Is science at odds with philosophy?
- Thread starter Landon Caeli
- Start date
So you have answered yes based on an Adam Clarke quote that has no relevance to the Deuteronomy or Exodus verses.
Perhaps you don't comprehend the verses so let me simplify it for you.
The Deuteronomy verses state a woman who does not cry rape where she can be heard such as in a city will be executed along with the rapist.
The Exodus verse states the wife has the same legal status as a manservant, maidservant, an ox and an ass; in other words she is the property of the husband.
Now that there are no misunderstandings do you support the treatment of women as described in Deuteronomy and Exodus so the Prime Directive of the Bible is not violated?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,138
- 51,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't feel qualified to discuss Old Testament law.
Some of them were done away with in this dispensation; some weren't.
These triangles you're bringing up are not my area of expertise.
Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Looks consensual to me.
So if I was Moses, I would order both of them to die.
Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Verdict: Death; Reason: Consensual.
Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Verdict: Death of the man, not the woman.
In today's dispensation, I don't know.
I'm for the death penalty for rapists; but adultery and fornication need a lesser punishment.
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
Thank you for trying to read my post. If all you took from it is that I'm down on "suffering" then you missed a great deal of the point.
I have to admit I'm utterly fascinated by your theology. You seem to have taken the trinity and split thim up into completely separable concepts. It smacks of a form of "dualism" (only in this case it is "tri-ism") with the Godhead being The Father and two Demiurges: The Son and the Holy Spirit.
I am fascinated that you assign the "Holy Spirit" to the God of the Old Testament (a unitary God and in no way described in the OT as anything less than The ONE TRUE GOD.)
I am sure you are more than aware of the history of the Church and their approach to Dualism and their anathematization of Gnosticism. Yours seems more of a Gnostic version of Christianity, but with an interesting twist I've never heard.
Marcion's followers wanted to dissociate the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament and were likewise decreed heretics by the Church. You seem to have squared this circle by proposing that the members of the Trinity are almost more "separable" in terms of actions and even intent.
This, right here is fascinating. The two parts of God are at odds over something. Interesting theology.
I think what really got under my skin was your condescension. Perhaps you didn't mean it but it leaks through like the smell from a diaper. Your patronizing approach that you had the answers and you would "walk me through it" by asking me leading questions.
I believe I have a relatively good grasp on standard Christian theology so you coming at me like you somehow had superior knowledge really got under my skin. But then you continued by simply ignoring my points.
You are free to have whatever faith you wish. I think you have generated a perfectly workable Gnostic/Dualistic version of God and that might even work out well given that some feel that Paul himself was acquainted with Gnosticism and sometimes spoke in those terms.
But this is the real point: you may think you understand God, but how do you come to understand Him? Through your own thoughts. Others clearly have RADICALLY different views of God (and there is a high likelihood that your version of theology would actually be considered quite "incorrect" by other Christian sects). And that's the point. God is a malleable concept. He contains within Him a galaxy of logical impossibilities, and that leads to people coming up with radically different versions of God within the same religion! And that doesn't even start counting the radically different non-Christian, non-Jewish versions of God.
Ultimate Truth shouldn't result in ridiculously different, often mutually exclusive, versions of that Truth. Especially when the ultimate price is on the line. Eternal damnation if you don't accidentally stumble upon the "right" version. And everyone seems to have a different version. And they almost always simply assume their's is ultimate TRUTH.
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
... at least we all know that science isn't at odds with philosophy.
Science and philosophy come from a common root and many of the logic-heavy parts of Philosophy are integral to Science.
There are things which Philosophers opine that lack any way to test or falsify, but for the most part they are heavily integrated.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I don't wish to press you any further right now dear sir, and I'm sorry if I seemed to come across in a way that was offensive, or that was disrespectful, or was in any way condescending, ok, and for that I do apologize, ok, if anything maybe I'll PM you about it later, ok, and we can talk more privately and one on one about it later maybe, ok, and then maybe I can try to, more gently perhaps, describe or explain my theology in a little bit more detail to you there, OK, but for now, I'm just going to wish you a good night, as I'm calling it a night here pretty soon, and am just going to simply wish you "peace" and say "God Bless", ok, but look for me to PM you over the next few days maybe, ok...
Peace.
God Bless!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Science uses logic within its models, they are logical syntaxes, but it doesn't use logic to create its models. That much is clear from a casual perusal of most elementary descriptions of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics: they are fundamentally different.
Science is about testing models.
Human minds do science, and human minds use logic. I think right there, we have the 'common root'.
Logic is a tool. What logic does for us, is it makes syntactically correct connections over the syntactic elements of a language, or theory. That's it, it never does anything else, (as just about any mathematician worth their salt, should be able tell us).
Upvote
0
Opdrey.
I do not think this dialogue is going any further.
I have urged you to study the shroud before comment, you seem to prefer the opposite order. Take the L pattern of holes on the hungarian codex. I will not feed you more interesting stuff, since you cannot be bothered to even look it up.
There are entire books written about both sudarium, linceul (tunic) etc Read them.
I am not going to do it for you. Also a lot written about the forensic correspodences between them. All three cloths mentioned are in biblical accounts and have an uncanny correspondence between themselves . If you will not read any of it, it is your problem not mine. But please stop speculating on stuff you refuse to study.
Start with books. Books give you references. Then challenge the detail when you see the bigger picture. The cloths have a forensic corresponence that could not have been known in medieval times. They have also never been together in recorded history, but all three have indisputable links to the holy land, which is the centre of gravity. In fact better than that - the linceul on chromosome 16 shows a recessive genetic defect only found in the holy land. So that is whose blood is all over the "tunic" . The only reasonable hypothesis is they were the shroud and sudarium were the same real crucifixion victim, crucified in the manner of Christ.
So it is not a fake or a fraud in the sense it is a very real very old crucifiction victim, with forensic correspondence to the holy land. There is no evidence it was a copycat.
Occams razor says it was the one whose torture is described in documents.
There is as yet it no proof it is. On that I agree. There is only evidence.
But its a lot more for this than much other evidence of historic figures. I could state the tutankhamen tomb was a set up fake, made in the same era as the real one, by taking a boy of the street and burying him. You would find it hard to actually disprove that, even though it is so far fetched. (unless there are mtdna studies I am unaware of that show lineage)
But the evidence is strong.There is no evidence against the shroud belonging to Jesus - although there is an interesting question of something 1000 years before. But that too is discountable. I will leave you to find it.
As for the absurd dating.
-there are unquestionable mediaeval repairs to the shroud, so it was vital that daters characterised any sample they tested. particularly near edges, water or fire damage. They were warned by an archeologist to do so, and to take multiple samples. They didnt.
- the sample taken for RC dating had different chemical character to the rest, UV fluorescence pictures from years before raised a big red flag. They ignored it, and ignored questionable debris with the samples. The chemistry of Rogers confirmed it was different to the rest of the shroud.
- the arrogant RC labs were determined to exclude all of STURP who knew the fabric of the cloth and had tested it years before and knew what it was made of. The daters clearly did not. So Having excluded all who knew the cloth, there was even an argument on the day as to where they should test (which had been a dialogue on protocol for years before hand) . The daters ignored it.
- the labs corroborated on what should have been blind process, tite made a number of screw ups, including ignoring discrepancies between raw data and paper. Even when they got results they doctored them to try to fake homogeneity.. If they had not fiddled the results, they would have noted the date gradient. Hundreds of years in a few centimetres. So the date was clearly void. Presumably a changing mix of old and new fibre. So not the date of the shroud.
The church in the shape of Gonella was livid about the amateur botch the daters made of it. It surprises me not at all , the church wants no more to do with such amateurs or their labs, why would they?
So the date is no evidence at all, other than of the incompetence of RC daters, who tested their confirmation bias, not the shroud date!. Then fiddled the results to pretend they were consistent. That sadly is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It is sad you will not study it . It is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma.
You keep believing there is any credibiity left in the discredited RC date! It seems to make you happier. It does seem to be a condition now of getting a paper into nature, that you agree the date cannot be discounted. Nature is still trying to avoid admitting its part inan abject failure that disgraced science.
I do not think this dialogue is going any further.
I have urged you to study the shroud before comment, you seem to prefer the opposite order. Take the L pattern of holes on the hungarian codex. I will not feed you more interesting stuff, since you cannot be bothered to even look it up.
There are entire books written about both sudarium, linceul (tunic) etc Read them.
I am not going to do it for you. Also a lot written about the forensic correspodences between them. All three cloths mentioned are in biblical accounts and have an uncanny correspondence between themselves . If you will not read any of it, it is your problem not mine. But please stop speculating on stuff you refuse to study.
Start with books. Books give you references. Then challenge the detail when you see the bigger picture. The cloths have a forensic corresponence that could not have been known in medieval times. They have also never been together in recorded history, but all three have indisputable links to the holy land, which is the centre of gravity. In fact better than that - the linceul on chromosome 16 shows a recessive genetic defect only found in the holy land. So that is whose blood is all over the "tunic" . The only reasonable hypothesis is they were the shroud and sudarium were the same real crucifixion victim, crucified in the manner of Christ.
So it is not a fake or a fraud in the sense it is a very real very old crucifiction victim, with forensic correspondence to the holy land. There is no evidence it was a copycat.
Occams razor says it was the one whose torture is described in documents.
There is as yet it no proof it is. On that I agree. There is only evidence.
But its a lot more for this than much other evidence of historic figures. I could state the tutankhamen tomb was a set up fake, made in the same era as the real one, by taking a boy of the street and burying him. You would find it hard to actually disprove that, even though it is so far fetched. (unless there are mtdna studies I am unaware of that show lineage)
But the evidence is strong.There is no evidence against the shroud belonging to Jesus - although there is an interesting question of something 1000 years before. But that too is discountable. I will leave you to find it.
As for the absurd dating.
-there are unquestionable mediaeval repairs to the shroud, so it was vital that daters characterised any sample they tested. particularly near edges, water or fire damage. They were warned by an archeologist to do so, and to take multiple samples. They didnt.
- the sample taken for RC dating had different chemical character to the rest, UV fluorescence pictures from years before raised a big red flag. They ignored it, and ignored questionable debris with the samples. The chemistry of Rogers confirmed it was different to the rest of the shroud.
- the arrogant RC labs were determined to exclude all of STURP who knew the fabric of the cloth and had tested it years before and knew what it was made of. The daters clearly did not. So Having excluded all who knew the cloth, there was even an argument on the day as to where they should test (which had been a dialogue on protocol for years before hand) . The daters ignored it.
- the labs corroborated on what should have been blind process, tite made a number of screw ups, including ignoring discrepancies between raw data and paper. Even when they got results they doctored them to try to fake homogeneity.. If they had not fiddled the results, they would have noted the date gradient. Hundreds of years in a few centimetres. So the date was clearly void. Presumably a changing mix of old and new fibre. So not the date of the shroud.
The church in the shape of Gonella was livid about the amateur botch the daters made of it. It surprises me not at all , the church wants no more to do with such amateurs or their labs, why would they?
So the date is no evidence at all, other than of the incompetence of RC daters, who tested their confirmation bias, not the shroud date!. Then fiddled the results to pretend they were consistent. That sadly is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It is sad you will not study it . It is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma.
You keep believing there is any credibiity left in the discredited RC date! It seems to make you happier. It does seem to be a condition now of getting a paper into nature, that you agree the date cannot be discounted. Nature is still trying to avoid admitting its part inan abject failure that disgraced science.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your post neatly encapsulates why there has always been an issue with your interpretations of the Bible.
First of all why introduce Deuteronomy 22:22 which is clearly independent from verses 23-25?
Deuteronomy 22:22 involves consensual sex involving either adultery or fornication and is punishable by death.
Secondly you cannot interpret verses 23-24 and verse 25 in isolation.
Verses 23-24 is not about consensual sex; it describes rape where the woman is also put to death because she didn’t cry out for help in a city where being heard and rescued is the expectation.
By not crying out the assumption is of a willing participant and is an extreme example of modern day victim blaming.
Verse 25 is the scenario where the rape occurs in a field where her screams are not heard and she would not have been rescued.
In this case the woman is literally being given the benefit of the doubt.
It’s ironical your introduction of Deuteronomy 22:22 into the discussion while admitting adultery and fornication needs a lesser punishment when Deuteronomy 22:22 states otherwise is a contradiction of the Bible’s Prime Directive of not being contradicted under any circumstance.
At least this is recognition there are some aspects of the Bible which are unacceptable by today’s standards.
Upvote
0
Opdrey
Well-Known Member
I understand. You don't know how to make literature citations.
And you act like I've never even heard of the Shroud.
So some of the books you prefer say. And, as I've mentioned before, I can find plenty of "evidence" that the Moon Landing was a hoax or that UFO's are real.
Occam's Razor says: If it first shows up in any reference in the 14th century and the 14-C dating shows an age of about the 14th century and "fake relics" were quite common at the time (a real significant source of income for various churches and a draw for pilgrims) then it's most likely from about that time.
Not that it for sure IS from that time, but Occam's Razor would suggest that it probably is.
You love to accuse people of fraud without evidence. That can be done to your preferences as well. The Church was easily bamboozled at that time.
Even John Calvin in the 16th century figured this out
"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it."
— Calvin, Traité Des Reliques
While I assume the churches who purchased or came to hold various relics thought they had the real thing, there were charlatans around. People who realized there was a real market for these things. Talk all you want about blood etc on the shroud right now no accepted dating technique puts it anywhere near Christ's supposed time on the earth.
But the key here is I'm not saying that the Shroud is BY DEFINITION a fraud. It could very well be real. Right now I simply fail to see sufficient evidence to overcome a more rational view that it is not the burial shroud of Jesus. That's the difference between you and I. I am at least able to conceive that it could be but likely isn't. You, on the other hand, brook ZERO possibility of being in error. That's how we know which one of us is an actual scientist. (This is a very subtle point and I don't expect you to actually understand the subtlety, but in case you accidentally do, I'm putting it out there.)
Tell me, in all your reading, how much time and money do you dedicate to the countless fake relics that have come to light over the centuries? Or do you seek out only those that confirm your faith?
You can be honest here, I won't sit in judgement because I understand the IMPORTANCE of faith. I understand that your Catholic faith is more important to you than literally anything else on the planet earth. And that's fine. That's admirable. Just don't let it cause you to toss out God's holy word in your zeal to defend it. Don't accuse others of LYING without evidence. Don't accuse others of ACADEMIC FRAUD just because you don't like how the samples were handled or the results that came out.
That's sitting in judgement...and even in the Catholic Bible that is looked down on. As is bearing false witness.
Are you in the usual practice of proving negatives? Is that part of the logic you were trained in?
Matthew 7:1
May I ask why you see evil intent in things you don't agree with? I cannot imagine why you are so intent on calling them liars.
Luke 6:31
Do not bear false witness. You keep doing that. It's almost as if you are thumbing your nose at the 10 Commandments.
Exodus 20:16
So now Oxford is full of fraudsters and Nature is too? Where does the rabbit hole end? Who else is in on the cabal of evil? Clearly the Pontifical Guardian of the Shroud must also be in on it since he was present when the samples were taken.
Let's tote it all up:
1. The Pope's representative is corrupt and allowed a sketchy sample to be removed (out of sight of the cameras)
2. The Oxford scientists were not only incompetent but utterly corrupt.
3. The journal Nature is corrupt for publishing this.
Sounds like a pretty giant conspiracy. You will probably face an uphill battle against all this power arrayed against you in your crusade. I wish you luck.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I can't comment on your Gish-gallop of other supposed miracles because the documentation has not been supplied, but I've seen the Lanciano document.
It shows your 1, 2, & 3 above to be correct, but there's no evidence for 4 - there is no mention of sacred relics earlier than the 13th century and no mention of any examination of sacred relics earlier than the 16th century; there's no way to know if the remains are earlier than 13th century, or later. Your 5 is simply incorrect - if you cut out a slice of heart muscle it will just dry out if left in air - which appears to be what happened to this sample - the document even suggests that the 'nail holes' in it were an attempt to pin it out to prevent it shrinking as it dried.
It is unsurprising that dried muscle and blood can be recognisable as such today.
Upvote
0
Now Using critical thinking which is in short supply with sceptics approaching religious phenomena- "gish gallop" is an insulting way to refer to weakness of argument. But you refuse to study the modern phenomena so you have no idea of the strength or weakness of the arguments. #fail on critical thinking.
I notice you pick the old phenomenon just so you can complain it is old! whilst ignoring what linoli said.
- That the blood itself is remarkeable preservation that would not occur with a normal cadaver, and that whilst mummification can preserve flesh, there is no evidence of mummification which is a preservative process. The sample dates to an age before heart surgery yet has a surgeons precision. If you must "gish gallop" at least state all the facts along the way, not just the spin that suits your cause.
- Anyone who intended studying the veracity of them would study the modern phenomena instead. There you would see several types of white cell listed, not just the fact of them, which are evidence of life, as well as traumatized cardiac tissue.
Since you are not a pathologist, I suggest you quote what the pathologists said, and why lawrence said it is "compelling evidence of creation of life "
I notice you pick the old phenomenon just so you can complain it is old! whilst ignoring what linoli said.
- That the blood itself is remarkeable preservation that would not occur with a normal cadaver, and that whilst mummification can preserve flesh, there is no evidence of mummification which is a preservative process. The sample dates to an age before heart surgery yet has a surgeons precision. If you must "gish gallop" at least state all the facts along the way, not just the spin that suits your cause.
- Anyone who intended studying the veracity of them would study the modern phenomena instead. There you would see several types of white cell listed, not just the fact of them, which are evidence of life, as well as traumatized cardiac tissue.
Since you are not a pathologist, I suggest you quote what the pathologists said, and why lawrence said it is "compelling evidence of creation of life "
Upvote
0
It's just a comment on your penchant for including descriptions of a bunch of other supposedly miraculous claims when posting about a particular claim, as if the other claims somehow lent it more credence, or were relevant in some way.
I've read that material that has been made available - through no effort of yours.
I don't know what you mean by that - claim I commented on is about an ancient 'sacred relic'. If you think I have complained about its age, quote me.
The relic was not a cadaver, but a thin section of muscle. Both muscle and blood will dry out if left in dry air. Once dry, there's nothing to prevent them lasting almost indefinitely if kept cool and dry. DNA will degrade over time, but proteins are pretty robust.
As I said, there's no way to know that the original relics and what was tested are the same. The first examinations were documented to the 16th & 17th century, but - contrary to the claim in the paper - in Christian Europe, dissections were legalized in the late 13th and early 14th centuries and had occurred earlier (not to mention in Ancient Greece, ~300 BC). So, even assuming that the tested sample wasn't a recent introduction, the provenance of the relic is uncertain - and in the unlikely event that it is as old as the claim suggests, it is still just a dried-up slice of heart muscle and some dried blood.
I see no mention of white cells in the Lanciano document.
I see nothing of the sort in the Lanciano document - their conclusion is that the sample was of human blood (type AB) and heart tissue.
If you want to discuss another miracle claim, please provide links to the documentation for it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I echoed linolis comments.
He is a pathologist who studied it.
CF always knows better it seems.
Which is precisely why you should study the others.
Tixtla. Sokolka. Buenos Airies. Legnica.
The white cells are one part of what makes them inexplicable.
Life where there should be none.
Alas, copyrighted works cost money. Like nature magazine.
Your loss.
But don’t you EVER refer to any argument as “ Gish gallop” solely because you refuse to study it . It says nothing about the argument and everything about someone who is willing to judge an argument before studying it.
He is a pathologist who studied it.
CF always knows better it seems.
Which is precisely why you should study the others.
Tixtla. Sokolka. Buenos Airies. Legnica.
The white cells are one part of what makes them inexplicable.
Life where there should be none.
Alas, copyrighted works cost money. Like nature magazine.
Your loss.
But don’t you EVER refer to any argument as “ Gish gallop” solely because you refuse to study it . It says nothing about the argument and everything about someone who is willing to judge an argument before studying it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Meh, there are millions of exotic claims about all kinds of things 'beyond conventional science'. If you want me to take any of them seriously, I want to see full documentation - preferably scientific papers or articles, preferably peer-reviewed, preferably in a credible journal; but I'll take what comes.
Having finally got access to the Lanciano document, which is, in part, a reasonable scientific analysis, I find it doesn't support the exotic claims you made for it. This doesn't inspire confidence in your judgement of the other claims you talk about.
Whether your argument is a Gish-gallop has nothing to do with whether any of it is studied or not
I explained what it means in #773.
I haven't made any judgement about anything I haven't read (how could I?), beyond that the nature of the claims and the lack of publically accessible documentation to date make my prior credence low.
I'm happy to study any documentation you are willing or able to provide access to.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Lanciano supports all the claims I made for it. It is heart myocardium. It is human blood AB. It is very old and pathologists question how it survived, because it is not preserved. Also it needed a surgeons hand before there were surgeons. There is only anecdotal evidence it came from bread, but there are hundreds of similar cases, where similar incidents were witnessed but not analysed at the time.
That is why I keep telling you to study the four modern ones that even show the bread! The intimate intermingling of bread and heart myocardium at Tixtla, sokolka etc is the problem for faking. The white cells show recent life and lack of DNA identity, make them a problem to fake. Nobody presently knows how. So how did a priest do it?
Ive told you where to look. Start with serafinis book. Or castarnon on tixtla ( which has the lab reports bound in)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
