GOD EXISTS

That is not to say that dhimmis did not pay additional taxes, jizya, or were treated equally under the law, Howard. There is a systemic inequality in sharia that Islam would impose on the world. Sure, People of the Book can choose their own version of the Book to believe. That does not mean that Islam accepts all People of the Book as equals. Yes, Jews were treated poorly by Christians and Muslims treated Jews better just as you state.

The Bible does not call for that mistreatment nor assert an inequality between people. It did not do so then nor does it do so now.

Sharia does call for this inequality. Wise rulers chose not to abuse the legal inequality stipulated in Islam. That speaks to the goodness or wisdom in individuals, not the inherent goodness in legalized inequality. We took the word from Arabic that captures this Muslim attitude of non-believers, diminish.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Islam does *not* have an imperative to impose its
moral and legal code upon "People of the Book."
Islam says "There is no compulsion in religion."

The "Four Rightly Guided Caliphs" (Mohammed's immediate
successors) did *not* impose Sharia Law upon Jewish
and Christian communities, instead allowing them to
follow their own laws.
The Umarrid Dynasty followed their example.
So did the Abassids.
So did the Ottoman Sultans.

For fully a thousand (1,000) years it was safer and
better for Jews to live under Moslem control than
under Christian control. It was also safer and better
for those Christians who were called "Heretics."
For the next 200 years, it was about equal.

The self-styled "Islamic State" is doing what the
Ottomans did not and would not do, what the Abassids
and Umarrids did not do, what the Rightly Guided
Caliphs refused to do.

HTM

PeterZ wrote:{snip - htm}
Islam does have some moral beliefs similar to Christianity, yet it has an imperative to impose
its moral and legal code on everyone.
Christianity does not.
Many Christians do wish to impose their code on everyone.
Islam on the other hand requires Muslims to
subject the world to Islam and sharia.
{snip}

gcomeau wrote:-snip-

A vast horde of people now insist on using agnosticism as a synonym for ignorance, but ignorance is not an "-ism".

Of course it is. It is a war between what the entity on the left shoulder is telling you and the entity on the right.

It is a schism.



Do forgive me gcomeau. Totally couldn't resist that.

cthia wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:I think the problem here is twofold.

1. Numbers will get rounded to try to fit patterns.
2. These patterns may not exist/ the finder may have apophenia.

The E wrote:See, this is why I find creationism to be intellectually and morally corrupt.

The gestation period in mice is, on average, 20 days. In norwegian rats, it is actually 21 days (why does your source claim it's 28?)
For cats, the gestation period is actually between 64 and 67 days.
Dogs, 58 to 68 days.
Lions, 110 days.
Sheep, ~150 days.

And what about every species of vertebrate animal? How many fall within this supposed pattern? Why stop at those examples?

So, why does your source claim either false numbers, or round them up so that they fit into this "it's all connected to the length of the week" thing? Is that what true science is?

Moving on, your source claims that humans awake to a lower heart rate on sundays; If it is true, what other explanations may be found for this, and have they been ruled out? Is this also true of people who do not have Sunday as rest days? In other words, what if your source saw a cause and an effect and just mislabelled the two?

Creationism doesn't question. Creationists cannot be relied upon to be honest in their findings. That is why its proponents are idiots, frauds, snake-oil salesmen and charlatans.

This was only posted as a hmm topic of interest, and this part of the post was pasted 'in hopes' of piquing your interest enough to continue reading the full course, where the meat and potatoes are, Bible Numerics. An interesting topic, meant only for your edification.

It was an interesting enough topic for Sir Isaac Newton to spend much time on it, when he could have been gathering more apples.

If you want to mine the bible for numerics I'm afraid you have to use the language it was written in originally with it's original wording. Every time you translate something the person doing the translation will change the meaning slightly depending on his or hers social context of the time they lived in, especially if the current de jour of poetry metre influenced how the translation was done. The bible is a prime example of this, and using a modern bible as a numerological source is just plain silly.

The human mind is especially adept at finding patterns, it's a survival trait built into us and we WILL find patterns everywhere if we look for it. That doesn't mean that the pattern has any deeper meaning except it's random occurrence.

Regarding gestation periods, a lot of animals gestation periods are based on the lunar cycle which means that they will easily map in whole or in parts to a period of 29.44 days (~4x7 days) - how shocking...

And regarding Sir Isaac Newtons interest in biblical numerology I can only add that he also dabbled in occultism and alchemy in an attempt to discover the Philosophers Stone (among other things). Even very smart people can take a wrong turn down the road of stupid endeavors if they get locked in to a specific world view even though it's inconsistent and have logical loopholes you could run a herd of elephants through.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:You really want to know how we differ?
You really don't know already?

Since you asked:
We Jews believe that "The Lord Our G-d, The Lord is One!"
His internal structure is unknowable to Humans.
To claim to know it, is Vanity and Arrogance.

The Exodus story says that G-d sometimes did things
"with a strong hand and an outstretched arm."
Does that mean that the Hand and the Arm were
separate Persons? No! Obviously not!
Neither does "the Spirit of G-d" doing something or
being somewhere, make it a different Person from
"G-d,-The-Father" or from all of Him.

"The Trinity" means nothing to us Jews.

G-d and man are two different things,
never to be considered the same.
It is blasphemy to consider a man could be G-d.

Jesus was a man, indubitably a man,
and therefore was not and could not be G-d.

I hope that you find your Questions Answered.
I regret if the Answer upsets or offends you,
but you did ask, and I cannot deny my beliefs.

Howard Wilkins

cthia wrote: The Holy Spirit being God's own Spirit.
Remember, God is
a makeup of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.
The Trinity.
JESUS was GOD in the flesh.

Thank you very much Howard.

It does not offend me that you are strong in your beliefs. I sincerely and strongly support the freedom and right to various beliefs and worship. I support the right to not believe as well. It is the demeanor of one's beliefs that crosses the line. A line too often breached by members of both sides. But certain personalities can remove the 'group' from the equation and assert the 'individual.' I appreciate your candor and your demeanor in delivering it.

I was not completely aware of the differences. Especially the disagreement of the Trinity. And I find it very interesting and enlightening. Are there any more glaring differences? If you don't mind my asking (my apology in advance if you do) as some people like to maintain their beliefs in private.

I respect that.

Late Edit:

I also agree that it is blasphemous to think that a man could be God.

I do not think it is blasphemous for God to choose to be a man.

And quantum physics supports HIM BEING in two places at once (not that God is caught up in our quantum entanglements).

.

cthia wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:I think the problem here is twofold.

1. Numbers will get rounded to try to fit patterns.
2. These patterns may not exist/ the finder may have apophenia.

The E wrote:See, this is why I find creationism to be intellectually and morally corrupt.

The gestation period in mice is, on average, 20 days. In norwegian rats, it is actually 21 days (why does your source claim it's 28?)
For cats, the gestation period is actually between 64 and 67 days.
Dogs, 58 to 68 days.
Lions, 110 days.
Sheep, ~150 days.

And what about every species of vertebrate animal? How many fall within this supposed pattern? Why stop at those examples?

So, why does your source claim either false numbers, or round them up so that they fit into this "it's all connected to the length of the week" thing? Is that what true science is?

Moving on, your source claims that humans awake to a lower heart rate on sundays; If it is true, what other explanations may be found for this, and have they been ruled out? Is this also true of people who do not have Sunday as rest days? In other words, what if your source saw a cause and an effect and just mislabelled the two?

Creationism doesn't question. Creationists cannot be relied upon to be honest in their findings. That is why its proponents are idiots, frauds, snake-oil salesmen and charlatans.

This was only posted as a hmm topic of interest, and this part of the post was pasted 'in hopes' of piquing your interest enough to continue reading the full course, where the meat and potatoes are, Bible Numerics. An interesting topic, meant only for your edification.

It was an interesting enough topic for Sir Isaac Newton to spend much time on it, when he could have been gathering more apples.

Joat42 wrote:If you want to mine the bible for numerics I'm afraid you have to use the language it was written in originally with it's original wording. Every time you translate something the person doing the translation will change the meaning slightly depending on his or hers social context of the time they lived in, especially if the current de jour of poetry metre influenced how the translation was done. The bible is a prime example of this, and using a modern bible as a numerological source is just plain silly.

The human mind is especially adept at finding patterns, it's a survival trait built into us and we WILL find patterns everywhere if we look for it. That doesn't mean that the pattern has any deeper meaning except it's random occurrence.

Regarding gestation periods, a lot of animals gestation periods are based on the lunar cycle which means that they will easily map in whole or in parts to a period of 29.44 days (~4x7 days) - how shocking...

And regarding Sir Isaac Newtons interest in biblical numerology I can only add that he also dabbled in occultism and alchemy in an attempt to discover the Philosophers Stone (among other things). Even very smart people can take a wrong turn down the road of stupid endeavors if they get locked in to a specific world view even though it's inconsistent and have logical loopholes you could run a herd of elephants through.

I don't wish to mine the Bible at all. I only included that post as a point of interest, to assimilate and discard as one pleases.

I find it very interesting, especially since Panin did consult with the original text as well.

But for the record, I am not close minded that a text inspired by a Supreme Being would have some interesting characteristics -- to say the least. In fact, I would be wholly (npi) surprised if not.

Especially since the Bible speaks of jots and tittles.

I am certain it is true that patterns can be found in many texts if we look for them. Yet the fact that we do indeed find them (in what many agree is a divinely inspired Book) doesn't negate the fact that it is precisely what a scientist worth his weight in intuition and reasoning and a believer would expect to find.

If you like, you can blame it on my scientific side.

Edit:
spell police: 'weight' for 'wait.'

.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:I take the definition from the guy who invented the term. (Huxley)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agnostic


agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"

(emphasis added)


Not simply "I don't know". CANNOT BE known. It is not a statement of personal ignorance, it is a statement of belief that this particular bit of information is impossible to acquire.


A vast horde of people now insist on using agnosticism as a synonym for ignorance, but ignorance is not an "-ism".

The problem with Huxley's definition is that it too requires faith. That is to assert that a thing CANNOT be known is to believe that this is true. Like theism and atheism the assertion has yet to be proven.

You have presented no "problem" with Huxley's definition. The word describes a specific belief, that isn't a problem that's just what the word means.

In the literal sense, we are all ignorant of the Truth, whether that Truth is God or His absence. We are persuaded to believe one way or the other by evidence each of us finds compelling. So, Huxley's definition is useful to describe one sort of agnostic. The sort that believe no evidence can be compelling enough.

The agnostic isn't the ignorant. We are all ignorant in the literal sense. The agnostic is the un-persuaded.

Un-persuaded of *what*?

Of whether God exists? Wrong. I know agnostics who are un-persuaded and agnostics who are persuaded.

cthia wrote:I don't wish to mine the Bible at all. I only included that post as a point of interest, to assimilate and discard as one pleases.

I find it very interesting, especially since Panin did consult with the original text as well.

But for the record, I am not close minded that a text inspired by a Supreme Being would have some interesting characteristics -- to say the least. In fact, I would be wholly (npi) surprised if not.

Especially since the Bible speaks of jots and tittles.

I am certain it is true that patterns can be found in many texts if we look for them. Yet the fact that we do indeed find them (in what many agree is a divinely inspired Book) doesn't negate the fact that it is precisely what a scientist worth his wait in intuition and reasoning and a believer would expect to find.

If you like, you can blame it on my scientific side.

Here's the biggest problem I see here.

You have not even *attempted* to deny that the numbers you provided on the various gestation periods were made up. Faked. Lied about.


And yet it appears not to even phase you as you continue to ramble on and on about how interesting Bible Numerics is and how a scientist like yourself should really think that's significant.


If there was such a thing as a mortal sin in science faking data would be it. But this faked data you have not batted an eye at. It has not even caused you to pause for a moment in your advocacy for the crackpots who faked it.


I'm torn between not believing you're any kind of scientist at all and are simply spinning stories about your entire biography, and thinking you're an incredibly horrible scientist whose work should never be trusted because you don't think faking data is a very big deal.

gcomeau wrote:

cthia wrote:I don't wish to mine the Bible at all. I only included that post as a point of interest, to assimilate and discard as one pleases.

I find it very interesting, especially since Panin did consult with the original text as well.

But for the record, I am not close minded that a text inspired by a Supreme Being would have some interesting characteristics -- to say the least. In fact, I would be wholly (npi) surprised if not.

Especially since the Bible speaks of jots and tittles.

I am certain it is true that patterns can be found in many texts if we look for them. Yet the fact that we do indeed find them (in what many agree is a divinely inspired Book) doesn't negate the fact that it is precisely what a scientist worth his wait in intuition and reasoning and a believer would expect to find.

If you like, you can blame it on my scientific side.

Here's the biggest problem I see here.

You have not even *attempted* to deny that the numbers you provided on the various gestation periods were made up. Faked. Lied about.


And yet it appears not to even phase you as you continue to ramble on and on about how interesting Bible Numerics is and how a scientist like yourself should really think that's significant.


If there was such a thing as a mortal sin in science faking data would be it. But this faked data you have not batted an eye at. It has not even caused you to pause for a moment in your advocacy for the crackpots who faked it.


I'm torn between not believing you're any kind of scientist at all and are simply spinning stories about your entire biography, and thinking you're an incredibly horrible scientist whose work should never be trusted because you don't think faking data is a very big deal.

Believe what you like about me. Belief or disbelief does not alter the truth.

And again, I included that post as a topic of interest and thought there would be others who'd likewise find it... interesting.

And no, I did not state that the numbers were fakes or made up. They are not my numbers or my research and I don't make those kinds of unsubstantiated claims regarding anyone's research since I don't know either way. I'm not a biologist. Am I to assume that you are?

Again, I included the post as a point of interest for any who might find it so.

I cannot make it any more terse than that.

cthia wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Here's the biggest problem I see here.

You have not even *attempted* to deny that the numbers you provided on the various gestation periods were made up. Faked. Lied about.


And yet it appears not to even phase you as you continue to ramble on and on about how interesting Bible Numerics is and how a scientist like yourself should really think that's significant.


If there was such a thing as a mortal sin in science faking data would be it. But this faked data you have not batted an eye at. It has not even caused you to pause for a moment in your advocacy for the crackpots who faked it.


I'm torn between not believing you're any kind of scientist at all and are simply spinning stories about your entire biography, and thinking you're an incredibly horrible scientist whose work should never be trusted because you don't think faking data is a very big deal.

Believe what you like about me. Belief or disbelief does not alter the truth.

And again, I included that post as a topic of interest and thought there would be others who'd likewise find it... interesting.

And no, I did not state that the numbers were fakes or made up.

No, of course you didn't. You just presented them.

someone else then showed you they were bogus.

You then proceeded to not show even a hint of a care that the data you had passed along was faked and *continued* to tell us all about how we should for some reason take these people's work seriously.


And that's a pretty serious problem, because any scientist I know would be humiliated they had passed along fabricated data and recommended it to others. They would be outraged that fabricated data had been passed off on them. They would instantly consider the parties who had fabricated the data to be discredited completely and not to be trusted.


You had none of the above reactions.

That may be all well and good, but if the data is easily proved wrong, and there is a known medical disease for finding number patterns where there are none, not only does it make what you've said look silly, it also lends less credence to some of your other postings. While Newton may have been interested in it, he was also unsuccessful, was he not?

cthia wrote:This was only posted as a hmm topic of interest, and this part of the post was pasted 'in hopes' of piquing your interest enough to continue reading the full course, where the meat and potatoes are, Bible Numerics. An interesting topic, meant only for your edification.

[/quote]