Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#141  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 24, 2017 7:03 pm

LOL...

Thomas, I don't engage in fights with children, the mentally challenged, drunks or people with an axe to grind (and others). I can keep this up all day if you need the typing practice, knock yourself out. :lol:
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#142  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2017 7:05 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I haven't been to church since I became a self-identified "agnostic" only because of the fear I felt at being an "atheist." :o It took me 15 or so years to get to that point and another dozen or so to where I am today. I was excommunicated ultimately... including my own family. Undoing the damage done by all the brainwashing is the greatest challenge I've faced in my life. One must be diligent at recognizing the leftover remnants and work to dispel them, but it is worth it.


Ahhh. So that's what you're doing here, trying to scrub the last bits off?

No, not at all. This place will confuse the hell out of you as much if not more than church sometimes. LOL. Besides, you catholics just had to go to confessional on Saturday and you were "scrubbed" clean of everything. Ours we had to carry with us. ;)


Yes, a few Hail Mary's and we're fresher than a newborn baby. As for your burden, you could always convert to Catholicism. ;)


I'm quite sure indelible ink was used to imprint my Catholicism. The best I can do is reimagine the image and go from there.

Sounds like you were raised in 15th Century Spain... how old are you again?? :naughty2:


Not quite that old but I'm Byzantine Catholic. So it was much more of an ancient and mystical experience than Roman Catholic services - although I went to Roman Catholic schools. My home team church experience was in a language I didn't speak with lot's of icons, plenty of incense and really good rituals that were well evolved to penetrate. Bloody statues of Christ on a cross - plenty of candles - all the trimmings.


And it's not all bad, in fact, the best lessons I ever learned in life came via my religion - in spite of the garbled way that lesson was taught.


That's just the Stockholm Syndrome talking. ;)


That's certainly one plausible explanation.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#143  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 24, 2017 7:17 pm

John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
I haven't been to church since I became a self-identified "agnostic" only because of the fear I felt at being an "atheist." :o It took me 15 or so years to get to that point and another dozen or so to where I am today. I was excommunicated ultimately... including my own family. Undoing the damage done by all the brainwashing is the greatest challenge I've faced in my life. One must be diligent at recognizing the leftover remnants and work to dispel them, but it is worth it.


Ahhh. So that's what you're doing here, trying to scrub the last bits off?

No, not at all. This place will confuse the hell out of you as much if not more than church sometimes. LOL. Besides, you catholics just had to go to confessional on Saturday and you were "scrubbed" clean of everything. Ours we had to carry with us. ;)


Yes, a few Hail Mary's and we're fresher than a newborn baby. As for your burden, you could always convert to Catholicism. ;)

Oh that was funny! Made me think of a crack addict deciding after 30 years sober, "Maybe I should try heroin?" :lol: Thanks for the laugh.



I'm quite sure indelible ink was used to imprint my Catholicism. The best I can do is reimagine the image and go from there.

Sounds like you were raised in 15th Century Spain... how old are you again?? :naughty2:


Not quite that old but I'm Byzantine Catholic. So it was much more of an ancient and mystical experience than Roman Catholic services - although I went to Roman Catholic schools. My home team church experience was in a language I didn't speak with lot's of icons, plenty of incense and really good rituals that were well evolved to penetrate. Bloody statues of Christ on a cross - plenty of candles - all the trimmings.

Ah, that explains it then. I'm mostly familiar with the Roman variety. We were strict, not so much of the sensory overload. It was scandalous for a girl to where a crucifix. Dancing was damn near a mortal sin. Musical instruments in church? :nono: Choir?? Oh HELL NO! I guess they all have their issues, but you have me on the senses thing... We only had hell fire and brimstone to contend with.



And it's not all bad, in fact, the best lessons I ever learned in life came via my religion - in spite of the garbled way that lesson was taught.


That's just the Stockholm Syndrome talking. ;)


That's certainly one plausible explanation.


It has been a reassuring conversation... it is sometimes a challenge to have a conversation with disagreement, on a forum and still be civil.

I was reluctant to ask earlier because it could be "low hanging fruit," but now I'm just wondering your position on the existence of god and how we got here? I'm guessing you are atheist and evolution?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#144  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2017 8:27 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Ahhh. So that's what you're doing here, trying to scrub the last bits off?

No, not at all. This place will confuse the hell out of you as much if not more than church sometimes. LOL. Besides, you catholics just had to go to confessional on Saturday and you were "scrubbed" clean of everything. Ours we had to carry with us. ;)


Yes, a few Hail Mary's and we're fresher than a newborn baby. As for your burden, you could always convert to Catholicism. ;)

Oh that was funny! Made me think of a crack addict deciding after 30 years sober, "Maybe I should try heroin?" :lol: Thanks for the laugh.



I'm quite sure indelible ink was used to imprint my Catholicism. The best I can do is reimagine the image and go from there.

Sounds like you were raised in 15th Century Spain... how old are you again?? :naughty2:


Not quite that old but I'm Byzantine Catholic. So it was much more of an ancient and mystical experience than Roman Catholic services - although I went to Roman Catholic schools. My home team church experience was in a language I didn't speak with lot's of icons, plenty of incense and really good rituals that were well evolved to penetrate. Bloody statues of Christ on a cross - plenty of candles - all the trimmings.

Ah, that explains it then. I'm mostly familiar with the Roman variety. We were strict, not so much of the sensory overload. It was scandalous for a girl to where a crucifix. Dancing was damn near a mortal sin. Musical instruments in church? :nono: Choir?? Oh HELL NO! I guess they all have their issues, but you have me on the senses thing... We only had hell fire and brimstone to contend with.


I think it's hard to beat my "psychedelic" church experience. Close the windows, crank up the incense, chanting for hours in a strange Byzantine language. Standing kneeling, standing kneeling. Mosaics of angels and saints. Gold glittering here and there. Especially effective at midnight Mass. I'd have to find a church where they pass around the mushrooms to get a more "supernatural" experience.




And it's not all bad, in fact, the best lessons I ever learned in life came via my religion - in spite of the garbled way that lesson was taught.


That's just the Stockholm Syndrome talking. ;)


That's certainly one plausible explanation.


It has been a reassuring conversation... it is sometimes a challenge to have a conversation with disagreement, on a forum and still be civil.

I was reluctant to ask earlier because it could be "low hanging fruit," but now I'm just wondering your position on the existence of god and how we got here? I'm guessing you are atheist and evolution?


:no: I'm a theist. It's just that I know that all that I believe about my God comes from my imagination or the imagination of others. I don't know how we got here, I simply define God to be the creator of all - I'll revisit my definition if/when science comes up with a better answer. The Catholic church supports evolution, I think they learned their lesson after the Galileo incident so I'm good to go with that. It would suck to be walking around thinking the earth was 6000 years old or sum such thing. Or even to have family that thought such things - it's bad enough as it is.

Yes, I enjoyed our civil conversation too. I don't know why this isn't more the norm. I have no idea what's up with the other issue you've encountered in this thread. I've had the exact same problem myself from time to time. Best to ignore I think. :cheers:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#145  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 24, 2017 8:45 pm

John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?

Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of. My guard was up, but I don't like to prejudge like some. My guard being up proved unwarranted. I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place. It's a good thing to know to navigate the site. Plus, much can be learned about human behavior by observing the interactions here! :lol: ;)
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#146  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2017 9:09 pm

PensivePenny wrote:John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?


That's right, as far as I know there is nothing that is supernatural - an interesting word with an interesting meaning. Although I'm not sure about synchronicity. That's the closest I've come to encountering something that could be beyond science to understand. Although it's likely to be just more product of the imagination. :dunno: that one is tricky.

It's understandable that people would attach a supernatural identity to God. Prayer and the like are strange. Add to that the crazy explanations people are usually given about what it's all about and misunderstanding happen. And we Catholics got some juicy prayers. ;)

[Reveal] Spoiler: St. Teresa
Image

from
I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.[4



Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of. My guard was up, but I don't like to prejudge like some. My guard being up proved unwarranted. I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place. It's a good thing to know to navigate the site. Plus, much can be learned about human behavior by observing the interactions here! :lol: ;)


Exactly! Much can be learned by how folks behave here. I've never encountered anything like it before. Although the forum has mellowed over time. I've actually been able to have a number of pleasant discussions lately.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#147  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 24, 2017 10:53 pm

PensivePenny wrote:John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?

Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of.

Well, John's a bit of a bullshitter. If you don't mind anything any everything off the top of his head, you're just fine. He does enjoy a bit of Deepak Chopraism though, where he takes a half-baked understanding of scientific concepts and applies them to, well, anything, whether it makes any sense to do so or not. It's being "creative" :lol:

I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place.

Folks around here (myself included) can be a bit defensive, but part of it is the sheer quantity of trolling we've seen over the years. John's trolling is merely reactionary -- I think it's safe to say he believes in the bullshit he spouts, ill considered though it is. There's some nice ideas in there, like incense and magic mushrooms approach to Christianity, but it all gets a bit much when he gets all literal with it. Just look at his definition of God -- everything's from the imagination, yet God is an actual creator of the universe. Even most normal theists don't do that much mental gymnastics :lol:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#148  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 24, 2017 11:03 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?

Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of.

Well, John's a bit of a bullshitter. If you don't mind anything any everything off the top of his head, you're just fine. He does enjoy a bit of Deepak Chopraism though, where he takes a half-baked understanding of scientific concepts and applies them to, well, anything, whether it makes any sense to do so or not. It's being "creative" :lol:

I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place.

Folks around here (myself included) can be a bit defensive, but part of it is the sheer quantity of trolling we've seen over the years. John's trolling is merely reactionary -- I think it's safe to say he believes in the bullshit he spouts, ill considered though it is. There's some nice ideas in there, like incense and magic mushrooms approach to Christianity, but it all gets a bit much when he gets all literal with it. Just look at his definition of God -- everything's from the imagination, yet God is an actual creator of the universe. Even most normal theists don't do that much mental gymnastics :lol:


Yeah, I get most of what you're saying. Even the troll sensitivity thing. But, John's posts were in line with what I was hoping to get from the OP. I like that even when I asked John about god, he even admits that part is weak. Personally, I've never known anyone with a translation of the bible that DIDN'T require creativity and mental gymnastics! As far as John's interpretation goes, it isn't as batty as most... even if I disagree with his translation. Have you read the whole discussion he and I had? No trolling at all. It was a pleasant conversation.

But, I do appreciate your comments SAM. :cheers:
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#149  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 24, 2017 11:11 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?

Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of.

Well, John's a bit of a bullshitter. If you don't mind anything any everything off the top of his head, you're just fine. He does enjoy a bit of Deepak Chopraism though, where he takes a half-baked understanding of scientific concepts and applies them to, well, anything, whether it makes any sense to do so or not. It's being "creative" :lol:

I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place.

Folks around here (myself included) can be a bit defensive, but part of it is the sheer quantity of trolling we've seen over the years. John's trolling is merely reactionary -- I think it's safe to say he believes in the bullshit he spouts, ill considered though it is. There's some nice ideas in there, like incense and magic mushrooms approach to Christianity, but it all gets a bit much when he gets all literal with it. Just look at his definition of God -- everything's from the imagination, yet God is an actual creator of the universe. Even most normal theists don't do that much mental gymnastics :lol:


Yeah, I get most of what you're saying. Even the troll sensitivity thing. But, John's posts were in line with what I was hoping to get from the OP. I like that even when I asked John about god, he even admits that part is weak. Personally, I've never known anyone with a translation of the bible that DIDN'T require creativity and mental gymnastics! As far as John's interpretation goes, it isn't as batty as most... even if I disagree with his translation. Have you read the whole discussion he and I had? No trolling at all. It was a pleasant conversation.

But, I do appreciate your comments SAM. :cheers:

No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#150  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 24, 2017 11:17 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:


Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#151  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2017 11:23 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?

Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of.

Well, John's a bit of a bullshitter. If you don't mind anything any everything off the top of his head, you're just fine. He does enjoy a bit of Deepak Chopraism though, where he takes a half-baked understanding of scientific concepts and applies them to, well, anything, whether it makes any sense to do so or not. It's being "creative" :lol:

I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place.

Folks around here (myself included) can be a bit defensive, but part of it is the sheer quantity of trolling we've seen over the years. John's trolling is merely reactionary -- I think it's safe to say he believes in the bullshit he spouts, ill considered though it is. There's some nice ideas in there, like incense and magic mushrooms approach to Christianity, but it all gets a bit much when he gets all literal with it. Just look at his definition of God -- everything's from the imagination, yet God is an actual creator of the universe. Even most normal theists don't do that much mental gymnastics :lol:


Yeah, I get most of what you're saying. Even the troll sensitivity thing. But, John's posts were in line with what I was hoping to get from the OP. I like that even when I asked John about god, he even admits that part is weak.


I did :scratch: I don't think I did. :no:



Personally, I've never known anyone with a translation of the bible that DIDN'T require creativity and mental gymnastics! As far as John's interpretation goes, it isn't as batty as most... even if I disagree with his translation. Have you read the whole discussion he and I had? No trolling at all. It was a pleasant conversation.

But, I do appreciate your comments SAM. :cheers:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#152  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 24, 2017 11:38 pm

John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:John, so you are a theist. And you imagine this god in a non-supernatural way? Do you mind indulging my curiosity?

Yeah, I did get a glimpse of your treatment by a few members and figured there was a history I was unaware of.

Well, John's a bit of a bullshitter. If you don't mind anything any everything off the top of his head, you're just fine. He does enjoy a bit of Deepak Chopraism though, where he takes a half-baked understanding of scientific concepts and applies them to, well, anything, whether it makes any sense to do so or not. It's being "creative" :lol:

I've noticed on several occasions if something isn't posted in just the right way, someone will read into it some bias that leans away from their own when they'd probably have agreed had they just asked for clarification in the first place.

Folks around here (myself included) can be a bit defensive, but part of it is the sheer quantity of trolling we've seen over the years. John's trolling is merely reactionary -- I think it's safe to say he believes in the bullshit he spouts, ill considered though it is. There's some nice ideas in there, like incense and magic mushrooms approach to Christianity, but it all gets a bit much when he gets all literal with it. Just look at his definition of God -- everything's from the imagination, yet God is an actual creator of the universe. Even most normal theists don't do that much mental gymnastics :lol:


Yeah, I get most of what you're saying. Even the troll sensitivity thing. But, John's posts were in line with what I was hoping to get from the OP. I like that even when I asked John about god, he even admits that part is weak.


I did :scratch: I don't think I did. :no:


Did I misunderstand? You said:

Although it's likely to be just more product of the imagination. :dunno: that one is tricky.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#153  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2017 11:44 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:


Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.


I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y. The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it. They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations. They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

The good news is there seems to be a new atheist movement which preaches compassion and love because people can't really be held responsible for all they do. I find some of the words problematic but if compassion and love is what these atheists are shooting from I'm not going quibble with them on every word they need to use in their calculus to get that answer to pop out. :no: I'm just going to sit back and bask in the all that love and compassion.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#154  Postby John Platko » Apr 24, 2017 11:57 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Well, John's a bit of a bullshitter. If you don't mind anything any everything off the top of his head, you're just fine. He does enjoy a bit of Deepak Chopraism though, where he takes a half-baked understanding of scientific concepts and applies them to, well, anything, whether it makes any sense to do so or not. It's being "creative" :lol:

Folks around here (myself included) can be a bit defensive, but part of it is the sheer quantity of trolling we've seen over the years. John's trolling is merely reactionary -- I think it's safe to say he believes in the bullshit he spouts, ill considered though it is. There's some nice ideas in there, like incense and magic mushrooms approach to Christianity, but it all gets a bit much when he gets all literal with it. Just look at his definition of God -- everything's from the imagination, yet God is an actual creator of the universe. Even most normal theists don't do that much mental gymnastics :lol:


Yeah, I get most of what you're saying. Even the troll sensitivity thing. But, John's posts were in line with what I was hoping to get from the OP. I like that even when I asked John about god, he even admits that part is weak.


I did :scratch: I don't think I did. :no:


Did I misunderstand? You said:

Although it's likely to be just more product of the imagination. :dunno: that one is tricky.


I was referring to synchronicity there. Which is the only thing that I've experienced that has a solid supernatural flavor to it. Prayer and that sort of thing are easily attributed to communication with the unconscious. Although it certainly can feel like you're communicating with a supernatural being so I'm understanding to people who get stuck with that interpretation of what is happening. Souls are easy to understand. But synchronicity is harder to explain. And harder to see how science could go about trying to sus it out. It doesn't seem to lend itself to the scientific method. And being beyond the understanding of science is what being supernatural means. On the other hand, synchronicity could be our minds playing tricks on us- but it's certainly not obvious that is what is afoot. I :dunno: (about synchronicity)
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#155  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 12:19 am

John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:


Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.


I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y. The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it. They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations. They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

The good news is there seems to be a new atheist movement which preaches compassion and love because people can't really be held responsible for all they do. I find some of the words problematic but if compassion and love is what these atheists are shooting from I'm not going quibble with them on every word they need to use in their calculus to get that answer to pop out. :no: I'm just going to sit back and bask in the all that love and compassion.


John, honestly I only saw a few of your interactions with others a day or two before you joined this thread. I saw exactly what you claim. You were responding respectfully and without trolling. I had no problem with those posts of yours I read. Within or without this thread. I hope I didn't give you that impression. My commiseration with Milk was wrt conversations I've had with other encounters. Not yours and mine. Ok? :)

I also agree with you about any woo... It is no better than many christians. The empiricists are where I and many here come from.

Sam Harris on free will??? Yeah... not one of his fans. There's a thread I started on here about morality. I took a lot of grief for it from some. I started that thread because it really irked me that a couple famous atheists were trying to explain morality in an objective way. Whether you agree with that or not, my point is that to me, the idea of morality being based on what is "good" for humanity was an attempt to answer the question, "If not god, where do you get your morality." It was replacing one religious concept with another where none was needed.

Good luck with the love and compassion. I don't think it's coming anytime soon. I'd settle for mild appreciation and respect. Which I got from you btw. ;) I truly hope I didn't say anything to give you some other impression. :cheers:
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#156  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 12:23 am

John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Yeah, I get most of what you're saying. Even the troll sensitivity thing. But, John's posts were in line with what I was hoping to get from the OP. I like that even when I asked John about god, he even admits that part is weak.


I did :scratch: I don't think I did. :no:


Did I misunderstand? You said:

Although it's likely to be just more product of the imagination. :dunno: that one is tricky.


I was referring to synchronicity there. Which is the only thing that I've experienced that has a solid supernatural flavor to it. Prayer and that sort of thing are easily attributed to communication with the unconscious. Although it certainly can feel like you're communicating with a supernatural being so I'm understanding to people who get stuck with that interpretation of what is happening. Souls are easy to understand. But synchronicity is harder to explain. And harder to see how science could go about trying to sus it out. It doesn't seem to lend itself to the scientific method. And being beyond the understanding of science is what being supernatural means. On the other hand, synchronicity could be our minds playing tricks on us- but it's certainly not obvious that is what is afoot. I :dunno: (about synchronicity)


Okay, I apologize if I misrepresented something you said. The concept of synchronicity isn't one with which I'm familiar. My money is on our brains playing tricks on us. ;)
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 58
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#157  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 25, 2017 12:25 am

John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:


Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.


I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y.

It doesn't help when you flat-out lie, like when you pretended that conversation about the "psychotic" parts of the Bible that you want to conveniently discard as "errors", but then switch to contradicting stories in the Bible, pretending that's what you were originally talking about. I pointed out to you several times, and you just pretended it didn't happen. Don't blame the forum just because you write a lot of shite.

The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it.

If you had the humility you pretend to have, you'd realize this describes yourself perfectly. You don't know half of what you think you do, and worse you start on this high and mighty "I watched some youtube videos so I'm going to talk down at you" nonsense as soon as anyone calls you on your bullshit.

They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations.

Quite the opposite, folks here understand that they only function as metaphors (if at all). You, on the other hand, are talking about literal creators of the universe. You still won't take that last step to realizing that it is all, at best, metaphor. You still need it be something real, tactile.

They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

Nonsense, I and other former believers fooled ourselves into thinking prayer worked just like you're doing right now. There is no empirical evidence that it does what it says on the box. This is why you contrive absurd, woolly, mostly meaningless definitions for things like prayer, definitions that would be unrecognizable to most people who actually pray.

It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

CBT and meditation aren't prayer -- you don't talk to the creator of the fucking universe when you utilize CBT. Thanks for making my point for me about how you reduce definitions to meaninglessness :clap: Your "world class scientists" have no empirical evidence to back their claim, the last one you dug up was based on a fucking questionnaire :lol: Let's just ask people if they think they're better at prayer now, that's some deep shit there :rofl:

The good news is there seems to be a new atheist movement which preaches compassion and love because people can't really be held responsible for all they do. I find some of the words problematic but if compassion and love is what these atheists are shooting from I'm not going quibble with them on every word they need to use in their calculus to get that answer to pop out. :no: I'm just going to sit back and bask in the all that love and compassion.

Whatever gets you hard, John :lol:
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#158  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 2:37 am

PensivePenny wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:


Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.


I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y. The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it. They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations. They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

The good news is there seems to be a new atheist movement which preaches compassion and love because people can't really be held responsible for all they do. I find some of the words problematic but if compassion and love is what these atheists are shooting from I'm not going quibble with them on every word they need to use in their calculus to get that answer to pop out. :no: I'm just going to sit back and bask in the all that love and compassion.


John, honestly I only saw a few of your interactions with others a day or two before you joined this thread. I saw exactly what you claim. You were responding respectfully and without trolling. I had no problem with those posts of yours I read. Within or without this thread. I hope I didn't give you that impression. My commiseration with Milk was wrt conversations I've had with other encounters. Not yours and mine. Ok? :)


Thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit confused. :cheers:


I also agree with you about any woo... It is no better than many christians. The empiricists are where I and many here come from.

Sam Harris on free will??? Yeah... not one of his fans. There's a thread I started on here about morality. I took a lot of grief for it from some. I started that thread because it really irked me that a couple famous atheists were trying to explain morality in an objective way. Whether you agree with that or not, my point is that to me, the idea of morality being based on what is "good" for humanity was an attempt to answer the question, "If not god, where do you get your morality." It was replacing one religious concept with another where none was needed.


Well the ideas of Sam Harris aren't usually something that sits well with me. :no: And I find the reasoning he uses to arrive at his new morality less than impressive. Never-the-less, I think he arrived at the correct conclusion and that's what matters most to me. I accept that different modes of explanation work better for different people. If that's what Sam, and others, need to believe in order to realize that we're all part of one big system, that our lives our interconnected, that we need to treat each other with love and compassion then I don't feel the need to quibble over exactly how he arrived at that conclusion. I.E. I'll just send some love and compassion his way.



Good luck with the love and compassion. I don't think it's coming anytime soon. I'd settle for mild appreciation and respect. Which I got from you btw. ;) I truly hope I didn't say anything to give you some other impression. :cheers:


:cheers:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#159  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 3:25 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
No problem! And to be clear, I'm not defending the defensiveness, I'm trying to do it less myself. Anyway, I'm glad you got what you were looking for from his posts :cheers:


Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.


I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y.

It doesn't help when you flat-out lie, like when you pretended that conversation about the "psychotic" parts of the Bible that you want to conveniently discard as "errors", but then switch to contradicting stories in the Bible, pretending that's what you were originally talking about. I pointed out to you several times, and you just pretended it didn't happen. Don't blame the forum just because you write a lot of shite.


:scratch: :scratch: I'm sorry but I cannot make heads or tails of that comment. Here's how I suggest you present future arguments so they are coherent:

Step 1) Say something like: John, here (provide a link) you said 'X" (provide a quote)

Step 2) But then here (provide a link) you said "y" (provide a quote)

Step 3) I don't see how X is compatible with Y could you help clarify that?

Then we could proceed to have a rational discussion and clear up any misunderstanding or errors that occurred.



The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it.

If you had the humility you pretend to have,


:scratch: :lol: oh I get it, that's a joke - :lol: :lol:


you'd realize this describes yourself perfectly. You don't know half of what you think you do, and worse you start on this high and mighty "I watched some youtube videos so I'm going to talk down at you" nonsense as soon as anyone calls you on your bullshit.


When do I get my test paper back so I can see exactly how you graded me to get my 50%? :doh: You're not helping your credibility by saying things like this. :nono: Maybe if sometimes I got a 60%, sometimes 40% but I'm always getting half - I don't think so. :nono:

By all means enlighten me and everybody else on what you think you know about religion (or any of the science I've presented for that matter). But I'm not holding my breath. :no:



They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations.

Quite the opposite, folks here understand that they only function as metaphors (if at all). You, on the other hand, are talking about literal creators of the universe. You still won't take that last step to realizing that it is all, at best, metaphor. You still need it be something real, tactile.


Need? :scratch: :dunno: about that. I define God to be what created all - I know of no reason not to. That's an attribute religions usually give to God and science has not provided an explanation that I feel warrants me to think otherwise. And as I've explained at great length, doing that gives me better access to the hard mental processing which cost the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of many people who used that definition before me. I simply think it would be stupid of me to waste their good work.



They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

Nonsense, I and other former believers fooled ourselves into thinking prayer worked just like you're doing right now. There is no empirical evidence that it does what it says on the box. This is why you contrive absurd, woolly, mostly meaningless definitions for things like prayer, definitions that would be unrecognizable to most people who actually pray.



Well maybe there's your problem, maybe you're right, maybe you fooled yourselves into thinking prayer worked. That doesn't mean everybody else fools themselves. :nono:

I've already established beyond any reasonable doubt that my definition of prayer is recognized as prayer by people who study these things. In Catholicism alone there are many forms of prayer and many spiritual paths. Do you recognize St. Teresa's spiritual experiences as prayer? Did you recognize the Talking to God folks prayers- the date nights with God, etc. etc. as prayer?

There is no crisp definition of what prayer must be. That is a fact. You may not like that fact but you'll never be able to prove otherwise. We saw what the expert in psychological anthropology said about it. We saw how she compared CBT self talk to people talking to God, i.e. prayer. I'm sure I presented all kinds of Catholic spiritual mediation traditions. What have you presented to back up your opinion?


It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

CBT and meditation aren't prayer -- you don't talk to the creator of the fucking universe when you utilize CBT. Thanks for making my point for me about how you reduce definitions to meaninglessness :clap: Your "world class scientists" have no empirical evidence to back their claim, the last one you dug up was based on a fucking questionnaire :lol: Let's just ask people if they think they're better at prayer now, that's some deep shit there :rofl:



You are wrong. I provided expert testimony saying CBT self talk was prayer - a Stanford professor speaking at the Harvard Medical School. All you provide is your opinion. And yes, Luhrmann had empirical evidence to back her claim. Go back an re-read that thread, I'm not presenting the details of the testing again - but it wasn't all done with a questionnaire. :no:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#160  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 25, 2017 4:17 am

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Believe me... I've been there with the defensiveness. Like I told John... My guard was up with him... I kept expecting the conversation to descend the depths of hell, but it didn't. Sometimes we get lucky because both sides have to put down the defenses. I do understand how and why that is so hard.


I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y.

It doesn't help when you flat-out lie, like when you pretended that conversation about the "psychotic" parts of the Bible that you want to conveniently discard as "errors", but then switch to contradicting stories in the Bible, pretending that's what you were originally talking about. I pointed out to you several times, and you just pretended it didn't happen. Don't blame the forum just because you write a lot of shite.


:scratch: :scratch: I'm sorry but I cannot make heads or tails of that comment. Here's how I suggest you present future arguments so they are coherent:

Step 1) Say something like: John, here (provide a link) you said 'X" (provide a quote)

Step 2) But then here (provide a link) you said "y" (provide a quote)

Step 3) I don't see how X is compatible with Y could you help clarify that?

Then we could proceed to have a rational discussion and clear up any misunderstanding or errors that occurred.

Oh blow it out your ass, you know exactly what I'm talking about :lol: And you had ample opportunity to clarify in that situation and you didn't. Really witless trolling, Platko.



The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it.

If you had the humility you pretend to have,


:scratch: :lol: oh I get it, that's a joke - :lol: :lol:


you'd realize this describes yourself perfectly. You don't know half of what you think you do, and worse you start on this high and mighty "I watched some youtube videos so I'm going to talk down at you" nonsense as soon as anyone calls you on your bullshit.


When do I get my test paper back so I can see exactly how you graded me to get my 50%? :doh: You're not helping your credibility by saying things like this. :nono: Maybe if sometimes I got a 60%, sometimes 40% but I'm always getting half - I don't think so. :nono:

:scratch: :lol: oh I get it, that's a joke - :lol: :lol:

By all means enlighten me and everybody else on what you think you know about religion (or any of the science I've presented for that matter). But I'm not holding my breath. :no:

I'm sure I don't have to point out what an idiotic hoop-jumping demand this is :lol: Also, you wouldn't know science if it bit you in your ass. It usually only takes a moment or two of Googling to see you're full of shite, whatever the topic. I don't claim to know everything about religion or science, but it doesn't take much to see when you're just pulling it out of your ass, cherry picking whatever suits your fancy.



They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations.

Quite the opposite, folks here understand that they only function as metaphors (if at all). You, on the other hand, are talking about literal creators of the universe. You still won't take that last step to realizing that it is all, at best, metaphor. You still need it be something real, tactile.


Need? :scratch: :dunno: about that. I define God to be what created all - I know of no reason not to. That's an attribute religions usually give to God and science has not provided an explanation that I feel warrants me to think otherwise. And as I've explained at great length, doing that gives me better access to the hard mental processing which cost the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of many people who used that definition before me. I simply think it would be stupid of me to waste their good work.

A good reason is you've got no evidence that such a thing existed, or that anything was created. Surely a worldy creature such as yourself has considered the possibility :lol: Much like your demand above, science has no need to jump through your hoops. Stop bullshitting about some noble reason, you believe it because you want it to be so.



They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

Nonsense, I and other former believers fooled ourselves into thinking prayer worked just like you're doing right now. There is no empirical evidence that it does what it says on the box. This is why you contrive absurd, woolly, mostly meaningless definitions for things like prayer, definitions that would be unrecognizable to most people who actually pray.



Well maybe there's your problem, maybe you're right, maybe you fooled yourselves into thinking prayer worked. That doesn't mean everybody else fools themselves. :nono:

And you know, just because I prayed to a jug of milk and it didn't grant my wish, doesn't mean when YOU prayed to a jug of milk it didn't grant your wish :lol: Give me a fucking break.

I've already established beyond any reasonable doubt

:rofl:

that my definition of prayer is recognized as prayer by people who study these things. In Catholicism alone there are many forms of prayer and many spiritual paths. Do you recognize St. Teresa's spiritual experiences as prayer? Did you recognize the Talking to God folks prayers- the date nights with God, etc. etc. as prayer?

There is no crisp definition of what prayer must be. That is a fact. You may not like that fact but you'll never be able to prove otherwise. We saw what the expert in psychological anthropology said about it. We saw how she compared CBT self talk to people talking to God, i.e. prayer. I'm sure I presented all kinds of Catholic spiritual mediation traditions. What have you presented to back up your opinion?

No opinion, just a fact: what you say is prayer is not what the vast, vast majority of people mean when they pray. They're talking to God. St. Theresa was also talking to God. They don't think they're talking to themselves, they really think they're talking to God. That's what prayer is. If you remove that, the word becomes a meaningless placeholder for a thousand very different things. You're peddling childish apologetics.



It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

CBT and meditation aren't prayer -- you don't talk to the creator of the fucking universe when you utilize CBT. Thanks for making my point for me about how you reduce definitions to meaninglessness :clap: Your "world class scientists" have no empirical evidence to back their claim, the last one you dug up was based on a fucking questionnaire :lol: Let's just ask people if they think they're better at prayer now, that's some deep shit there :rofl:



You are wrong. I provided expert testimony saying CBT self talk was prayer - a Stanford professor speaking at the Harvard Medical School.

Oh look, this again, your meditation:

Harvard Medical School!
World class!
Harvard Medical School!
World class!

:lol:

We know John, you'll believe anything as long as it says what you want to hear. Everything everyone from Harvard Medical School claims is completely valid, and we shouldn't question any of their declarations or point out glaringly obvious things, like in CBT you don't have to be convinced that you're literally talking to your very real creator God.

All you provide is your opinion. And yes, Luhrmann had empirical evidence to back her claim. Go back an re-read that thread, I'm not presenting the details of the testing again - but it wasn't all done with a questionnaire. :no:

Yes, it all boiled down to a questionnaire. There was no empirical measure of anything in the study whatsoever. No opinion about that, that's a fact.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest