|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 17, 2005 12:11:29 GMT -5
And Jac, the Angels that visited Lot were indeed confused to be human. The townspeople came to Lot's home and wanted him to send the two Angels out so they could "have their way with them".........
The townspeople did not know they were Angels, they said send the two men out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 17, 2005 12:44:20 GMT -5
Also keep this in mind.
"El is the word for God, in both the Hebrew and Ugaritic cuneiform.
In Hebrew “Eloah” is the singular, and “Elohim” the plural (meaning Gods).
Ugaritic, a Semitic language closely related to Phoenician which was spoken in the city state of Ugarit in northern Syria. Ugarit flourished from the 14th century BC until 1200 BC, when it was destroyed.
The city was rediscovered in 1928 by a peasant whose plow uncovered an ancient tomb near Ras Shamrah in northern Syria. A group of French archaeologists led by Claude F.A. Schaeffer started excavating the city in 1929.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Nov 17, 2005 12:45:22 GMT -5
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 17, 2005 12:49:42 GMT -5
Since when do Hebrew translations supercede physical scientific evidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 17, 2005 12:54:59 GMT -5
Shin I am not talking to you, I am talking to Jac. Shut up.  The singular el is spelled il in a few semetic languages including the one I mentioned, as well as Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian spelled ilu. Tiberian Hebrew spelled el. The plurals used the same way, meaning Gods. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 17, 2005 13:15:52 GMT -5
If God created us in his own image,
we have more than reciprocated.
(Voltaire)
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 17, 2005 13:21:49 GMT -5
The 5 Jews who changed World history ...
Moïse: Everything is God
Jésus: Everything is Love
Marx: Everything is money
Freud: Everything is sex
Einstein: Everything is relative ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 17, 2005 13:25:14 GMT -5
The 5 Jews who changed World history ... Moïse: Everything is God Jésus: Everything is Love Marx: Everything is money Freud: Everything is sex Einstein: Everything is relative ... LMAO amazing, you made me laugh. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 17, 2005 13:27:35 GMT -5
One more thing Jac, I do believe that there is ONLY ONE YHVH, fixed and locked. Pronunciation, adding the vowels (which Hebrew does not use) Yahveh. Also there are no J's in the Hebrew language.  |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 17, 2005 14:52:42 GMT -5
If God created us in his own image he's got some explaining to do about this ass hair- My brother
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Nov 17, 2005 16:38:22 GMT -5
In Chicago everybody pays 2 bucks and rides the El downtown and goes to see the sights.
That's the El.
BFD.
Hmmm, Roc: "asymptotes" - - - > I'm unfamiliar with the word, but it sounds as if, from what you described, that its a word used to showcase the theory that if you cut the distance in half each time you approach a wall, you will theoretically never get there. A sort of "infinite regression", it seems. Interesting
That's pretty much the idea...the graphic representation is a half parabola ( I know there's a word for it but can't recall...hyperbola perhaps?) where the curve is getting closer and closer to one of the axes but never quite gets there. It honestly IS quite an interesting concept.
And to me it seems to represent the difficulties with achieving your 'balance' in all these abstract areas (like wisdom) where you were hoping to apply it.
Is there any math in your educational background?
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Nov 17, 2005 17:33:52 GMT -5
Even more difficult to wrap your mind around - the idea of what we humans can comprehend being brought up earlier - is the whole concept of a singularity such as the universe before the big bang (or a black hole). Infinite mass or density in a dimensionless point. A point that's nowhere and everywhere, nothing and everything. We may be able to understand it in an abstract, mathematical, or intellectual way, but being adapted to life in three dimensions where mass is experienced in how "heavy" something is, there is much in physics that we can really never grasp intuitively or related to anything we could experience. But it's real enough.
Quantum mechanics gets weird, too. Particles appearing and disappearing from existence, or proving that a cannon ball can pass through a brick wall and leave no trace... I'd love to study it in more than laymen's terms, but I get lost real fast (math being extrememly minimal in my educational background!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 17, 2005 19:30:52 GMT -5
Funny to skim the last 10 or so pages of this board.... I've been reading Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion for the first chapter of my dissertation, and all I can say is, any discussions about God's existence are just endless recapitulations of the same arguments and the same rebuttals. There is NOTHING new under the sun in this conversation.
This is precisely why belief in God is ultimately about faith and not reason. It's not that it's strictly "irrational" to believe in God, it's just that I really don't think anyone ends up believing as a result of a series of logical arguments. Believing in God isn't like assenting to the obvious fact that 2+2 is 4. It involves some kind of deeper spiritual or emotional (i can't quite think of the right word, which is fitting since I've never felt it myself anyway) attachment. Arguments for and against God's existence are just so much after-the-fact self-justification, for both the theist and the atheist. It's a pointless exercise, imho.
Personally I think the "ultimate" questions are all completely unanswerable - where did the universe come from, why are we here, does god exist, what happens after we die - completely unanswerable and we will NEVER answer them. These questions have been pondered by the most acute minds from the beginning of human history and we haven't gotten one whit closer to an answer. It's not coming.
In the 18th century, a distinction emerged between "natural" and "revealed" religion. Natural religion supposedly referred to those religious truths which could be deduced logically simply from an empirical investigation of the world. Things like the argument from design - that the complexity and functionality of the universe indicated it surely had an intelligent designer - were popular among the devotees of natural religion. But my sense is that, even though natural religion was the preferred system of the enligthenment philosophers - supposedly a way of reconciling reason with religious belief - it was ultimately the irrationalists and the fideists who made the most sense. The human mind can't begin to answer these ultimate questions, so either one is an agnostic, or one is a believer with belief rooted strictly in some non-rational faculty: faith.
OK, now I'm officially rambling, on the wrong board, and have no point at all. I'll stop.
Cheers,
M
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Nov 17, 2005 21:51:25 GMT -5
The human mind can't begin to answer these ultimate questions, so either one is an agnostic, or one is a believer with belief rooted strictly in some non-rational faculty: faith. There you go. Calvin was spot-on about predestination!! Good post, Mary. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Nov 17, 2005 21:52:27 GMT -5
Although I do disagree with the "non-rational" part.
|
|
