• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Morality of the Old Testament

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Categorically false, as he said he believed in "Spinoza's God", which is more of a pantheistic/panentheistic approach. However, where he was wrong was with his belief if the Steady-State Theory, which he believed God caused as such.
I do not believe Einstein believed God caused the "Steady State Universe."

The concept of "Spinoza's God" probably is closest to:

Spinoza on the Nature of God. As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature. He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself.

Beyond this Spinoza's description of God is rather unnecessarily complex. It ends up to be something like Pantheism or Panentheism.
 

jimb

Active Member
Premium Member
Grammarian fallacy continues unabated. I am not trying to impress anyone, and not confused at all.

Academic sources with archaeological, historical evidence, and Bible citations is not confusing.
Grammarian fallacy? LOL! You are the one who consistently defines terms, even though most of the time you are incorrect.

You preach about academic sources, but your writing is poor. Even your second sentence here is grammatically substandard. "... sources ... and citations is not confusing." Two subjects with a singular form of the verb.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
My responses are based on academic references concerning the origins of the Pentateuch.

For me, discussion of Text-A evolving from Text-B requires looking at both Text-A and Text-B. Anything less is, at best, conjecture. Everyone has their own standards for "what-to-believe-online". These are mine. I think they're fair. Take it or leave it.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For me, discussion of Text-A evolving from Text-B requires looking at both Text-A and Text-B. Anything less is, at best, conjecture. Everyone has their own standards for "what-to-believe-online". These are mine. I think they're fair. Take it or leave it.
I do not believe there is an issue of choosing Text-A or Text-B. My references and my view take the text as a whole in complete context of the culture of the time.

Example: When the text describes foreign chattel slaves as being bought and sold this is not like employment. IT is chattel slavery.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I do not believe there is an issue of choosing Text-A or Text-B. My references and my view take the text as a whole in complete context of the culture of the time.
On the contrary, your posts are too often monuments of superficiality and worn talking points.

Can you show us anywhere at all where you've demonstrated an appreciation for, or even an awareness of, the culture of the time?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
On the contrary, your posts are too often monuments of superficiality and worn talking points.

Can you show us anywhere at all where you've demonstrated an appreciation for, or even an awareness of, the culture of the time?
Not meaningful for a post on topic. It appears you are uncomfortable with the factual content of my posts.

Your discomfort was more than apparent in your response to my reference documenting the Canaanite influence in the Psalms.

I notice you cut the post including a factual statement on the nature of slavery in ancient Hebrew culture. My sources are sound an academic concerning th eancient Hebrew culture and origins and nature of their writings. This has nothing to do with appreciation of the culture. It does represent an unbiased awareness of the facts of the culture and writings. My sources are both secular and Jewish scholars.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
On the contrary, your posts are too often monuments of superficiality and worn talking points.

Can you show us anywhere at all where you've demonstrated an appreciation for, or even an awareness of, the culture of the time?

Not meaningful for a post on topic. It appears you are uncomfortable with the factual content of my posts.
I'll take that as a NO.

Your discomfort was more than apparent in your response to my reference documenting the Canaanite influence in the Psalms.
What is honestly funny about this is that your response to my question regarding Psalm 34 is a perfect example of superficiality and worn talking points. I'm not at all surprised that you seem oblivious to this fact.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'll take that as a NO.
Take it as you wish from your biased cultural perspective.
What is honestly funny about this is that your response to my question regarding Psalm 34 is a perfect example of superficiality and worn talking points. I'm not at all surprised that you seem oblivious to this fact.
Slavery is NOT a "honestly funny" issue when the factual information is perpetually denied as with the view of many Christians on this forum.

Again your discomfort with the factual nature of my posts based on academic sources is more than obvious,
 

jimb

Active Member
Premium Member
Take it as you wish from your biased cultural perspective.

Slavery is NOT a "honestly funny" issue when the factual information is perpetually denied as with the view of many Christians on this forum.

Again your discomfort with the factual nature of my posts based on academic sources is more than obvious,
Factual nature? You're joking! Aside from the fact that the statement is absurd -- facts or not? -- you base everything on your supposed "academic sources", even though you never give citations. Your statements are nothing but opinions.

I'm not certain how much time you've spent in or around academia. I would guess "not much", as anyone who has been around academia knows that it is FILLED with differing opinions, a.k.a., hypotheses, and rarely do those opinions become accepted facts.
 

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Active Member
Take it as you wish from your biased cultural perspective.

Do you have a cultural perspective?

I’ve noticed that one aspect of your cultural perspective seems to be classifying academics according to religion, first and foremost, in place of how we classify ourselves.

I rarely call myself an atheist mathematician.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do you have a cultural perspective?
Everyone has a degree of a cultural perspective, but in most it dominates their worldview beliefs, and attitudes toward other cultures, tribes, races and religions. In by far it dominates their choice of belief or religion,

It would be an illusion that it could deny the cultural perspective I was raised in, though I prefer an independent universal cultural perspective and make a sincere effort to put the different tribes and cultures in the perspective of their origins, cultures including my own, and why they believe as they do. I base my views from that perspective of the evolving factual information from academic science, history and archaeology.

I believe the independent universalist perspective results in increased potential Free Will, because of limiting one's attachment to any one culture or religious beliefs increases the range of possible choices when new information becomes available.

As far as my beliefs and views everything is in pencil and I carry a big eraser.
 
Last edited:

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Active Member
Everyone has a degree of a cultural perspective, but in most it dominates their worldview beliefs, and attitudes toward other cultures, tribes, races and religions. In by far it dominates their choice of belief or religion,

It would be an illusion that it could deny the cultural perspective I was raised in, though I prefer an independent universal cultural perspective and make a sincere effort to put the different tribes and cultures in the perspective of their origins, cultures including my own, and why they believe as they do. I base my views from that perspective of the evolving factual information from academic science, history and archaeology.

As far as my beliefs and views everything is in pencil and I carry a big eraser.

Does your culture have any beliefs regarding the differences between true Catholicism and Idolatry?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Does your culture have any beliefs regarding the differences between true Catholicism and Idolatry?
I would not consider the independent universalist perspective a specific culture. It is an independent perspective of different cultures and religions.

Your question of what is true Catholicism (Universalism) and what is idolatry requires judgements form different cultural perspectives.

The Roman Church (RCC) claims to be Catholic from the perspective of their beliefs as the One and only One true Church. From their perspective they do not consider their use of images and statuary as symbolic and not idolatry.

Other religious perspectives define the Roman Church use of imagery and struary as idolatry, because of the way they define idolatry, and they define Catholicism from their perspective. It is common for some Churches to define Catholicism as defining Christianity but limited to Christianity. Different religions and their variations like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and the various Vedic beliefs called Hinduism. I observe in this form believers in the different religions stoically defend their beliefs as universal at the expense and rejection of other claims of the universal.

I define the universal independent perspective is the universal is beyond any religious or cultural perspective. I look at the different cultures and religions simply from the independent perspective of the matter of fact at what the believe, which would not be a universal perspective in the whole diverse nature of humanity in the over 300,000 years of our existence.
 

jimb

Active Member
Premium Member
I would not consider the independent universalist perspective a specific culture. It is an independent perspective of different cultures and religions.

Your question of what is true Catholicism (Universalism) and what is idolatry requires judgements form different cultural perspectives.

The Roman Church (RCC) claims to be Catholic from the perspective of their beliefs as the One and only One true Church. From their perspective they do not consider their use of images and statuary as symbolic and not idolatry.

Other religious perspectives define the Roman Church use of imagery and struary as idolatry, because of the way they define idolatry, and they define Catholicism from their perspective. It is common for some Churches to define Catholicism as defining Christianity but limited to Christianity. Different religions and their variations like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and the various Vedic beliefs called Hinduism. I observe in this form believers in the different religions stoically defend their beliefs as universal at the expense and rejection of other claims of the universal.

I define the universal independent perspective is the universal is beyond any religious or cultural perspective. I look at the different cultures and religions simply from the independent perspective of the matter of fact at what the believe, which would not be a universal perspective in the whole diverse nature of humanity in the over 300,000 years of our existence.
Yeah, you're completely objective, right?

Thanks for the laugh! :sweatsmile:
 

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Active Member
I would not consider the independent universalist perspective a specific culture. It is an independent perspective of different cultures and religions.

Your question of what is true Catholicism (Universalism) and what is idolatry requires judgements form different cultural perspectives.

The Roman Church (RCC) claims to be Catholic from the perspective of their beliefs as the One and only One true Church. From their perspective they do not consider their use of images and statuary as symbolic and not idolatry.

Other religious perspectives define the Roman Church use of imagery and struary as idolatry, because of the way they define idolatry, and they define Catholicism from their perspective. It is common for some Churches to define Catholicism as defining Christianity but limited to Christianity. Different religions and their variations like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and the various Vedic beliefs called Hinduism. I observe in this form believers in the different religions stoically defend their beliefs as universal at the expense and rejection of other claims of the universal.

I define the universal independent perspective is the universal is beyond any religious or cultural perspective. I look at the different cultures and religions simply from the independent perspective of the matter of fact at what the believe, which would not be a universal perspective in the whole diverse nature of humanity in the over 300,000 years of our existence.

So your cultural perspective is a neutral default culture, in fact, not even a culture, unlike those other cultures, which in fact are cultures?

In Catholicism, there is a similar notion.

Here in America, there is a magical place, a mythological and geographic place, located at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell.

You can see an artist’s representation of that magical place in the mural that I posted above.

Would this not also provide just as reasonable a place for an independent perspective on these issues?

Aren’t we just talking about two different perspectives who both view themselves as being at the center of the world, and who look out at the rest of the world from a privileged position?
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
I am not arrogant nor egocentric, because I acknowledge a wide range of fallible human beliefs and interpretations of the scripture of the world as part of the spiritual nature of humans.

You on the other hand only acknowledge exclusively one possibility your beliefs of a select few, which is arrogant and egocentric by definition, See bold above.
Everybody is Arrogantly and Egocentrically Asserting that there version of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ is the Right One. Only Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ is the Truth and Everything Else is a Lie. I Know with Absolute Certainty that my version of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ is the Right One. Only a Select Few Embrace the Version of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ that Elohim/God has Revealed to me.
 

Elihoenai

Well-Known Member
Categorically false, as he said he believed in "Spinoza's God", which is more of a pantheistic/panentheistic approach. However, where he was wrong was with his belief if the Steady-State Theory, which he believed God caused as such.
1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



Albert Einstein had No Understanding of the Bible. You should read and/or listen to Einstein's "God Letter".


Einstein's "God Letter" - An English translation


Natural Men, such as, Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza cannot Understand the Bible. Karl Marx is another that didn't have a clue about the Bible.
 
Top