MatthewLee
New Member
AronRa said:It's clearly both shared and plagiarized. The event occurred in what is now Iraq, centered on the city of Shuruppak roughly 4900 years ago. The earliest accounts from a couple centuries later are all so similar that coincidence is impossible. They're all obviously talking about the same event, but still attributed to the old gods of the time. Then a thousand years later, we get the same story re-cast, this time for a new god, adapted from a template of one of the old Canaanite gods.
If you acknowledge that the event happened and that multiple sources report it that’s not plagiarism… it’s journalism. The lens is different, to be sure but the relevant details are retained. Fox will report the same even with similar details but from an entirely different worldview just like this. Can you please expound on the idea that Yahweh was a template of a Canaanite god? I would be interested to see your citations on that one to know where it comes from. It is one I have not really heard before. It is an interesting proposition which seems difficult to defend given the difference between the way Canaanite gods and Israelite Deity are defined and act. I would think if it was any God that Yahweh would be accused of being a template for it would be the God of justice from the Stele of Hammurabi. Shamash. He shares far more with Yahweh than any of the Canaanite gods I have heard about. He was Mesopotamian, I believe.
AronRa said:No. When Gandalf uses his magic, we understand that he's not doing slight-of-hand tricks. When the djinn granted Aladdin's wishes, those weren't illusions either. Likewise, when Spock does his mind meld or Obi-wan manipulates the force, none of those are "chicanery". When Hermione Granger points her wand and utters the incantation, we understand that she's not creating the illusion that the troll went to sleep. Her spell has actually put the troll to sleep.
Ok, so I stand corrected. I think that I hear you saying that you do, in fact, believe that magic (at least in definition) has to do with supernatural invocation perceived or believed to be real by the practitioner and marketed as such?
AronRa said:Stage magicians often refer to themselves as illusionists because they don't want people to confuse what they do with magic. Magic/miracles are the evocation of supernatural forces or entities to control or forecast natural events in ways that are inexplicable by science because they defy the laws of physics, and are thus physically impossible.
This is where we always diverge and I think I have a better understanding of why. What supernatural forces exist other than higher dimensional entities? In other words, what intrinsic power does the mind of a man have that can be said or even written in fiction to be able to alter the fabric of reality in ways contrary to the laws of physics? When a magician casts a spell or does a ritual why does he (or she) do it to specific rules and according to prescribed rituals which involve very particular and human significant ingredients and theater? Either the magician has inherent and intrinsic supernatural power through the faculty of their own will… or some other thing is empowering them through cooperation. To a Christian worldview the man has no such power so all magic is essentially cooperation with evil entities. These entities allow your will to become reality through supernatural means. Miracles are God allowing HIS will to manifest as a gesture to show us His power, and his Love. You can’t make miracles happen by a ritual or a spell… they can only happen when God makes them happen. Magic you can manifest by use of ritual, spell, or other complex method because that’s how you demonstrate the sincerity of your purpose. I have read some fascinating accounts of rituals by LeVay and by Aquino. They of course are doing the rituals in hope of eliciting the cooperation of their respective higher powers, Satan, or Set. Even Crowley, the most active and prolific Magician of his day, admitted he appealed to higher powers for his magic. The Book of the Law was dictated to him, no written by him… at least as he tells it. The practitioners of Thelema would of course attest to the reality of their faith. Peaches Geldof recently passed from a drug overdose after telling some interesting stories about the Thelema practice in Hollywood.
AronRa said:You don't need gods for magic, although gods are made of magic. The Lord of the Rings didn't evoke any gods. Neither did Harry Potter nor Gandolf nor Samantha Stevens either. They and the Djinni use traditional magic like Merlin. Spock, Obi-wan and Doctor Strange use psionics, powers thought to reside in the potential of the mind. But they're all effectively the same thing, using the power of will (faith) to change reality with the magic powers of the mind. Curses, enchantments (blessings) incantations, golems, faith-healing, exorcism, casting of wards, transformation, necromancy and all other supernatural manifestations such as the Bible describes are all magical, including the fruit of the tree of eternal life and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Although that is obviously metaphorical, a literal reading would have to be magical.
In fact, the Lord of the rings was dripping with Gods. The Silmarillion adds an awful lot of depth to the stories in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf was originally a Maiar which are essentially angels in Middle Earth. The main God in Middle Earth was Eru Ilúvatar and beings like Gandalf started out as spirits made by him who were helping shape and guide the growing creation. That’s why Gandalf was in Middle Earth. He and his order were literally angels sent to help defeat Sauron. Sauron was a fallen Maia, a fallen angel.
Harry and Samantha had powers which were never revealed to be higher dimensionally produced but the existence of higher dimensional beings is mentioned in these stories. Unicorns, Dumbledore’s ascending soul speaking to Harry from beyond the grave, and the fact that Witches and Warlocks called people like Darrin ‘mortals’ all speak to a higher level of reality in which exist beings with power we would call magic. Samantha and Harry were never, to my recollection, ever accused of performing a miracle.
Faith-healing and exorcism are the only two from your list that are by definition miracles. A man cannot exorcise a demon, only the power of God can do that. A man cannot heal something with his own magical will (medicine doesn’t count in this context) but the power of God can. Faith healers are pretty much all frauds anyway. God gave us doctors for a good reason.
AronRa said:Same with a talking donkey or a talking snake. They have to be magically enchanted. That's what a "blessing" is. When someone says "have a blessed day", they're literally saying "have a magically enchanted day".
Again the definition asserts itself rooted in our worldview. To me they are saying, “May God grant you good things today.” God is the ultimate authority from which is derived the authority of all other powers. If someone does magic it’s because a higher being enabled them to from their greater power. God is the top of that food chain of powers, man is at the bottom.
AronRa said:So when you read about King Arthur or Aladdin's Lamp or the Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, you imagine that they're all praying to God? You really can't see how their evocation of supernatural forces doesn't necessarily have to involve any deity, much less yours? If miracles/magic are exclusively God's domain, then why does the Bible say that Pharoah's magi were able to turn their staves into snakes? That wouldn't be possible in the context of that story given your definition.
Kings in English lore are chosen by divine right. Kings have their authority appointed to them by God directly. His sword was given special power to help him preserve his rule and unite his people as a divinely chosen King. This divine favor was demonstrated by him being the only one who could pull the sword… the sign of the King’s authority, from the stone. Arthur sent one of his knights in search of the Holy Grail. He sent someone looking for the cup of Christ to heal his land. I can think of no way in which this is not attempting to solicit power from a deity.
Alladin’s lamp was occupied by a Djinni (Romanized word for jinn). Djinni are Quranic lore. In the Quran it says… ““And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees (Satan). He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord” Chapter 18 (Al Kahf) - Verse 50. Satan was a Djinni. The magic of the Djinni came from either Allah, or Ibliss. Appeal to deity.
Harry Potter wasn’t appealing to any higher power that his author mentioned… but he was a boy who at a very young age was given the purpose of saving the whole world from the evil serpent wizard with immortal power… and had to sacrifice himself at the hands of this same evil wizard and be resurrected to defeat him. That does sound uncannily familiar.
The story of the rod and the snake was meant to illustrate exactly the point we are discussing. The miracles of God were contrasted against the powers of the Pharaoh’s magicians to show which was a miracle and which was magic. The magicians either used power from Satan or sleight of hand and illusions to do their magic. The power of God demonstrated in the miracles successively hit Egypt harder and harder, climbing in severity asymptotically. At some point they went hyperbolically far beyond the magicians abilities and they gave up even trying. This showed everyone watching exactly who the real one in power was. It wasn’t the Pharaoh. Egypts gods were shown to be false ones and their magic to be ineffective in the face of the real authority in the universe… and it wasn’t Pharaoh.
AronRa said:I have noticed that believers use equivocation in this way. So I posted a list of definitions of relevant terms for the sake of clarity.
I find these definitions fascinating. We could spend years just debating the specifics of your definition of religion. The one I found the most telling is for faith, “Faith: A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.” There is a premise here that no logical argument for faith could be compelling enough to be a proof and that no believer ever receives physical evidence of the existence of the supernatural. The logical case for faith is the strongest one and almost every believer I know will attest to having the physical experience of God. Your definitions have premises and opinions in them. I hope we get a chance to flesh this one out. The way these are worded is a fascinating study in comparative worldviews. There is so much more information communicated by what is said, how it is said, and what is left out.
For example many of your definitions are based on the concept of ‘fact’ as thus defined
“Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.” If it cannot be verified by something that is outside of a human mind then it is not fully objectively verifiable in a philosophical or epistemological sense. If it exists only in mind then it is not objective. If it takes a person to measure it… it is always in the mind of a person even when shared. If only the mind is used to perceive something… even if multiple minds see the same thing it does not make it objective by the very definition of subjective… that is, with an existence which can be verified external to human mind. This would require a non-human mind to validate.
Your definition of Creationism includes the phrase “Creationists posit supernatural assertions regardless of evidence, based instead on assumed conclusions, subjective impressions, perceived commitment to community, arbitrary desires, emotional dependancy, and faith.” This is more of a judgement than a definition. It contains a large amount of information about your feelings on the subject and your opinions. I appreciate these definitions, however, because at least if I understand even the basic premises of your ideas about certain concepts of faith, science and other facets of this discussion I can perhaps better understand your arguments and respond to them more precisely and with less clarification on your part.
AronRa said:For example, what I "believe" is only a logical consequence of my understanding of the facts, meaning that I think this is mostly true or most likely true, but I don't necessarily know it if I can't demonstrate that my understanding is accurate. However "believers" treat belief as an act of conscious deliberate will, of mind over matter; that you can change reality through the power of positive thought if you can just believe "hard enough", so believe with all your heart. In other words, "believe" means "make-believe". Or as one Southern Baptist minister I know put it, "fake it 'til you make it", meaning that you should lie to yourself until you convince yourself through the power of pretend.
There are a lot of phonies in the world. The Bible said there would be, though, and that many would try and pretend to have faith but only few would really have it.
It makes me really sad that people teach garbage like that minister did. Faith is not something that you do, it’s really something that happens to you from the outside in. You don’t choose faith, you suddenly realize you have been given it by inspiration. The word “inspiration” derives from a root which means “indwelt by spirit”. If you have to “fake it till you make it” in the faith sense then you never touched the Spirit. There is a long period in the beginning of Martin Luther’s life as a Catholic where he tries this approach. He simply can’t practice Catholic dogma hard enough to make himself believe. Then he realizes that the dogma and the actions taken to try and make believe were in the way. The faith was given to him by God alone and inspired by the Scripture as he read it. This is why we have Protestantism… because you can’t fake it until you make it. You have to have it made for you or it’s fake.
Belief is not the conscious act of will they should be practicing. Obedience is the conscious act of will we as Christians use to demonstrate that we already have faith. All the Jesus Radar hand waving and wacky falling down in pews is an attempt to show off. Jesus says that he who prays in public to be seen gets his reward by being seen and forfeits the rest. Fake faith is practiced in public. Real faith is in public, private and everything in between and demonstrated by obedience.
AronRa said:Objective: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’ Contrasted with subjective
1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
‘a matter of objective fact’
-Oxford Dictionary
If it came from a person, it by this definition can’t be objective. Only a non-person can be uninfluenced by personal feelings or opinions. If a thing depends on mind to be perceived it cannot have its existence verified independent of mind.. by mind.
I have to cut this here and start again shortly. I have much further to go but I’m out of time tonight… your next point about Hume was very eloquent and contained a lot I wish to respond on. Absolutely impressive and humbling, the depth to which you have considered these matters. The Torah discussion alone will probably take a week more to finish hacking in a response to. I have to write a longer post this week so please be patient and give me just a few days to try and hack all this in… I appreciate that you took the time to respond so elaborately and I hope you’ll grant me the time to respond in kind. Have a good weekend. I’ll try and write more very shortly.