In Your Mind You Know

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…oh dear Mr Hamilton, you really are bordering on fantasy, for the principles themselves have been established and documented for almost 2000 years, and yet you remain oblivious to them!
.…

How do you know that the principles so written correspond to reality?
-The fact that they have been “established and documented for almost 2000 years ...[text shortened]... ased -I might as well waste my time reading a book of random numbers rather than read the Bible.[/b]

because my dear sir, as i pointed out to the illustrious and never dull no.1 marauder, that wisdom is proved righteous by its works, now let me explain something to you with regard to this, when we apply a biblical principle, it is proved righteous, let me state that again, PROVED RIGHTEOUS, by its works or in other words its outworking is clearly discernible and observable by the effect that it has, therefore let us take a simple example, to love ones neighbor as oneself, thus if we are to cultivate self love, there would be an immediate decrease of self abuse, thus drug addiction, chronic alcoholism, self loathing and a host of other psychological irregularities may be arrested, and if we take the second part of the principle, to love ones neighbor, in its application, this would eradicate war and conflict on a personal level and if applied globally, on an international level, thus the wisdom of applying the biblical principle is clearly discernible from observing its effect, thus we must conclude that it is true!

if you want to read a book of random numbers then be my guest, if you want observable truth, i recommend the bible. therefore not only is it reason based, but it contains some of the most sublime teachings and wisdom to be found anywhere, practical wisdom i hasten to add, but you wouldn't know that, because you're prejudice prevents you from considering it.

what are we to do with you Mr.Hamilton? perhaps even water, if it drips constantly enough, may make an indentation in even the hardest of rock.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because my dear sir, as i pointed out to the illustrious and never dull no.1 marauder, that wisdom is proved righteous by its works, now let me explain something to you with regard to this, when we apply a biblical principle, it is proved righteous, let me state that again, PROVED RIGHTEOUS, by its works or in other words its outworking is clearly di ...[text shortened]... ven water, if it drips constantly enough, may make an indentation in even the hardest of rock.

then i guess it was and is proven righteous to stone a woman to death for adultery. or to hold a man's offspring responsible to the 7th generation. or to "suffer not a woman to teach". that is also wisdom thought in the bible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because my dear sir, as i pointed out to the illustrious and never dull no.1 marauder, that wisdom is proved righteous by its works, now let me explain something to you with regard to this, when we apply a biblical principle, it is proved righteous, let me state that again, PROVED RIGHTEOUS, by its works or in other words its outworking is clearly di ven water, if it drips constantly enough, may make an indentation in even the hardest of rock.

Reminder of my original question:

“How do you know that the principles so written correspond to reality?”

And PART of your answer to this was:

…wisdom is proved righteous by its works.…

This is NOT what I assumed you where talking about nor meant by your original question for I assumed what you mean by “principles” was “presumptions” (such as “there is a god” etc) and NOT “moral principles” (unless you are confusing the two?).

Even if something can be “proven” morally righteous by its works (which it logically cannot -you cannot logically go from a factual proposition about events in reality to a moral one) and even if the Bible has moral principles that have been “proved righteous”, that is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the stated presumptions are factually correct (such as “there is a god” etc). So I have this question for you (which I wrongly assumed was the implicit question you understood) which is:

“How do you know that it is factually correct (in the sense that 4+4=8 is factually correct and NOT in any moral sense) that the most fundamental presumptions (EXCLUDING the “moral” ones - presumptions like “there is a god“ etc) so written correspond to reality?”

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
then i guess it was and is proven righteous to stone a woman to death for adultery. or to hold a man's offspring responsible to the 7th generation. or to "suffer not a woman to teach". that is also wisdom thought in the bible.

perhaps you oh great Zahlanzi, in your infinite wisdom, deem to question God? for to be sure, you yourself are able to determine right and wrong, based on your imperfect, fallible, human wisdom, for you are a God, or that's what you are purporting to be! why do we not worship you, for you are unable to tell the difference between your bum and your elbow!. for your information, the mosaic law is now obsolete, it has served its purpose, we are now, or have been since the emergence of the Christ, under a new covenant, but you are unaware, for you have not read that, also you do not understand these ancient truths for you are blinded by your prejudice and modern liberalism, thus you cannot grasp the principles in their entirety for they have been taken out of context, for you are a God, all hail Zahlanzi, prophet of the new liberalism.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Reminder of my original question:

“How do you know that the principles so written correspond to reality?”

And PART of your answer to this was:

[b]…wisdom is proved righteous by its works.…

This is NOT what I assumed you where talking about nor meant by your original question for I assumed what you mean by “principles” was “presumptio ...[text shortened]... b] the “moral” ones - presumptions like “there is a god“ etc) so written correspond to reality?”[/b]

yes you can Andrew, i have demonstrated with reference that not only is it proven, discernible and observable, it is a practical way of wisdom! perhaps you would do well to define the terms of your objections more fully, in order that confusion may not arise again! and now that they have been proven, you seek to exclude them from your argument, yep, here is another hoop Robbie, jump through that one! look for your sake, for you yourself are often want to comment with regard to evolution that it does not touch, nor explain, certain realities, like the emergence of conscience etc etc, this is also true of scripture, it is not a scientific textbook! it is primarily a book of morality, practical wisdom, human relationships and spirituality. if you want facts then you need to look at the background, the cultural aspects, the human aspects, the archeology, the historical aspects, all will confirm its reliability, if that's what you need, then i will be more than happy to demonstrate these aspects to you.

everything holy and reasonable 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you can Andrew, i have demonstrated with reference that not only is it proven, discernible and observable, it is a practical way of wisdom! perhaps you would do well to define the terms of your objections more fully, in order that confusion may not arise again! and now that they have been proven, you seek to exclude them from your argument, yep, ll be more than happy to demonstrate these aspects to you.

everything holy and reasonable 😵

…i have demonstrated with reference that not only is it proven, discernible and observable,
.…

No you haven’t!
(I assume you are ONLY talking about the moral principles in the Bible here and NOT the totally unproven presumptions such as “there is a god“ etc? -yes?)

Can you demonstrate to me how you can logically go from a factual proposition about events/possible events in reality to a moral one? -if the answer is “no”, then you haven’t “proven” anything about the moral propositions in the Bible.

-and you haven’t answered my original question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps you oh great Zahlanzi, in your infinite wisdom, deem to question God? for to be sure, you yourself are able to determine right and wrong, based on your imperfect, fallible, human wisdom, for you are a God, or that's what you are purporting to be! why do we not worship you, for you are unable to tell the difference between your bum and your ...[text shortened]... been taken out of context, for you are a God, all hail Zahlanzi, prophet of the new liberalism.

so there are parts of the bible that are obsolete. hmm, odd and here i thought that you hold ALL bible to be absolute, including genesis and the moses laws. i am guessing the bible is after all not as absolute.


fine, i will bite. "suffer not a woman to teach" is paul's idea i believe. debate that please.

1 Timothy Chapter 2
12 I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet,
13 because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards,

and there was one more that i recall that a widow should not remarry and live her whole life in mourning and praying even if she was 16 at the time her husband died(at least she is not to be burn alive as some hindus practice or to be sent to a widow colony)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…i have demonstrated with reference that not only is it proven, discernible and observable,
.…

No you haven’t!
(I assume you are ONLY talking about the moral principles in the Bible here and NOT the totally unproven presumptions such as “there is a god“ etc? -yes?)

Can you demonstrate to me how you can logically go from a factua ...[text shortened]... ng about the moral propositions in the Bible.

-and you haven’t answered my original question.[/b]

ok, look, if i am able to take a portion of scripture, to look at the human, historical, archeological and cultural aspects (the facts if you like) and to determine their authenticity, with reference, we may be certain that the event was a reality, as far as possible, for granted we were not there, but these little evidences lead us to conclude that the whole account is devoid of fabrication, it has 'the ring of truth', as we are wont to say, therefore if the events contain a spiritual dimension, or a moral truth, based on the factual evidence which leads us to believe the legitimacy of the account, it leads us to accepting the morality as being authentic as well, thus factual evidence is instrumental in helping us not only give credence to the account, but to accept its authority, and when we discern what the moral entity is, we can further verify its 'authenticity', by application and observation of the results, as in the scientific model.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so there are parts of the bible that are obsolete. hmm, odd and here i thought that you hold ALL bible to be absolute, including genesis and the moses laws. i am guessing the bible is after all not as absolute.


fine, i will bite. "suffer not a woman to teach" is paul's idea i believe. debate that please.

1 Timothy Chapter 2
12 I give no permission ...[text shortened]... at least she is not to be burn alive as some hindus practice or to be sent to a widow colony)

yes they are obsolete or have been replaced by something 'better', for example we do not offer up animal sacrifices, burnt offerings or any other type of libation, we do not have an officiating priesthood, nor an earthly high priest, we do not go up to Jerusalem every year on atonement day, we do not celebrate the festival of booths etc etc. All are obsolete! however, the principles remain! thus we must remain loyal to our marraige mates, we must honour our fathert and our mother, we must be honest etc etc etc.

the passage that you mention with regard to women, is simply a congregational arrangement, in that the principle of headship must be observed, thus the head of Christ is god, the head of man is Christ, the head of women is man etc etc. this is an arrangement, thus when you examine the letters of paul he gives certain recommendations with regard to the running of a congregation, one of these is that women do not preside as teachers! why not? because she is to be an example of submissiveness, who to ?, to angels no less!

In ancient times, there were circumstances under which a woman put on a head covering to denote subjection. (Ge 24:65) Discussing the headship arrangement in the Christian congregation, the apostle Paul explained that if a woman prays or prophesies in the congregation, occupying a position God has assigned to the man, she should have on a head covering. In temporarily doing these things because no dedicated male Christian is present to do them, even though she may have long hair, the woman should not argue that her long hair is sufficient to denote her subjection. Instead, she should let her own actions demonstrate her submissiveness and her acknowledgment of man’s headship. The Christian woman does this by wearing a head covering as “a sign of authority.” This should be done “because of the angels,” who observe the Christian’s actions and who, as those ministering to the Christian congregation, are concerned with it. By wearing a head covering when necessary for spiritual reasons, the Christian woman acknowledges God’s headship arrangement.—1Co 11:5-16; Heb 1:14.

This proper theocratic order in the congregation and in the family arrangement does not hinder the woman in serving God, nor does it impede her efforts in carrying out her family activities and responsibilities. It allows her full and Scriptural freedom to serve in her place, while still being pleasing to God in harmony with the principle: “God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased.” (1Co 12:18) Many women of ancient times had fine privileges while recognizing the headship of the man and enjoyed happy and satisfying lives. Among these were Sarah, Rebekah, Abigail, and Christian women such as Priscilla and Phoebe.

knock yourself out my friend!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…i have demonstrated with reference that not only is it proven, discernible and observable,
.…

No you haven’t!
(I assume you are ONLY talking about the moral principles in the Bible here and NOT the totally unproven presumptions such as “there is a god“ etc? -yes?)

Can you demonstrate to me how you can logically go from a factua ...[text shortened]... ng about the moral propositions in the Bible.

-and you haven’t answered my original question.[/b]

Sansho asked Seppo:
-- "When a fish with golden scales has passed through the net, what should it get for food?"
Seppo said:
-- "I will tell you when you have passed through the net"
Sansho said:
-- "A great Zen master with 1.500 disciples doesn't know how to speak"
Seppo said:
-- "This old monk is too busy with temple affairs"

Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you can Andrew, i have demonstrated with reference that not only is it proven, discernible and observable, it is a practical way of wisdom! perhaps you would do well to define the terms of your objections more fully, in order that confusion may not arise again! and now that they have been proven, you seek to exclude them from your argument, yep, ...[text shortened]... ll be more than happy to demonstrate these aspects to you.

everything holy and reasonable 😵

It ain't nesessarily so😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, look, if i am able to take a portion of scripture, to look at the human, historical, archeological and cultural aspects (the facts if you like) and to determine their authenticity, with reference, we may be certain that the event was a reality, as far as possible, for granted we were not there, but these little evidences lead us to conclude that s 'authenticity', by application and observation of the results, as in the scientific model.

…ok, look, if i am able to take a portion of scripture, to look at the human, historical, archaeological and cultural aspects (the facts if you like) and to determine their authenticity, with reference, we may be certain that the event was a reality, as far as possible, for granted we were not there, but these little evidences lead us to conclude that the whole account is devoid of fabrication,
.…

Obviously I do not deny that many of the stated historical accounts in the Bible of what happened are, in the main, correct (e.g. there existed a man called Jesus and he was nailed to the cross etc). What does that have to do with anything?
- if what you are implying here is that just because some of the accounts are factually correct that that must mean that ALL the accounts are factually correct (even the superstitious ones like “God created the heavens, &hellip😉 then, clearly, not only does one not logically follow from the other but it doesn’t even follow that one is made more probable from the other!

…it has 'the ring of truth', as we are wont to say, therefore if the events contain a spiritual dimension, or a moral truth...…

What has “moral truth” got to do with historical facts?

….based on the factual evidence which leads us to believe the legitimacy of the account,
..…

I assume what you mean by “factual evidence” are all the verifiable credible non-superstitious historic accounts? (such as there WAS a man called Jesus etc)
-if so, what does that got to do with either morality or the legitimacy of superstitious assertions that suggest “there exists a god” etc ?

….and when we discern what the moral entity is, we can further verify its 'authenticity', by application and observation of the results, as in the scientific model.
..…

Err, no.

For it to be “scientific” the conclusion must follow from its premise.
Since no “moral” conclusions can ever logically follow from any kind “application” nor “observation” nor any other kind of “premise”, science has nothing to say about morality.
So you cannot use scientific reasoning to justify moral propositions in the Bible (nor anywhere else).

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
then i guess it was and is proven righteous to stone a woman to death for adultery. or to hold a man's offspring responsible to the 7th generation. or to "suffer not a woman to teach". that is also wisdom thought in the bible.

You point only to the law and not the Gospel that saves.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes they are obsolete or have been replaced by something 'better', for example we do not offer up animal sacrifices, burnt offerings or any other type of libation, we do not have an officiating priesthood, nor an earthly high priest, we do not go up to Jerusalem every year on atonement day, we do not celebrate the festival of booths etc etc. All are ...[text shortened]... h, Abigail, and Christian women such as Priscilla and Phoebe.

knock yourself out my friend!

"women do not preside as teachers! why not? because she is to be an example of submissiveness"

" the head of women is man"

"[...]demonstrate her submissiveness and her acknowledgment of man’s headship."

so i guess it is righteous that the woman is subservient to man, bow to his will, accept his decisions, etc.


"Many women of ancient times had fine privileges while recognizing the headship of the man and enjoyed happy and satisfying lives."
to this i reply that the black slaves of southern america led happy and satisfying lives, delivered from a godless uncivilized life of sin in the badlands of Africa. the slavers did those poor savages a favor. just as the woman is happy in her servitude so were the slaves.


i have something to share with you, just don't tell anyone else, i don't want anyone in on the secret. The dark ages have passed, we are supposed to be civilized. That means everyone is equal in the eyes of god and nobody should be subservient to another, nobody is more worthy, and the woman is not responsible for the sin of adam, just as the blacks are not responsible for the sin of the misbehaved son of Noah who saw his daddy naked. So don't tell anyone this is just something i share with you and you alone.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You point only to the law and not the Gospel that saves.

If one (meaning me) is to prove others (fanatics) that the bible is not the absolute word of god and that something may have gotten included in the bible that wasn't god's word, i need only to give one example and that is sufficient to say that the bible is not entirely true. you must prove every single word of it. so i have the easy task.

now, do you affirm that god wants adulteresses to be killed or women to be servants to man?