Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Theoretical Skeptic on October 23, 2020, 09:01:26 PM
-
What is a god to you. Give three examples, please, and how you suppose those to be gods.
-
What is a god to you? Give three examples, please, and how you suppose those to be gods.
Cerridwyn, Cernunnos, and Hecate.
I do not suppose anything about them - I believe them to be two Goddesses and a God!
How, because they have been believed to be deities since long before Zero BC!
-
Cerridwyn, Cernunnos, and Hecate.
I do not suppose anything about them - I believe them to be two Goddesses and a God!
How, because they have been believed to be deities since long before Zero BC!
Okay, well, you understand there was no zero BC? That was a joke? You understand that BC counts backward not forward? You understand that there were gods before Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE?
You understand that Cerridwyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceridwen), Cernunnos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cernunnos), and Hecate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate) aren't creator gods; that the suggestion has been made here that gods have to be creator gods, which I completely don't get.
-
Okay, well, you understand there was no zero BC? That was a joke? You understand that BC counts backward not forward? You understand that there were gods before Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE? You understand that Cerridwyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceridwen), Cernunnos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cernunnos), and Hecate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate) aren't creator gods; that the suggestion has been made here that God has to be a creator god, which I completely don't get.
OK......Gordon's gonna put me on the naughty step here, but....1513 BC? If you want a decent kip, go to http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13261.0
-
OK......Gordon's gonna put me on the naughty step here......but.....1513BC?
Interesting. Gordon would do that?
Yes. 1513 BCE is about when Moses wrote Genesis. It covers the period of time from "In the beginning" to 1657 BCE.
-
Interesting. Gordon would do that?
Yes. 1513 BCE is about when Moses wrote Genesis. It covers the period of time from "In the beginning" to 1657 BCE.
My Egyptologist hat has just gone into meltdown.....I just posted this, but.....http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13261.0
-
OK......Gordon's gonna put me on the naughty step here, but....1513 BC? If you want a decent kip, go to http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13261.0
My thought exactly!
-
My Egyptologist hat has just gone into meltdown.....I just posted this, but.....http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13261.0
Yeah. The following is an old article I wrote on Bible Historicity.
Many people don't realize the far superior reliability of the Bible over secular history when it comes to dating, chronology and history itself. The first step is to make sure you are aware of cardinal and ordinal numbers and how they differ. Cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 10, 100, etc) have full value but with ordinal numbers (3rd, 5th, 22nd, etc.) you have to subtract 1. So - for example the "18th year of Nebuchadnezzar" at Jeremiah 52:29 would actually be 17 full years and however many months, weeks or days elapsed from the end of the 17th year.
Also, when considering a number of years from B.C.E. to C.E. you have to keep in mind that from a date such as October 1, 1 B.C.E. to October 1, 1 C.E. is only 1 year, rather than 2. They are ordinal numbers. So, from October 1, 2 B.C.E. (about the time of Jesus' birth) to October 1 of 29 C.E. (about the time of his baptism) there is a total of 30 years. 1 full year plus 3 months in B.C.E. and 28 full years plus 9 months in the C.E.
Next we need to set the pivotal date that both Biblical and secular history can pretty much agree upon. 29 C.E.; the early months of 29 C.E. were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, named emperor by Roman Senate on September 15, 14 C.E. (Gregorian calendar) and the year that John the Baptizer started his preaching - six months later he baptized Jesus. Luke 3:1-3; 3:21, 23; 1:36.
Or we could use 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus the Persian overthrew Babylon (See Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy and the Babylonian tablets.)
Cyrus gave the decree releasing the Jews from exile most likely in the winter of 538 B.C.E. or spring of 537 B.C.E. That would have given them enough time to make preparations and make the four month journey to Jerusalem, arriving by the seventh month (Tishri - October 1) of 537 B.C.E. Ezra 1:1-11; 2:64-70; 3:1.
Egypt
Egyptian chronology is uniquely important because it is used in so much of ancient historical observation but also because at times Egyptian history meets with that of Israel. 1728 B.C.E. Israel entered into Egypt and 215 years later the Exodus in 1513. Pharaoh Shishak's attack on Jerusalem took place during Rhoboam's fifth year in 993 B.C.E.. King So of Egypt reigned about the same time as Hoshea, c. 758 - 740 B.C.E. and Pharaoh Necho's battle that resulted in Josiah's death was likely in 629 B.C.E. (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Kings 17:4; 2 Chronicles 35:20-24) Modern historians would differ from this as much as a century but narrow down to about 20 years by Necho's time.
The reason is that modern historians rely upon documents such as the Egyptian king lists and annals. The fragmentary Palermo Stone with the first five "dynasties," the Turin Papyrus which only gives fragmentary lists of kings and their reigns from the "Old Kingdom" into the "New Kingdom," and other fragmentary inscriptions. These and other independent inscriptions were coordinated in chronological order by Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third century B.C.E.. He divides the Egyptian monarchs into 30 dynasties which modern Egyptologists still use today. With astronomical calculations based upon Egyptian texts of lunar phases and the rising of the Sothis (Dog Star) a chronological table can be produced.
Manetho's work, of course, is preserved only through the writings of later historians such as Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus. Third, fourth and late eighth to early ninth centuries C.E.. They are fragmentary and often distorted. His work is distorted not only through scribal errors and revisers but untenable from the start, consisting a great deal of legend and myth.
Part of the problem was that he listed princely lines from which later rulers over all Egypt sprang. Several Egyptian kings ruled at one time and the same time, so it was not necessarily a succession of kings on the throne one after the other but several reigning at the same time in different regions. The result is a great total number of years.
So when the Bible indicates 2370 B.C.E. as the date of the deluge, Egyptian history must have begun after that date even though Egyptian chronology goes all the way back to the year 3000 B.C.E. it actually doesn't.
Egyptologist Dr. Hans Goedicke of Johns Hopkins University has a nonsensical theory that the Biblical record of the events at the Red Sea and the Exodus coincided with a 1477 B.C.E. volcanic eruption at Thera resulting in a tsunami or tidal wave that drowned the Egyptian forces, but his theory doesn't pay much attention to the Biblical account which mentions no wave.
The Hyksos period of Egyptian history warrants the same degree of caution and suspicion. Some believe that the Hyksos were a foreign people that gained control of Egypt and place Joseph's and then his family's entry into Egypt as being during that period of the Hyksos rulers, but only on the premise that it would have been more likely for a foreign ruler to have given a non Egyptian the position of second ruler. That theory disagrees with the Bible. Potiphar the court official was an Egyptian (Genesis 39:1) and Joseph was surrounded by native Egyptians. (Genesis 43:32)
Josephus, the source of the name Hyksos, accepted some connection between them and the Israelites but argued against many of the details found in Manetho's account. He (Josephus) preferred the term Hyksos as Captive Shepherds rather than Shepherd Kings.
Manetho presented the Hyksos as gaining control of Egypt without a battle and then destroying their cities and temples. Many years later the Egyptians supposedly rose up and fought a long and terrible war against them. Finally an Egyptian force of 480,000 men besieged them at their chief city, Avaris, and then, oddly enough, an agreement was reached that allowed the Hyksos to leave the country unharmed and they went to Judea and built Jerusalem. (Against Apion, Book I, par. 14)
Manetho adds to the account in what Josephus labels a fictitious addition of a large group of 80,000 leprous and diseased persons being allowed to settle in Avaris after the shepherds had left. Those persons later revolted and called back the "shepherds" (Hyksos?) who destroyed the cities and villages etc. (Against Apion, Book I, pars. 26, 28)
Though modern historians agree with the idea of a Hyksos conquest, they believe Josephus quotations as inaccurate in associating the Hyksos with the Israelites. They can't find much information from ancient Egyptian sources to fill in the records of the "Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Dynasties." Since they can't find it, they assume that some disintegration of power occurred in the "Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties" based upon not much information, Egyptian folklore, and conjecture they conclude that it was the "Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties" that Egypt was under the domination of the Hyksos.
Some archaeologists depict the Hyksos as "northern hordes . . . Sweeping through Palestine and Egypt with swift chariots." Others present them moving as a 'creeping conquest,' a gradual infiltration of migrating nomads or semi nomads who slowly took control or as a swift coup d'etat . In The World of the Past, 1963, p. 444 archaeologist Jaquetta Hawkes says: "It is no longer thought that the Hyksos rulers . . . represent the invasion of a conquering horde of Asiatics. The name seems to mean Rulers of the Uplands, and they were wandering groups of Semites who had long come to Egypt for trade and other peaceful purposes."
If that were true how would these wandering groups have gained control of Egypt in the "Twelfth Dynasty" which was about the time of Egypt's peek of power. It indicates to me a considerable amount of confusion on the parts of not only ancient Egyptian history but modern interpreters as well. No validity of the Hyksos Period can be achieved.
Another point of consideration is the fact that Egypt, like many Near Eastern lands, was heavily linked with the priesthood and the scribes were well trained under their tutelage leaving the very possible fact that propagandistic explanations were invented to account for the Egyptian gods to deal with Jehovah and the exodus.
If the Exodus account can be questioned it is only because the Pharaohs of Egypt didn't make any record of it. That is not unusual. They tended to record only their victories and not their defeats and they tried to erase anything historical that was contrary to their nationalistic image or ideology. Thutmose III, for example, chiseled away inscriptions made of Queen Hatshepsut on a stone monumental record found at Deir al-Bahri in Egypt.
Manetho the Egyptian priest and historian hated the Jews and Josephus quotes Manetho as saying that the ancestors of the Jews "entered Egypt in their myriads and subdued the inhabitants," Josephus said that Manetho "goes on to admit that they were afterwards driven out of the country, occupied what is now Judaea, founded Jerusalem, and built the temple." - Against Apion, I, 228 (26).
Though Manetho's account is regarded as unhistorical the fact remains that he mentions them as being in Egypt, going out and in other writings identifies Moses with Osarsiph, an Egyptian priest. Josephus also mentions two other Egyptian historians; Chaeremon, and Lysimachus who said that Joseph and Moses were driven out of Egypt at the same time. - Against Apion, I, 228, 238 (26); 288, 290 (32); 299 (33); 304-311 (34).
Jeroboam fled to Egypt to escape Solomon when Shishak ruled (1 Kings 11:40). Later, in the fifth year of Solomon's successor Rehoboam's reign (993 B.C.E.) Shishak invaded Judah but didn't bring Jerusalem to ruin. (2 Chronicles 12:1-12)
Archaeological evidence of Shishak's invading the area of Palestine was found on a fragment of stele at Megiddo and mentions Sheshonk as a victory of his. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 263, 264) A relief on a temple wall at Karnak, the north part of the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes, lists numerous cities and villages that Shishak conquered. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden, 1957, Vol. IV, pp. 59-60) It is likely that his campaign was not so much to assist the ten tribe kingdom but to gain control of the trade routes located in the territory of that kingdom, thus extending Egypt's power and influence.
Necho[h] was a pharaoh of Egypt, who, according to Herodotus (II, 158, 159; IV, 42) was the son of Psammetichus (Psammetichos, Psamtik I) and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt. He began construction on a canal linking the Nile with the Red Sea but didn't complete the project, though he did send a Phoenician fleet on a voyage around Africa in three years.
At the close of Josiah's 31 year reign (659 - 629 B.C.E.) he was on his way to help the Assyrians at the river Euphrates. Josiah disregarded "the words of Necho from the mouth of God" and was killed while attempting to turn the Egyptians back at Megiddo. Three months later Necho took Jehoahaz, Josiah's successor, captive and made 25 year old Eliakim his vassal, changing his name to Jehoiakim. He (Necho) also put a heavy fine on Judah. (2 Chronicles 35:20-36:4; 2 Kings 23:29-35) About 3 or 4 years later Necho's forces were defeated at Charchemish at the hands of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. (Jeremiah 46:2)
Babylon
The history of Babylon enters the Biblical chronology from Nebuchadnezzar II. His father, Nabapolassar marked the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian Empire which ended with Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar when Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Thus enters the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70 year exile.
Jeremiah 52:28 says that it was in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchanrezzar) when the first Jewish exiles were taken to Babylon. A cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) says: "The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2 Kings 24:1-17; 2 Chronicles 36:5-10.) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign there is no historical records of the chronicle except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in his 37th year.
Tablets dated up to the second year of the rule of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach 2 Kings 25:27-28) have been found. Neriglissar is thought to have been his successor and there are tablets dated to his fourth year.
Astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II say: "Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached." (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71)
Those two lunar eclipses can be identified as those that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E. and January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) This with the tablet puts the seventh year of Cambyses II as starting with the spring of 523 B.C.E. Which means his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. his accession year, also the last year of Cyrus II of Babylon would have been 530 B.C.E. The last tablet of the reign of Cyrus II is dated from the fifth month, 23rd day of his ninth year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) Since the ninth year of Cyrus II was 530 his first year would have been 538 B.C.E. and accession year 539.
According to the Book of Daniel the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30). Since there was no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible his very existence was in doubt, but in the 19th century there was found several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform in southern Iraq. A prayer to the health of Nabonidus, king of Babylon's eldest son - Belshazzar.
Nabonidus was the first king, his son Belshazzar was second and at Daniel 5:16 Belshazzar himself offered to make Daniel the third.
Wait for archaeology. It usually catches up with the Bible.
The Importance Of The Death Of Herod To Dating Christ
Josephus said of Herod's painful death: "an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in the intestines, tumors in the feet as in dropsy, inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts, engendering worms, in addition to asthma, with great difficulty in breathing, and convulsions in all his limbs." - The Jewish War, I, 656 (xxxiii, 5).
The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.
Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.
It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.
If Herod's was appointed king in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.
In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2.
Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.
There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).
Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.
The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)
Also the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E.. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method so the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.
John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27) From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.
The Census Of Quirinius
Skeptics of the Bible often question the dating of accurate Bible chronology regarding Jesus' birth based upon the incorrect notion that there was only one census taken while Publius Sulpicius was governor of Syria, at about 6 C.E.. The one that sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Acts 5:37) That was the second, actually. Inscriptions found at and near Antioch reveals that some years earlier Quirinius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. As the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."
In 1764 an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus was found which concurs.
-
Have a shuftie at the 'Red Sea' thread. Suffice it to say that my specialities when I took my Egyptology degree were theAmarna period and the Thirs Intermediate period, which took in much excavating at the sites of Djanet (Tanis, Biblical Zoan) and a cursory look at Pi-Ramesse (Biblical 'Ramses', modern Qantir) Whilst playing around with Bible numbers is fine, I, like many others, including some evangelicals, accep a redacted/edited Pentateuch as valuable theology but no guide to history. We're still trying to rewrite the 'histories' penned by nineteenth and early twentieth century Egyptologists armed with a romantic streak and a Bible, and little else - and these giveboth theology and Egyptology a bad name.
-
Okay, well, you understand there was no zero BC? That was a joke? Do you understand that BC counts backward not forward? Do you understand that there were gods before Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE?
Do YOU understand what a typo is? It should, as anyone should realise, read Zero AD!
You understand that Ceridwen/Cerridwyn, Cernunnos, and Hecate aren't creator gods; that the suggestion has been made here that gods have to be creator gods, which I completely don't get.
I do understand that you had to look the names up on Wikipedia to find out to whom I was referring, but where in your OP did you require any reference to Creator Gods?
As I have posted before, and you have studiously ignored, I am Pagan and such requirements as Creator Gods are reserved for, as far as I am concerned, Christians.
Even Witches resident in the U S of A accept that Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse and Icelandic Gods/Goddesses (among others) are perfectly acceptable as deities worthy of worship during Coven rituals.
The oldest item accepted as "religious" is the Venus of Willendorf, dated (carbon-dated) to 22,000 to 25,000 BC - the Christians are but comparative babes in arms.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours, always!
Owlswing
Pagan, Priest and Witch
)O(
-
Do YOU understand what a typo is? It should, as anyone with half a brain would realise, read Zero AD!
Okay. You do realize that there is no Zero AD? CE is more accurate, but they're basically the same thing. It goes from 1 BC or BCE to 1 AD or CE.
I do understand that you had to look the names up on Wikipedia to find out to whom I was referring, but where in your OP did you require any reference to Creator Gods?
I certainly don't memorize all of the stupid gods that ever existed. No one does. There are probably as many gods long forgotten as remembered on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
The OP didn't require anything other than "What is a god to you. Give three examples, please, and how you suppose those to be gods." I was just pointing out that the proposition had been made. You're fine. No worries.
As I have posted before, and you have studiously ignored, I am Pagan and such requirements as Creator Gods are reserved for, as far as I am concerned, Christians.
You're joking! There aren't any Pagan creator gods? I guess that would depend upon how you define Pagan.
Even Witches resident in the U S of A accept that Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse and Icelandic Gods/Goddesses (among others) are perfectly acceptable as deities worthy of worship during Coven rituals.
Okay. Fine.
The oldest item accepted as "religious" is the Venus of Willendorf, dated (carbon dated) to 22,000 to 25,000 BC - the Christians are but comparative babes in arms.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours, always!
Owlswing
Pagan, Priest and Witch
)O(
Oh Buddha. I've insulted a Pagan.
Such was not my intention. I don't mean this in a disrespectful manner, but I don't care. Christian, Jew, Shinto, Buddhist, Confucianist, Hindu, Taoist, or Muslim. Doesn't make much difference to me in context with our discussion so far on gods. Yours is just as good as any.
-
Okay. You do realize that there is no Zero AD? CE is more accurate, but they're basically the same thing. It goes from 1 BC or BCE to 1 AD or CE.
Yes, Mr Pedantic, I do realiSe that, but it seemed a minor and insignificant point.
I certainly don't memorize all of the stupid gods that ever existed.
And I don't memoriSe more than the absolute minimum of the rather disreputable book upon which modern Christianity is based, which has been proved to be horrendously inaccurate in more ways than I can poke a stick at!
You're joking! There aren't any Pagan creator gods? I guess that would depend upon how you define Pagan.
No, I am not! And I am not saying that there aren't, what I AM saying is that the God and Goddesses used in ritual by my Coven are not such.
Oh Buddha. I've insulted a Pagan.
Such was not my intention. I don't mean this in a disrespectful manner, but I don't care. Christian, Jew, Shinto, Buddhist, Confucianist, Hindu, Taoist, or Muslim. Doesn't make much difference to me in context with our discussion so far on gods. Yours is just as good as any.
Hmmm! You will have to try rather a lot harder if you want to insult this Pagan! I know of at least one Bishop who has learnt that when it comes to insults I can give at least as good as I get! Though it is not recommended on this Forum as the Moderators can be unforgiving if the lines in the sand are stepped over too far!
-
Yes, Mr Pedantic, I do realiSe that, but it seemed a minor and insignificant point.
No. That isn't insignificant. When I have encountered British spelling on American forums I don't make a big deal about it.
And I don't memoriSe more than the absolute minimum of the rather disreputable book upon which modern Christianity is based, which has been proved to be horrendously inaccurate in more ways than I can poke a stick at!
[sigh] Uh-huh.
No, I am not! And I am not saying that there aren't, what I AM saying is that the God and Goddesses used in ritual by my Coven are not such.
A subtle but acceptable distinction. Gods in my belief aren't trinitarian. I don't subscribe to the pagan teachings of the immortal soul, hell, rapture, cross, trinity, Christmas, Easter or politics.
Hmmm! You will have to try rather a lot harder if you want to insult this Pagan! I know of at least one Bishop who has learnt that when it comes to insults I can give at least as good as I get! Though it is not recommended on this Forum as the Moderators can be unforgiving if the lines in the sand are stepped over too far!
The Holy Bible, probably the most diabolical work of fiction ever to be visited upon mankind?
An it harm none, do what you will; an it harm some, do what you must?! (See Wiccan Rede) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiccan_Rede)
-
A subtle but acceptable distinction. Gods in my belief aren't trinitarian. I don't subscribe to the pagan teachings of the immortal soul, hell, rapture, cross, trinity, Christmas, Easter or politics.
Please explain the term "trinitarian" in relation to Paganism. In my experience, the only Trinity of which I am aware is the Christian "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".
I was also under the impression that the "immortal soul" was a basic Christian belief. Pagans (those whose beliefs I am aware of, as not all Pagans believe the same things) believe in the Cycle or Circle of Birth, Life, Death and Rebirth which, in my experience is referred to as Spirit rather than Soul.
Hell, Rapture, (the) Cross, The Trinity, Christmas, Easter are, as far as I am concerned, as a Pagan, have no meaning to me being solely Christian concepts.
I would very much appreciate it if you would explain, in words understandable by an elderly person who has, due to my age, a terror of technical terms, exactly what the words "I don't subscribe to the 'pagan' teachings of the immortal soul, hell, rapture, cross, trinity, Christmas, Easter or politics." mean to you in view of my comment above.
As to politics. as far as I am concerned politics is a disease inflicted on humanity, probably by the Christian Devil, Satan, whatever you want to call him, to drive as many as possible insane, purely for his entertainment.
No Pagan that I am aware of believes in Hell, that being seen as another Christian belief, a place for the punishment of those deemed not to have fulfilled the Christian God's requirements for eternal life in Heaven.
-
Please explain the term "trinitarian" in relation to Paganism. In my experience, the only Trinity of which I am aware is the Christian "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".
The Bible doesn't teach the trinity, it was adopted by apostate Christianity probably around 400 years after Christ. In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Two hundred years prior to that the Bible foretold his conquest and when he got to the gates of Jerusalem they welcomed him, showed him the prophecy and submitted. Greek influence was running rampant behind the wake of Alexander. For example they built a gymnasium where games were played that were intertwined with Greek mythology. Babylonian teachings began to influence Jewish thinking through Greek philosophy which had long adopted them.
Reading the Bible, you might pick up on the fact that the soul isn't an immortal part of the person that lives on, but the blood and life of any breathing creature which would lead you to discover Socrates influence changed the interpretation of the Bible. The Trinity from Plato. Then Constantine the Great's similar effect on Christianity in 325 CE introduced the pagan cross and reintroduced all of those old Babylonian teachings through the same Greek philosophy.
Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc.
I was also under the impression that the "immortal soul" was a basic Christian belief.
It is, but only since 325 CE. Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28. The concept of the immortal soul can be traced to ancient Babylon, but it influenced Greek philosophers like Plato and was introduced into Jewish thinking after the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and then reintroduced to Christian teachings through Constantine the great in 325 CE.
You see, Adam was created in 4026 BCE. There are, if I recall without looking it up, 5 generations from Adam to Moses. Peleg, a name meaning "Division," lived from 2269 to 2030 B.C.E. (Genesis 10:25; 11:9) The division is the confusion of language at Babel. From Adam's creation to the start of the flood in 2370 BCE is 1,656 years. Noah's grandson was Nimrod, who lived during this period. He founded a few ancient Sumerian cities, like Babel (Babylon). He was the Sumerian king Dumuzi (Tammuz Ezekiel 8), who's symbol was the mystic Tau. A phallic symbol. The cross. The Bible refers to it as a dungy idol. A shoot. Tree limb. Representation of the male genitalia common in fertility religions.
Okay, well, he made the tower because he thought he could be protected by height from another flood. God wanted people after the flood to spread out throughout the earth. Fill and subdue it, but they all wanted to stay in that one place. He confused their language and they scattered. They took all of their oral histories, like the flood, the cross of Tammuz and spread out. The teachings they took with them morphed into others and were transmogrified through time, but the period from the flood until Moses writing Genesis (2370 - 1513 BCE) was about 857 years. So Gilgamesh and earlier stories had that long to spread out and mix all together prior to Moses writing Genesis.
Pagans (those whose beliefs I am aware of, as not all Pagans believe the same things) believe in the Cycle or Circle of Birth, Life, Death and Rebirth which, in my experience is referred to as Spirit rather than Soul.
Hell, Rapture, (the) Cross, The Trinity, Christmas, Easter are, as far as I am concerned, as a Pagan, have no meaning to me being solely Christian concepts.
You have to distinguish between what is pagan, that is, outside Christianity and any "Pagan" teachings. There being a difference between pagan and Pagan.
I would very much appreciate it if you would explain, in words understandable by an elderly person who has, due to my age, a terror of technical terms, exactly what the words "I don't subscribe to the 'pagan' teachings of the immortal soul, hell, rapture, cross, trinity, Christmas, Easter or politics." mean to you in view of my comment above.
The word pagan only means outside of. The Roman soldiers found it difficult to recruit those living in rural areas. So did the Christians. So, to a Roman a Christian would have been pagan and to a Christian a Roman was likely pagan just by being outside of or apart from one another. Similarly heathen referred to people of the heath, or field. Heathen was a term of respect. Landowners, farmers. They gradually took on a derogatory connotation not unlike the term Barbarian which was just a repeating of the word bar. For example, the Greek barbaros, meaning stammering, babble, unintelligible speech. A simple distinguishing of non-Greeks from Greeks like Gentile meaning non-Jew. It wasn't an insult. Josephus identified himself as barbarian (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 187 [x, 1]; Against Apion, I, 58 [11])
As to politics. as far as I am concerned politics is a disease inflicted on humanity, probably by the Christian Devil, Satan, whatever you want to call him, to drive as many as possible insane, purely for his entertainment.
That's a pretty good interpretation if you ask me.
No Pagan that I am aware of believes in Hell, that being seen as another Christian belief, a place for the punishment of those deemed not to have fulfilled the Christian God's requirements for eternal life in Heaven.
Hell isn't a Bible teaching.
The English Word Hell
The old English word hell means to cover or conceal. Similar words coming from the same root have a similar meaning. Hill for example is a mound of dirt or stone that covers the level surface of earth. Hull is the covering of a nut or the covered part of a ship. Heal is the covering of a wound. Hall is a building space which is used to cover people or goods. Hole is an uncovering. Shell.
In the early days to hell potatoes meant to cover them, as to store them in a cellar or underground. To hel (one l) a house meant to cover a portion of it with tile.
At first the use of hell had no pagan meaning to it. It was simply used as the common grave of man. To go to hell in the Old English language meant simply that one was dead and buried. It was in Germany and England that the word began to evolve into the pagan unscriptural meaning of eternal punishment.
Poor Modern Translation
The original meaning of the word hell is not so much a poor translation of the Hebrew sheohl (English Transliteration sheol) and the Greek Haides (English transliteration hades), as much as it is a case of the word having evolved into a pagan meaning; the modern day translation of hell is misleading.
The Catholic Douay Version translates sheohl as hell 64 times and once as death. The King James Version translates sheohl 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. This is common in older translations like the English Revised Version (1885) where sheohl is transliterated in many cases but most of the occurrences were translated as grave, or pit. Hell being used 14 times. The American Standard Version (1901) transliterated sheohl in all 65 occurrences and haides in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geenna (English Gehenna) is translated hell.
The Hebrew Sheol
The Hebrew word sheol is the unseen resting place of the dead. It is not to be mistaken for the Hebrew words for individual burial place (qever - Judges 16:31), grave (qevurah - Genesis 35:20), or individual tomb (gadhish - Job 21:32) but rather the common grave of all mankind whatever the form of burial might be.
The Greek philosophical teaching of the immortality of the human soul and hell began to infiltrate Jewish teachings probably around the time of Alexander The Great's conquest in 332 BCE. The Bible itself, however, is in stark contrast to the teachings of pagan origin regarding the soul, which is not immortal (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and therefore can't suffer forever in hell. The Bible also teaches that there is no consciousness in hell (the grave). (Ecclesiastes 9:4-10) and that sin equals death, therefor upon death we are acquitted of sin (Romans 6:7).
Sheol corresponds with the Greek Haides, both being the unseen resting place of the dead. It is not a place of fire, but of darkness (Job 10:21) a place of silence (Psalm 115:17) rather than a place filled with tortured screams.
The Greek Hades
The Greek word Hades corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol as is indicated by the apostle Peter's reference to Psalms 16:10 at Acts 2:27-31 where Jesus had fulfilled David's prophecy that Jesus would not be left in hell. Peter quoted Psalms and used the Greek hades in place of sheol. Likewise Jesus himself said that like Jonah, he would spend three days in hell. (Jonah 1:17; Jonah 2:2; Matthew 12:40)
The Greek word Hades occurs 10 times in the Christian Greek scriptures. (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; / Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14)
It means the unseen place. In ten of the occurrences of hades it is in reference to death. It is not to be confused with the Greek word for grave (taphos), tomb (mnema) or memorial tomb (mnemeion), but is rather the common resting place of the dead. The place of death.
Jesus also uses hades at Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15 in a figurative way to indicate the debasement of Capernaum compared to heaven.
Also see The Rich Man And Lazarus below.
The Greek Gehenna
Unlike the Hebrew sheol and the Greek hades, there is really no excuse for mistaking the Greek Geenna (Hebrew Geh Hinnom - English Transliteration Gehenna) with the notion of any hell, either the Old English word meaning covered or the pagan hell of today's Christianity.
The Christian Greek Gehenna is a literal place - a valley that lies South and South-West of ancient Jerusalem. It is the modern day Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom), a deep, narrow valley. Today it is a peaceful and pleasant valley, unlike the surrounding dry and rocky terrain, and most certainly unlike the pagan / apostate Christian hell.
Image: Modern Day Gehenna (https://i.postimg.cc/bYWvWFSs/gehenna.jpg)
In the days of unfaithful Kings Manasseh and Ahaz idolatrous worship of the pagan god Baal was conducted in the place which was then known as Geh Hinnom, (the valley of Hinnom) including human sacrifices to fire. It is ironic that the pagan custom of burning in fire, as in hell, would have so clearly infiltrated the Christian teachings, considering that this practice was a detestable thing to Jehovah God, and his prophets spoke of a time when this place would be turned into a defiled and desolate place. (2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:1-6; Jeremiah 7:31-32; 32:35).
The prophecy was fulfilled in the days of faithful King Josiah, who had the place, especially the area known as Topeth polluted into a refuse heap. (2 Kings 23:10)
So it was that in the days of Jesus and the early Christian congregations, that the valley was known as a literal place where the carcasses of criminals and animals were thrown, having no hope for resurrection. The refuse there was kept burning with sulphur, which is abundant in the area. When Jesus used Gehenna as a symbolic reference to the spiritually dead - the people in the area knew what he was talking about.
The Greek Tartarus
The Greek word Tartarus is found only once in scripture, at 2 Peter 2:4. It is often mistranslated as hell. Tartarus in the Christian Greek scriptures refers to a condition of debasement, unlike the pre-Christian pagan Tartarus (as in Homer's Iliad) which is a mythological prison. The word basically means the lowest place.
Peter refers to the angels who in the time of Noah forsook their original positions and became men in order to have relations with the women of earth. The result was their offspring being giants, the Nephilim, who caused so much destruction God had to bring forth the flood. (Genesis 6:1-4; Ephesians 6:10-12; Jude 1:6).
It is interesting that this verse is often mistranslated because when Jesus was resurrected from Sheol / Hades (Hell in some translations) on earth, he first went to tartarus to minister to the disobedient angels whom had been lowered in position - who happened to be in heaven in a position of debasement. This means that if you don't understand the mistranslation you would see Jesus go to hell on earth and then hell in heaven.
The Pagan Hell
The Pagan teaching of hell was adopted by the apostate Christian church. Today's thinking of hell comes more from Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, but the teaching of hellfire is much older than the English word hell or Dante and Milton. It comes from Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs of a nether world. A place where gods and demons of great strength and fierceness presided over the damned.
Ancient Egyptian beliefs considered the Other World to be a place of pits of fire for the damned though they didn't think this lasted forever. Islamic teaching considers hell as a place of everlasting punishment. Hindus and Buddhists think of hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration.
Separation From God
Modern day Christians often try to soften the teaching of hell as a separation from God, but hell (as is often translated from the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades) can't be a separation from God, since God is in effect there - it is in front of him. He watches sheol for the time when the dead shall be resurrected. (Proverbs 15:11; Psalms 139:7-8; Amos 9:1-2).
Lazarus And The Rich Man - Luke 16:19-31
Jesus often taught people in a way which was easy for them to grasp. One way of doing this is through parables, or illustration. They are stories, which are not meant to be taken as literal accounts. Such is the case with the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Notice that the Rich man is buried in hades. If this account is to be taken literally then the Bible would contradict itself with all of the information being given in this article, but lets not leave it up to what may be thought to be my own personal interpretation.
Let it also be known that if this account is to be taken literally then that would make Jesus a liar. How so? How could Lazarus be at the bosom of Abraham in heaven when Jesus had already said that no man had ascended to heaven other than himself? (John 3:13).
The Lake Of Fire
The lake of fire is sometimes referred to as hell. The lake of fire is obviously a symbolic reference to everlasting destruction. Since hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire they can't be one and the same. Since death is thrown into the lake of fire and death isn't something that can be thrown literally, the lake is obviously symbolic. The fact that hell and death are symbolically destroyed by fire is harmonious with the end of sin which brought death. Those not thrown into the lake of fire are the meek who will inherit the earth and live forever upon it.
Secular And Religious References To Hell
"Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth . . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles - all slept together without awareness of one another." - Encyclpaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276)
"Hades . . . it corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell' " - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2 p. 187)
"First it (Hell) stands for the Hebrew Sheohl of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament . Since Sheohl in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation." - Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28)
"Much Confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheohl and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81)
"The word ( sheol ) occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinction there, so 'hell' ( KJV ) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together . . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [ in Jonah 2:2 ] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the fish." - A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida, 1978, p 37
-
Lots of interesting stuff from Mr T.S. there. If only there were more hours in the day.
-
Okay, well, you understand there was no zero BC? That was a joke? You understand that BC counts backward not forward? You understand that there were gods before Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE?
Moses did not write Genesis.
You understand that Cerridwyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceridwen), Cernunnos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cernunnos), and Hecate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate) aren't creator gods; that the suggestion has been made here that gods have to be creator gods, which I completely don't get.
It depends on your definition of "god".
-
The Bible doesn't teach the trinity, it was adopted by apostate Christianity probably around 400 years after Christ. In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Two hundred years prior to that the Bible foretold his conquest and when he got to the gates of Jerusalem they welcomed him, showed him the prophecy and submitted. Greek influence was running rampant behind the wake of Alexander. For example they built a gymnasium where games were played that were intertwined with Greek mythology. Babylonian teachings began to influence Jewish thinking through Greek philosophy which had long adopted them.
Reading the Bible, you might pick up on the fact that the soul isn't an immortal part of the person that lives on, but the blood and life of any breathing creature which would lead you to discover Socrates influence changed the interpretation of the Bible. The Trinity from Plato. Then Constantine the Great's similar effect on Christianity in 325 CE introduced the pagan cross and reintroduced all of those old Babylonian teachings through the same Greek philosophy.
Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc.
It is, but only since 325 CE. Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28. The concept of the immortal soul can be traced to ancient Babylon, but it influenced Greek philosophers like Plato and was introduced into Jewish thinking after the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and then reintroduced to Christian teachings through Constantine the great in 325 CE.
You see, Adam was created in 4026 BCE. There are, if I recall without looking it up, 5 generations from Adam to Moses. Peleg, a name meaning "Division," lived from 2269 to 2030 B.C.E. (Genesis 10:25; 11:9) The division is the confusion of language at Babel. From Adam's creation to the start of the flood in 2370 BCE is 1,656 years. Noah's grandson was Nimrod, who lived during this period. He founded a few ancient Sumerian cities, like Babel (Babylon). He was the Sumerian king Dumuzi (Tammuz Ezekiel 8), who's symbol was the mystic Tau. A phallic symbol. The cross. The Bible refers to it as a dungy idol. A shoot. Tree limb. Representation of the male genitalia common in fertility religions.
Okay, well, he made the tower because he thought he could be protected by height from another flood. God wanted people after the flood to spread out throughout the earth. Fill and subdue it, but they all wanted to stay in that one place. He confused their language and they scattered. They took all of their oral histories, like the flood, the cross of Tammuz and spread out. The teachings they took with them morphed into others and were transmogrified through time, but the period from the flood until Moses writing Genesis (2370 - 1513 BCE) was about 857 years. So Gilgamesh and earlier stories had that long to spread out and mix all together prior to Moses writing Genesis.
You have to distinguish between what is pagan, that is, outside Christianity and any "Pagan" teachings. There being a difference between pagan and Pagan.
The word pagan only means outside of. The Roman soldiers found it difficult to recruit those living in rural areas. So did the Christians. So, to a Roman a Christian would have been pagan and to a Christian a Roman was likely pagan just by being outside of or apart from one another. Similarly heathen referred to people of the heath, or field. Heathen was a term of respect. Landowners, farmers. They gradually took on a derogatory connotation not unlike the term Barbarian which was just a repeating of the word bar. For example, the Greek barbaros, meaning stammering, babble, unintelligible speech. A simple distinguishing of non-Greeks from Greeks like Gentile meaning non-Jew. It wasn't an insult. Josephus identified himself as barbarian (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 187 [x, 1]; Against Apion, I, 58 [11])
That's a pretty good interpretation if you ask me.
Hell isn't a Bible teaching.
The English Word Hell
The old English word hell means to cover or conceal. Similar words coming from the same root have a similar meaning. Hill for example is a mound of dirt or stone that covers the level surface of earth. Hull is the covering of a nut or the covered part of a ship. Heal is the covering of a wound. Hall is a building space which is used to cover people or goods. Hole is an uncovering. Shell.
In the early days to hell potatoes meant to cover them, as to store them in a cellar or underground. To hel (one l) a house meant to cover a portion of it with tile.
At first the use of hell had no pagan meaning to it. It was simply used as the common grave of man. To go to hell in the Old English language meant simply that one was dead and buried. It was in Germany and England that the word began to evolve into the pagan unscriptural meaning of eternal punishment.
Poor Modern Translation
The original meaning of the word hell is not so much a poor translation of the Hebrew sheohl (English Transliteration sheol) and the Greek Haides (English transliteration hades), as much as it is a case of the word having evolved into a pagan meaning; the modern day translation of hell is misleading.
The Catholic Douay Version translates sheohl as hell 64 times and once as death. The King James Version translates sheohl 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. This is common in older translations like the English Revised Version (1885) where sheohl is transliterated in many cases but most of the occurrences were translated as grave, or pit. Hell being used 14 times. The American Standard Version (1901) transliterated sheohl in all 65 occurrences and haides in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geenna (English Gehenna) is translated hell.
The Hebrew Sheol
The Hebrew word sheol is the unseen resting place of the dead. It is not to be mistaken for the Hebrew words for individual burial place (qever - Judges 16:31), grave (qevurah - Genesis 35:20), or individual tomb (gadhish - Job 21:32) but rather the common grave of all mankind whatever the form of burial might be.
The Greek philosophical teaching of the immortality of the human soul and hell began to infiltrate Jewish teachings probably around the time of Alexander The Great's conquest in 332 BCE. The Bible itself, however, is in stark contrast to the teachings of pagan origin regarding the soul, which is not immortal (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and therefore can't suffer forever in hell. The Bible also teaches that there is no consciousness in hell (the grave). (Ecclesiastes 9:4-10) and that sin equals death, therefor upon death we are acquitted of sin (Romans 6:7).
Sheol corresponds with the Greek Haides, both being the unseen resting place of the dead. It is not a place of fire, but of darkness (Job 10:21) a place of silence (Psalm 115:17) rather than a place filled with tortured screams.
The Greek Hades
The Greek word Hades corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol as is indicated by the apostle Peter's reference to Psalms 16:10 at Acts 2:27-31 where Jesus had fulfilled David's prophecy that Jesus would not be left in hell. Peter quoted Psalms and used the Greek hades in place of sheol. Likewise Jesus himself said that like Jonah, he would spend three days in hell. (Jonah 1:17; Jonah 2:2; Matthew 12:40)
The Greek word Hades occurs 10 times in the Christian Greek scriptures. (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; / Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14)
It means the unseen place. In ten of the occurrences of hades it is in reference to death. It is not to be confused with the Greek word for grave (taphos), tomb (mnema) or memorial tomb (mnemeion), but is rather the common resting place of the dead. The place of death.
Jesus also uses hades at Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15 in a figurative way to indicate the debasement of Capernaum compared to heaven.
Also see The Rich Man And Lazarus below.
The Greek Gehenna
Unlike the Hebrew sheol and the Greek hades, there is really no excuse for mistaking the Greek Geenna (Hebrew Geh Hinnom - English Transliteration Gehenna) with the notion of any hell, either the Old English word meaning covered or the pagan hell of today's Christianity.
The Christian Greek Gehenna is a literal place - a valley that lies South and South-West of ancient Jerusalem. It is the modern day Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom), a deep, narrow valley. Today it is a peaceful and pleasant valley, unlike the surrounding dry and rocky terrain, and most certainly unlike the pagan / apostate Christian hell.
Image: Modern Day Gehenna (https://i.postimg.cc/bYWvWFSs/gehenna.jpg)
In the days of unfaithful Kings Manasseh and Ahaz idolatrous worship of the pagan god Baal was conducted in the place which was then known as Geh Hinnom, (the valley of Hinnom) including human sacrifices to fire. It is ironic that the pagan custom of burning in fire, as in hell, would have so clearly infiltrated the Christian teachings, considering that this practice was a detestable thing to Jehovah God, and his prophets spoke of a time when this place would be turned into a defiled and desolate place. (2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:1-6; Jeremiah 7:31-32; 32:35).
The prophecy was fulfilled in the days of faithful King Josiah, who had the place, especially the area known as Topeth polluted into a refuse heap. (2 Kings 23:10)
So it was that in the days of Jesus and the early Christian congregations, that the valley was known as a literal place where the carcasses of criminals and animals were thrown, having no hope for resurrection. The refuse there was kept burning with sulphur, which is abundant in the area. When Jesus used Gehenna as a symbolic reference to the spiritually dead - the people in the area knew what he was talking about.
The Greek Tartarus
The Greek word Tartarus is found only once in scripture, at 2 Peter 2:4. It is often mistranslated as hell. Tartarus in the Christian Greek scriptures refers to a condition of debasement, unlike the pre-Christian pagan Tartarus (as in Homer's Iliad) which is a mythological prison. The word basically means the lowest place.
Peter refers to the angels who in the time of Noah forsook their original positions and became men in order to have relations with the women of earth. The result was their offspring being giants, the Nephilim, who caused so much destruction God had to bring forth the flood. (Genesis 6:1-4; Ephesians 6:10-12; Jude 1:6).
It is interesting that this verse is often mistranslated because when Jesus was resurrected from Sheol / Hades (Hell in some translations) on earth, he first went to tartarus to minister to the disobedient angels whom had been lowered in position - who happened to be in heaven in a position of debasement. This means that if you don't understand the mistranslation you would see Jesus go to hell on earth and then hell in heaven.
The Pagan Hell
The Pagan teaching of hell was adopted by the apostate Christian church. Today's thinking of hell comes more from Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, but the teaching of hellfire is much older than the English word hell or Dante and Milton. It comes from Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs of a nether world. A place where gods and demons of great strength and fierceness presided over the damned.
Ancient Egyptian beliefs considered the Other World to be a place of pits of fire for the damned though they didn't think this lasted forever. Islamic teaching considers hell as a place of everlasting punishment. Hindus and Buddhists think of hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration.
Separation From God
Modern day Christians often try to soften the teaching of hell as a separation from God, but hell (as is often translated from the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades) can't be a separation from God, since God is in effect there - it is in front of him. He watches sheol for the time when the dead shall be resurrected. (Proverbs 15:11; Psalms 139:7-8; Amos 9:1-2).
Lazarus And The Rich Man - Luke 16:19-31
Jesus often taught people in a way which was easy for them to grasp. One way of doing this is through parables, or illustration. They are stories, which are not meant to be taken as literal accounts. Such is the case with the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Notice that the Rich man is buried in hades. If this account is to be taken literally then the Bible would contradict itself with all of the information being given in this article, but lets not leave it up to what may be thought to be my own personal interpretation.
Let it also be known that if this account is to be taken literally then that would make Jesus a liar. How so? How could Lazarus be at the bosom of Abraham in heaven when Jesus had already said that no man had ascended to heaven other than himself? (John 3:13).
The Lake Of Fire
The lake of fire is sometimes referred to as hell. The lake of fire is obviously a symbolic reference to everlasting destruction. Since hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire they can't be one and the same. Since death is thrown into the lake of fire and death isn't something that can be thrown literally, the lake is obviously symbolic. The fact that hell and death are symbolically destroyed by fire is harmonious with the end of sin which brought death. Those not thrown into the lake of fire are the meek who will inherit the earth and live forever upon it.
Secular And Religious References To Hell
"Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth . . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles - all slept together without awareness of one another." - Encyclpaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276)
"Hades . . . it corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell' " - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2 p. 187)
"First it (Hell) stands for the Hebrew Sheohl of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament . Since Sheohl in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation." - Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28)
"Much Confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheohl and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81)
"The word ( sheol ) occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinction there, so 'hell' ( KJV ) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together . . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [ in Jonah 2:2 ] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the fish." - A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida, 1978, p 37
Sorry, Bro, but I have now lost any interest in anything that you have to say on religion as it applies to my personal beliefs!
4026 BCE????? As far as I am concerned this, among other things, condemns just about everything that you post to this and any other thread on this subject on this Forum to the pigeon-hole labelled "Complete and Utter Twaddle and Rubbish - A personal take on religion probably only relevant to one man - vis Theoretical Skeptic!"
Farewell Theoretical Skeptic
I wish you Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and ask that the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Moses did not write Genesis.
It depends on your definition of "god".
Moses did write Genesis. That wasn't much of a debate, was it?
It doesn't depend on ones definition of "god" it depends upon the god in question. The application. There is variation in application but not in meaning or definition. The dictionary gives common examples, not meaning. The word god means venerated, and is applied to creators, to the supernatural, to the natural, material, metaphorical, mythological, fictional, human, mortal, immortal, etc. It all means the same thing but is applied with the meaning the same.
ETA: Just out of curiosity how many atheists here were formerly theists?
-
Sorry, Bro, but I have now lost any interest in anything that you have to say on religion as it applies to my personal beliefs!
4026 BCE????? As far as I am concerned this, among other things, condemns just about everything that you post to this and any other thread on this subject on this Forum to the pigeon-hole labelled "Complete and Utter Twaddle and Rubbish - A personal take on religion probably only relevant to one man - vis Theoretical Skeptic!"
Farewell Theoretical Skeptic
I wish you Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and ask that the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
Owlswing
)O(
Thank you for your time. I enjoyed our discussions. If you change your mind I would be most interested in learning more about your personal beliefs.
-
TS,
What is a god to you. Give three examples, please, and how you suppose those to be gods.
Literally, nothing. White noise. Incoherence. Insofar as some people claim the notion of a supernatural god to be a fact though, a claim epistemically indistinguishable from claims about leprechauns, pixies, unicorns etc.
Many people don't realize the far superior reliability of the Bible over secular history...
You can't "realise" something you've been given no good reasons to think to be true. The entire discipline of academic history sits on various methods and tests of historicity. If you lower that bar to entertain Biblical historical claims, then the bar is equally low for historical claims from any other faith tradition too - many of which incidentally contradict each other. Then what?
-
What is a god to you. Give three examples, please, and how you suppose those to be gods.
As I have no belief in any gods(in the theist/deist, not the colloquial sense) I would find that hard to answer. I could give you plenty of examples of gods that others believe/have believed in. Would that satisfy you?
I wouldn't suppose them to be gods at all because of the total lack of evidence for their existence as gods although I am always open to the seemingly remote possibility that such evidence might be forthcoming in the future. It is up to those that venerate their particular god(s) to give an answer as to why they suppose them to be god(s), not me.
-
Many people don't realize the far superior reliability of the Bible over secular history when it comes to dating, chronology and history itself.
You see, Adam was created in 4026 BCE.
I see, you're totally disconnected from reality and objective evidence, then.
-
NS,
I see, you're totally disconnected from reality and objective evidence, then.
Quite so. Not only does academic history get it wrong, so it seems does evolutionary biology. One wonders what other fields of overwhelmingly well-reasoned and well-evidenced human endeavour he'll dismiss at a stroke because he read something in a book.
-
TS,
Literally, nothing. White noise. Incoherence. Insofar as some people claim the notion of a supernatural god to be a fact though, a claim epistemically indistinguishable from claims about leprechauns, pixies, unicorns etc.
You can't "realise" something you've been given no good reasons to think to be true. The entire discipline of academic history sits on various methods and tests of historicity. If you lower that bar to entertain Biblical historical claims, then the bar is equally low for historical claims from any other faith tradition too - many of which incidentally contradict each other. Then what?
This pedigree Chum of a post tends to assume all religious claims for historicity are the same.
Also if you lower the bar even further you end up with Jesus as myth.
Have a nice day.
-
Vlad,
This pedigree Chum of a post tends to assume all religious claims for historicity are the same.
No it doesn’t – it was a response to TS’s effort specifically. If other religious traditions have claims of historical accuracy that do satisfy the basic tests of academic historicity, then fair enough.
Also if you lower the bar even further you end up with Jesus as myth.
No, Jesus (the man/god, dead for then alive again version) as myth is what you get when you keep the historicity bar just where it is. To arrive at non-mythic status you need to lower that bar such that any other faith claim gets over it too.
Have a nice day.
You too.
-
I see you're totally disconnected from reality and objective evidence, then.
Ain't that the truth, something TS seems totally unable to comprehend.
-
As I have no belief in any gods(in the theist/deist, not the colloquial sense) I would find that hard to answer. I could give you plenty of examples of gods that others believe/have believed in. Would that satisfy you?
I wouldn't suppose them to be gods at all because of the total lack of evidence for their existence as gods although I am always open to the seemingly remote possibility that such evidence might be forthcoming in the future. It is up to those that venerate their particular god(s) to give an answer as to why they suppose them to be god(s), not me.
Nonsense.
-
TS,
Nonsense.
Why do you think that?
-
Hi everyone,
Let me add my two cents worth to this....
In Hinduism...we differentiate between the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Brahman (or God) from what we call Devas (gods). Brahman is One and is the Universal Spirit or Universal Consciousness which generates the universe and projects itself into lower levels of consciousness.
Devas or gods are the many levels of celestial beings (like angels perhaps) who are involved in the functioning of the world. These beings directly or indirectly are involved in our daily lives. Our prayers are normally directly at such beings.
Besides this, we also consider anyone who helps us or gives us something important as a deva or devi (female). 'Matru devo bhava, pitru devo bhava, acharya devo bhava'....is a common reference statement in Sanskrit. It means 'Mother is god, father is god, teacher is god'....in the sense that we owe these people our life and learning and therefore they are like gods deserving respect and gratitude.
In the same manner we also consider any thing that gives us life and support as a god deserving gratitude.
Just for information.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Let me add my two cents worth to this....
In Hinduism...we differentiate between the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Brahman (or God) from what we call Devas (gods). Brahman is One and is the Universal Spirit or Universal Consciousness which generates the universe and projects itself into lower levels of consciousness.
Devas or gods are the many levels of celestial beings (like angels perhaps) who are involved in the functioning of the world. These beings directly or indirectly are involved in our daily lives. Our prayers are normally directly at such beings.
Besides this, we also consider anyone who helps us or gives us something important as a deva or devi (female). 'Matru devo bhava, pitru devo bhava, acharya devo bhava'....is a common reference statement in Sanskrit. It means 'Mother is god, father is god, teacher is god'....in the sense that we owe these people our life and learning and therefore they are like gods deserving respect and gratitude.
In the same manner we also consider any thing that gives us life and support as a god deserving gratitude.
Just for information.
Cheers.
Sriram
Other than you must be another one of those unfortunate people that are a particularly susceptible victim of indoctrination, I really can't think why you bother with such a load of old nonsense Sriram.
Why don't you take up 'Star Trek' worship with me instead of that old Hinduism stuff? You might as well it'd make just as much sense.
May the force be with you, ippy, or was it May the fourth?
-
Nonsense.
"Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense."
Robert Frost
-
Thank you Sriram, that was very informative. I've always thought that it was interesting that Hinduism apparently is thought of as monotheistic though having many gods. The various gods and goddesses represent powers and functions of the one supreme God.
Though Christianity teaches God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, the Bible doesn't agree.
-
from: enki on 25-10-2020, 12:19:23
As I have no belief in any gods (in the theist/deist, not the colloquial sense) I would find that hard to answer. I could give you plenty of examples of gods that others believe/have believed in. Would that satisfy you?
I wouldn't suppose them to be gods at all because of the total lack of evidence for their existence as gods although I am always open to the seemingly remote possibility that such evidence might be forthcoming in the future. It is up to those that venerate their particular god(s) to give an answer as to why they suppose them to be god(s), not me.
Nonsense.
Why 'nonsense'?
Where is your proof of the existence of the God you believe in? What evidence, verifiable evidence, do you hacve for his existance?
Oh, and please give proof that does not in any way shape of form rely on the Bible.
)O(
-
Why 'nonsense'?
Where is your proof of the existence of the God you believe in? What evidence, verifiable evidence, do you hacve for his existance?
Oh, and please give proof that does not in any way shape of form rely on the Bible.
)O(
Give proof of what you had for breakfast.
-
Give proof of what you had for breakfast.
I am not making any claims about what I had for breakfast.
You are the one making claims for which, to my mind, there is no proof - so I am asking you to provide that proof.
-
Thank you Sriram, that was very informative. I've always thought that it was interesting that Hinduism apparently is thought of as monotheistic though having many gods. The various gods and goddesses represent powers and functions of the one supreme God.
Though Christianity teaches God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, the Bible doesn't agree.
Yes...the many gods in Hinduism are functions and also sometimes represent many levels of celestial beings that exist besides the earth. We believe in seven levels of celestial worlds with the earth being at the first level. So, people living in other worlds are at higher spiritual levels and can influence our lives.
Besides taking scriptural references from Hinduism, I also like comparing them to what science has discovered. I believe that science can point at realities other than the material, if we know where to look.
1. Parallel universes for example, can be compared to many celestial worlds.
2. The contemporary ideas of Panpsychism, Cosmopsychism and Participatory Anthropic Principle indicate that our inner hidden levels of Consciousness can generate and influence the material world.
3. Strings point to a common single source that vibrates in 11 dimensions and transforms itself into the material world.
4. Phenotypic plasticity points at intelligent responses of organisms to the environment.
5. NDE research by professional scientists could confirm an after-life.
And many more...
Interesting ideas all of them.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Yes...the many gods in Hinduism are functions and also sometimes represent many levels of celestial beings that exist besides the earth. We believe in seven levels of celestial worlds with the earth being at the first level. So, people living in other worlds are at higher spiritual levels and can influence our lives.
Besides taking scriptural references from Hinduism, I also like comparing them to what science has discovered. I believe that science can point at realities other than the material, if we know where to look.
1. Parallel universes for example, can be compared to many celestial worlds.
2. The contemporary ideas of Panpsychism, Cosmopsychism and Participatory Anthropic Principle indicate that our inner hidden levels of Consciousness can generate and influence the material world.
3. Strings point to a common single source that vibrates in 11 dimensions and transforms itself into the material world.
4. Phenotypic plasticity points at intelligent responses of organisms to the environment.
5. NDE research by professional scientists could confirm an after-life.
And many more...
Interesting ideas all of them.
Cheers.
Sriram
Yes Sriram, isn't that how science works dream up a few ideas and then hang on to the ideas where largely all the indicators add up, shouldn't that be the way we, humanity, moves on rather than stagnating? Blue Elephant heads etc, come on Sriram?
ippy.
-
Yes Sriram, isn't that how science works dream up a few ideas and then hang on to the ideas where largely all the indicators add up, shouldn't that be the way we, humanity, moves on rather than stagnating? Blue Elephant heads etc, come on Sriram?
ippy.
How strange to want to live in such a fantasy world, when we have the real and wonderful world around us to live in, real faults and all, but far more real wonder and life and being.
-
I am not making any claims about what I had for breakfast.
You are the one making claims for which, to my mind, there is no proof - so I am asking you to provide that proof.
I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is. You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.
The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.
-
I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is. You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.
The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.
Problem - I am NOT atheist!
If you bothered to actually read what is written, you would realise this!
-
TS,
I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is.
Did you not claim as facts Adam & Eve, angels etc?
You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.
No, it means a lot provided you don’t corrupt “prove” into an absolute. I can “prove” that 2+2=4. I cannot though prove that I haven’t been programmed to think that way because “I” am actually a piece of junk code in a celestial kid’s computer game. That doesn’t however give you licence to assert any truth claim to be epistemically equivalent to any other – known as the “going nuclear” option.
The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.
No, it’s because some truths statements are logically coherent, cogent and able to provide solutions; other truth statements though are not. This isn’t hard to grasp even for a relative non-thinker such as yourself.
-
I don't recall making any claims except for that y'all don't know what a god is.
You've made multiple claims, among them that you know when Adam was created (and by implication that there was such a person and he was created) and that the bible is more accurate than "secular history".
You, more or less, are making the claim that to prove something means anything. It doesn't. Prove what you had for lunch. You can't. It means nothing.
The reason why you think it means something is the crutch that atheism supplies for you which is the illusion a) that there are concrete answers and b) that you know what is real. You don't.
The use of evidence and reasoning (rather than proof, which implies certainty as is applicable only to logic and mathematics) has led directly to the technology that allows you to post absurd assertions and have them read all over the world.
-
You've made multiple claims, among them that you know when Adam was created (and by implication that there was such a person and he was created) and that the bible is more accurate than "secular history".
The use of evidence and reasoning (rather than proof, which implies certainty as is applicable only to logic and mathematics) has led directly to the technology that allows you to post absurd assertions and have them read all over the world.
Get over yourself, dude. Two Dropouts in one of their parent's garage and the evil US military created the junk I post on. Maybe some doofus in a lab coat had nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon and figured out how they did it but that's about as far as it goes.
Yeah, Science brought us eugenics and weapons of mass destruction and an endless series of inaccurate speculations about everything from eggs to the age of the universe.
Science is God's bitch. Good for a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
-
Problem - I am NOT atheist!
Yeah you are.
-
TS,
Get over yourself, dude. Two Dropouts in one of their parent's garage and the evil US military created the junk I post on. Maybe some doofus in a lab coat had nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon and figured out how they did it but that's about as far as it goes.
Yeah, Science brought us eugenics and weapons of mass destruction and an endless series of inaccurate speculations about everything from eggs to the age of the universe.
Science is God's bitch. Good for a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
So presumably if – heaven forfend – you were diagnosed with something nasty and were offered a product of evil science (ie, medicine) you’d turn it down right? Or perhaps if the two of us were in a ‘plane with engine failure and one parachute you’d be happy for me to have it, what with evil science having developed parachutes?
Or how about if you were run over one day, an ambulance arrived and a (scientifically trained) medic ran toward you with a defribrilator. Naturally you’d raise your enfeebled arm to wave him away in the hope that a native American would appear to burn some sage leaves and do a special healing dance just for you right?
Good luck with that.
-
TS,
So presumably if – heaven forfend – you were diagnosed with something nasty and were offered a product of evil science (ie, medicine) you’d turn it down right? Or perhaps if the two of us were in a ‘plane with engine failure and one parachute you’d be happy for me to have it, what with evil science having developed parachutes?
Or how about if you were run over one day, an ambulance arrived and a (scientifically trained) medic ran toward you with a defribrilator. Naturally you’d raise your enfeebled arm to wave him away in the hope that a native American would appear to burn some sage leaves and do a special healing dance just for you right?
Good luck with that.
First of all, know it all, luck is a false god. I don't believe in luck.
Secondly, the modern day school of medicine was founded by robber barons of the industrial age and a farce. They chased all of the real medicine out of this country and made it illegal. I'll take the latter and you can shove science elsewhere.
Thirdly, ain't nobody going anywhere in anything unless God had created them.
-
TS,
First of all, know it all,…
I don’t need to be a know all to falsify your arguments (or rather, your unqualified assertions) – I just need to be a “know more than you do” which, so far at least, has been a simple matter.
…luck is a false god.
It’s not a god at all, just a reality – at least until we get to the quantum field level.
I don't believe in luck.
Why not? Luck, chance and happenstance have an overwhelming effect on all our lives. If you want to argue instead for an a priori, purposive planner then you have a vast amount of epistemological work to do to get there. And no, “but that’s my faith” is worthless for this purpose. The only proper answer to that is, “so what”?
Secondly,…
You can’t have a secondly when your firstly has just collapsed.
…the modern day school of medicine was founded by robber barons of the industrial age and a farce.
Actually the modern day school of medicine was founded by Galen (c129 AD – c200 AD). If you’re referring though to the Enlightenment, the modern discoveries in medicine began in the 18th century with, for example, the germ theory of disease. If you consider modern man to have existed for around 150,000 – 250,000 years before then (I’m assuming for now that you’re not a complete fruit loop creationist, though your efforts so far don’t give me much confidence about that) then, while shamanic attempts at medicine during that time might be culturally interesting, they produced little of demonstrably remedial use.
They chased all of the real medicine out of this country and made it illegal.
“The real medicine” eh? What real medicine do you think pre-Enlightenment shamans and witch doctors actually produced?
I'll take the latter and you can shove science elsewhere.
I don’t believe you. If you had a child in hospital with life-threatening sepsis, are you seriously claiming you’d turn down the antibiotics in favour of Hopi chanting or suchlike?
Thirdly…
Again, there is no “thirdly” when your attempts at a firstly and a secondly have just collapsed.
…ain't nobody going anywhere in anything unless God had created them.
Thank you for that expression of blind, albeit incoherent, faith. What value do you think it has though when you’re talking to rational (rather than credulous) people?
-
Quote from: Owlswing on 27-10-2020, 18:11:20
Problem - I am NOT atheist!
Yeah, you are.
Oxford Dictionaries Online defines today's “pagan” as “a member of a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate beliefs or practices from outside the main world religions, especially nature worship.”
Oh NO I ain't!
-
TS,
So presumably if – heaven forfend – you were diagnosed with something nasty and were offered a product of evil science (ie, medicine) you’d turn it down right? Or perhaps if the two of us were in a ‘plane with engine failure and one parachute you’d be happy for me to have it, what with evil science having developed parachutes?
Or how about if you were run over one day, an ambulance arrived and a (scientifically trained) medic ran toward you with a defribrilator. Naturally you’d raise your enfeebled arm to wave him away in the hope that a native American would appear to burn some sage leaves and do a special healing dance just for you right?
Good luck with that.
Very much seconded!
-
Science is God's bitch. Good for a laugh.
I'll take the latter and you can shove science elsewhere.
Quite amusing that you're using the fact that science works to spread your ignorant, anti-science superstitions. Every time you type a message online you're demonstrating that science works.
-
Yes Sriram, isn't that how science works dream up a few ideas and then hang on to the ideas where largely all the indicators add up, shouldn't that be the way we, humanity, moves on rather than stagnating?
ippy.
I have no problems with science, ippy. I thought you would have understood that after all these years. ::)
I only highlight the fact that there are many phenomena that science cannot investigate given its rigid scope and boundaries.
So IMO, we should use science as a platform and use its discoveries as the basis on which to build our life philosophies.....not adhere strictly to its discoveries as the ONLY reality. That is all my argument is.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I have no problems with science, ippy. I thought you would have understood that after all these years. ::)
You do, actually - for one thing you cling to multiple misunderstandings that you refuse to correct (what a meme is, and natural selection being a metaphor, spring to mind). Your approach is also more of looking for things you think (sometimes wrongly) support what you want to be true and dismissing everything else.
-
You do, actually - for one thing you cling to multiple misunderstandings that you refuse to correct (what a meme is, and natural selection being a metaphor, spring to mind). Your approach is also more of looking for things you think (sometimes wrongly) support what you want to be true and dismissing everything else.
I was thinking when reading Sriram's post, 'But that's daft!', but your response is way better, so I'm seconding that!:)
-
You do, actually - for one thing you cling to multiple misunderstandings that you refuse to correct (what a meme is, and natural selection being a metaphor, spring to mind). Your approach is also more of looking for things you think (sometimes wrongly) support what you want to be true and dismissing everything else.
Regardless of what you think of my views....do you agree that science by its very scope and methods has limitations and that all aspects of the world need not fall within its investigative methods?
-
Sriram,
Regardless of what you think of my views....do you agree that science by its very scope and methods has limitations and that all aspects of the world need not fall within its investigative methods?
That depends on what you’re trying to ask here.
Do the tools available to science have limitations? Yes of course – current telescopes can only see so far etc, but that’s not so suggest in principle that data and evidence must be forever inaccessible.
Are there phenomena that by their very nature could never be investigable with the methods and tool of science? There’s no good reason to assume that, no.
Are the “scope and methods” of science such that they exclude knowledge that’s otherwise available? The scope and methods of science enable us to distinguish verifiable facts from just guessing (or, as the religious put it, "faith"). Absent any other method to do that, there’s no good reason to think so.
Hope that helps.
-
Quote from: Owlswing on 27-10-2020, 18:11:20
Problem - I am NOT atheist!
Oxford Dictionaries Online defines today's “pagan” as “a member of a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate beliefs or practices from outside the main world religions, especially nature worship.”
Oh NO I ain't!
Having known you longer through this board I would describe your position as trying to run with the hare and the hounds. I don't suppose atheists respect you for that.
-
Having known you longer through this board I would describe your position as trying to run with the hare and the hounds. I don't suppose atheists respect you for that.
You leave Owl alone Vlad he's probably sitting there with his animal skin garb fastened over one shoulder and not doing any harm to anybody just planning which forest he's going to run around in tonight.
ippy
-
Having known you longer through this board I would describe your position as trying to run with the hare and the hounds. I don't suppose atheists respect you for that.
I don't give a tuppeny damn what atheists think of me, any more than I give three monkey's fucks what you think of me, and I can't even find a description for what I don't give for what Theoretical Skeptic might think, if he can think for himself, of me!
You are entitled, as are the atheists, to follow whatever religious, or lack of religious, belief that suits you - just as long as you do not, as Theoretical Skeptic (in English, of course, sCeptic) does, try to force his version down the throats of everyone who does not follow his particular path or views.
As I have stated before I am Jewish by birth, High Church Anglican by upbringing and Pagan by choice.
You don't like that? Tough, but then again I'm not asking you to like it, just leave me alone to it because I DO like it!
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always" (Regardless of how misguided your religious beliefs might, to my mind, be!)
Owlswing
)O(
-
You leave Owl alone Vlad he's probably sitting there with his animal skin garb fastened over one shoulder and not doing any harm to anybody just planning which forest he's going to run around in tonight.
ippy
Thanks for the support(?), Ippy, but I will not be running around in the forest until Samhain (Nov 31)!
Samhain - pronounced SAH-WAIN.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Moses did write Genesis. That wasn't much of a debate, was it
Moses did not write Genesis. This can be debated, but it appears you just prefer to lay down the law. I'm interested in genuine biblical criticism, not in the pronouncements of people who just follow the line of their confirmation bias
-
Owlswing
#58 :D :D
-
Thanks for the support(?), Ippy, but I will not be running around in the forest until Samhain (Nov 31)!
Samhain - pronounced SAH-WAIN.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always!
Owlswing
)O(
Good on you Owl, sorry I cant help handing out the little dig from time to time.
If it' any help I have the same opinion about all of the beliefs that have no evidence base that would if there were any, back them up, I've not singled you out, oh yes by the way what's the going rate for a hollowed out ram's horn these days Owl? ;D :P :P
-
Yeah you are.
Since he believes in gods and goddesses he obviously isn't That's really not too difficult to understand, is it?
-
Get over yourself, dude. Two Dropouts in one of their parent's garage and the evil US military created the junk I post on. Maybe some doofus in a lab coat had nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon and figured out how they did it but that's about as far as it goes.
Yeah, Science brought us eugenics and weapons of mass destruction and an endless series of inaccurate speculations about everything from eggs to the age of the universe.
Science is God's bitch. Good for a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
Also quite good for determining the accurate age of the earth, the origins of life and the antiquity of certain ancient manuscripts from which you derive your absurd belief system. Quite good for the technology which cooks your bacon and eggs of a morning, as well as the fridge where you keep them fresh. Unless you've decided to live in a cave in the Rocky Mountains.
The Bible really isn't an accurate means of calculating anything. You are right in saying that it does not give any means of determining the age of the earth, but neither does it give any accurate means of determining the age of Methuselah, apart from its saying he lived a very long time. It also says that Balaam's Ass talked (yours certainly does), and that the sun stood still for Joshua. You may well believe Methuselah lived hundreds of years. Big deal..
Evidence?
-
I have no problems with science, ippy. I thought you would have understood that after all these years. ::)
I only highlight the fact that there are many phenomena that science cannot investigate given its rigid scope and boundaries.
So IMO, we should use science as a platform and use its discoveries as the basis on which to build our life philosophies.....not adhere strictly to its discoveries as the ONLY reality. That is all my argument is.
Cheers.
Sriram
Something I can't help is my aversion to any form of woo, somewhere where we part company, prove the references in your last post to me and it's no longer woo, until such times?
You have an almost insurmountable task ahead of you let me know when?
Regards to you and yours Sriram, ippy.
-
Good on you Owl, sorry I can't help handing out the little dig from time to time.
If it's any help I have the same opinion about all of the beliefs that have no evidence base that would if there were any, back them up, I've not singled you out, oh yes by the way what's the going rate for a hollowed-out ram's horn these days Owl? ;D :P :P
When I can find one on sale, far too bloody expensive! I still have a need for three, one for the Coven altar and two as drinking horns; bull horns currently being priced at about one arm, one leg and two testicles each!
)O(
-
When I can find one on sale, far too bloody expensive! I still have a need for three, one for the Coven altar and two as drinking horns; bull horns currently being priced at about one arm, one leg and two testicles each!
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Something I can't help is my aversion to any form of woo, somewhere where we part company, prove the references in your last post to me and it's no longer woo, until such times?
You have an almost insurmountable task ahead of you let me know when?
Regards to you and yours Sriram, ippy.
'Woo' is all in your head, ippy! ;)
Is the idea of parallel universes 'woo'? Is the idea of a String 'woo'? Is the idea of 11 dimensions 'woo? Is time travel 'woo'? Is the many worlds hypothesis 'woo'? Is the idea of consciousness participating in the creation of the universe 'woo'? Is non-local influence of particles 'woo'?
Its all about our biases and the Two boxes syndrome.
-
Moses did write Genesis. That wasn't much of a debate, was it?
All the evidence points to Genesis being written in the middle of the 1st century BCE quite a long time after Moses purportedly lived. Not only that but it's not even the work of a single author.
ETA: Just out of curiosity how many atheists here were formerly theists?
At least one, although I have been an atheist for more than 30 years now.
-
I've always thought that it was interesting that Hinduism apparently is thought of as monotheistic though having many gods.
In that sense it is very similar to Christianity.
-
Sriram,
'Woo' is all in your head, ippy!
Is the idea of parallel universes 'woo'? Is the idea of a String 'woo'? Is the idea of 11 dimensions 'woo? Is time travel 'woo'? Is the many worlds hypothesis 'woo'? Is the idea of consciousness participating in the creation of the universe 'woo'? Is non-local influence of particles 'woo'?
Its all about our biases and the Two boxes syndrome.
False analogies. Again. Science develops hypotheses that begin with known precepts and then conjecture possible answers. They’re based on prior knowledge and observation. Call them “educated guesses” if that helps. These hypotheses may or may not subsequently be demonstrated to be true.
By contrast, sometimes people have beliefs that are essentially incoherent – they rest on no known precepts, they require no prior knowledge or observation and they have no means of investigation, even in principle.
What you do is to combine the two categories as if they're epistemically the same. They’re not though. Note even close. Are unicorns woo? Is Jack Frost woo? How about the man in the moon? See – some things just are woo, and you can’t just carve out the ones you happen to like and claim them to be equivalent to scientific hypotheses.
It would help if you stopped repeating this mistake, especially as you’ve been corrected on it several times before now.
-
Sriram,
False analogies. Again. Science develops hypotheses that begin with known precepts and then conjecture possible answers. They’re based on prior knowledge and observation. Call them “educated guesses” if that helps. These hypotheses may or may not subsequently be demonstrated to be true.
By contrast, sometimes people have beliefs that are essentially incoherent – they rest on no known precepts, they require no prior knowledge or observation and they have no means of investigation, even in principle.
What you do is to combine the two categories as if they're epistemically the same. They’re not though. Note even close. Are unicorns woo? Is Jack Frost woo? How about the man in the moon? See – some things just are woo, and you can’t just carve out the ones you happen to like and claim them to be equivalent to scientific hypotheses.
It would help if you stopped repeating this mistake, especially as you’ve been corrected on it several times before now.
No...you are not getting the point. All spiritual matters are not 'beliefs' as you think. You are confusing religion with secular spirituality.
NDE's for example, are not a belief. They are not 'woo'. They are real experiences and point to a real after-life.
-
NDE's for example, are not a belief. They are not 'woo'. They are real experiences and point to a real after-life.
They are certainly real experiences but claiming that they point to a real afterlife is where you descend into baseless woo.
-
No...you are not getting the point. All spiritual matters are not 'beliefs' as you think. You are confusing religion with secular spirituality.
NDE's for example, are not a belief. They are not 'woo'. They are real experiences and point to a real after-life.
Incorrect. They are real experiences but 'pointing to a real after-life' is a woo interpretation.
-
Sriram,
No...you are not getting the point. All spiritual matters are not 'beliefs' as you think. You are confusing religion with secular spirituality.
NDE's for example, are not a belief. They are not 'woo'. They are real experiences and point to a real after-life.
NTS and torri have beaten me to it: the "having experiences" is fine; the "point to a real after-life" is the woo.
It's you who's not getting it. As I just explained to you the difference between a hypothesis and a "whatever pops into your head", why is that?
-
Incorrect. They are real experiences but 'pointing to a real after-life' is a woo interpretation.
Why is it 'woo'?
-
Sriram,
Why is it 'woo'?
Because it’s not based on knowledge, experience or observation. It’s equivalent to “it points to Charon, the ferryman of the dead, tying up his boat”. For epistemological purposes it’s just white noise.
-
'Woo' is all in your head, ippy! ;)
Is the idea of parallel universes 'woo'? Is the idea of a String 'woo'? Is the idea of 11 dimensions 'woo? Is time travel 'woo'? Is the many worlds hypothesis 'woo'? Is the idea of consciousness participating in the creation of the universe 'woo'? Is non-local influence of particles 'woo'?
Its all about our biases and the Two boxes syndrome.
I am aware that the human idea of logic can be thrown out when looking into the area of quantum mechanics, since right back from Richard Feynman's days but I'm sorry your credibility diminishes for me when you start referring to old scripture, assuming scripture is the correct word to describe Hindu writings, from ancient beliefs as possibilities.
ippy.
-
NDE's are 'ancient beliefs'?
-
Sriram,
Because it’s not based on knowledge, experience or observation. It’s equivalent to “it points to Charon, the ferryman of the dead, tying up his boat”. For epistemological purposes it’s just white noise.
What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?
-
What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?
No, saying they point to a real afterlife is not based on experience and observation. ::)
-
What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?
There's nothing I've seen anywhere that suggests that N D Es are anything more than mind shutting down such as flying to high in a plane without supplementary oxygen.
ippy.
-
Sriram,
What do you mean NDE's are not based on experience and observation?
The NDEs are based on experience and observation; claiming them to point to a supposed afterlife on the other hand isn't - that's the woo part.
-
There's nothing I've seen anywhere that suggests that N D Es are anything more than mind shutting down such as flying to high in a plane without supplementary oxygen.
ippy.
How does it suggest that the mind is shutting down.
Do you think that if your awareness of time shut down before the rest of your consciousness you would experience a state in which time had no relevence?
How would this go if your conscience was still on but your mechanisms of guilt suppression had shut down?
-
I have already provided scientific opinion on NDE's in another thread. Here it is again...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.
As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach
In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..
it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.
Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.
*************
-
How does it suggest that the mind is shutting down.
Do you think that if your awareness of time shut down before the rest of your consciousness you would experience a state in which time had no relevence?
How would this go if your conscience was still on but your mechanisms of guilt suppression had shut down?
No idea what you're writing about here Vlad?
ippy.
-
No idea what you're writing about here Vlad?
ippy.
You said NDE are the mind shutting down. What evidence do you have that this is happening or is it because you've just heard it said?
If the mind is shutting down and you lose your sense of time but not your awareness what state would you be in?
-
I have already provided scientific opinion on NDE's in another thread. Here it is again...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
*************
NDEs are an intriguing and relevant phenomenon, the nature of which is still under debate. Their apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife, glossing over the neurobiological mechanisms involved in producing them; on the other hand, a prejudicial refusal of facts that appear trascendent or paranormal might wrongly lead to neglecting them due to their apparent incompatibility with the widely accepted materialistic view of the world and known scientific laws. Both these stances may be harmful sources of opposite errors, the former leading to belief in non-existing “facts,” the latter to denial of existing ones.
As already discussed, the idea that NDEs are the mere results of a brain function gone awry looks to rely more on speculation than facts (Mobbs and Watt, 2011) and suffers from bias in skipping both the facts and hypotheses that challenge the reductionist approach
In conclusion, NDEs are an intriguing and still misunderstood phenomenon, challenging the heart of neurobiological axioms..
it is only worth emphasizing that spirituality is a faculty of the mind, and, as such, it is independent from any theological or doctrinal view and can be scientifically studied [see the outstanding recent books by Kelly et al. (2007) and Walach et al. (2011)]. It is now time to remove the ongoing cultural filters and include consciousness, spirituality, and the highest mind expressions in neuroscience in a free, secular, and scientific perspective to overcome old prejudices.
Here it is only worth mentioning how the relationship between mind and brain, the so-called “hard problem,” is still an unsolved problem (Chalmers, 1995, 1999; Rudrauf et al., 2003; Ibanez, 2007). The whole of data here reported indicates an increasing need for a broader scientific approach to consciousness and other non-ordinary activities of mind, including those belonging to the suspicious areas of transcendence and spirituality, with their still misunderstood physiology. This might be the case with NDEs as well, where taking a priori the content of such awkward experiences as exclusive expression of brain pathology and worthless epiphenomena of brain circuitry might lead to misleading results.
*************
So I've been told the symptoms of high altitude without oxygen are so similar there seems to little difference between the two explanations.
Isn't mind a biological function that's a product of the brain? I suppose there's all sorts of things that anyone could make up to say different, I'll go for the former, why keep on trying to introduce woo into almost everything?
ippy.
-
All the evidence points to Genesis being written in the middle of the 1st century BCE quite a long time after Moses purportedly lived. Not only that but it's not even the work of a single author.
At least one, although I have been an atheist for more than 30 years now.
You should note, Jeremy, that elsewhere he is on record as saying Moses may or may not have existed.
Either he's the most diligent wum I've come across, or he's got his head so far up his arse, he's wearing himself as a wig.
-
So I've been told the symptoms of high altitude without oxygen are so similar there seems to little difference between the two explanations.
Isn't mind a biological function that's a product of the brain? I suppose there's all sorts of things that anyone could make up to say different, I'll go for the former, why keep on trying to introduce woo into almost everything?
ippy.
Your complaint seems to be....'why do you insist on pushing me out of my old science comfort zone?' :D
-
Your complaint seems to be....'why do you insist on pushing me out of my old science comfort zone?' :D
First, this another manifestation of your rather silly assertion that people are talking about "old" science and things are moving in the direction you like - which, without evidence, resembles a playground taunt rather than a serious comment.
Second, I'm wondering if you even read all the article you quoted above, which, despite emphasising that we might not be able to explain NDEs using current science, was not being nearly as closed-minded and dogmatic about it as you were in #72 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17932.msg817134#msg817134) when you said that NDEs "point to a real after-life."
-
Its quite simple! I am of the opinion that NDE's point to a real after-life. No doubt about that.
If you insist that NDE's are merely brain generated images due to lack of oxygen or whatever....then there is the scientific opinion that NDE's cannot be brushed off quite so easily. That is what the above link is about.
I have posted the link earlier in the NDE thread.
-
Its quite simple! I am of the opinion that NDE's point to a real after-life. No doubt about that.
And it's certainty without evidence that makes it woo. It's not impossible that there is an afterlife and that NDEs have something to do with it, but we have no solid evidence whatsoever and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.
If you insist that NDE's are merely brain generated images due to lack of oxygen or whatever....then there is the scientific opinion that NDE's cannot be brushed off quite so easily. That is what the above link is about.
I have posted the link earlier in the NDE thread.
Whereas the article is clearly sympathetic to the notion of going beyond physical explanations, it offered no solid evidence for the view, and was largely about pointing out that we don't currently have a full explanation (or didn't then, it was eight years ago).
-
And it's certainty without evidence that makes it woo. It's not impossible that there is an afterlife and that NDEs have something to do with it, but we have no solid evidence whatsoever and plenty of reasons to think otherwise.
Whereas the article is clearly sympathetic to the notion of going beyond physical explanations, it offered no solid evidence for the view, and was largely about pointing out that we don't currently have a full explanation (or didn't then, it was eight years ago).
There is no solid evidence for many of the things that scientists speculate on. Much of it could be proved wrong eventually.
Similarly, with the evidence that we have, an After-life is a possibility and that's all that needs to be acknowledged. You cannot dismiss it outright as a 'belief' or as 'woo' (whatever that is! ::)). That is what the link is about.
-
There is no solid evidence for many of the things that scientists speculate on. Much of it could be proved wrong eventually.
Similarly, with the evidence that we have, an After-life is a possibility and that's all that needs to be acknowledged. You cannot dismiss it outright as a 'belief' or as 'woo' (whatever that is! ::)). That is what the link is about.
Likewise, invisible magic fairies at the bottom of my garden in also then, a possibility. Like gods, goblins and ghosts, they are mythological beings with no provenance in science and no detail of definition. The notion of after-life is about as plausible as these for the same reasons.
-
Likewise, invisible magic fairies at the bottom of my garden in also then a possibility. Like gods, goblins and ghosts, they are mythological beings with no provenance in science and no detail of definition. The notion of after-life is about as plausible as these for the same reasons.
That is a silly comparison that you people keep coming up with.
NDE's actually happen....and they point to an after-life. It has not been proven conclusively that the experience is entirely due to brain generated hallucinations. The possibility of an after-life being real is acknowledged by scientists in the link given. That is all I am talking about.
Comparing this situation with fairies and unicorns is childish.
-
That is a silly comparison that you people keep coming up with.
NDE's actually happen....and they point to an after-life. It has not been proven conclusively that the experience is entirely due to brain generated hallucinations. The possibility of an after-life being real is acknowledged by scientists in the link given. That is all I am talking about.
Comparing this situation with fairies and unicorns is childish.
You missed the point, NDEs happen, but claiming them as evidence of after-life is as childish as seeing a rainbow and claiming there to be a pot of gold at the end.
-
That is a silly comparison that you people keep coming up with.
And maybe a bit of Douglas Adam's quoting virtue signalling too.
-
You missed the point, NDEs happen, but claiming them as evidence of after-life is as childish as seeing a rainbow and claiming there to be a pot of gold at the end.
How exactly??!! ???
-
Your complaint seems to be....'why do you insist on pushing me out of my old science comfort zone?' :D
Or could it be this rather simplistic idea of mine, where I'm inclined to look for some form of credibility in any statement I read or hear?
ippy.
-
How exactly??!! ???
They are equally implausible and gain traction in human minds only by virtue of their appeal to parts of us that don't want to accept reality. Seems like some people will go to lengths to convince themselves that they don't die when they die. :(
-
They are equally implausible and gain traction in human minds only by virtue of their appeal to parts of us that don't want to accept reality. Seems like some people will go to lengths to convince themselves that they don't die when they die. :(
No...! :D If a person sees a rainbow and claims that there is a real rainbow....it is valid. The pot of gold doesn't come into it.
You are claiming that the rainbow is not real and it is merely a brain generated hallucination. That is nonsense.
-
No...! :D If a person see a rainbow and claims that there is a real rainbow....it is valid. The pot of gold doesn't come into it.
You are claiming that the rainbow is not real and it is merely a brain generated hallucination. That is nonsense.
No, my analogy would be that the rainbow is real, but the pot of gold is the wishful thinking imaginary part. Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.
-
No, my analogy would be that the rainbow is real, but the pot of gold is the wishful thinking imaginary part. Like claiming to be still being alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful part of your NDE claims.
It is an actual experience. You are asserting (with no evidence at all) that it is imagination. Scientists (as in the link) acknowledge that it cannot be brushed off like that.
-
It is an actual experience. You are asserting (with no evidence at all) that it is imagination. Scientists (as in the link) acknowledge that it cannot be brushed off like that.
Having experience is a phenomenon of living things. Dead people don't have experience, neither do rocks or piano concertos or bus stops.
-
No, my analogy would be that the rainbow is real, but the pot of gold is the wishful thinking imaginary part. Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.
'Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.'
What??!!
-
'Like claiming to be still alive when you are no longer alive is the imaginary and wishful thinking part of your NDE claims.'
What??!!
Yep. Its a fantastical incoherent nonsense claim.
-
Having experience is a phenomenon of living things. Dead people don't have experience, neither do rocks or piano concertos or bus stops.
What kind of a circular argument is that??!! ::) ::) ::) Your assumption is your conclusion. :D
-
What kind of a circular argument is that??!! ::) ::) ::) Your assumption is your conclusion. :D
Its a conclusion from evidence. Have you ever seen a bus stop enjoying the smell of napalm in the morning ?
-
Thanks torridon. ::) I think I'll end with that!
-
Probably for the best. I think the virus has gotten into my brain ???
-
It is an actual experience. You are asserting (with no evidence at all) that it is imagination.
The experience isn't imaginary. It is the afterlife that almost certainly is.
Scientists (as in the link) acknowledge that it cannot be brushed off like that.
Except they didn't really. Even though the authors seem to want to believe in something not explainable by current science, all they were actually able to do was raise questions about some of the current ideas and say that it hasn't been fully explained yet.
The word "afterlife" only appears three times in the article, once warning against jumping to that conclusion and twice in the context of psychological expectations. So even with their bias, they stop short of explicitly suggesting it as an explanation. They also specifically reference Popper with regard to falsifiability. We would need a hypothesis of an afterlife that made testable predictions. I'm not aware even of a proposal for such a hypothesis.
-
The experience isn't imaginary. It is the afterlife that almost certainly is.
Except they didn't really. Even though the authors seem to want to believe in something not explainable by current science, all they were actually able to do was raise questions about some of the current ideas and say that it hasn't been fully explained yet.
The word "afterlife" only appears three times in the article, once warning against jumping to that conclusion and twice in the context of psychological expectations. So even with their bias, they stop short of explicitly suggesting it as an explanation. They also specifically reference Popper with regard to falsifiability. We would need a hypothesis of an afterlife that made testable predictions. I'm not aware even of a proposal for such a hypothesis.
You keep talking about 'belief'...as though it is some mythology. NDE's are real and the after-life is therefore a real possibility. It needs to be examined further but it is not a 'belief'. People of different cultures and even many non religious people have had NDE's and OBE's.
Understanding reality is important...whatever it is. Biases are dysfunctional.
-
You keep talking about 'belief'...as though it is some mythology.
It is.
NDE's are real and the after-life is therefore a real possibility.
Of course NDEs are real but it simply doesn't follow that there's an afterlife. You can say anything is a possibility if you can't actually falsify it. What is lacking is any actual evidence, let alone enough to question all the evidence we have that suggests an afterlife is impossible.
It needs to be examined further but it is not a 'belief'. People of different cultures and even many non religious people have had NDE's and OBE's.
Again, nobody is questioning that people have the experiences.
Understanding reality is important...whatever it is.
Indeed.
Biases are dysfunctional.
And dogmatism, based on flimsy or non-existent evidence, doubly so.
-
You keep talking about 'belief'...as though it is some mythology. NDE's are real and the after-life is therefore a real possibility.
Still making the same fundamental epistemic flaws in logic, vis :
Rainbows are real and therefore pots of gold at the end are a real possibility.
Doesn't follow.
-
Still making the same fundamental epistemic flaws in logic, vis :
Rainbows are real and therefore pots of gold at the end are a real possibility.
Doesn't follow.
What....??!! ::) ??? Oh, well...never mind.
-
Sriram,
What....??!! Oh, well...never mind.
Why are you struggling with this? Imagine that before thunder was understood someone said, “it’s quite simple! I am of the opinion that thunder points to a real Thor. No doubt about that.”
Could you see the problem with that? Sure enough thunder/NDEs are based on experience and observation, but your attribution of cause isn’t. It’s just a fantastical claim with nothing to justify it. Saying, “but it’s not impossible” is epistemically no more useful than saying the same thing about Thor.
-
The experience is itself about the after-life. It is not about some 'feeling' that is attributed to an imaginary after-life.
If one experiences thunder, the thunder exists. It is not some hallucination in the brain. Attributing it to Thor does not figure in the discussion at all. If one sees a rainbow...the rainbow exists. It is not an illusion generated in the brain. The pot of gold does not figure in the experience at all.
These are fallacious arguments.
-
The experience is itself about the after-life. It is not about some 'feeling' that is attributed to an imaginary after-life.
Utter drivel. The afterlife is an interpretation of the experience. Even the article you quoted warns against jumping to the conclusion it's about an afterlife.
-
Sriram,
The experience is itself about the after-life.
How on earth would you justify that remarkable claim?
It is not about some 'feeling' that is attributed to an imaginary after-life.
That’s exactly what it is. What else could we call it when there’s no path from the experience itself to the claimed explanation for it?
If one experiences thunder, the thunder exists. It is not some hallucination in the brain.
So far, so good…
Attributing it to Thor does not figure in the discussion at all.
Yes it does if you’re daft enough to assert that that’s what thunder “points to”. The same goes for asserting that an NDE "points to" an afterlife.
If one sees a rainbow...the rainbow exists. It is not an illusion generated in the brain.
Yep. Well done.
The pot of gold does not figure in the experience at all.
That’s right, it no more figures in the experience of a rainbow than an afterlife figures in the experience of an NDE. Thor, pots of gold and an afterlife alike are all conjectures that begin where the experience and observation run out – they’re just unqualified speculations.
These are fallacious arguments.
Nope. If you still think so though, then by all means try to explain why.
-
You people are is severe denial. I guess nothing can be done.... :(
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
You people are is severe denial. I guess nothing can be done.... :(
Cheers.
Sriram
Ah, the sight of Sriram bailing when confronted by an argument he's unable to rebut.
-
You people are is severe denial. I guess nothing can be done.... :(
It's quite amusing really. Even the article you yourself quoted* in an attempt to claim you had scientific support warns that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion you have. Trying to insist that the experience is the conclusion is just nonsensical.
Until and unless you learn about logic and evidence (yes, I have read the nonsense on your blog about it) you're probably right, nothing can be done. ::)
* And you even quoted the relevant section: "[NDE's] apparent trascendent tone may wrongly lead one to take them as clues of an afterlife...", see #85 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17932.msg817199#msg817199).
-
How long do you want to carry on this 'yes, it is'...'no, it isn't'...discussion?!
You are never going to admit that the after-life is a real possibility as experienced through NDE's. I am never going to say that NDE's are entirely brain generated illusions.
So...cheers.
-
How long do you want to carry on this 'yes, it is'...'no, it isn't'...discussion?!
You are never going to admit that the after-life is a real possibility as experienced through NDE's. I am never going to say that NDE's are entirely brain generated illusions.
So...cheers.
You're the one making fantastic claims. It's up to you to justify your position, with reason, evidence.
-
A nice article from Scientific American... Does not say anything reassuring about an after-life but is still fairly 'middle of the road'.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/
**********
About one in 10 patients with cardiac arrest in a hospital setting undergoes such an episode. Thousands of survivors of these harrowing touch-and-go situations tell of leaving their damaged bodies behind and encountering a realm beyond everyday existence, unconstrained by the usual boundaries of space and time. These powerful, mystical experiences can lead to permanent transformation of their lives.
NDEs are not fancy flights of the imagination.
But NDEs are recalled with unusual intensity and lucidity over decades.
The results suggest that the NDEs were recalled with greater vividness and detail than either real or imagined situations were. In short, the NDEs were remembered as being “realer than real.”
Noticing patterns in what people would share about their near-death stories, these researchers turned a phenomenon once derided as confabulation or dismissed as feverish hallucination (deathbed visions of yore) into a field of empirical study.
Interestingly, NDEs are no more likely to occur in devout believers than in secular or nonpracticing subjects.
Why the mind should experience the struggle to sustain its operations in the face of loss of blood flow and oxygen as positive and blissful rather than as panic-inducing remains mysterious.
***********
Just FYI.
-
not 'middle of the road' as in keeping an open mind between competing explanations, one scientific, the other supernatural. The author spells that out :
"I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain"
-
not 'middle of the road' as in keeping an open mind between competing explanations, one scientific, the other supernatural. The author spells that out :
"I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain"
He is however careful to call it a hypothesis. That is not bad. And he acknowledges that researchers are turning NDE's into a field of empirical study instead of deriding it. He also questions why the mind should experience such peaceful and positive things when it is shutting down.
Let me add that there is nothing 'supernatural' about an after-life. Everyone goes through it. It is natural too...just outside the limited sphere of physical laws.
-
He is however careful to call it a hypothesis. That is not bad. And he acknowledges that researchers are turning NDE's into a field of empirical study instead of deriding it. He also questions why the mind should experience such peaceful and positive things when it is shutting down.
Let me add that there is nothing 'supernatural' about an after-life. Everyone goes through it. It is natural too...just outside the limited sphere of physical laws.
Using a 'hypothesis' is just standard science. People deride the woo that these phenomena attracted, not the experiences themselves. A bit like some aspects of quantum theory, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, they tend to attract woo-merchants hoping science has validated their unhinged ideas.
There is nothing in the domain of life sciences that would support the notion of after-life. So in that sense, the claim is a supernatural one.
-
He is however careful to call it a hypothesis. That is not bad. And he acknowledges that researchers are turning NDE's into a field of empirical study instead of deriding it. He also questions why the mind should experience such peaceful and positive things when it is shutting down.
Let me add that there is nothing 'supernatural' about an after-life. Everyone goes through it. It is natural too...just outside the limited sphere of physical laws.
There is nothing in the article(which I have read bfore) which I disagree with when read in its entirety. Unfortunately, by selecting out your own favoured parts, you tend to distort the picture given in the article proper. For instance, the author regularly refers to alternative events which can and do produce similar NDE like effects(ingesting psychoactive substances, induced loss of consciousness in test pilots and NASA astronauts, complex partial seizures, electrical stimulation of parts of the cortex). Not one of your quotes refer to any of these.
And quite sensibly the author suggests that he works under the hypothesis that they are brain driven events. At the very least we have limited evidence for this and the potential for testing to gain more evidence.
Whereas:
Let me add that there is nothing 'supernatural' about an after-life. Everyone goes through it. It is natural too...just outside the limited sphere of physical laws.
is simply pure conjecture and assertion.
-
At the very least we have limited evidence for this and the potential for testing to gain more evidence.
yes, he references using a lab mouse as a model. if similar phenomena are detected in mice, no doubt Sriram will be claiming the mouse is therefore also on its way to its next life ::)
-
A nice article from Scientific American... Does not say anything reassuring about an after-life but is still fairly 'middle of the road'.
...
The results suggest that the NDEs were recalled with greater vividness and detail than either real or imagined situations were. In short, the NDEs were remembered as being “realer than real.”
Exactly...
...
Interestingly, NDEs are no more likely to occur in devout believers than in secular or nonpracticing subjects.
Exactly...
Why the mind should experience the struggle to sustain its operations in the face of loss of blood flow and oxygen as positive and blissful rather than as panic-inducing remains mysterious.
Not if you think about it or experience it.
-
It is a standard argument that even people who are not near death have an experience of this phenomenon. I have discussed this already with some of you who have experienced such phenomena.
That argument does not dilute the matter, rather it reinforces the reality that everyone has a soul which merely occupies the body. The soul could leave the body at any time due to various reasons. Therefore the out of body experience can be had by anyone though it is probably more common under stressful circumstances.
-
It is a standard argument that even people who are not near death have an experience of this phenomenon. I have discussed this already with some of you who have experienced such phenomena.
That argument does not dilute the matter, rather it reinforces the reality that everyone has a soul which merely occupies the body. The soul could leave the body at any time due to various reasons. Therefore the out of body experience can be had by anyone though it is probably more common under stressful circumstances.
Nope. No way Hose. No need for fantastical explanations when mundane ones will work without needing to rewrite the entirety of life sciences knowledge. Mr Ockham would disapprove of your flippant disregard for due process.
-
The soul explains matters in a much more simple manner than all the convoluted 'explanations' that scientists struggle to come up with.
-
Sriram,
The soul explains matters in a much more simple manner than all the convoluted 'explanations' that scientists struggle to come up with.
And Thor explains thunder in a much more simple manner than all the convoluted 'explanations' that scientists struggle to come up with.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
(H. L. Mencken)
-
It is a standard argument that even people who are not near death have an experience of this phenomenon. I have discussed this already with some of you who have experienced such phenomena.
That argument does not dilute the matter, rather it reinforces the reality that everyone has a soul which merely occupies the body. The soul could leave the body at any time due to various reasons. Therefore the out of body experience can be had by anyone though it is probably more common under stressful circumstances.
On the contrary, all the examples given in the article to which I referred all point towards an alteration in brain state. There is no reality that everyone has a soul unless or until you can give evidence that this is so. Until then you are simply repeating your beliefs in the form of assertions and as such they carry no scientific weight whatever.
-
:D
The evidence for a soul is the out of body experience that many people (even healthy people) have. But you attribute this rather stubbornly, to brain chemistry..... ::)
What other evidence do you expect?
-
The soul explains matters in a much more simple manner than all the convoluted 'explanations' that scientists struggle to come up with.
No it doesn't.
All experience is created by brain function. NDEs are just another particular circumstance giving rise to certain types of experience. No need for magical thinking.
-
:D
The evidence for a soul is the out of body experience that many people (even healthy people) have. But you attribute this rather stubbornly, to brain chemistry..... ::)
What other evidence do you expect?
Just because one has an out of body experience doesn't necessarily mean that there is an actual part of you which is separate from one's body, especially as there is not the slightest evidence for this being true and even genuine experiments to verify such experiences(e.g. reading a hidden message in an operating theatre) have so far had no positive results whatever.
-
The soul explains matters in a much more simple manner than all the convoluted 'explanations' that scientists struggle to come up with.
A bit like thunder being a sonic shock resulting from a sudden increase in pressure and temperature from a lightning bolt when in reality it was just Thor being in a bad mood. Who needs 'convoluted' explanations eh ?
-
A bit like thunder being a sonic shock resulting from a sudden increase in pressure and temperature from a lightning bolt when in reality it was just Thor being in a bad mood. Who needs 'convoluted' explanations eh ?
Except for that the Biblical soul is just the life, life experiences and blood of any breathing creature. The immortal soul was more Aristotle's concept from ancient Babylonian teachings.