An Imperfect God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote] kingkai wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Next, if one cannot grasp the essence of Deut 6:4, no English rendition will do, and grammar and syntax are being used to deny meaning. If one needs a faulty and belabored English rendition of that verse, one will never grasp the message of the unity of Divinity. I need not explain further.
[/quote]

Lol actually, you DO need to explain further, if you are going to posit that, in the context of a covenantal ceremony where God demands from Israel exclusive worship, Moses makes a random declaration about Yahweh’s unity. Once again, as noted in Block’s article, the statement 'Yahweh is one" is as pointless as the phrase, “Bob Dylan is one” - how many did they think he was? If, however, the Shema is the declaration, “Yahweh is your God - Yahweh alone,” then the statement makes PERFECT sense in the covenantal context.

Unless, of course, you wish to posit that God put that statement of his “oneness” in there because he foresaw the problems the Trinitarian doctrine would present. Still, that would only be speculation…

And there are few things more ridiculous than the claim that the grammatical and syntactical analysis of a dead language has been undertaken “to deny meaning.” Translation isn’t about cutting and pasting, Doc, and contrary to what you’ve implied before, there were a lot of lexical, grammatical and syntactical issues the Rabbis did NOT understand.[/quote]

So sorry, no. This is one of those instances of “high context” communications that you yourself has introduced as a defense elsewhere. One either understands the context, or not.
[/quote]

I don’t think you know what “high context” communication refers to, Doc. When I argue that a particular concept is “high context,” I’m saying that the concept forms a foundational background to a particular statement and renders that statement intelligible. I’m not saying that it’s something “you get or you don’t;” it’s culture-specific, so unless you lived thousands of years ago as a denizen of the culture in which Deut. 6:4 was written, I have no reason to believe that the statement is a reference to the “divine unity” just because you say so.

If you’re going to dabble in biblical scholarship, Doc, you still have to provide evidence for your claims. In the examples of high context communication that I cited, I referred to the role the concept of “representation” played as a basic assumption of the cognitive environment in which the text was composed. In other words, people understood “representatives” to possess, in some sense, the identity (and thus authority) of those they represented. I make this claim on the basis of both allusions to and outright discussions in primary texts of the roles of ancient mediators. So if you’re going to argue that the statement “Yahweh is one” would have actual relevance in the context of Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy, then it’s YOUR responsibility to demonstrate why the assertion of the divine unity in this particular part of a speech calling people to recognize and serve Yahweh alone fits. You can’t just chalk it up to “high context” when you weren’t a part of that context lol. [/quote]

Zechariah 14:9.

82

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote] kingkai wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Next, if one cannot grasp the essence of Deut 6:4, no English rendition will do, and grammar and syntax are being used to deny meaning. If one needs a faulty and belabored English rendition of that verse, one will never grasp the message of the unity of Divinity. I need not explain further.
[/quote]

Lol actually, you DO need to explain further, if you are going to posit that, in the context of a covenantal ceremony where God demands from Israel exclusive worship, Moses makes a random declaration about Yahweh’s unity. Once again, as noted in Block’s article, the statement 'Yahweh is one" is as pointless as the phrase, “Bob Dylan is one” - how many did they think he was? If, however, the Shema is the declaration, “Yahweh is your God - Yahweh alone,” then the statement makes PERFECT sense in the covenantal context.

Unless, of course, you wish to posit that God put that statement of his “oneness” in there because he foresaw the problems the Trinitarian doctrine would present. Still, that would only be speculation…

And there are few things more ridiculous than the claim that the grammatical and syntactical analysis of a dead language has been undertaken “to deny meaning.” Translation isn’t about cutting and pasting, Doc, and contrary to what you’ve implied before, there were a lot of lexical, grammatical and syntactical issues the Rabbis did NOT understand.[/quote]

So sorry, no. This is one of those instances of “high context” communications that you yourself has introduced as a defense elsewhere. One either understands the context, or not.
[/quote]

I don’t think you know what “high context” communication refers to, Doc. When I argue that a particular concept is “high context,” I’m saying that the concept forms a foundational background to a particular statement and renders that statement intelligible. I’m not saying that it’s something “you get or you don’t;” it’s culture-specific, so unless you lived thousands of years ago as a denizen of the culture in which Deut. 6:4 was written, I have no reason to believe that the statement is a reference to the “divine unity” just because you say so.

If you’re going to dabble in biblical scholarship, Doc, you still have to provide evidence for your claims. In the examples of high context communication that I cited, I referred to the role the concept of “representation” played as a basic assumption of the cognitive environment in which the text was composed. In other words, people understood “representatives” to possess, in some sense, the identity (and thus authority) of those they represented. I make this claim on the basis of both allusions to and outright discussions in primary texts of the roles of ancient mediators. So if you’re going to argue that the statement “Yahweh is one” would have actual relevance in the context of Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy, then it’s YOUR responsibility to demonstrate why the assertion of the divine unity in this particular part of a speech calling people to recognize and serve Yahweh alone fits. You can’t just chalk it up to “high context” when you weren’t a part of that context lol. [/quote]

Psalms 86:10.

83

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I guess I’m Vegeta now.[/quote]

lol dude, Vegeta’s the only one who became as powerful as Goku. Both achieved Super Saiyan 4 (I know - I’m a dork)![/quote]
You gotta start using an avi man lol.

84

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote] kingkai wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Next, if one cannot grasp the essence of Deut 6:4, no English rendition will do, and grammar and syntax are being used to deny meaning. If one needs a faulty and belabored English rendition of that verse, one will never grasp the message of the unity of Divinity. I need not explain further.
[/quote]

Lol actually, you DO need to explain further, if you are going to posit that, in the context of a covenantal ceremony where God demands from Israel exclusive worship, Moses makes a random declaration about Yahweh’s unity. Once again, as noted in Block’s article, the statement 'Yahweh is one" is as pointless as the phrase, “Bob Dylan is one” - how many did they think he was? If, however, the Shema is the declaration, “Yahweh is your God - Yahweh alone,” then the statement makes PERFECT sense in the covenantal context.

Unless, of course, you wish to posit that God put that statement of his “oneness” in there because he foresaw the problems the Trinitarian doctrine would present. Still, that would only be speculation…

And there are few things more ridiculous than the claim that the grammatical and syntactical analysis of a dead language has been undertaken “to deny meaning.” Translation isn’t about cutting and pasting, Doc, and contrary to what you’ve implied before, there were a lot of lexical, grammatical and syntactical issues the Rabbis did NOT understand.[/quote]

So sorry, no. This is one of those instances of “high context” communications that you yourself has introduced as a defense elsewhere. One either understands the context, or not.
[/quote]

I don’t think you know what “high context” communication refers to, Doc. When I argue that a particular concept is “high context,” I’m saying that the concept forms a foundational background to a particular statement and renders that statement intelligible. I’m not saying that it’s something “you get or you don’t;” it’s culture-specific, so unless you lived thousands of years ago as a denizen of the culture in which Deut. 6:4 was written, I have no reason to believe that the statement is a reference to the “divine unity” just because you say so.

If you’re going to dabble in biblical scholarship, Doc, you still have to provide evidence for your claims. In the examples of high context communication that I cited, I referred to the role the concept of “representation” played as a basic assumption of the cognitive environment in which the text was composed. In other words, people understood “representatives” to possess, in some sense, the identity (and thus authority) of those they represented. I make this claim on the basis of both allusions to and outright discussions in primary texts of the roles of ancient mediators. So if you’re going to argue that the statement “Yahweh is one” would have actual relevance in the context of Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy, then it’s YOUR responsibility to demonstrate why the assertion of the divine unity in this particular part of a speech calling people to recognize and serve Yahweh alone fits. You can’t just chalk it up to “high context” when you weren’t a part of that context lol. [/quote]

Psalms 86:10 and Zechariah 14:9
[/quote]

Doc, did you actually read Block’s article? Because he specifically discusses Zechariah 14:9 as an example where ehad seems to overlap semantically with levad’s exclusionary sense of “only” or “unique.” Once again, in several of the examples that Block provided, the semantic ranges of ehad and levad overlap, and in Zechariah 14:9, an exclusive rendering actually makes the most sense - “And Yahweh will be king over all that earth; in that day, Yahweh will be the only one and his name the only (name).” Now if you deny the force of the examples Block provides, that’s your prerogative, but if you cannot definitively disprove Block’s reading of Zechariah 14:9, you cannot use the passage as an example supporting the “Yahweh is one” reading of Deuteronomy 6:4. In other words, you cannot use a contested passage to interpret another contested passage.

Furthermore, the reading “Yahweh will be one” doesn’t fit in the literary context of Zechariah 14; that statement once again would appear as random as the statement, “Yahweh is one” in Deuteronomy 6:4. The fact is, Doc, that the application of a high context concept should make this passage’s meaning clearer. If you don’t have evidence for such a concept, how do you know it exists? At best, you could argue that Zechariah 14:9 presents the same problem as Deuteronomy 6:4 which could be solved if a high context concept were discovered to underlie it. In the absence of such a concept, it is preferable to seek a lexical-syntactical explanation. Moreover, how do Zechariah 14:9 and Deuteronomy 6:4 harmonize under your reading? Did Yahweh cease to be a unity after the entry into Canaan? Why will he be unified later, and why does his name require unification as well?

As for Psalm 86:10… I have literally no idea what your point is. Yes, that is one way of saying that God is the only God. What’s your point?

85

Arguing semantics over a fictional book is hilarious. If you worry about all of the contradictions in the farce that started with judaism, was plagiarised first for christianity, and then collectively plagiarised to form islam, you could spend your entire life doing it, and still have about as much impact on the reality that religion is simply mental illness as a feather duster.

86

[quote]cryogen wrote:
Arguing semantics over a fictional book is hilarious. If you worry about all of the contradictions in the farce that started with judaism, was plagiarised first for christianity, and then collectively plagiarised to form islam, you could spend your entire life doing it, and still have about as much impact on the reality that religion is simply mental illness as a feather duster.
[/quote]
Ya jist gotta love these guys. I look forward to us talking further in the future dude.

87

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:
Arguing semantics over a fictional book is hilarious. If you worry about all of the contradictions in the farce that started with judaism, was plagiarised first for christianity, and then collectively plagiarised to form islam, you could spend your entire life doing it, and still have about as much impact on the reality that religion is simply mental illness as a feather duster.
[/quote]

Ya jist gotta love these guys. I look forward to us talking further in the future dude.[/quote]

Maybe, given that you think yourself to be so knowledgeable in this fiction you could explain, using evidence not taken from fictional books, why your imaginary friend is more real than Baal, Apollo, Odin and Ra.

88

[quote]…

Psalms 86:10 and Zechariah 14:9

Doc, did you actually read Block’s article? Because he specifically discusses Zechariah 14:9 as an example where ehad seems to overlap semantically with levad’s exclusionary sense of “only” or “unique.” Once again, in several of the examples that Block provided, the semantic ranges of ehad and levad overlap, and in Zechariah 14:9, an exclusive rendering actually makes the most sense - “And Yahweh will be king over all that earth; in that day, Yahweh will be the only one and his name the only (name).” Now if you deny the force of the examples Block provides, that’s your prerogative, but if you cannot definitively disprove Block’s reading of Zechariah 14:9, you cannot use the passage as an example supporting the “Yahweh is one” reading of Deuteronomy 6:4. In other words, you cannot use a contested passage to interpret another contested passage.

Furthermore, the reading “Yahweh will be one” doesn’t fit in the literary context of Zechariah 14; that statement once again would appear as random as the statement, “Yahweh is one” in Deuteronomy 6:4. The fact is, Doc, that the application of a high context concept should make this passage’s meaning clearer. If you don’t have evidence for such a concept, how do you know it exists? At best, you could argue that Zechariah 14:9 presents the same problem as Deuteronomy 6:4 which could be solved if a high context concept were discovered to underlie it. In the absence of such a concept, it is preferable to seek a lexical-syntactical explanation. Moreover, how do Zechariah 14:9 and Deuteronomy 6:4 harmonize under your reading? Did Yahweh cease to be a unity after the entry into Canaan? Why will he be unified later, and why does his name require unification as well?

As for Psalm 86:10… I have literally no idea what your point is. Yes, that is one way of saying that God is the only God. What’s your point?[/quote]

Yes, I suppose I am a “dabbler,” a singular advantage in some situations. I will remind you that I have already confessed elsewhere that my grammar is terrible and that I frequently need a guide. It has been 5 decades (!!!) or so since I studied the grammar. You, I imagine, have not had so long to study it. So I bear the badge “dabbler” with honor and distinction.

And as a dabbler, I am sure Dr. Block has written some interesting things. But let’s go back to first principles for a moment, to p’shat, the plain, simple and flat meaning of the texts.

Zech 14:9 “And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one.”
and
Ps 86:10 “For You are great and perform wonders, You, O God, alone.”

First, in Zech, the verb “to be” is explicit in the future tense. (This gets rid of that ambiguous term, “verbless” clause, where I consider “to be” to be an irregular verb and not explicit in the present tense.) And then, after the semicolon in English, is the dual declarative “YHWH echad wshmo echad.” How like the dual declarative of the Shema in Deut 6:4! In English rendition, above, “the Lord be one and His name one.” Or equally valid: YHWH (is) one and His Name (is) one. Just as in the Shema, the “is” is either understood, or the meaning is not lost if the dual clause is “verbless.” This is what I meant by a fused concept of the unity of Divinity, and Zechariah is another such example, by grammar, by parallelism, and by p’shat, of that simple interpretation.

Next, I really don’t mind the English rendition of the Shema as “…God alone.” But is it either necessary or sufficient? I think not.

Refer to Ps 86.: “'atah 'elohim levadecha.”
Levadecha is not an adverb modifying “perform” (by proximity and case); it is in the second person singular: “You, O God, Your ‘aloneness.’”(Or perhaps in coherent English, “You, O God, by yourself.”)
Here the Psalmist wanted to express that God alone is capable of wonders, just as the Shema considers God alone worthy of worship. So I chose the example in Psalm 86 to show that if the Deutoronomist had wanted to express the concept of “God alone,” there was a perfectly acceptable Hebrew form for that expression. But he/she did not do so, but chose the form “YHWH echad”–God (is) one–expressing the unity of Divinity. (Note, too, that YHWH is referred to by name. Zechariah was familiar with the Shema, and here, he extended its meaning, in parallel language, over all the earth, not just to the Israelites alone addressed by Moses in Deut 6:4.)

Yes, KK, you will find reasons to reject these simple examples, examples of alternatives which could have been used in Deut 6:4 to express “God alone.” That’s just fine, in English, but doesn’t complete the thought as well as the original. This–the affirmation of the oneness of Divinity–I submit, is the simplest interpretation, the simplest meaning–p’shat from a dabbler–and what follows is the contingent exigesis.

89

[quote]cryogen wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]cryogen wrote:
Arguing semantics over a fictional book is hilarious. If you worry about all of the contradictions in the farce that started with judaism, was plagiarised first for christianity, and then collectively plagiarised to form islam, you could spend your entire life doing it, and still have about as much impact on the reality that religion is simply mental illness as a feather duster.[/quote]Ya jist gotta love these guys. I look forward to us talking further in the future dude.[/quote]
Maybe, given that you think yourself to be so knowledgeable in this fiction you could explain, using evidence not taken from fictional books, why your imaginary friend is more real than Baal, Apollo, Odin and Ra.[/quote]No sir, I think you have no idea what I think, which is ok because we just met. I prefer a philosophical defense of the God of historic Christianity specifically. Isn’t that idiotic? That must make me just the easiest prey ever for a brilliant kid like you huh? I like you already. That is not a snarky statement I assure you. I do mean it.

90

Diversionary tactic. Again, evidence please not philosophy, of why your imaginary friend is more real than the pink teapot at the centre of the universe.

91

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t have tizzy’s either. You have demonstrated a spectacular deficiency in the understanding or fruit of anything biblical, opting instead for modernist heresies and practice that would have been utterly foreign to the apostles. My recognition of this does not constitute a “tizzy”. It is the biblical defense of His name and reputation which every Christian is commanded to fulfill where necessary. Instead of having a “tizzy” yourself while reading this, I pray (I really do) that the savior you claim as your Lord will break your stubborn heart and teach you what that means. You can tell He is doing that when you begin to love what He loves and hate what he hates. It will change everything you think, say, do and are. People will notice. Most won’t like it. That’s how Jesus told us it would be. The church on this continent did once understand that. Not anymore. [/quote]

I don’t know, you sound pretty confident of the depth of knowledge that you have in your fictional roadmap for life.

92

[quote]cryogen wrote:Diversionary tactic. Again, evidence please not philosophy, of why your imaginary friend is more real than the pink teapot at the centre of the universe.[/quote]Diversion it is then. Until we settle HOW we know anything at all, any questions of WHAT we know are so much mental masturbation. Evidence reports exactly what one’s epistemology dictates. Whether you buy this or not is beyond my control. That’s how I roll. In the name of Jesus. I am not desperate to “prove” anything to you. My only desperation is to be obedient to my Lord.

93

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t have tizzy’s either. You have demonstrated a spectacular deficiency in the understanding or fruit of anything biblical, opting instead for modernist heresies and practice that would have been utterly foreign to the apostles. My recognition of this does not constitute a “tizzy”. It is the biblical defense of His name and reputation which every Christian is commanded to fulfill where necessary. Instead of having a “tizzy” yourself while reading this, I pray (I really do) that the savior you claim as your Lord will break your stubborn heart and teach you what that means. You can tell He is doing that when you begin to love what He loves and hate what he hates. It will change everything you think, say, do and are. People will notice. Most won’t like it. That’s how Jesus told us it would be. The church on this continent did once understand that. Not anymore. [/quote]

I don’t know, you sound pretty confident of the depth of knowledge that you have in your fictional roadmap for life.[/quote]That post was to a person alleging conversion in Christ. Whole different ballgame with you.
Try this:

And this:

And this:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=0

Here’s how this will go. You’ll say you’re not readin all that, skim through, assume you understand some stupid point I’m fumbling around trying to make and then post somewhere some simple question that’s already been answered 200 times. Go ahead.

94

We know things through sound observation, solid statistical modelling and the rationalisation of falsifiable hypotheses with the observations that we, or others have made.

It’s not a difficult concept to grasp, though your belief in fanciful deities makes you less likely to be able to get there.

95

Well thank you so very much for this uniquely penetrating insight. You’re off to a rousing start. Never heard that one before. Read the threads please. I need sleep.

96

[quote]cryogen wrote:
Diversionary tactic. Again, evidence please not philosophy, of why your imaginary friend is more real than the pink teapot at the centre of the universe.
[/quote]

Without Philosophy there would be no science, no method for evaluating evidence either. Careful with your words buddy!

Want to play around with some Bertrand Russel logic, remember he also believed love to be wise and hatred to be ignorant. Hating people because of their beliefs/faith can be irrational as well.

Anyhow, just know that you are sort of being less of an adult, less educated when you treat people with a lack of respect/ treat folks like idiots because of their religion. Plenty of folk more intelligent than you or I are religious. Cheers, no need to be bellicose man!

97

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:
Diversionary tactic. Again, evidence please not philosophy, of why your imaginary friend is more real than the pink teapot at the centre of the universe.
[/quote]

Without Philosophy there would be no science, no method for evaluating evidence either. Careful with your words buddy!

Want to play around with some Bertrand Russel logic, remember he also believed love to be wise and hatred to be ignorant. Hating people because of their beliefs/faith can be irrational as well.

Anyhow, just know that you are sort of being less of an adult, less educated when you treat people with a lack of respect/ treat folks like idiots because of their religion. Plenty of folk more intelligent than you or I are religious. Cheers, no need to be bellicose man![/quote]
I am pretty sure I don’t hate anyone because of their religion. Telling someone that they should get some help, professional medical help, because they believe in imaginary friends in adulthood is generous, not hatefilled.

Few truly intelligent people believe in sky fairies, myself included. Whether or not a lot of people believe something has little to no impact on the accuracy of the position. As a result, the fact that there are a lot of stupid people in the world who believe in fanciful sky daddies doesn’t actually support the idea that this shared hallucination is accurate.

I mean shit, people are dumb enough to believe that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets and that L Ron Hubbard had some inside knowledge. These two are convicted fraudsters and confidence artists, and yet their claims are no more believable than christianity or judaism.

Religion deserves contempt, not respect.

98

[quote]cryogen wrote:

God deserves respect, Religion deserves contempt.[/quote]

I fixed that for you.

You might not believe in God, but have you really tried to seek him out? I don’t know you or your past, but man you have some real anger towards God. For what reason you have that is between you and God. God is a big God, and he can handle it.

Just because you have not witnessed the work of God does not mean it has not happened. 200 years ago people believed man could not fly. Now we can. Just because you believe that the existence of God is Subjective Truth does not mean that one day it won’t be Objective Truth.

There is proof that Jesus did live. Whether you want to believe he is human incarnation of God or not we can debate.

99

So if you were born in a different country and believed in a different god, would that be the right one?

100

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I guess I’m Vegeta now.[/quote]

lol dude, Vegeta’s the only one who became as powerful as Goku. Both achieved Super Saiyan 4 (I know - I’m a dork)![/quote]
You gotta start using an avi man lol.[/quote]

I’m a fan of the original dragon ball (when the power levels were in the hundreds). Hence my red ribbon army avi. I thought they were cool.