NOGO

Sorry, the intent was not to make you feel like an idiot. To tell you the truth I once made the same arguements that you now have. No I am not trying to say that you will outgrow these ideas once you know as much as I do. Rather I am trying to say that these are not far fatched ideas that only nutty people can have.

There are billions of bibles out there so burning one or two will not help in the least. I don't expect anyone to burn their bibles. I want to make you a true agnostic like myself.

If I made you think then I must have said something right. Perhaps we can pursue it further and see where that leads. I am certainly open to any ideas that you may have.

I am particulary interested in your opinion of Ecc 9 and my take on Jesus and the fig tree.

Regards
NOGO

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

woodchuck

All right NOGO-

You wanted my take on Ecclesiastes 9, and the Fig Tree story- here yah go: (I still plan on retorting to your retort to my retort to Mark s and secular e… but that’s in the future)

You quoted Ecclesiastes 9:
Ecclesiastes is my favorite book in the bible! It’s so down to earth and negative like real life, (fluffy bunny rabbit Christians seem to avoid this book, but I guess I’m more of a sand papery warthog Christian) I’m glad you’ve read it- now, did you read it all?

First of all “under the sun” is a poetic term. No I’m not using the common allegorical excuse, I’m saying that Ecclesiastes does have a poetic feel to it, and is in fact often referred to as one of the poetic books of the bible. Under the Sun means just that- think levels- everything under the sun- that’s earth. That excludes God.

Most of Ecclesiastes is written from the perspective of a man (probably Solomon but could have been someone else) who had enjoyed pretty much an overabundance of everything the world has to offer- money, wisdom, women, wine, success…. All the things we pursue for meaning- and in his old age he writes this book “Meaningless!” he rants, disappointed because he had wasted his life.

The message of the “Teacher” in Ecclesiastes is that if you choose to live a life where this world and its so-called “luxuries” are all you’ve got then all you’ve got to look forward to is death.

But- the Teacher does not conclude that we just die and that’s all that life is:
In Chapter twelve the Teacher says “remember your Creator” and in his conclusion this is his statement:

This verse in fact does imply a later judgment (among others: 3:17, 9:1, &11:9) - now that everything is uncovered and is no longer “under the sun” the Teacher says that our actions DO matter because God will bring those things into judgment. I don’t think this is here to scare people into being good- I think it’s here to imply that death is not the end, there is more.

Also- the word “fate” in Ecclesiastes (i.e. Man’s fate is like that of the animals-3:19) is an over translation… Its original meaning is happening- something that happens. The same thing happens to men as it does the animals, that is- our bodies will die and become fertilizer. Death certainly does happen to us all no matter who you are. But I think it’s obvious that the author believes in an after life, God, and the “great duty” of man.

More specifically, I’d say that Ecclesiastes is a book written to you NOGO. I think that the author knew that people would continue trying to find life existentially… just like him, and his hope seems to be that someone might learn from his mistakes. I’d kick back sometime and read it as if it were a letter from an old man who’s lived life and giving you his input- and do with it what you want.

In fact, the book of Ecclesiastes argues my original point better than I did in some aspects(thanks nogo!) It’s the cry of a man who thought that he could find plenty of meaning and worth without God and found there is no meaning apart from God. (If you’re mad about this statement, take it up with the writer of the book, I still wanna be friends NOGO) The teacher is writing a letter to humanity- apart from God we’re just “chasing after the wind” and we are “but a vapor”.

Also, the author says: “A man can do nothing better than eat, drink, and find satisfaction in his work…” which can be again misread if left alone, as if the author is telling us that all humans are good for is living this single existence. But he goes on to say “…This too, I see, is from the hand of God.”

I’ll just quote a book I’m using for reference, Hard Sayings of the Bible, for reference:

Anyway, I’d love to continue discussing Ecclesiastes so either keep it going on this forum or your welcome to correspond via e-mail (just check my profile it’s there), I know the NOGO’s got some good stuff for me.

Next I’ll do the fig tree deal- then maybe I can get back on track with what I was originally saying. And thank you NOGO for your challenges- you help drive me to seek understanding.

-EEf the Lord’s woodchuck

NOGO

Valiant effort Woodchuck.
I want to answer all your points on Ecc.
I wont have time today but I do want to start.

You claim that the talk about judgement here implies an afterlife. Nothing can be so far from the truth. I will provide evidence that the authors of the Bible did not believe in an afterlife.

I will start with the Amalekites but there are other examples.

I will skip over the obvious injustice here of killing innocent people for something that happened 400 years before.

The point here is as follows.
God could have avenged himself on the guilty in two ways:
1) Direct physical punishment when the event occured
2) Afterlife punishment

If the authors of the bible believed in afterlife then (2) would have been a possibility but it wasn't. So we are left with

3) avenge from generation to generation

Once they are dead there is no possibility for punishement anymore so Yahweh had to avenge himself on the children who are alive.

So when you say that a judgement will be given by God and imply afterlife I show you the case of the Amalekites where a judgement does follow but not in the afterlife but here under the heaven as in "completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

Here is a challenge for you. Find one place where an afterlife punishement is stated or even clearly implied. Good luck.

There are nore case of avenging from generation to generation but there is more than that. This technique is also stated as a general means at God's disposition while afterlife punishment isn't.

I will have more to say on your favourite book of the bible.

Thanks for the exchange.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

woodchuck

OK, Ipetrich and NOGO. Now I will attempt to answer your fig tree boggle. Ip figures that Jesus was throwing a tizzy fit, and NOGO says that he was frustrated and being negative. Alright- my turn guys.

First off, I think it’s safe to say that allot of you guys have been hurt or let down by the religious, I know I have. When the bible speaks of fruitfulness, it’s speaking of the “fruits of the spirit” (Gal 5:22-23). So in spiritual terms, fruit is something that has grown in someone as evidence that the Spirit is at work inside them. I think we’ve all met plenty of religious types from all religions (especially mine) who seem to be bearing wax fruit. Basically, they’re full of crap (I know that many of you believe that anyone religious is full of crap, but I’m trying to explain this verse not convince you Jesus is the Truth) Jesus came into contact with a lot of these types. They prayed big long fancy prayers only to impress the people listening, they gave money in view of the public eye to get kudos from men, and they used the scriptures as a tool of manipulation and self glorification. They were fully devoted to man, not God- yet used God’s name to make them look good. Today the Church is no different, it sickens me… and I must admit that I at times have been arrogantly religious- I hope I don’t come off that way in my posts, if I do please tell me.

Anyway, that said- now let’s actually look at the scripture (it’s located in Matthew 21:18-22, and Mark 11:12-14, - I’ll quote Mark)

The only difference between the two accounts is that in Matthew the tree withers instantly, in Mark they come upon it withered the next morning. I know that allot of you will say that that’s a contradiction that makes the bible untrustworthy, say what you want. I don’t think the small difference is anything that changes the point- the tree withered because Jesus told it to, but the point goes beyond that…

First off I want to put this into perspective. A man named W.M. Christie did a study called “the Barren Fig Tree” Most likely this incident took place in the first days of April (judging from the most probable date of Christ’s death) - here’s what Christie writes:

These “green almonds” that come prior to figs are called “taqsh” in Palestinian Arabic. As Mark had said- the time for figs hadn’t come yet- but in both accounts it says that Jesus found only leaves (why specify “nothing but leaves”?) and he found no “taqsh”- if the tree bears no “taqsh” it will bear no figs- Jesus knew the fig tree was hopeless, it would never bear fruit.

NOGO knew I was gonna whip this scripture out: Luke 13:6-9 is a parable Jesus taught about a fig tree bearing no fruit. It goes like this:

Jesus acted out this parable to his disciples. The parable is about Jerusalem; God is the owner of the tree, the tree (Jerusalem) was planted in the vineyard (the world), so he tells the vinedresser (Christ) to cut down the tree because it had not bore fruit for three years (most likely referring to the first 3 years of Christ’s public ministry) but the vinedresser intercedes, knowing that the tree would be quite a loss, so gets it one more year- then it would be cut down. This is exactly what happened- after the start of the fourth year, Israel rejected and crucified Christ- and soon its capital was destroyed and everyone scattered.

I think that this parable can also be applied to the individual- That the individual was created with a purpose, and it is to “bear fruit” but really, this whole subject seems basically impossible to explain to someone who claims there is no Holy Spirit, for without the Holy Spirit the scriptures will never make sense to man (boy am I gonna get some crap for that one) but I at least tried to help you understand that Christ was presenting a visual for his illustration, and I would not call that throwing a fit.

Until next time
-EEf

woodchuck

Alright NOGO, now that I’ve covered yer dang bible stuff (well, not the after life stuff, man, I can’t keep up!) I want to retort to your retorts to my retort to Mark S and Sec.

First, I explained our environments meeting our needs (i.e. we thirst, the earth has water, etc…) you made this clever proposal:

First of all, not to sound like you or anything, where did the water come from?

Second, my point still stands. Even if we go with your whole “the water came first” idea. Do numbers exist? Mathematical laws? I’m pretty sure you’ll agree they do. Now, these things are nonphysical- a number you see (example: 8) is a character, not a number. Everybody claims that mathematics is one thing that always remains precise. For instance, 2+2=4 in all situations at all times no matter what mood the person doing the addition is in.

Did Mathematics evolve with humans? Did morality or theory evolve with humans? What about rationality? Law? Is a mathematical law merely an invention of a man, or is it man figuring out a law that was already there? Is rationality only rational because the individual in his mind decides it is rational- or did rationality already exist and we ourselves learn what absolute rationality is?

My point is this: If rationality is purely of the physical mind (as you say the mind is purely physical), and that only physical things are real, then rationality is only what an individual rationalizes to be true because his brain makes him think that way. If a rational thought is nothing but a mere chemical reaction, it is equal to a fart. So by your definition of rationality, all of your logic is equal to a big stinky fart (or even a small silent one). If that is your definition, and I find it rational that there is a God and Christ is His son, and Christianity is true- then by YOUR definition of rationality, I’m right. (and I worship farts by farting uncontrollably)

Ok, I already covered the Ecclesiastes part, and of course you already retorted, and yes, soon I will re-retort. But next- I spoke of how a mind is unphysical, and you spoke these words:

Well, can I make a brief comment on that?

A brain is physical, a mind is not (you knew that was coming huh) a brain can be swirled with a spoon, and yes, it will effect your mind- I’m going to send you my brain in a shoebox (along with a plastic spoon since I know you got a thing for that) and you can dig around inside it and find my mind for me.

If you have trouble finding it, maybe this explanation will help- a mind is not physical. A brain, and the things that happen inside it are physical (all that physics stuff- “neurons firing, chemical reactions, etc.”) but a thought in itself is unphysical. Even if I can drive over and you can open my skull- I’ll tell you that I’m thinking of a sumo wrestler. If the brain is totally physical then a thought must be totally physical, yet a mental thought has no physical attributes. You can’t locate a tiny sumo wrestler in my brain just to the top left next to my ear- A thought is not “located in any exact position. Just because the brain makes a thought possible in no way does that mean that you can find a thought inside my brain. The physical thought and the mental thought are two different things, my thoughts are in an unphysical existence- they are not the same thing.

Even beyond that, you could explain my brain to me in great detail: “well Ethan, it’s pink, it’s squishy, it smells like a canned pear and it tastes like…. (*lick*) raw oysters”, but in all your scooping and slurping you couldn’t find a single fact about my mind. You wanna get to know my mind? Then my mind has to connect with your mind on a totally unphysical level (for instance, like we’re doing right now).

I’m not finished.

If my mind is totally physical- is it not true that our bodies are constantly changing? Isn’t it true that in 7 years all of my cells will have been replaced by new ones? So physically I’m new- so by your definition, I have a new mind moment by moment. So, if seven years ago I came into your back yard and cut your dogs head off and duct taped a baboon’s butt in it’s place, then I threw that through your window- then I burned your house down- then I walked into your room and decapitated all your limbs with a toothpick (you would have to hold very still and I would have to take lots of time) then you called the police (by dialing with your tongue) and I got arrested. Are you saying that once all my cells have been replaced I’m now innocent (for it was the other Woodchuck that took off your limbs with a toothpick)-
Not to mention that:
A. I had no choice in it because my stimulus response was to graft a baboon’s butt in place of your dogs head via duct tape, those darn chemicals.
B. If all matter is physical and morality is determined by the individual and his chemicals then for me it was right to do that, and so you should tolerate my chemical decision of right and live limbless.

Also, if you’re telling me that there is any kind of right and wrong (for instance, prior to my really screwing up your dog, you convey to me that it is morally wrong to do that to another man’s dog) you are obviously telling me I ought to do something. An “ought” is something that (1) I can do, and (2) I should do according to some moral law. You wouldn’t tell me “you ought to crap money, it would be a lot easier than going to work every day” because I don’t have that choice. “Oughts” say I have a choice. But your physicalist ideas inquire that I actually am choice less, there for you should be oughtless toward me.

So, if you are saying that the world is all matter- that’s possible. But if you say that you KNOW that the world is all matter, that’s self refuting. I think J.R. Lucas explains this well in his book “Free Will”

Nuff said on that one (by the way, I hope you don’t take any of this personally NOGO, I’m just playin’ with yah)

Ok, now I’ll address something you said in your post that was down right STUPID!

“My main point here is this: God isn't empirical- empirical Gods are called Idols. They're man made and they do what you tell them.”

Oh, wait- you were quoting me. Um, I’m pretty sure I was talking out of my butt right there, I’m sure I had a point but I think I just got carried away and said something really dumb… so I’m an idiot, I’ll admit that. If agnostics forgive, then I ask that of you on that one- (woodchuck slaps the side of hid head and like Chris Farley goes “what an idiot!”)

Anyway, that’s that- have fun agnosticating this.
-EEf the Jolly Woodchuck

Skid

woodchuck - In between being a "sand papery warthog Christian" (LOL) and smelling farts for Jesus, you’ve had a whole lot to say about rationality and how it relates to Christianity.

OK, I’ll play along –

If I find it rational that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the church of the IPU is true, then I’m right.

- Mark S, representin’ for the IPU – Pink is in the house, y’all!

NOGO

Hi Woodchuck,

Thank you for your replies. I am now working on Ecc 9 but I do want to respond to what you wrote above about the fig tree and the mind. Particularly about the fact that every 7 years all the cells of your body change.

For now I wish to react to one thing only about the fig tree. What is amazing about believers is how they can distort a text to make it say the exact opposite of what it says. I will certainly demonstrate this with Ecc 9 later but here goes for the fig tree.


Notice two phrases
1. because it was not the season for figs
2. May no one ever eat from you again

Ok. These two phrases are so complete contrary to your explaination.

Item 1 gives the reason (note the word because) Jesus found no figs. It does not say that there was something wrong with the tree as you claim. The exact opposite is true the author is exonerating the tree from any fault by indicating that Jesus could not have hoped to find any figs because it was the wrong season. If there was anything wrong with the tree then the author would have said so in order to explain the fate of the tree. Obviously the author was not interested in explaining the fate of the tree as you are Woodchuck.

Item 2 May no one eat from you again.
This statement from Jesus says it all. If the tree would never bear fruit again as you claim then why did Jesus destroy the tree so that "no one eat from you again". In making the statement 2 Jesus implies that there is nothing wrong with the tree and that it will bear fruit (when in season) AND that his intention was that no one will ever eat from this tree again.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

woodchuck

Mark S, I love you man-

Exactly my point!!!! The idea that rationality is nothing but what the individual percieves to be rational, and that rationality itself does not already exist outside of our minds, is self-refuting. I keep getting told that rationality is the way to understand reality, and yet what I'm getting here is that rationality doesn't exist but as an invention of man, and since you can't have total insight into my mind, my rationality could be a whole different invention- yet, if by that definition rationality is the best way to determine things, then everyone is right, and being able to tell wrong is impossible.

I like you Mark S, I hope you don't stop postin at me- From a sandpapery warthog christian to a pink unicorn skeptic (or, what ever you believe, or disbeblieve...) Peace out homie.

-EEf the WoodChuck from the Ghetto

Skid

Originally posted by the hippest grizzled thickset marmot I know:
My IPU comment was a reference back to the original topic – "why Christianity will NEVER win me over". My point was simply that a belief in the IPU is equally as compelling as belief in a big sky-daddy god kickin’ it with his heavenly posse.

I’ll leave it to other (much more capable) people to argue whether or not Christianity is a rational belief. IMHO, it is not.

I agree that I cannot have total insight into your mind – and vice versa. If you choose to have what I consider to be irrational beliefs, I certainly won’t lose any sleep over it.

Again, it’s the "exclusive truth" claim that bothers me. As already pointed out by S.E.:

and you said, later:

You seem to be delicately dancing around some rather dogmatic statements. You might be a "Wart Hog for the Lord™", but what about all us other swine? Are we gonna burn in pig hell, or what??

- Mark S, keepin’ it real with my Dogg-Matic homies

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mark S ]</p>

NOGO

Here is my take on Ecclesiastes.
Again what I find astonishing is how believers can distort the text in order to make it say exactly the opposite of what is written.

Woodchuck you must love the truth more than you love your religion. It is the fundamental problem with most believers.

Here in a typical believer fashion you ask "did you real it all?". Yes, I know what I am saying is obviously from someone who only reads snips here and there and does word searches on the internet.

Why is your life negative Woodchuck? I am sorry to hear that.
My advice (from the heart) is stop reading books like Ecclisiates. Or take this advice

Ecc 15:15
So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun.

Right on.


A later judgement does not mean after death.

Ecc 8:11-13
Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. Although a sinner does evil a hundred times and may lengthen his life, still I know that it will be well for those who fear God, who fear Him openly. But it will not be well for the evil man and he will not lengthen his days like a shadow, because he does not fear God.

These verses talk about punishment or reward within the lifetime of the person.

Ecc 7:26
And I discovered more (37) bitter than death the woman whose heart is (38) snares and nets, whose hands are chains. (39) One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but (40) the sinner will be captured by her.

Again judgement within the person's lifetime.

Ecc 5:6
Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands?

Again, God may destroy the work of you hands if you sin. This is also judgement and it is within the person's lifetime.

So I have shown you three cases that talk about punishement or judgement within the person's lifetime. Show me one which is clearly after death.


Back to Ecc 9 ...

NASB Ecclesiastes 9
2 It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear.
3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.
4 For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
7 Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works.
8 Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head.
9 Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.


You can define the fate as you wish, Woodchuck, I tend to look at the context to see what the author had in mind. So what is common to all men? Yes we all die but what does Ecc 9 say. Look at Ecc 9:10 "Sheol is where you are going". So man`s fate is Sheol. But what is Sheol? Some people claim it is just a hole in the ground, a grave. Let the bible speak.

Sheol
Ecc 9:10 for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.
Ecc 9:5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything

These do not sound like life after death to me. More on Sheol ...

Here the question is can you discover the limits of the Almighty? Or the depths of God?
It is higher that heaven, deeper than Sheol, longer than the earth and broader than the sea.
Can Sheol be a grave? A mere six feet under. Would this author compare God's depth to the depth of a grave?

Sheol was deep inside the earth and that is where everybody went.
(Ecc 9:2) The righteous and the wicked; the good, the clean and the unclean; the man who offers a sacrifice and the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear.

Everyone goes to Sheol where (Ecc 9:10) "there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom"

So where is the talk of judgement after death ???
Please reread Ecclesiastes and find anything that talks about life after death.
There simply isn't anything.

Can you be specific on this point. Show me where in the text the author says that meaning can only be found in God? What I have is this

Ecc 15:15
So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun.

... and everybody (good or bad) goes to Sheol anyways where there nothing to do.


And if you spend all your life praying to God all you have to look forward to is Sheol.


Actually, I believe that Ecclesiastes was written by a priest like most of the Bible.
Everything is futile. Discovering new ways of growing food, discovering medicine, science, mathematics etc. is all futile. The only thing that is of importance to a priest is praying and getting our money.

One final point.
The author of Ecclesiastes talks about death and the futility of life, work and toil all the days of our life but wait a minute ... what about the promised saviour ... Genesis and the fall of mankind ... not a word.
In all the OT ... not a word about the fall of mankind and the need for a saviour.
Jesus and the Gospels ... not a word of the fall of mankind and the need for a saviour.

We find this gem in the Epistles.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>