Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 159
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hummm ... you seem to be weaving together various traditions. When you speak of the "covenant" implying a "veil" I presume you are thinking of this verse:

    2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

    Is there anything in Jewish tradition that links the veil to the law? They know, of course, about the veil that Moses wore, but I wonder if they have developed a tradition around that. In any case, I don't see the veil as representing the idea that a Tzaddik would not be aware of being Tzaddik. How do you make that connection? What does the law have to do with the Tzaddik not knowing he was Tzaddik? It seems to me that the opposite would be the case. The only way a Tzaddik could know that he was righteous would be if he was under a covenant that told him exactly what he needed to do, and he knew he did it.



    Yep. I learn that many years ago. They take it from this verse:

    Proverbs 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.

    The words translated as "everlasting foundation" are YESOD OLAM which can be interpreted as "the foundation of the world."


    I'm glad you put "sin" in scare quotes, because I have no use for that word. It is the disease Religion invented to sell its Cure to the sick and needy.

    As to your question: If god "forgot" he was god, then he would not be "god" in the sense of our discourse concerning the contradictory properties of the Biblegod.
    You know, I don't really think about it too much

    I do think it's interesting that " sin " and Torah " are kind of opposites, thematically, if you will

    " sin " = missing the mark ( roughly )
    root of " torah " ( yarah ) " aim for the mark " ( roughly )

    Both of these are the two directions the Tzaddik goes in life

    Where the bible says things like " bow in the cloud " ( as a sign of a covenant ) imo, it's not talking about a rainbow and a cloud, after all, the book uses phrasing like " cloud of witnesses ", etc

    If the Torah was to be placed by the Ark to serve as a witness, and the Book of Rev phrases it as " the Ark of Testimony "

    But that brings us back to the fact that the Tzaddik probably wouldn't want to be the person to fulfill that role in the first place.

    Could have something to do with the statements about the " son of man " needing to be lifted up before the " coming "

    idk, Richard, there could be more to it all, jus sayin..

    - as far as some sort of " penultimate " biblecode revelation, if there were something like that in the Bible, it would probably only one person to reveal it, and that would be the Tzaddik, imo

    Nothing else would make sense, as it would be ordained by god that they be the one to do it, right ?

    If god existed, and that was god's plan, then no amount of math degrees would be sufficient, no biblecode program would ever reveal it, etc

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    God wouldn't be " forgetting " he was god so much as the Tzaddik ( God's mediator on earth ) would be blinded to the role they were fulfilling, by God, which would be in line with the process of being covenanted.
    What does "being covenanted" have to do with being "blind"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    This requires that we ask who is responsible ?

    The Tzaddik wouldn't have knowingly volunteered...
    Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    The Tzaddik, were they imbued with some sort of " godly " powers, wouldn't have known the influence they had been having on the world
    Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    The whole purpose of the Tzaddik is to be the " conduit " for God into this world, ie the mediator between God and man, but what happens if that is going on and the Tzaddik is kept completely oblivious to the fact ?
    It's odd that you seem to be saying there is more than one "mediator between God and man" since the verse you are citing says the opposite:

    KJV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    All these arguments about whether god is " evil " or " good " are completely overlooking this scenario of the Tzaddik, ie

    " what happens when somebody is acting for God on earth and does not know it at the time ? "

    " God " on earth would be the Tzaddik, who had been doing " bad ", for the ultimate purpose of fulfilling god's " plan "

    " good " and " bad " are entirely subjective human concepts anyways, right ?

    Something " good " happens now, down the road it turns out to be ' bad "
    Something " bad " happens now, down the road it's a " blessing in disguise "
    Your approach makes no sense to me. The question of whether the Biblegod is "good" or "bad" or both has nothing to do with imagining he came to earth in a body as a Tzaddik. The point is that the Bible describes God commanding immoral things like genocide as God in heaven, not as a blinded human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    What really is the difference between a curse and a blessing ?

    Wouldn't that depend on who was asking the question ?
    A cursing is the opposite of a blessing. There could be no greater difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    You'd think for a Tzaddik it would be more like a curse, yet for the world it's a " blessing "
    Ah ... I see what you are getting at. Yes, it may cost a person great suffering (a curse) in order to "bless" another. But there's no confusion there.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    You know, I don't really think about it too much

    I do think it's interesting that " sin " and Torah " are kind of opposites, thematically, if you will

    " sin " = missing the mark ( roughly )
    root of " torah " ( yarah ) " aim for the mark " ( roughly )

    Both of these are the two directions the Tzaddik goes in life
    That is an interesting symmetry. Like Paul said in Romans 4:15 "where no law is, there is no transgression." So God created sin when he created the law. That sounds exactly like our government. It created millions of criminals by prohibiting alcohol and pot.

    The real problem is that the "Torah" does not define the "mark" in a rational way. It mixes real moral ideals, like no stealing or murder, with all sorts of absurd issues that have nothing to do with morality, such as eating shellfish or mixing fibers in your clothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    Where the bible says things like " bow in the cloud " ( as a sign of a covenant ) imo, it's not talking about a rainbow and a cloud, after all, the book uses phrasing like " cloud of witnesses ", etc
    It seems to me that context makes it clear that he was speaking of rainbows. It was in response to the RAIN that came from CLOUDS that supposedly flooded the earth.

    Genesis 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

    Of course, you are free to interpret any word in any way you want. The "cloud" can be the "congregation" and the "bow" and be the light from the "righteous acts of the saints":

    Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

    But if you go that route, you might as well just make up your own religion (unless you want to hijack all the "cred" the Bible has from thousands of years of government sanctioned brainwashing). I can see why it would be hard to pass up an opportunity like that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    Could have something to do with the statements about the " son of man " needing to be lifted up before the " coming "
    How so? Isn't that a necessary sequence of events, if you wanted the coming to come after the crucifixion and resurrection?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    idk, Richard, there could be more to it all, jus sayin..
    Now worries. I'm "just sayin" too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    - as far as some sort of " penultimate " biblecode revelation, if there were something like that in the Bible, it would probably only one person to reveal it, and that would be the Tzaddik, imo
    There's an old Jewish tradition that the Messiah will not only interpret the words of the Bible, but even the spaces between the words. I think that's an excellent example of the kind of fanciful "magical" thinking common to religious folk.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    What does "being covenanted" have to do with being "blind"?


    Why not?


    Why not?


    It's odd that you seem to be saying there is more than one "mediator between God and man" since the verse you are citing says the opposite:

    KJV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    Richard,..." Jesus Christ " is the Tzaddik....you really think it's accidental that it's part of the name of Melchizedek, or that that 6,666 word in Strong's ( righteous ) is the gematria ( 6,666 ) of the verse describing the basin for washing the " sin offering " ?

    Your approach makes no sense to me. The question of whether the Biblegod is "good" or "bad" or both has nothing to do with imagining he came to earth in a body as a Tzaddik. The point is that the Bible describes God commanding immoral things like genocide as God in heaven, not as a blinded human.

    It doesn't make sense because it's a scenario you never considered, but that doesn't change the fact that it throws a nice monkey wrench into the " god is evil / good " arguments

    Also

    How can you openly admit that you think something like the Genesis account is BS, as a literal story, but cherry-pick another story, most likely also BS, to say that god in the Bible commuted horrible things ?

    What kinda harebrained methodology is that ?

    That just makes you guilty of doing exactly what you say other people do, cherry-picking, ie you are picking and choosing what is literal and what is not, with no consistency


    A cursing is the opposite of a blessing. There could be no greater difference.

    Well, in Hebrew the same word is used interchangeably sometimes, is it not ?

    I haven't read too much on this, but I appreciate anything you have to say about it



    Ah ... I see what you are getting at. Yes, it may cost a person great suffering (a curse) in order to "bless" another. But there's no confusion there.
    Definitely not, charity in all forms is a great thing

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    How can you openly admit that you think something like the Genesis account is BS, as a literal story, but cherry-pick another story, most likely also BS, to say that god in the Bible commuted horrible things ?

    What kinda harebrained methodology is that ?
    Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. The fact that the stories of the genocide commanded by God (for example) probably never happened does not change the fact that the Bible says they did and attributes the command to God. Therefore, the statement that the God described in the Bible is immoral is a fact, whether or not the events actually happened. There is no "cherry picking" of any kind involved.

    Cherry picking is when a person looks at a large data set and selects "hits" that happen to match a pattern they like and they use the small set of hits to make a general claim that does not actually correspond to any patterns in the data set as a whole. Case in point: In the Bible Wheel book, I claimed that the Alphabetic Verses were designed to match the Bible Wheel. I then presented every example I could find. I did not report that the vast majority of those verses did not fit the pattern. Therefore, that was a classic example of "cherry picking."
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    .

    As to your question: If god "forgot" he was god, then he would not be "god" in the sense of our discourse concerning the contradictory properties of the Biblegod.
    I think the word "contradictory" is the wrong word to describe the qualities of God. The word "complimentary" applies instead to the qualities of God.


    God is not both good and evil, but think of God as neutral. The fact is; God does things that are regarded by man as good and evil. If God blesses man, that is regarded as "good". If God curses man, that is regarded as "bad". These are how these things are seen by man. God does things according to his word, and does not give blessing or cursing without justification. Hence, Gods acts justly.

    The fact that God say; "I create evil" does not automatically imply that God is evil. Man can be evil and is created by God. That does not make God evil for having created something capable of being evil.

    God loves and God hates. Those are two qualities of God. Things done out of love, we regard as "good" and things done out of hate we can think of as "bad" or evil. Nevertheless, God is doing according to that which he loves and that which he hates and that which he has spoken and made known to man.

    When God has warned us of the things he hates, then we do those things to our own peril and destruction. When God says in effect; " don't to this because I hate it and if you do it, I shall curse you and even cause you do die prematurely" then the responsibility rests on us not to do that which God hates. God must not be blamed for what is purely man's fault and doing that which offends God. When God keeps his word, God is being just according to his word.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    We are the horses, but who has your reins? "As in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall all be made alive", 1Cor15:22. It's the fig. of speech "synecdoche" wherein a part is put for the whole. When Moses sang joyfully about the horse and rider going into the sea, realize God's not opposed to horses. He wants us to take the bit in our mouth and follow Him, rather than giving our reins to Satan and be bound for the Lake of Fire!

    I'm astounded about all the fuss over the qualities of God that seem to be ignoring "the god (little 'g') of this world", 2Cor4:4. Satan, the devil, the serpent, the dragon, Rev12:9, certainly plays the villain, who "goes about AS A Roaring Lion" 1Pet5:8, seeking whom to devour.
    I don't call it cherry picking to compile the appropriate verses in order to zero in on our ADVERSARY! Even so, those OT Saints didn't have the benefit of knowing satan the way we do in the NT. Right?
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...
    Hey there Gambini,

    Your assertion is false. I have been considering the possibility that the Bible Wheel is "flawed" because of cognitive bias for over two years. It had absolutely nothing to do with your argument concerning the "negative traits" of God. It is not a "new" idea at all. For example, here is what I wrote at the end of my analysis of cognitive bias called The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem, which I published on my blog on October 6, 2012:
    This topic is of keen interest to me because I was a fundamentalist Christian for about 15 years. I explain the cognitive dissonance that drove me out of the faith in my article called Why I Quit Christianity. I have left a very long trail spanning more than a decade on this site and many posts in other forums defending my work on the Bible Wheel. My next project is to apply the insights I gained by writing this article to myself. Most arguments raised against my work claimed that the Bible Wheel had no objective validity and that all my evidence was nothing but the product of cognitive biases like cherry picking, confirmation bias, pareidolia, and so forth. So now I will review those arguments and put my old responses to them through the same fire I have used to test Rich Deem’s arguments. It should prove enlightening.
    And indeed, it has proven very enlightening!

    Shine on!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion is false. I have been considering the possibility that the Bible Wheel is "flawed" because of cognitive bias for over two years.

    I didn't say you weren't "considering the possibility". I said now you're SAYING it is flawed (IMMEDIATELY after I pointed out that ANY being making or inspiring "false" or "contradictory" statements doesn't = Nonexistence and would only demonstrate fallibility). You misread me alot. In fact, that's why I didn't even bother responding to your last post to me here. When I said you GRANTED there was mathematical design in the bible, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE BIBLE WHEEL. And that should have been obvious since the whole point of this thread is about you now rejecting the bible wheel, which means you need to be very careful when you accuse someone of being "delusional". If the bible wheel is one huge massive fail, that means all the Christians who laughed at and mocked your "little wheel" (like JP Holding and William Lane Craig) were right and you were deluded for 15 years (running around the internet claiming nobody can refute it and that it was invincible). I only point this out because you have a tendency to call other people deluded. It also seems like you can't stand the fact that there are people who disagree with you. Just an observation.



    E = SHALOMness Squared
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-25-2014 at 05:28 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...
    Hey there Gambini,

    Your assertion is false. I have been considering the possibility that the Bible Wheel is "flawed" because of cognitive bias for over two years. It had absolutely nothing to do with your argument concerning the "negative traits" of God. It is not a "new" idea at all. For example, here is what I wrote at the end of my analysis of cognitive bias called The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem, which I published on my blog on October 6, 2012:
    This topic is of keen interest to me because I was a fundamentalist Christian for about 15 years. I explain the cognitive dissonance that drove me out of the faith in my article called Why I Quit Christianity. I have left a very long trail spanning more than a decade on this site and many posts in other forums defending my work on the Bible Wheel. My next project is to apply the insights I gained by writing this article to myself. Most arguments raised against my work claimed that the Bible Wheel had no objective validity and that all my evidence was nothing but the product of cognitive biases like cherry picking, confirmation bias, pareidolia, and so forth. So now I will review those arguments and put my old responses to them through the same fire I have used to test Rich Deem’s arguments. It should prove enlightening.
    And indeed, it has proven very enlightening!

    Shine on!



    Richard
    I didn't say you weren't "considering the possibility". I said now you're SAYING it is flawed (IMMEDIATELY after I pointed out that ANY being making or inspiring "false" or "contradictory" statements doesn't = Nonexistence and would only demonstrate fallibility).
    When I said you assertion was false, I was talking about your claim that it was a "180" as if it were a sudden change in what I've been saying. It is not. I've been dropping hints for quite a while, but my thoughts on this issue had not really gelled. It takes quite a while and a lot of effort to free your mind from biases that were instilled over years of biased thinking. But the time has come. I am now explicitly stating that it is flawed because of selection bias. And why am I saying that? Because that's what I've concluded after years of studying the evidence. As I'm sure you have noticed, I've been "cutting my teeth" debunking every variety of biases that pervert the judgment of believers. Reviewing your claims played no small role. (Thanks!) I've spent a lot of time on this project. It was TWO YEARS AGO, after studying how Rich Deem literally disintegrated his mind with his blatantly biased rationalizations, that I said my NEXT PROJECT was to apply the same rigorous honesty to my own work. It should be no surprise that it taken this long to get that project off the ground since I spent fifteen years convincing myself, largely through selection bias, that the Bible Wheel and gematria were evidence of God. But I have enough evidence now, and am ready to affirm that cognitive bias played a significant role in both the Bible Wheel and gematria. If you want to challenge that conclusion, great! All you need to do is challenge the evidence that supports it. The fact that I happened to start this thread after you presented your argument about the "negative traits of God" is utterly irrelevant. That argument had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. This should be obvious since I have explained why that argument not only fails, but is blatantly absurd. All you are doing is inventing a NEW GOD that is different than the "god" of the Bible. I've explained this in detail twice, and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You have not even responded to my point. It seems like you are somehow blinded. So here is what you need to do ...

    RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    If the bible wheel is one huge massive fail, that means all the Christians who laughed at and mocked your "little wheel" (like JP Holding and William Lane Craig) were right and you were deluded for 15 years (running around the internet claiming nobody can refute it and that it was invincible).
    Your logic is fallacious. The fact that a person rejects a proposition that happens to be false does not mean that they had a valid reason for rejecting it. They are "right" only in the sense that a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Most of the mocking fools didn't have a clue what they were talking about and never even tried to formulate an argument. And the few who did try were easy to refute. That's why I could legitimately "run around the internet claiming nobody could refute it." But as the old saying goes - if you want a job done right, do it yourself! So that's what I've done. It will be VERY interesting to see if you can formulate any argument against my assertion that selection bias played a sufficiently significant role in the Bible Wheel to obviate any claim of divine design.

    I am really glad you are pursuing this.

    Shine on!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •