humans as the most intelligent of the land mammals is to leave the earth a better place socially and environmentally then what we were born into so that other generations can continue to enjoy and live on it.
Religion, especially this God of the bible is an atrocious example of a person and it matters because millions of people believe he is a good and just person and use the bible as justification for countless horrors. Hopefully the more people that actually learn and understand what is in the bible, the more they will turn away from its evil poisoning of the human mind and begin taking care of their fellow man and of this world since no one else is going to especially a jealous, vindictive, evil, and made up entity.
DRHunk, for you, all life is relative, no?
your question seems Nonsensical, explain what your driving at and i may be able to answer.
1. relativism noun
The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute [universal].
2. DRHunk, what is your worldview, please?
Where does one go to get absolute knowledge, truth or morality?
Could we get a list of the absolute morality rules?
How does one determine that these are indeed absolute?
I would like to ask a question and you can just ignore it if you wish
Were you a member of NewsVine?
He was Calbab on NV.
I was Calbab on NewsVine and a co-host of several nations. Don Overton, I started here as Calbab. Then, after two years strictly on a whim, I decided to be simply "CB" short for you know what.
So yes, I am the NewsVine member formerly known as Calbab. Maybe, I will advertise it here!
that doesn't answer where your trying to get with the question. But i will give you some fuel for your inner fire.
Nothing is absolute, not Laws not Morality at least not in the context of an entire civilization or society. Morality of the masses and morality of an individual change over time as do laws.
What a society may feel is moral (i.e. Slavery), an individual within that society may not. The same principle applies to ethics and law, something may be legal but is it ethical, do ethics relate back to morals?
Morals like laws are influenced by the thought processes of the majority at that particular moment in history, but morality nor laws are absolute as an individual may still possess their own moral code or legal definitions that are in contrast to the majority. That is why we have lobbyist to petition changes to the laws and activists to shape social morality.
Now if your trying to relate this ever changing morality to God then its a fail. God is supposed to be a perfect all knowing being, perfect beings do not have the privilege to change their morality over time, that is reserved for humans, who grow and continue to learn over time. Mass genocide is immoral, was back in the Bronze age as is today. A "good" being does not threaten to kill someone for not obeying them and does not kill entire generations because he is upset you are not taking him seriously. God should always show the high road and be an example of kindness and consideration not jealousy, regret and destruction, (at least that's what the Christians want you think of him) God is good all the time, right.
Apart from your unmentioned worldview, you appear to be a relativist. That is, you may approve of cultures, societies, conventionalisms, and individuals determining what is right and wrong for people-groups or self.
In your last paragraph you take a turn to make an arbitrary supposition about what God is to be: good, unchangeable, kind, considerate, without jealousy, regret and "destruction."
To your way of looking at the world; Why should God be precisely any of these things? Why should God be perfect?
In addition, you state: "Mass genocide is immoral, was back in the Bronze age as is today."
Why is genocide wrong? Ought genocide to be wrong?
@4.1.5 In the second paragraph you start off with "Nothing is absolute,. . . ."
So, how can you end up with a morally stable God and an absolute judgement in disfavor of genocide for all times?
"That is, you may approve"
Sorry, never said i approve of anything, I am just explain to you how it is.
"Why should God be precisely any of these things? Why should God be perfect"
You tell me, i don't believe in such things, but apparently you and others do
"Why is genocide wrong? Ought genocide to be wrong?"
Wrong to who? Guess it depends on what side your standing on.
"So, how can you end up with a morally stable God and an absolute judgement in disfavor of genocide for all times?"
You tell me, i don't believe in such things, but apparently you and others do
Tig, do not respond to me with a "huh?" of incredulity. You, among a few, should be able to put together what I am seeking in a response from DRHunk (who brought up genocide in the first place)!
I see you "affirm"'several of 'Hunk's comments outright without so much as a question, request for clarity, or enhancing comment. He may can use some explanation from you.
Dodginess splat that whole comment into nowheresville. There is nothing in there for me to work with, sorry, DR'!
What do you expect anyone to say to that? Why is it wrong to kill people because of their ethnic or national backgrounds?? Why is it wrong for one person to own another as property?? Why is it wrong to rape and kill a little girl??
Most people do not need someone to tell them that wholesale killing of people due to particular attributes is wrong. This is not the type of question that people can take seriously.
Just be candid. You believe, I presume, genocide is wrong because God has told you so. You want to know how DRHunk could possibly know that genocide is wrong unless he believed in God and was informed by same. Right? If not right, then at least be upfront and provide DRHunk something to consider rather than a question that most everyone would find to be obvious.
I voted up his response because he nicely told you to stop being vague. If DRHunk has a question for me I will try to provide a good answer.
What I care about what "most everyone would find obvious" is not relevant. By the way, that comment was not directed at you. Let me add, it is a bit odd how you and several other members "pop in" to finish one another trains of thoughts! As someone who has been in his fair share of online discussions, I do not think that is quite how honest discussion should be handled. Better to allow DRHunk and others to be given a PROPER amount of time and space to address subject matter and questions he-they bring up in here, before it gets thrown to open discussion.
You can start (or continue) a new line of discussion for yourself and I will respond to you accordingly. There is only one of me and one of many other commenters. It is reasonable for me to ask for some courtesy in being allowed to respond to the proper 'request'.
in your first paragraph you are introducing a new discussion about so-called "evils" which are not on the subject matter mass genocide.
In your last paragraph, my views of genocide is not what the question is about. I have a Christian worldview so my views would be in line with its philosophy. DRHunk is a relativist so he will need to establish how he arbitrarily can state mass genocide is bad for all cultures, societies, and individuals.
Lastly, as I mentioned last week to you, it is not my norm to write about other commenters in public discussions through you. That feels weird and rude to me. This will be the last time I do it on this thread.
I can tell him to stop being vague and I sort of did so @4.1.10. Let's see if it works! I presume you consider that commenter's statements straightforward, no?
We are not limited to speak only when spoken to.
Nothing anyone can write would prevent DRHunk from writing what he wishes (within the CoC) so stop the silly complaining. Less meta, more content.
Good. You should avoid doing that. Makes for less meta and more room for actual content.
Going forward, if you wish a reply from me - ask your questions and make your comments without invoking others who can address me themselves. Cheers!
For the most part, I am not posting in anticipation that you will reply.
Well, that comment alone may explain why I suspect an agenda. . . .
Moving forward. Everybody has a worldview and holds a set of presuppositions about this life-that includes all Newstalkers!
Once again i never made that statement, you keep putting words in my mouth. I stated Genocide is immoral, i have already defined my stance on morality and how it is subjective to the individual, culture, society. So while 90% of the people agree genocide is immoral, there may be the wackadoos (in my opinion), that think its ok. Hilter and his Nazi regime seemed to think it was ok, God seems to think its ok. It is still very small pool that do. So yes my comment was a generality about the Bronze age.
It means that my comments are directed to readers. If my only concern was to communicate with a single individual I would use chat, private notes or email. So if you choose to not reply to a comment that is cool with me. I prefer a non-reply over a platitude (or worse).
Twice you have stated it. One more affirmation and we will have a complete witness to the statement from you. Where do you get your "90% of the people agree genocide is immoral" from? Curious as to this detail.
Lastly, is genocide absolutely or relatively immoral? (Hint: your "percentages" suggest you do not think genocide is absolutely immoral.)
Tig, I reckon I could pull off a similar agenda: Speak to the masses assembled together on Newstalkers delivering a message. But, one problem, I am not searching for any new converts to Christianity, or "deconverts" to restore to the faith.
I come here daily for camaraderie, sharing, and defense of my faith when it gets a bad rap from online attacks by militants .
Science does not care about about anybody's worldview, though we all have a worldview and uses it to form our presuppositions.
Consequently, scientists can be supernaturalists too (think Francis Collins). Science simply requires evidence and explanation. But, in the scientific community there are so-called "agents of change" who do not see it this way.
Consider Neuroscientist Sam Harris and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins , both men hostile and frequent critics of religion and faith.
Atheist Richard Dawkins, in his own words (2009):
"Faith-heads"? "Fence-sitters"? "Naked contempt"? There is Richard Dawkins making plain his agenda. There are at least two types of atheists out there:
1. The so-called, "appeasers" in the science community who think that science and religion can coexist apart from each other.
2. The atheists who are contemptuous, dismissive, arrogant, sometimes vitriolic against any mention of religion and faith.
Question is: Which type are some of our atheists Newstalkers?
You are correct, "I" believe it to be immoral, I did not say it was true for every person in every culture, nor did i ever state is was considered "bad" for all cultures, societies, and individuals as you clearly try to state i did. I also spoke of it in the bronze age as that is when God committed these horrors for the first time, do you believe that genocide was moral in the bronze age, and everyone who died was like , "yea, that's cool".
Morality is in the eye of the beholder, your trying to play some kind of word game to push a square peg into a round hole and it is not fitting. If you think Genocide is morally ok because God committed it many times within the bible then that is on you. For me it is just another reason why the Christian God, "If" he exists, would still get the big middle finger from me in the afterlife.
I spoke to the FSM in prayer and he told me the 90% number was correct.
In your attempt to sound intelligent and genuine, it is coming off as something else and it is starting to irritate me.
oh, and you never did respond to my follow up questions about God perfection or knowledge and how that relates to his ability to change his moral code and what those changes are based on.
DRHunk, your comments seem to have a prejudicial bias against God which you have not bother to establish a reason for why it is so. It consistently appears. For example, how does one get a moral code which states it is "cool" for some cultures to commit genocide, but "bad" for God to wipe out people, presuming people are God's creation?
Curious.
Then you go all out bombastic in your second paragraph to imagine yourself giving God in the Afterlife "the finger." Wow! Wow! Wow! It should cross the mind that were you to find yourself anywhere other than the familiar territory of this planet, that you would like have to acquaint yourself with what "the finger" means as a personal insult! For example, it could result in a SECOND death sentence.
As for "Flying Spaghetti Monsters," and your telling me about my abilities or lack of abilities, I do not have any interest in what you feel about me, personally 'Hunk. It is irrelevant. You may notice I do not bother to get into irrelevant things with you. IT DOES NOT MATTER!
This new group is named, Christian State of Mind, and you wandered across it and decided to stay awhile. We can share somethings together or not. We'll see how it goes from here.
As for as follow-up questions go: You still have not supplied your worldview from @4.1 above. If you do, it can easily move the discussion forward (or stall it).Or, do not answer that question and continue to wonder what it matters. That is up to you.
One thing you should not think to do is appear to throw around your private opinions coupled with condescension.
People come in all flavors and sizes. Putting everyone in a box with a label is a crappy way to operate. Much better to deal with issues rather than people.
Re-read my first para, it is in direct correlation to your assertion that every person in every culture has the same opinion on genocide, hence those that god killed, probably did not actually think genocide was a good thing, but Noah may have since he was spared and gets to rebuild the world, or Moses may have because it was an ends to a means to get his people freed. I think genocide is reprehensible and the purpose or reason does not matter. Anyone who actually reads the bible and understands what the stories are actually depicting should be mortified and never proclaim worship of it, its characters, or stories. (but that just my opinion)
I'm not prejudice of what does not exist, i may however have an opinion on a book that others seem to revolve their lives around and quote without understanding its contents. I merely shed light where there is darkness.
It is relevant for the progressing true discourse. You just wrote a whole bunch of something that addressed nothing, guess we are done here. Look forward to the next conversation.
The norm, IMO. Takes a lot of effort to get very little, like making pomegranate juice.
All NT have a worldview or several and use it to form presuppositions. This is not about "boxes" or "labels" and the issues of life may proceed from our outlook (worldview) on the surrounding world.
You are not prejudice of what does not exist? Yet, you heave a lot of animus against a non-existent God figure. How does this work?
Care to explain what this sentence means to you?
I have been trying to get you to share your worldview with the group for several days now (oh, and same to DRHunk); talk about squeezing out pomegranate juice. You would think I was asking for family jewels!
Transparency is a positive thing among Newstalkers.
Badgering people to explain their worldview (personal, and not a simple thing to describe) is highly negative. Especially when their worldview was not the topic. This is in stark contrast to asking someone to define the terms they are using ... like ‘perfect’ and ‘omniscient’. The former is being obnoxious, the latter is asking for clarity in an otherwise vague comment.
One should realize that vague, evasive responses coupled with badgering for info that is not the topic of discussion will dissuade people from participating.
You should understand that transparency is important in a two-way ongoing discussion. Stating one's worldview, how one views the world is not complicated. It is a philosophy we each live by. Christianity is a worldview. Naturalism is a worldview. Materialism is a worldview. And so forth and so on. This is not news I am sharing here. Why hide it from us?
Obnoxiousness can be tantamount to unbelieving members arriving in believer's groups to display naked contempt against the Christian worldview, without any clarification of why the unbeliever's worldview is a better choice! Evasiveness can be called out on members refusing limited disclosure of what beliefs they hold, and finally harassment is the routine namecalling and condescension heaved upon believers simply for speaking up for the hope they have within them through faith in God.
You should understand that not everybody cares to divulge personal information. Especially to someone who has a track record of stubborn, incessant stereotyping used in failed attempts to fabricate personal contradictions.
Write something about the topic. Your endless meta is boring.
I won't demean you. Your derision is noted, nevertheless. A worldview is not personal information, Tig. It is an important part of these types of discussions. For example, you could explain and elaborate on why your worldview is a better choice than Christianity. I know you above many here know this.
Then you have no concept of personal information.
A worldview is not personal information, Tig. It is an important part of these types of discussions. For example, you could explain and elaborate on why your worldview is a better choice than Christianity.
Moreover, you have spent years engaging in attempts to punch holes in my so-called, "personal" Christian philosophy!
Let try a different approach. Do you accept there are:
Punching holes in tissue paper? Hardly worth the effort - the paper is already replete with holes given its absence of structural integrity. If you do not realize that I challenge non-critical thinking and, in particular, the blind acceptance of ancient books as divinity then you are not paying attention.
So you just ignore the second part of that statement that clarifies my position?
I believe it is self explanatory.
It is an every evolving combination of things real or imagined that may or may not be explained in this or any other forum.
In other words, that's a dumb question and not relevant to the topic or the conversation.
Christianity is not a wordview, it is a religion that influences but one part of your person. A worldview is a conglomeration of many, many things that is ever evolving.
Have we not already been through this? Maybe it was Drakk. Okay, here is my answer:
If there are absolute moral truths then these truths must come from a sentient authority that is of sufficient grandness to claim absolute truth. And the only way we can know the absolute truth is if the sentient authority tells us. Guessing what the sentient authority might think or presuming to know what the authority might think is absurd.
Relative moral truths are what we all perceive. A relative moral truth is anything that a group deems to be as such. For example, those who support the morality of honor killing have a relative moral truth in their group that honor killing is morally correct. Other groups do not consider honor killing a moral truth.
Worse, it is a category of distinct religions replete with contradictions.
Let's try one aspect: Are you a materialist?
Christianity is not a religion; religions are institutions which can surround worldviews.
Did you not read my comment?:
How many religions are there in Christianity, Tig?
Cal, do your own counting. You seem to ask questions for the sake of asking when you can use Google to find the various denominations. You will find Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist all the way to Christians who follow Christ's teachings but do not consider Jesus divine. And within that the denominations are in abundance.
Besides, until you establish relevance, your question is irrelevant.
Are denominations, religions Tig?
Were it as simple and easy as you state, then what in the world are you still doing?
Establish relevance.
Relativism. In this point of view, mass genocide can be right for one group of people and wrong for another group. It can not be universally right or wrong for everybody.
The Nazis apparently thought genocide was right. People can believe truly bizarre things.
That is the point in relativism. There are no laws of morality everybody has to abide by in a relative universe. There is no universal right and wrong standard.
If there is no arbiter of objective morality then there can be no objective morality.
If there is no objective morality then what we have left is relative morality.
Relative morality clearly does exist, so it is possible that it is the best we have.
Relative morality does not allow for a single universal standard of mass genocide condemnation.
Absolutely correct!
Now, make a specific point regarding that.
In relative morality mass genocide is not evil or good. It simply something which occurs.
Not true.
The relative morality of Nazis held that genocide of Jews was good and correct.
The relative morality of modern Jews is that genocide is always wrong. (Many groups concur on this point.)
What is considered morally good or morally bad can vary per group. But within a particular group one could find an internally consistent relative morality. Plus many groups with differing relative morality will agree on a subset of the morality. For example, most groups consider slavery to be immoral.
Not so in an atheistic or materialists universe. In naturalistic societies no individual is responsible for anyone else's happiness. Why should this one care about that one's greatest happiness? This one should not in an atheist/materialist society.
One could find some people bandied together for their mutual "good," but that would only exist within the group. It would be a convention, and subject to change.
What an odd response.
Do you recognize that there exists an Islamic culture which considers honor killing to be morally correct? Are these Muslims atheists in your mind?
Do you recognize that there exist Christian groups who consider murdering homosexuals to be morally correct? Are these Christians atheists in your mind?
Do you not recognize that there are different groups in existence - each of which have their own distinct relative morality?
Do you not recognize that groups with differing relative morality will often agree on a subset of their morality? For example, most groups nowadays agree that slavery is immoral.
And here we get to the bottom of all of your convoluted questions and attempts to label people. You're attempting in vain to show that atheists are immoral and don't give a crap about anyone else, which is totally false.
Back to the actual topic, I'm going to write an article about the possible historical origins of the Exodus myth. They're fascinating and include the Hyksos among other peoples, from which this myth most likely originated.
I thought you signed out days ago. Just hanging on the sidelines waiting to pounce I see. Gotta believe it! As to your "analysis" of my statements on morality it is wrong. I will leave it at that. For in an atheist-materialist universe there is no standard which states I am right or wrong when I simply ignore you.
The Christian worldview holds to an objective standard for morality. That does not mean all Christians live up to this standard, nevertheless.
Christians can behave below standard just like an atheist-naturalists can choose to live by a set of rules and stipulations—even an objective standard. However, when an atheist decides to live by an objective standard he or she lives absolutely and not relatively.
Relativism sets its bars of social conventions high-low-or not at all. Who is to say what is right, or wrong for all people?
Where do you find the objective standard?
Nobody other than an arbiter of objective morality. Where do you find the determined rules of objective morality provided by said arbiter? Where is the authoritative source so that all people know what is right and what is wrong?
The Christian worldview objective truth is grounded in a belief in the existence of God. And, God's existence is based on many convincing proofs occurring in the life of the Believer. And, the source which grounds Christian believers are the closed canon of scripture: The Bible.
For all people to discover objective truth: Open, read, and reason with the special revelation given in the Bible.
Then slavery is considered objectively moral? Do you have a quote from the Bible where God informs His people that the owning of a human being by another is immoral?
The Bible has plenty of spots where slavery is treated as acceptable and routine (as it was to the ancient men who wrote the Bible). But nothing from the arbiter of objective morality (who would be able to see beyond the mores and values of ancient bronze and iron age men) and clearly deem the ownership of human beings as property to be immoral.
Much like ceremonial and civil laws in Ancient Israel, slavery was allowed to pass away locally. I, like many others, are sure glad of that!
Lastly, in an atheist-naturalist worldview morality is relative. There is no universal standard to consider. Slavery can exist as a 'local' convention, as there is no unifying standard which serves to preclude one people from keeping other people in servitude.
NOTE: Tig, we tried to discuss slavery between us once before and it came to a close when you abruptly ended it with a display of indignation. I am seriously not interested in having that experience repeat in this setting. So, I will limit myself on this line of discussion.
A 21st century human being declares that slavery is not objectively immoral because of what ancient men wrote in a book.
It is a good thing that most people operate on relative morality and can clearly assert that slavery is immoral.
What about wars? Are wars objectively immoral? Wars are not objective immoral—God, the arbiter of morality, did not direct Ancient Israel to laid down their weapons and surrender to their enemies either.
What about killing? Is killing people objectively immoral? Killing people is not objectively immoral— God, the arbiter of morality, did not direct Ancient Israel to take or leave its enemies alive (to come back and attack the again). Israel was directed to fight, win, and remove the offending people out of their places in various ways and means.
When war, killing, and slavery fit the situation, God, as judge, explicitly permits it.
Relatively-speaking, there is no unifying standard which serves to preclude one people from keeping other people in servitude.
In order to hold to such a unifying standard, atheist-naturalists would have to exit the atheist-naturalist worldview.
Given you view objective morality as that which is written in the Bible, you must hold that wars are not objectively immoral. For me, I can only make a relative moral call because I see no source of objective morality to be found.
Anyone who holds the Bible up as the document of objective morality would apparently feel it moral to conquer an enemy and rape their virgin females. Or to kill two males for engaging in a homosexual act ... on and on ...
The God character of the Bible does not condemn slavery as immoral thus it is not immoral to enslave another human being?? And that is as good an example as any as to why some of us challenge those who do not think critically regarding religion (and politics).
It may serve your purposes to ask a Rabbi about Leviticus at some point.
Relatively-speaking, there is no unifying standard which serves to preclude one people from keeping other people in servitude. The practice of chattel slavery could start up in any atheistic country at any time should that area determine it could improve their overall happiness. Who can speak with authority to deny them a choice of slavery? Not other atheists.
To do so the atheists involved would have to leave the atheist worldview behind.
What do atheists have to do with this? Where do you find atheists claiming that slavery is objectively moral?
We have a self-labeled theist boldly stating that his God deems slavery objectively moral. I would be quite surprised to find an atheist who would suggest objective morality would include slavery as moral.
Why?
Because most people on the planet have a moral sense that the owning of a human being as property is immoral.
To think that owning another human being is moral would have to come from blind acceptance. You typically do not find atheists (and other critical thinking individuals when it comes to matters of religion) accepting something as true merely because ancient men wrote words in a book.
You mean moral sense in modern times right? Are you suggesting an unbeliever never owned slaves? And, that an atheist could never own another person today or at some period in the future? Why do you think this?
You are wandering all over the map again.
Real simple and candid Cal. Anyone who thinks it is objectively moral to own another human being as property needs to rethink his/her moral sense.
You 'wandered' away from the questions.
By definition, an atheist-naturalist does not aim to live by a uniform set of moral standards, Tig. Your social conventions do not hold for all atheists-naturalists.
By whose definition? Yours? You have no moral authority to judge that...
This has nothing to do with atheists.
You think it is moral for human beings to be owned as property.
Given that, I think you need to sort out your moral sense.
Cal,
The book that goes along with the story of Exodus is "The Haggadah". That is what Jesus was reading from during "The Last Supper". In there, god does not condone slavery. He says to Jacob, " know that your people will be strangers in a strange land and there they will serve 300 years of hard labor. But also know, they will be judged for their evils and you will leave with freedom and great wealth". (I am paraphrasing).
The point is, that the quintessential book on slavery, says that slavery is bad. god is all knowing and gave people freewill, but knows what the Egyptians will do, but also punishes them for doing it since it was wrong.
Slavery in the old testament/Torah is very confusing. But in reality, no person should be a slave. There was room for indentured servitude, but even rules with how they should be treated during and afterward.
I think Cal should have a serious chat with Enoch about the Haggadah. Seems to me it is better to conclude that the Bible is not divine then to blindly accept notions such as slavery is objectively moral.
SERIOUSLY, I think you should not attempt to piggy-back on Perrie's comment. It diminishes you. Now, I will reply to Perrie properly.
Hi Perrie, this discussion on the subject of slavery is actually not about Egyptian slavery. There are larger points wanting to be made by the opposing side:
and one more:
I completely understand the biblical concepts of biblical slavery and captivities, though I will enjoy looking into this, "The Haggadah" at my earliest convenience. But, I have to consider an approach to slavery suitable for the direction of this specific discussion. As you see,I noted above to Tig:
NOTE: Tig, we tried to discuss slavery between us once before and it came to a close when you abruptly ended it with a display of indignation. I am seriously not interested in having that experience repeat in this setting. So, I will limit myself on this line of discussion.
As you have accurately stated slavery is a 'hard' topic to discuss; because people WILL shut down, and that is when something else (usually yelling and namecalling) takes over.
My approach today, is to remind the naturalists that at the core of their worldview, mankind is an evolving animal no better than other animals in the field, an animal who will live and die and then there is nothing.
So, since naturalists hold there are no moral absolutes, no universal/uniformity of morality that they ought to live by, they argue for only relative conventions of cultural, society, and individuals, thus they can not judge what others outside their community do in their communities.
Perrie, it would help me if you have a share a good link to this book, "The Haggadah," for the ones I can immediately locate are weaving Jesus as the Messiah into the accounts, or displaying a litany of reading materials under this title. Any reading material advise, or direct link especially, will be appreciated!
Now you have wandered well beyond even the bounds of your article.
Well to your credit I have not yet observed any yelling and name-calling. Key takeaway from my perspective is that you think it is objectively moral for human beings to be owned as property based on your reading of the Bible. I think it would be beneficial to talk with others and hopefully work yourself out of this way of thinking.
What I think is, since naturalists are moral relativists, it is contradictory for you as a relativist to utter a universal moral position. As for God, I do not and will not put myself up as God's judge.
I have not stated a universal moral position; I am not convinced that objective morality exists. I have noted that you state that it is objectively moral to own another person as property.
If there is a god, nobody could possibly judge such an entity. But one can certainly judge a book written by ancient men. And one can judge the character of that book. But that is getting into an entirely different subject matter.
You have several times over snuck a proposition into this discussion which I have not indicated:
Since you , beginning at @ 4.1.61 labored across several comments to introduce the slavery topic into a prior "engagement" on the topic of mass genocide , what I since have been stating is God permits (accepts) slavery in Ancient Israel proper and placed Israel captive to other nations.
Rather stealthy of you to attempt to shift the discussion away from mass genocide, to slavery, and now onto a discussion about your presuppositions of my private views on slavery.
Better to deal with the points made in the discussion of slavery in general . My personal views on slavery have not been submitted for discussion.
Hardly a sneak; I purposely was quite candid - emphasizing the critical points in BLUE . You did not object (and you complain about everything ). Sure, Cal, I was real subtle and sneaky.
Are you now going to assert that God considers the owning of human beings as property to be immoral ?
You are the one who agreed with God . So do you disagree with God now? Do you want to change your position on God's view of slavery? Does God now objectively deem slavery immoral? What clear statement are you capable of making?
See I think it is important that you come to grips with this. It is demonstrable folly for anyone to think - for any reason - that slavery is moral under any circumstances. Likewise, it is sad to think that people believe it moral to kill two men who engage in homosexual acts simply because ancient mores and values were written down in a book.
Now you are introducing homosexuality into this discussion?! I'll call this: The expanding 'sandbox' fallacy. Better to finish one issue before scattering the discussion beyond the bounds of the article!
Whether you write it in blue (as I sometimes do) or some other color; your presupposition is irrelevant. You do not know my personal view of slavery (and no one likes a know it all anyway). Your presumptions do not make it so.
I do not disagree with God on matters pertaining to God. Because God is Sovereign in the life of the Believer. As you put it @4.1.91
Tig, for the believer God DOES exist, therefore we positively do not "judge such an entity." We listen up and do our best to learn from God.
Unlike an unbeliever, who does not believe God exist and following after presupposes to judge God by relative human standards of morality. As if such a thing is even possible. Failing in the process to accept that attempts to apply relative morality absolutely is a contradiction.
Complaining about everything as a deflection tactic. People use examples to emphasize a point. And I used this very same example earlier. Instead of petty complaining that I used an example, make a clear argument.
The focus was on objective morality (not your personal morality). So does God deem slavery immoral or not? All you do is dance, Cal.
That is what I thought. So if you assert that God considers the owning of another person to be moral then, logically, you hold the same view. See?
You did not state that God deems slavery immoral. Why not? Does God consider slavery to be immoral or moral?
You are complaining about complaining again, Tig?! What is wrong here?!!! Homosexuals are not the topic here, Tig. You're getting ahead of the tape on Leviticus.
I do not agree that people should be killed. Generally speaking I am 'uncomfortable' with people dying too, Tig. God agrees with both activities, Tig.
Does that make me a better being than God?! No, Tig. It does not. (Dryly.)
Nothing but diversion. Clearly you are not going to answer the key question:
By default, your prior position stands. You hold that God considers the owning of human beings as property to be moral.
If you disagree, take a stand.
I have plenty of experience with this routine of yours. Good night. Locking the thread for now.
My answer @ 4.1.96 an enhanced repeat of 4.1.70 is as good as I am prepared to offer. Here is my stand: Take it or leave it.
If you need more info, you may should try to contact God for a one on one interview. /s
On second thought, you just might get that interview slotted in!
I think you should talk to Enoch about your belief that the owning of a human being as property is not objectively immoral (i.e. your belief that owning a human being as property is objectively moral).
You do not know what my point of view is regarding owning another person. So stop fishing.
As for God's POV, I would love it if Enoch could take time to share a thought or two on the Jewish perspective of biblical slavery. For sure!
In the meantime, I understand the biblical view as a Christian. All one has to do is research on the matter. However, this attempt at inflaming passions by repeating a 'hot topic' non-stop won't change anybody's view who can read for themselves! God is not some 'cosmic crowdpleaser' performing for a human audiences pleasure or applause.
Barring something new on this thread (ancient slavery), I am done with it.
Objective morality is not your point of view - it necessarily is the position of God. I doubt that you will equivocate on that.
Given:
∴ you believe that the owning of a human being as property is not objectively immoral
I have never written a word about your relative morality. I would certainly hope that your relative moral view is that slavery is immoral.
Unless you are purposely trying to contradict yourself, what I wrote correctly summarizes what you have written here and in the past regarding objective morality.
And I am happy to be done with this nonsense. Go talk with Enoch - you might listen to him.
You are wrong; God permitted Israel to own slaves and to go into repeat captivity. To my mind, as far as this universe goes, I might run the whole of it completely different than God all things being equal, but it does not matter what I want God is not asking me to run any of it.
@4.1.96 I wrote: I do not agree people should be killed. Generally speaking I am 'uncomfortable' with people dying too, Tig. God agrees with both activities, Tig.
Does that make me a better being than God?! No, Tig. It does not. (Dryly.)
I could go on with this but I won't. It is not my job to try to usurp the leadership role of God. Can't happen. Won't occur.
And you can go talk with Somebody - you might listen to. Because for the record, you have oft-times made it plain you do not trust much if anything written by "ancient men" anyhow. Unless it is Epicurean or Plato, Socrates, or . . . .
What, specifically, do you think I got wrong?
Remember, we are discussing objective morality.
Let me answer you by turning direction slightly: Tig, have you ever read the Bible holistically? Are you aware how such a thing is possible with the books of the Bible? And, to draw the video above into this you can talk about Exodus. (Remember, there is an EXODUS Part 2 of 2 video article as well.)
You are not discussing objective morality, because you are a relativist for whom there is little to no possibility of becoming an absolutist to any measurable degree. It's all "academic."
Furthermore, you do not believe God exist. This article is closing down today!
All over the map.
And you are just typing by rote insults and offenses. Typical. This thread has ended. Thanks for all you do!
I will be away from my computer nearly all day. So I will be locking this thread now. Have a nice day, everybody!
It would be a welcome change to discuss with both sides-positive and negative-at the least!
Does anyone have anything positive to state about the Exodus video?
Naturalists, and Material-naturalists, who do not accept there are supernatural, spiritual, and soul orders are "duty bound" to criticize and seek to find natural ways to respond to the text.
I'm not "duty bound" to do anything. As a logical, rational person, when I find a topic that interests me - and mythology is a topic I enjoy - I might choose to engage on that topic.
Your constant labeling is befuddling.
You seem to be enjoying your rational presupposition. Anything positive you wish to add to this article on Exodus? Or will you continue to engage in ad hominem attacks on me?
Will you continue to label people you know nothing about, and announce to everyone what they think and what they feel duty bound to do?
You are a material-naturalist. You identified yourself - as anybody willing to interact in discussions with others should. Now, you apparently regret or balk at your honesty. Well, you can do that. You can do it. And, I can talk about this.
Do you accept or reject the supernatural, spirit, soul, and the immaterial?
A perfect example of why people do not play your game of labels. Who would accept a label knowing that you will only try to use it stereotypically to trap or badger?
Show me the evidence of the supernatural. Until you do, there is no reason for me to accept it. But no reason to reject it as impossible.
Show me the evidence of spirit (by whatever definition you hold). Until you do, there is no reason for me to accept it. But no reason (depending upon how you define the term) to reject it as impossible.
We have evidence for the immaterial. Gravity (the force) is technically immaterial (as in essentially without mass). We have evidence to accept the immaterial (at least under this definition).
Open and honest transparency with limited disclosure is not a game, TiG. However, I can not help but observe your avatar is a member of the Chess family which could symbolize you undertake these simple and basic discussions as some sort of roaming "debate" or "match."
That you are not open to discuss your own worldview, while arbitrarily remarking on the worldviews of others on this thread, says something more about you than it does me.
Moreover, I observe a constant string of subtle negativisms about me littering your comments. Tig, it is you that will cry foul first, loudest, and longest when someone should do similarly.
Basically, I have concluded your bundled comments taken together are lot of 'signifying of nothing,' in my opinion. That is, you are not supporting a discussion because in the writer @3.1.10:
6] If you consider a worldview a private matter and take steps to prevent the open discussion of worldviews, you are in fact imposing your worldview on others; by doing so you would deny individuals the opportunity to bring their own worldviews fully to bear on matters of common concern and the opportunity to examine their worldviews in the light of others'; you would effectively restrict public discourse to trivialities and ungrounded assertions.
As to the questions for katrix which you took for yourself:
Do you accept or reject the supernatural, spirit, soul, and the immaterial?
The operative words are: Accept or reject them all.
Correct. But I did not talk about 'open and honest transparency' but rather your game of labels. Two entirely different things.
You did not comprehend my answer?:
TiG @6.1.4:
Instead of repeating your question with no additional information (which of course accomplishes nothing), maybe try telling me what answer you want to hear and I will then tell you if I agree.
Are you a Skeptic? Is that a label? Is it being transparent to admit if you are such a person or not?
You arbitrarily decide what is acceptable for evidence to you based on private presuppositions and a worldview you hold but are unwilling to share with others.
Saying that you are a "no-label" naturalist (or something else) makes no sense, or it leaves you not identifying to others what you clearly identify with, in my opinion.
Furthermore, being a skeptic about everything may lead you to an experience of being skeptical about your own skepticism. (Credit, Michael Shermer.)
As to the immaterial: Since you do accept gravity as immaterial, then when supplied with a reasonable explanation for the existence of other immaterials you should be able to accept them as well.
What does this have to do with my post? Yes, Cal, I am a skeptic. And I do not care what definition you look up for that word because here is what I mean by 'skeptic': I do not believe something to be true or effectively true until I have sufficient reason to do so. Sufficient reason is logic and/or evidence. It is not sufficient for someone to simply tell me something is true or that they believe it is true. What matters is the logic and/or evidence supporting the claim.
Now, if you go hunting for someone else's definition of 'skeptic' or find an article by some bozo who criticizes skeptics or twists the meaning of the word 'skeptic' to something that meets your agenda then you will again be playing the label game to which I referred.
There is nothing arbitrary about my thought process. And I am willing to share what I choose to share - not what you demand I share.
Can you function without labeling people?
Water is wet Cal.
Depends on what you mean by 'immaterial'. However, just because I accept one thing as immaterial does not mean that I will accept anything else as immaterial. Each 'thing' is evaluated on its own merits.
Are you a naturalist? Is that a label? Is it being transparent to admit if you are such a person or not?
Do you arbitrarily decide what the meaning of words is for you (alone)? How is that helpful, when communicating with others?
Yes, that is a label.
People 'admit' (or acknowledge or declare) what they wish. You must realize that not everyone is interested in sharing everything about themselves. Your badgering of people to be open and transparent in whatever dimension you choose is an act of futility.
No. I provide the definition for a label I have chosen to apply to myself when I am dealing with someone who takes a label, finds a suitable usage (meaning) that fits his agenda, and then attempts to use that usage to play games.
It mitigates deliberate semantic shifts.
You know I reject them. And since I reject the immaterial (unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant) and illogical ... I'm choosing to reject you. Goodbye.
Our world is encompassed by labels; they help identify and explain a great deal about us, Tig.
You hold to a set of presuppositions and a worldview. You should be transparent enough to share it.
Are the laws of logic immaterial? Is mathematics immaterial? Consciousness immaterial? Colors (mental afterimages) immaterial? Dreams immaterial? There are many immaterials in our world.
Do you have a worldview, Tig? Can you be transparent with us to this degree? Are you a naturalist?
Is consciousness immaterial, katrix?
You are not reading:
Read this ⇧
You are not reading:
Read this ⇧
You are not reading:
Read this ⇧
Laws of logic, mathematics, etc. are immaterial as concepts but are material in terms of usage. Each 'thing' is evaluated on its own merits.
You ask questions, people answer the questions, you continue to badger them asking equivalent (and usually vague) questions. Wonder why katrix left?
My suggestion is to actually make a point or an argument. If you have something to say then put it on the table. If you want to rebut something another person wrote then stand up and make your rebuttal. Dancing around and playing games will not accomplish anything good; it will cause people to avoid you. Yes you will likely be challenged - that is the risk of honest clarity. If you do not want your ideas to be challenged then engaging folks in a public forum is a bad idea.
Stop retreating behind a personal and arbitrary 'barricade.' Come out in the open and engage others.
No one forced you to join this group discussion. Since you have, we have an expectation that you will be open, honest, and transparent, nevertheless!
I will not be discussing katrix or anyone else with you.
Yes
Sure. Ask a specific, relevant question rather than try to pin general, stereotyped labels on others.
Depends on what the individual means by the label.
She is no longer here. Well done!
Consciousness appears to be a property of the brain and the brain is material. 'Appears to be' means that evidence leads us to this position. There is no evidence that suggests consciousness is not a function of the brain. Beliefs are not evidence.
How is this general badgering responsive to my post?
Read this ⇧
We are encompassed by immaterials, and they 'populate' the world in a manner of their own expression. You arbitrarily dismiss immaterials which do not fit your hereto hidden from this group worldview.
Everybody as presuppositions and a worldview about this world. You can not deceive me into accepting you as some type of blind slate for logic and reason to write upon.
It would appear to me that to end a discussion with you, all anyone has to do is ask you to state your worldview. Noted.
If you will not answer this question. Please do not bother me with complains about being badgered. You can exit too. Or, did you not observe this thread is actually about Exodus, a book of the Bible?
You are not reading:
Read this ⇧
You are not reading:
Read this ⇧
Then why are you badgering people about worldviews, materialism, naturalism, etc.? If you want people to discuss your topic then don't steer the ship elsewhere.
This once I will indulge you 'concern' about katrix. katrix can go and come as she wishes. You all do I have noticed. The only constant here is me! Now, I hope you can let that go now.
How is consciousness a 'function of the brain,' and is it local in the brain? Please elaborate.
If you have nothing useful to discuss further, I am done interacting with your comments: What is your worldview?
What is your worldview, Tig?
There is no need to be coy and poutish about it. You appear to have considerable time and thoughts on negative considerations of the Christian worldview; surely you can be clear in stating and explaining your personal worldview.
Did you not just state:
Maybe you should write an article if you want to get into a discussion of consciousness. In the meantime, read what I wrote:
There is nothing that suggests consciousness is anything more than a biological function. Should science discover evidence that suggests it look for consciousness outside of the brain we might learn something new. Right now, the evidence is showing that without a brain there is no consciousness. Local. Material. Another emergent property of the human body.
All you need to do is stop talking about katrix and she would not be in the discussion. Quit blaming others for your own actions.
Do you understand what the verb 'badger' means? I am now not sure you do: Oxford: " Repeatedly ask (someone) to do something; pester. "
Different comments, we were overlapping with our comments at that point. You still have not answered the question as stated: What is your worldview, Tig?
Consciousness: Are the things (such as an 'afterimage' of an experience of the color Red) in your head material or immaterial, Tig?
You are not reading:
Read this ⇧
Based on the most recent understanding of neuroscience, the things in our minds appear to be functions of our material brains. But, you should already know my answer since I have already been quite clear:
Read this ⇧
By the way, I have been providing some extremely subtle hints ( see: Read this ⇧ ) with immediate and undeniable examples of how you continue to ask questions after having received an answer. Apparently none of this is sinking in. Another super subtle hint: I am not the only one who has noticed this.
Yeah. Your naturalistic presuppositions are plain to see, Tig. Apparently, if it is not scientifically evidenced for you it does not exist! Thus, you can not reasonably discuss Exodus because the supernatural aspects of the Bible are immaterial.
Your brain matter is the whole of your conscious mind, right?
My focus is on evidence of the caliber of scientific evidence. But one could also provide sound logic based on established (valid) premises. Got any?
There is a difference between discussing the supernatural and believing supernatural entities exist. One can discuss the supernatural characters in Game of Thrones, for example (e.g. Daenerys Targaryen's dragons and her own invulnerability to fire) (e.g. the wizards and witches of Harry Potter) ... without actually believing they exist.
Based on the current level of science, that does seem to be the case. But you will need to extend the brain to the entire nervous system. Nonetheless it appears to be biological matter doing all the fancy stuff.
You feel badgered? This are a bevy of other discussions taking place on NewsTalkers!
Not in the least. Your badgering has no effect other than further confirmation (unfortunately) of truly bad practices on your part. I have noted what you are doing to get you to realize it ... guess nothing is going to sink in.
Well, this has been obliquely informative and interesting. I can stop now. How about you?
see TiG @6.1.35
Or, I can ask that you be honest and transparent in discussion: What is your worldview? Showing up in this Christian group just to spread discord and tout atheism will end.
You are still badgering.
I have not discussed atheism but as for discord, that is simply a function of not agreeing. As noted, if you can only deal with positions harmonious with your own then you probably should find an echo chamber. Create a private group.
LOL.
NOTE: I have a cold and have taken medicine that is causing increasing drowisness. I will be closing this article for the night. Good night!