mererdog

Once again, context. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied Two swords were enough. Enough for what? A following scene shows Jesus being arrested. The followers ask if they should attack with their swords. One does, cutting off an ear. Jesus orders the violence to stop and he heals the ear. Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

We have more than a few examples of cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts that are more than five thousand years old. It sort of begs the question: If you want your words to remain unchanged throughout the ages, why put them on something that rots?

The context of the passage makes it fairly clear that the meaning is not literal. In the scene in question, Jesus is sending people out to preach in a dangerous world and warning them that they will make a lot of enemies by doing it. The actual instructions to his followers are extremely pacifist in nature, yet he warns that others will be violent, and gives assurances that the cause is worth suffering and dying for. After all, what does that whole "take up your cross" thing mean , if not to accept unjust persecution, as opposed to avoiding it or fighting it?

The most rigorous methodology can only provide imperfect controls in the face of ever present bias. Double blind studies do an excellent job of eliminating the most obvious and direct impacts of bias. If we assume they eliminate all effects of bias, however, we are demotivated from looking for and eliminating the less obvious and direct ways the data is impacted by bias.

No one likes finding out they were wrong about their spouse not cheating. It is a universally despised moment. Well, there are people who had spent years hoping for a yo-fault divorce, but those people are not good role-models. Wanting to learn is a symptom of not liking being wrong. It shows a desire to change from someone who is wrong into someone who used to be wrong. Being wrong does not help you learn, in the same way that being fat doesn't help people lose weight. If you dont decide it is a problem, and thus desire to change it, its not going anywhere without some sort of lucky accident. That is what makes our aversion to being wrong a survival trait- it provides motivation for personal improvement. The problem is when the desire to not be wrong becomes twisted into an unwillingness to admit when we are wrong. Because it is the awareness that we are wrong that makes the learning possible. Am I wrong?

You are wrong. If your parents are alive, they are also wrong. In point of fact, everyone you love, everyone you respect, everyone you trust, and everyone you believe is wrong. But, hey, so am I. I base this Declaration of Wrongitude on two assumed facts- Objective reality exists, and all humans experience that reality in a limited and imperfect way. In other words, Truth exists and we are bad at seeing it. So you are wrong. But nobody likes being wrong, in the same way that nobody likes being a loser. This makes us averse to looking directly at our wrongness. We minimize it, gloss over it, and put it in a convenient context that makes it seem insignificant. We externalize it, we blame it on others, we chalk it up to a learning experience, and we insist that the important point is that the other guy is way more wrong than we are. Yet we are wrong, and the most efficient way to improve is to face that fact and try to change it- to admit we are wrong and work on being less wrong in the future. Please note that I don't cite this as a cure for being wrong. We will always be wrong. Being wrong doesn't mean we can't also be right.

The Bible is an extremely complex work and, on a literal level, it is extremely self-contradictory. It is very easy for two honest and intelligent people to read it and walk away with very different understandings of its meaning. With almost any other book, those interpretational differences would just be seen as an interesting window into the different ways we process nonliteral infirmation. But Biblical interpretation differences tend to get treated like personal insults. So when I tell someone that the Sermon on the Mount reads like a pacifist manifesto, nine times oit of ten they react as if I told them their grandfather was a Nazi.

This seems like a good time to mention that you may be able to arrange in advance to have your body donated for use as research material. You can be Ghost Doctor! Yes, Ghost Doctor, saving lives From Beyond The Grave! http://www.sciencecare.com

The following are the definitions given by Google- "noun ˈoutsīd/ 1. the external side or surface of something. "record the date on the outside of the file" synonyms: outer/external surface, exterior, outer side/layer, case, skin, shell, covering, facade "the outside of the building" adjective ˈoutsīd/ 1. situated on or near the exterior or external surface of something. "put the outside lights on" synonyms: exterior, external, outer, outdoor, out-of-doors "outside lights" 2. not belonging to or coming from within a particular group. "I have some outside help" synonyms: independent, hired, temporary, freelance, casual, external, extramural "outside contractors" preposition & adverb outˈsīd/ 1. situated or moving beyond the boundaries or confines of. "there was a boy outside the door" synonyms: outdoors, out of doors, al fresco "they went outside" 2. beyond the limits or scope of. "the high cost of shipping has put it outside their price range" The "outside" in "outside force" is the same as the "outside" in "outside help" which is the example given for the second adjective definition.

If you are living what was intended, what are you really living?

That would seem to effect the likelihood that I will know whether it is true, but not the actual likelihood that it is true. And, of course, while it seems to effect the likelihood that I will know, it may not. After all, any research I do is limited by the research tools at my disposal. A lifetime spent sifting through lies and chasing down false leads may not be able to put me any closer to the truth than where I started.

Omnipotence is an irrational concept. For anything to be omnipotent would require that the universe is fundamentally irrational. If the universe is fundamentally irratiional, it simply cannot be fully understood using reasoning. In other words, a universe with an omnipotent God in it is a universe we are ill-equipped to understand. It is a universe of contradiction- a universe based on whim, rather than mechanics- a universe that makes no sense, even when it seems to. That was, admittedly, a theme in the Hitchhiker books. But... My main point is that attempting to use reason to refute claims of omnipotence is either like bringing an imaginary knife to a real gunfight, or bringing a real knife to an imaginary gunfight.

A poor argument that agrees with my assumptions is worse than one that disagrees with my assumptions. Because when an argument has a conclusion I am inclined to agree with, I am encouraged to ignore the flaws in the argument, which trains me to ignore those same flaws in other arguments.

There have been some fascinating studies done on the effect of posture and expression on mood and perception. In one, randomly sampled pairs of subjects were sat across from each other and were given specific instruction regarding what postures and facial expressions to adopt while staring at each other for a period of time. At the end of each session, they took a quiz that included questions about the person they had stared at. Interestingly, if either person had adopted friendly body language, both subjects in the pairing would give each other noticeably better ratings on everything from appearance to probable intelligence level. And this is even though they both knew that the body language had been dictated by the experiment.

The kids' table at my grandmother's had the same cracked plates and chipped cups for abour a couple decades. I can't recall any of them ever breaking during use. I did have a cracked Pyrex piece that sort of exploded in the oven, though, so I can understand the caution.

The "outside" in "outside force" is an adjective, not a preposition. And it is relative.

That is part of my point. All you are really verifying is that multiple sources agreed. That leaves room for all sorts of shenanigans. A lie that remains unchanged for a long time is more convincing, but it is not more true.

Because they are imaginary characters in a hypothetical question that casts them as liars. That makes it easy. If they weren't, I would still assume they were liars, as I assume everyone is, on at least some level. Knowledge and assumption are different, of course... Which is basically the answer to your question about truth.

Thank you, although your compliment is muted by misspelling the moniker. There is only some humor intended, by the way. I have the same dislike for atheistic apologetics as I do for theistic apologetics. When people start trying to "prove" the Bible is definitely this, or definitely that, I poke the "proof" and watch it deflate into nothingness. Its kind of a hobby. The goal is not to support any given position, but to support critical thinking.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Judging a claim by qualities of the person making the claim is fallacious.

Actually, that isn't what I was suggesting there. What I was suggesting is that the concept of omnipotence is irrational, therefore it cannot be ruled out rationally. After all, by definition, omnipotence transcends all rules. I would also suggest it is a patently unfalsifiable claim, except for the fact that if there is an omnipotent being, that being could prove itself to not exist.

Is something you hear from three liars more likely to be true than something you hear from one liar?

The "Oh no" suggests certainty, but the "pretty clear" indicates uncertainty. In order to know that the Bible is not written by God, I would first need to know what it would look like if it were written by God. Without that knowledge, I have no counterfactual to compare against reality. A few key facts that muddy the waters- It is completely possible for a single person to create a work that looks as if it has multiple authors. There is never a point where it is reasonable to say "An omnipotent being could not have done this." The standard conception of what "authored by God" indicates is a sort of dictation process happening over a very long period of time and with a whole lot of scribes.

Or the author is God, and you are confused by your incorrect interpretation that Scripture is a mess. Or some Scripture is authored by God, and some is not, and you are confused by the assumption that it all has the same author. Or Scripture is a mess, and it is authored by God, but you are confused about the nature of God and so can't understand how that is true. Confusion can be a rather confusing subject.

They are different, but without understanding the source you can't make an accurate interpretation of the word. Different sources, after all, will likely define words differently, use different idioms, and attribute different characteristics to the same archetypes. As such, confusion about the source will likely lead to confusion over interpretation, and vice versa. Its fairly messy stuff, really.