Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism

[iamnotback]

My understanding is that the Judaism holds that personal responsibility and the Torah is the way to  achieve true freedom. They view the 10 commandments in particular as necessary restrictions to maintain a free society.

It appears you missed the class on Talmudic Judaism because everything you typed only pertains to Jews dealing with other Jews.  Non-Jews are referred to as "goyim", and are essentially cattle to be used as slaves.

Because the goyim choose to enslave themselves with the leftist, atheist religion. Thus is intellectually honest to refer to them as having a group evolutionary strategy which is more idiotic than that of cows. Giving the goyim their free will is not analogous to treating/thinking of them as sub-human. One can be objective that the goyim choose their fate upon granted their free will to choose. (I don't identify myself as a goyim even though I might be, but I am not quite sure what I am and what group evolutionary strategy I have chosen even if by default, as this is a matter for more future study and reflection)

And there is no freedom from the NATURAL LAW. You can pretend you are free without any NATURAL LAW consequences, but you are lying to yourself if you do.

As CoinCube has explained, the core of the Christian faith is about individual adherence to the NATURAL LAW (which includes the natural law outcome of the group evolutionary strategy). There are of course Christian sects which have fallen away from the core point of Christianity. As for the issue of Jews vs. Jesus, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on that theology aspect and so I don't have anything to say on that matter.

The Lord commands Christians to not have a King (a State) in 1 Samuel 8. But the people do not listen. Thus he gives them the State they reap. If everyone followed the NATURAL LAW, in theory we wouldn't need a King on earth to rule over us.


Every human has to decide to interopt with society and nature in some form of group evolutionary strategy. We don't get a free pass from that decision. It is unavoidable, even by default.

[CoinCube]

My understanding is that the Judaism holds that personal responsibility and the Torah is the way to  achieve true freedom. They view the 10 commandments in particular as necessary restrictions to maintain a free society.

It appears you missed the class on Talmudic Judaism because everything you typed only pertains to Jews dealing with other Jews.  Non-Jews are referred to as "goyim", and are essentially cattle to be used as slaves.

Here they are in a 1 minute clip flat out saying it as usual.  No, this is not even close to a one off; this is the norm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCLtAbULUtw

I would agree that the video you linked to above shows two Jewish men (probably Ultra-Orthodox) who say some rather disturbing things such as:

"All the non Jews in the world exist for the Jews benefit."

There are bigots and racists among all peoples be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Others. Even with my, very limited, knowledge of Judaism I am confident in stating that the views expressed by those two (probably drunk) Jews in the video do not accurately represent Judaism as a whole.


Charges Against the Jews
http://archive.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

II. The Charges
A. Non-Jews as Non-Human

Probably the most far-reaching claim made by anti-Talmud polemicists is that Judaism
views non-Jews as a subhuman species deserving only hatred and contempt from its
Jewish superiors.

The visceral hatred that Jews are alleged to bear for non-Jews is
proven, they claim, by a variety of statements in the Talmud and by Jewish law itself,
which purportedly encourages Jews to exploit their non-Jewish neighbors and engage in
criminal activities against them. Many go so far as to claim that Jews are intent on
subjugating non-Jews around the world and even on committing genocide against them.

In its long history, Judaism has had its share of bigots, racists and xenophobes, some of
whom expressed their prejudices in religious terms. In certain historical periods there
have even been Jewish sects whose worldview placed Jews higher than non-Jews in
inherent value. But normative Judaism has never diminished the essential humanity—
and the concomitant holiness, derived from the doctrine of creation in imago Dei—shared
by Jews and non-Jews alike. Based on verses in the biblical verses in Genesis 1:26-28,
the principle that all men and women are created in the image of God is codified in the
Mishnah (Avoth 3:14) and Talmud (Avoth 9b):

[רבי עקיבא] היה אומר: חביב אדם שנברא בצלם. חיבה יתרה נודעת לו שנברא בצלם,
שנאמר (בראשית ט:ו), "כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם."
[Rabbi Akiva] used to say, “Beloved is man, for he was created in God’s image; and the
fact that God made it known that man was created in His image is indicative of an even
greater love. As the verse states (Genesis 9:6), ‘In the image of God, man was created.’)”

This doctrine is echoed by one of the great rabbis of the twentieth century, Rabbi Joseph
B. Soloveitchik (Man of Faith in the Modern World, p. 74):

"Even as the Jew is moved by his private Sinaitic Covenant with God to embody
and preserve the teachings of the Torah, he is committed to the belief that all
mankind, of whatever color or creed, is “in His image” and is possessed of an
inherent human dignity and worthiness. Man’s singularity is derived from the
breath “He [God] breathed into his nostrils at the moment of creation” (Genesis
2:7). Thus, we do share in the universal historical experience, and God’s
providential concern does embrace all of humanity."

In the face of these Jewish doctrines expressing concern for men and women of all
religions, the attempts of anti-Semites to portray normative Judaism as bigoted and
hateful are revealed as thorough distortions of Jewish ethics.

Jewish Attitudes Toward Non-Jews
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people. Although we refer to ourselves as G-d's chosen people, we do not believe that G-d chose the Jews because of any inherent superiority. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. The story goes on to say that the Jews were offered the Torah last, and accepted it only because G-d held a mountain over their heads! (In Ex. 19:17, the words generally translated as "at the foot of the mountain" literally mean "underneath the mountain"!) Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d's might rather than their own ability. Clearly, these are not the ideas of a people who think they are better than other nations.

Because of our acceptance of Torah, Jews have a special status in the eyes of G-d, but we lose that special status when we abandon Torah. Furthermore, the blessings that we received from G-d by accepting the Torah come with a high price: Jews have a greater responsibility than non-Jews. While non-Jews are only obligated to obey the seven commandments given to Noah, Jews are responsible for fulfilling the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, thus G-d will punish Jews for doing things that would not be a sin for non-Jews.

[qwik2learn]

Religious worship known and practiced today under the name “Judaism” by so-called or self-styled “Jews” throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name “Pharisaism” according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject.

The form of religious worship known as “Pharisaism” in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud. The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who practiced “Pharisaism”. The Talmud today occupies the same relative position with respect to those who profess “Judaism”. The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-styled “Jews” whether they are aware of that fact or not. Their spiritual leaders make no attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called or self-styled “Jews”. They extend their authority far beyond the legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal outside religion.

The eminent Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, the head of the The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, often referred to as the “The Vatican of Judaism”, in his Forward to his First Edition of this world-famous classic “The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith”, on page XXI states:

“. . .Judaism. . .Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name. . .the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered. . .From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered. . .demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement. . .”

In case you have never had the opportunity to investigate the contents of the “63 books” of the Talmud so well summarized by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in his illuminating article “What is a Jew”, previously quoted, may I here impose upon your precious time and quote a few passages for you until you find the time to conveniently investigate the Talmud’s contents personally. If I can be of any assistance to you in doing so please do not hesitate to let me know in what manner you can use my help.

From the Birth of Jesus until this day there have never been recorded more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, of Christians and the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere, or anytime than you will find between the covers of the infamous “63 books” which are “the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious law” as well as the “textbook used in the training of rabbis”. The explicit and implicit irreligious character and implications of the contents of the Talmud will open your eyes as they have never been opened before. The Talmud reviles Jesus, Christians and the Christian faith as the priceless spiritual and cultural heritage of Christians has never been reviled before or since the Talmud was completed in the 5th century. You will have to excuse the foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language you will see here as verbatim quotations from the official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English. BE PREPARED FOR A SURPRISE.

The Soncino Edition of the Talmud with its footnotes is like a double-edged sword. It teaches the Talmud to countless millions of the younger generation of so-called or self-styled “Jews” who are not able to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the Talmud was written by its authors between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D. It also teaches Christians what the Talmud has to say about Jesus, about Christians and about the Christian faith. Someday this is bound to back-fire. Christians will some day challenge the assertion that the Talmud is the “sort of book” from which Jesus allegedly “drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world” on “moral and religious subjects”. The rumbling is already heard in places.

Before giving any more verbatim quotations from the “sort of book” from which it is falsely alleged Jesus “drew the teachings which enable him to revolutionize the world” on “moral and religious subjects” I wish to here again recall to your attention the official statement by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in Look Magazine for June 17, 1952. In that official statement made by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer on behalf of the American Jewish Committee, self-styled “The Vatican of Judaism”, informed the 20,000,000 readers of Look magazine that the Talmud “IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS”. Please bear this mind as your read further.

The truth about the Talmud and how it relates to Christians is a must-read; I am quoting from Chapter 4:
http://phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j025/

[iamnotback]

Apparently the 613 rules the Jews must abide, require them to use honest weights and measures:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Thus the fractional reserve banksters such as Soros,Rothschilds etc are not religious Jews (even they claim to descend from Jews or took up the label as a Jew), as admitted by Soros in that 60 Minutes video (banned by YouTube now) in which he had admitted he isn't religious.

Probably the reason the Jews have these strict laws is they are trying to preserve their cultural homogeneity as their group evolutionary strategy. I know from my own experience, that if you intermarry into another culture, you take on all the baggage of that other culture. Yet qwik2learn may have a point, that like most organized religions, it may be another corruption (and yet that may be complementary with an effective K group evolutionary strategy for average males).

It is interesting to note the Torah allows the man to divorce his wife for any reason instantly with a signed declaration. She can then remarry. But the (New Testament at least of) Bible says that that once a man and woman bond in the flesh, they are one and let no man undo what God hath done. It is that rule that I found impossible for me since I had already violated it more than several times. I tried to start following that rule when I came closer to Christianity circa 2006 but I found it just caused me to lie to myself. I think it denies natural pressures to pursue an R evolutionary strategy by default in the absence of any strong cultural heritage and family purpose disincentivizing a male from doing do so. We are given a situation in life, and we can't always choose to be in another situation thus the strategies which are available and compatible with others may not be available to others. But I do understand there is a distinction between an alphamale R evolutionary strategy who deposits his semen for betamales to raise his offspring (e.g. Genghis Khan) and a betamale K group evolutionary strategy which is greatly aided by religion. You've got to limit those alphamales because too much R strategy can cause the society to malfunction. We need some R strategy to improve the gene pool, but it must be highly difficult and competitive. (Note I am not claiming I was trying to father children which I didn't take care of, nor saying I did this.)

I am still not sure where I fit into all this. I am just writing down observations. And trying to sort in my mind what my value system is and should be w.r.t. to group evolutionary strategy and my evolutionary strategy for my genes.

Edit: to expound a bit. In my case, I think it is the case wherein when your father abandons you and/or doesn't provide any culture you want to emulate, you don't really have a strong natural inclination to follow a K strategy, because afaics K strategy bonds are driven significantly (if not entirely) by the extension of the family tree and heritage and the emotions and pride that plays into that. This is why I understand why the Jewish faith doesn't allow intermarriage with goyim (who haven't converted) because the heritage of your culture and the religion that holds the families together can be easily polluted and lost. In my case, it is very difficult to form a new culture or family heritage all by myself. I have to take on the identity and heritage of the family I am marrying into, which didn't work out well for me to say the least. Lol.

[qwik2learn]

Quoting further from this important material:

The truth about the Talmud and how it relates to Christians is a must-read; I am quoting from Chapter 4:
http://phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j025/

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the “secondary meaning” of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that “secondary meanings” can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled “Jews” for three centuries has created a “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” which has completely “blacked out” the original and correct meaning of the word “Jew”. There can be no doubt about that.

There is not one person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a “Jew” as a “Judean” in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted “secondary meaning” of the word “Jew” today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a so-called or self-styled “Jew” is (1) a person who today professes the form of religious worship known as “Judaism”, (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.

The present generally accepted “secondary meaning” of the word “Jew” is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith.

[CoinCube]

I think perhaps it might be helpful to briefly cover what the Torah and the Talmud are.

What's the Difference Between the Torah and the Talmud?
http://www.aish.com/atr/Torah_versus_Talmud.html

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The first thing to know is that the Torah consists of two parts: The Written Torah, and the Oral Torah.

The Written Torah totals 24 books, including the Five Books of Moses and the prophetic writings – e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.

The Five Books of Moses – comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – was written down by Moses in 1273 BCE, and includes all 613 commandments (mitzvahs)....

(Jews consider it insulting to call it the Old Testament, as this implies a New Testament, which Jews reject.)...

So what is the Oral Torah? Its name derives from the fact that it was not allowed to be formally written down but had to be taught orally. It contains the explanations of the Written Torah...

In 190 CE, persecution and exile of the Jewish people threatened the proper transmission of the Oral Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi compiled written notes on the Oral Torah called the "Mishnah" (Hebrew for "teaching")...

In 500 CE, the Jewish people again suffered an uprooting of their communities, and two Babylonian rabbis – Rav Ashi and Ravina – compiled a 60-volume record of rabbinic discussions on the Mishnah, called the "Gemara." Together, the Mishnah and Gemara comprise what is commonly called the "Talmud."

It is commonly accepted by all Jews that the Talmud or Oral Torah was codified into written form by Rabbis several hundred years following the time of Moses and the Written Torah. This has led to a schism in Judaism over the divine nature of the Oral Torah.

There are some branches of of Judaism such as Karaite Judaism which reject the Oral Torah altogether viewing it as human opinion and therefore not binding. Within Rabbinic Judaism which is far larger than Karaite Judaism disagreement remains between the Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox branches.

Below is a link to the opinion of three Rabbi's one Reform, one Conservative, and one Orthodox on the topic of whether the Talmud (written by Rabbis) carries the same divine authority at the Written Torah.

http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/37

According to this source it appears the Orthodox are most likely to hold the Talmud as divinely inspired and the Reform movement the least likely.  

Regarding the content of the Talmud itself I cannot comment for I have no knowledge of the topic. However, I have never heard anyone argue that Jesus took his teachings from the Talmud. This would strike me as a hard argument to make given that the aristocratic Jewish elite at the time the Sadducees rejected the Talmud altogether. Regarding unfavorable writings by early Jewish Rabbis towards Christianity is that really a surprise?

Historic Jewish Views on Christianity
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-views-on-christianity/3/  

In its very earliest days, Christianity was seen by the Jewish teachers as a Jewish heresy; its adherents were Jews who believed in the divinity of Christ [and considered Christianity a Jewish sect]. But when Christianity spread and became a world religion, with numerous converts from the Gentile world, it became a rival religion to Judaism. Christians were then seen as Gentiles not because they were Christians but because, in the main, they were, in fact, Gentiles (i.e. not Jewish).

Rabbinic Attitudes
In the Talmud and midrash, the comparatively few references to Christianity (these only appear in uncensored versions) are to this religion as a heretical sect believing in a form of dualism, God the Father and God the Son... It was not until the Middle Ages that the status of Christianity (and of Islam) as a rival religion was considered from the Jewish point of view.

Medieval Attitudes
Attacks on Christian dogma are found in medieval Jewish writings from the biblical commentaries of Rashi and [David] Kimhi, refuting the Christian claim that the Old Testament contains prophesies anticipating the coming of Jesus... on the grounds that God, being God, can as little become human as He can wish Himself out of existence...

In these and similar works the main thrust was to deny that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus (the world gave no evidence that this glorious age had arrived, it was frequently protested) and especially to take issue with the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity...The medieval thinkers who held Christianity but not Islam to be an idolatrous faith did so particularly because of the worship of the Cross; to bow before an icon or a crucifix was held to be akin to bowing to idols...

Menahem Meiri [a thirteenth-century talmudist]... argued that the references to pagans in the talmudic literature could not apply to what he called “people whose lives are governed by religion.” Eventually, a distinction was made, unknown in the talmudic sources, according to which Christianity did constitute idolatry for Jews but not “for them” (i.e. Christians). A Christian did not offend against the Noahide laws [the seven principles, including the rejection of idolatry, by which Judaism expects non-Jews to live] since the Torah allows a Gentile, but not a Jew, to worship another being in addition to God.

This concept was known as shittuf (“association,” of another together with God) and the oft‑quoted legal maxim, allowing for a more liberal attitude towards Christians, is: “A Noahide is not enjoined to reject shittuf.”...

Modern Attitudes
In modern times there has been far greater cooperation between Jews and Christians, many Jews welcoming Jewish‑Christian dialogues in which the aim of each side is to understand the position of the other, and even learn from it, without in any way moving from its own. Some Jews believe that Judaism and Christianity have so much in common that it is permissible to speak of a Jewish-Christian tradition...

A single contemporary Orthodox Jewish theologian in the US has argued that Judaism does not oblige Jews to reject the doctrine of the incarnation as impossible in itself. For him, Jews reject Christianity not because God could not have become incarnate in a human being, since that would compromise God’s omnipotence, but because, in fact, He did not do so in the person of Jesus.

This eccentric view is rejected by all other Jewish theologians on the grounds that God, being God, can as little become human as He can wish Himself out of existence.

It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.

Edit: Here is an interesting little video that goes over the differences between Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRb7DhWS6Z8&list=PLhG1viERKhXfnbaJp2JlphCVX3OvewpFp

[popcorn1]

It took a long time for humans to appear ..Just remember NO ZAP and we were here..

In the 21st century with new sciences we will discover many things that we once thought so are not so..
But one thing we do know because of science it takes time for things to happen and it's impossible to
Zap a human and a world in 6 days.. ..
Even if aliens from another galaxy made the earth it still not gods it's science ..

[CoinCube]

It took a long time for humans to appear ..Just remember NO ZAP and we were here..

In the 21st century with new sciences we will discover many things that we once thought so are not so..
But one thing we do know because of science it takes time for things to happen and it's impossible to
Zap a human and a world in 6 days.. ..
Even if aliens from another galaxy made the earth it still not gods it's science ..

Since the topic of this thread has turned to Judaism in the last few posts here is an opinion from a Jewish Rabbi on this topic.

Was Creation Really Seven Days?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/sabbath-week/was-creation-really-seven-days

So why does the Bible express itself in terms of six days of creativity culminating in one day of Sabbath rest [Genesis 2:2]? Why would the Bible utilize the Hebrew word “yom” (day) with any meaning other than a 24-hour period?

The truth is that from the usage of the word “yom” it is possible to conclude the very opposite of the charedi dogma just cited. The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.

Furthermore, Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.

And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

[BADecker]

It took a long time for humans to appear ..Just remember NO ZAP and we were here..

In the 21st century with new sciences we will discover many things that we once thought so are not so..
But one thing we do know because of science it takes time for things to happen and it's impossible to
Zap a human and a world in 6 days.. ..
Even if aliens from another galaxy made the earth it still not gods it's science ..

Since the topic of this thread has turned to Judaism in the last few posts here is an opinion from a Jewish Rabbi on this topic.

Was Creation Really Seven Days?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/sabbath-week/was-creation-really-seven-days

So why does the Bible express itself in terms of six days of creativity culminating in one day of Sabbath rest [Genesis 2:2]? Why would the Bible utilize the Hebrew word “yom” (day) with any meaning other than a 24-hour period?

The truth is that from the usage of the word “yom” it is possible to conclude the very opposite of the charedi dogma just cited. The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.

Furthermore, Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.

And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

Was the creation accomplished in 6 days... plus a following day of rest?

From the standpoint of our simple determinations, we do not know because we were not there, and there are way too many things that could have happened that are way beyond our ability to determine.

For example. The whole plan of the universe existed in the mind of God "before" He started creation. Since God used a tiny amount of His great strength to create the universe, the fact that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars... and the fact that the 24-hour day existed before the scribing of the planetary action by which we understand the 24-hour day... shows that God's power carried everything just as He had it written down in the Bible, no matter how we want to delude ourselves into thinking things happened.

[iamnotback]

It is interesting to note the Torah allows the man to divorce his wife for any reason instantly with a signed declaration. She can then remarry. But the (New Testament at least of) Bible says that that once a man and woman bond in the flesh, they are one and let no man undo what God hath done. It is that rule that I found impossible for me since I had already violated it more than several times. I tried to start following that rule when I came closer to Christianity circa 2006 but I found it just caused me to lie to myself. I think it denies natural pressures to pursue an R evolutionary strategy by default in the absence of any strong cultural heritage and family purpose disincentivizing a male from doing do so. We are given a situation in life, and we can't always choose to be in another situation thus the strategies which are available and compatible with others may not be available to others. But I do understand there is a distinction between an alphamale R evolutionary strategy who deposits his semen for betamales to raise his offspring (e.g. Genghis Khan) and a betamale K group evolutionary strategy which is greatly aided by religion. You've got to limit those alphamales because too much R strategy can cause the society to malfunction. We need some R strategy to improve the gene pool, but it must be highly difficult and competitive. (Note I am not claiming I was trying to father children which I didn't take care of, nor saying I did this.)

I am still not sure where I fit into all this. I am just writing down observations. And trying to sort in my mind what my value system is and should be w.r.t. to group evolutionary strategy and my evolutionary strategy for my genes.

Edit: to expound a bit. In my case, I think it is the case wherein when your father abandons you and/or doesn't provide any culture you want to emulate, you don't really have a strong natural inclination to follow a K strategy, because afaics K strategy bonds are driven significantly (if not entirely) by the extension of the family tree and heritage and the emotions and pride that plays into that. This is why I understand why the Jewish faith doesn't allow intermarriage with goyim (who haven't converted) because the heritage of your culture and the religion that holds the families together can be easily polluted and lost. In my case, it is very difficult to form a new culture or family heritage all by myself. I have to take on the identity and heritage of the family I am marrying into, which didn't work out well for me to say the least. Lol.

I had blogged on this topic:

https://steemit.com/relationships/@anonymint/monogamy-is-an-evolutionary-strategy

[CoinCube]

Was the creation accomplished in 6 days... plus a following day of rest?

From the standpoint of our simple determinations, we do not know because we were not there, and there are way too many things that could have happened that are way beyond our ability to determine.

For example. The whole plan of the universe existed in the mind of God "before" He started creation. Since God used a tiny amount of His great strength to create the universe, the fact that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars... and the fact that the 24-hour day existed before the scribing of the planetary action by which we understand the 24-hour day... shows that God's power carried everything just as He had it written down in the Bible, no matter how we want to delude ourselves into thinking things happened.

Yet by the same logic is it not possible that events occurred as written in Genesis but human understanding is simply incapable of fully grasping them? Perhaps we were given knowledge that is true yet simplified to a level that enabled us to have some basic understanding of a process that is simply beyond us? We had a discussion along these lines earlier.

I always liked how God created light on the first day, and the sun and stars (which make the light, and the 24-hr day) on day 4...  That's quite a magic trick!

...

If I were God... I'd probably create the sun, stars and light all at the same time... and then I'd create plants afterwards... but that's just me... perhaps I'm smarter than God... perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars...

You can't create light before stars... are you sure about that?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed

Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.

According to current scientific models there was hundreds of thousands of years of light without stars.

Genesis 1-3:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Perhaps when scientists add all kinds of other theories and ideas, their model will change. They do have some serious science fiction there, or a religion if they believe it in the face of it not having been proven true.

[iamnotback]

Our existence and space-time are not an absolute but rather can only be a mutually shared (agreed upon) illusion (i.e. mutual relative perspective).

I will quote an excerpt from my unpublished whitepaper for the “Bitcoin killer”:

1. Byzantine Fault Tolerance & Space-time Ordering

A system which models an unbounded number of possible states^* can’t have a total order, because the combination of unbounded state and a total order, would require an implausible static non-existence where the global (i.e. unbounded) future would be undifferentiated from the past.⁶ The only model that is coherent (i.e. differentiated from undecidable) with an unbounded global state, is where the system actors (e.g. the Actor model⁷) each have an independent relative perspective constrained only to an internally deterministic bounded state, i.e. a localized partial order with no external deterministic reference point.⁸ Any external, unbounded global coherence can be only probabilistic not deterministic, e.g. fault tolerant.⁷

For example, a deterministic Turing machine can’t be proven to halt⁹ unless it is executed on every possible input state, but (executing all of) the input is unbounded in (and would require unbounded) time^† unless the machine will be externally disconnected. Thus a deterministic Turing machine has an external partial order w.r.t. to any choice of bounded input state (as its external reference point). Thus, a “total” order is never universally global and is instead relative― i.e. is one of an unbounded (in space-time) external partial orders chosen w.r.t. to some bounded external state. The bounded external state is shared coherently (i.e. consistently) with other actors in the system w.r.t. to the chosen total order.

1.1 Impossibility of Deterministic Fault Tolerance in Unbounded Asynchrony

Another example of this physical law that a total order is impossible in an unbounded system, is the impossibility of deterministic Byzantine fault tolerance (aka “BFT”) for a protocol operating with unbounded asynchronous latency, proven by the FLP theorem.¹¹ Deterministic in this context means that such an unbounded protocol can’t be certain to complete with even one fault because unbounded nondeterminism⁸ is one of the possible faults― i.e. the system is self-referential thus all perspectives within the system are indistinguishable from faulty ones.


* _{Where “possible states” implies the inclusion of changes in state (aka state transitions) in space-time, which are just more dimensions of state. For example, if a state changes from the value 1 to the value 2, then the possible states include 1 and 2.}
† _{Any distinction between time and space-time is a semantic illusion.^*}

References

⁶	Shelby Moore III, Entropic force, Kurzweil’s singularity, creativity, space-time, relativity, total orders, unbounded nondeterminism, Actor model. Unheresy.com blog and Bitcointalk.org, “DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)” thread, post #889, 2013 - 2016.
⁷	Shelby Moore III. Actors, asynchrony via futures, fault tolerance, thermodynamic irreversibility, unbounded nondeterminism forsakes global omniscience and consistency. Zenscript Github project, §Concurrency, issue #17, Dec 8, 2016.
⁸	Unbounded nondeterminism and the Actor model. Wikipedia.org.
⁹	Shelby Moore III, Simplistic explanation of Scooping the Loop Snooper, Bitcointalk.org, “Valid uses cases for Smart Contracts, Dapps, and DAOs?” thread, post #59, Jun 19, 2016.
¹¹	Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. J. ACM, 32(2) pp. 374–382, Apr 1985.

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

Edit: Here is an interesting little video that goes over the differences between Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRb7DhWS6Z8&list=PLhG1viERKhXfnbaJp2JlphCVX3OvewpFp

So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading (erroneous) selfish propaganda (that their way is the only correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.

I assume CoinCube is searching for statistical outliers (e.g. the Nazi failure in Russia) to convince himself that there is one correct choice. But this can not be falsifiable because of the nature of existence per the excerpt from my whitepaper. Faith is not falsifiable. That fat-tailed distributions exist doesn't prove a God exists.

I assume all very intelligent people including Einstein are perplexed by this situation wherein our existence can't coincide with any total ordering and thus we can't conceive of what might be outside of our own existence other than it is unbounded. It doesn't explain how we got here or why we are here, etc.. We yearn for a total understanding, but our mere existence requires that there can't be a total understanding (this isn't a philosophical conclusion, please review the physics that I already explained and the footnotes cited).

I would be interested to learn more as to Freeman Dyson's logic on why he is a non-denomination Christian. Does anyone have any reference which provides that information?

Per my definition of the leftist religion, all leftists are atheists whether they admit it or not, because they w(h)or(e)ship the State instead of a God (or NATURAL LAW), as the lord pointed out in 1 Samuel 8 of the Bible. Thus more than 50% of the western world's population are atheists.

Perhaps one the smartest men alive on earth today, Freeman Dyson, is a non-denominational Christian. And btw, the 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond who says Dyson made Eric feel like the slowest one at the dinner table, is an atheist.

You atheists think someone of the intellect of Richard Dawkins has a high IQ, but see how Freeman Dyson dismantled that asshat Dawkins. Dyson obliterated Richard's small minded perspective.

Inter alia, that stuff about Freeman Dyson, talking about the ability to see the bigger picture, wow. I'm nowhere close to Dyson's IQ, and I was in line with Richard Dawkins thinking. Till I read and understood Dyson's response, impressive, to say the least.

Moloch, you are espousing the group evolutionary strategy of those who choose mutual self-destruction. I don't consider that very intelligent.

You think it is intelligent to defect from group evolutionary strategy by lying to yourselves with the religion of leftism. Smart indeed!


P.S. my two posts in this thread today are due to information, research, and insight that CoinCube provided, which stimulated my reductionist mind.

We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.

It appears that group evolutionary strategy is a complex issue. It doesn't seem there is one correct strategy. Rather I am leaning towards the view that we are all pursuing (i.e. competing+interopting+cooperating) with a diversity of strategies.

I had written to CoinCube in private that it seems to me that rationality doesn't exist without a framework and choice of values. Good and evil are relative to one's evolutionary strategy, per my point above that even culling the herd could be considered "good" from objective standpoint of the evolutionary resilience of the human race. Damned facts are sometimes abhorrent.

[CoinCube]

So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading erroneously selfish propaganda (that their way is the correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.
...
We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.

With this opinion you are making a "religious" choice of your own. You are committing yourself to the belief that religion is not an objective measure of Truth. This inevitably leads to moral relativism and it is moral relativism that can take you to acceptance of slavery or genocide or "culling the herd" as the effective strategy of alpha males. I do not deny that reason can take you to these conclusions. However, before reason and before logic comes a critical metaphysical choice! Make a different choice and reason will take you in a diametrically opposing direction! Other have highlighted this choice to you before.

iamback, I have read about everything you posted.

Congratulations, you are probably more right them wrong and even the wrong is not caused by your intellect but your lack of humanity.

My main question now is if you want to help everyone or if you only feel bad that you haven't been invited to the predator's party.

We are working bodies of 37 trillions cells working harmoniously. We are part of a global society of 6 billion human beings working as harmoniously as possible until now. Like it or not, you are part of it and you are not in control of it. Yet you act like the white cells are your enemies. It is so clear. You could be a major part of the nervous system of the human society but you prefer to act like a papilloma growing from it and then falling to infect others on the east!

They will destroy themselves. No problem. Let them.

Those of us who are capable will side-step their system with a decentralized knowledge age.

This is evolution at work. Survival-of-the-fittest. The weak will cull themselves.

I already told you upthread that reputation is alive and well on pseudonyms along with personal anonymity. Have I not proved that? I have a reputation and I would still have one if I had never revealed my personal identity.

Enough of the redundant crap please.

I am waiting for CoinCube to come back and admit I am correct on all points.

l3552 was not perhaps not very diplomatic but he was essentially arguing that your error is not one of intellect but of metaphysics.

Fix your life? Fix your metaphysics
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/06/fix-your-life-fix-your-metaphysics.html

Metaphysics are your fundamental assumptions. These are chosen: they were chosen by you (although you probably weren't aware of choosing them, but just passively accepted them).

Fundamental assumptions are chosen - but they are not arbitrary; because the assumptions have consequences. You can choose whatever you want to believe - but sometimes you will not be able to make yourself live-by these chosen beliefs; and other times you will live by them (including thinking by them) such that they lead to nonsensical and therefore self-refuting outcomes.

The trouble is that in a world where people have stopped thinking- and when their assumptions lead to incoherent, nonsensical conclusions, instead of sorting-out their metaphysics - they just stop thinking (easier to do than ever before in human history - due to the ubiquity of mass media and social media).

Anyway - my point is that if you have certain (very common) assumptions, then you will either have a nihilistic, hope-less and despairing world view --- or else you will have to stop yourself thinking about anything serious.

There are innumerable commonly-held assumptions that lead to this: that Man has no free will, that the world is either random and unpredictable or else rigidly predetermined, that nothing exists except what has been described by 'science', that morality is a matter of opinion, that beauty is wholly in the eye of the beholder... oh, there are dozens of such.

Indeed, most of people's primary assumptions nowadays are of a type that lead to nonsensical or incoherent conclusions - so it is futile to complain about the low standard of rational public debate when rational debate is only possible on the basis that people are able and willing to examine and revise their assumptions when they lead to absurd outcomes.

Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

Whereas (as quickly becomes apparent in any disagreement) unless there is agreement on metaphysical assumptions then the cannot even be agreement on what counts as evidence, leave aside the matter of evaluating the strength of evidence...

...

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

Edit: Here is an interesting little video that goes over the differences between Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRb7DhWS6Z8&list=PLhG1viERKhXfnbaJp2JlphCVX3OvewpFp

Your missed the most important difference here which is essentially one of centralization. Judaism as opposed to most religions lacks a centralized authority. Although historically they once had a Great Sanhedrin which served this function nothing of the kind currently exists. Instead each synagogue functions independently under the direction of a Rabbi. Karaite challenges Rabbinic authority placing responsibility entirely on the individual. For example a Karaite Jew could conclude that the Talmud was entirely true. However, the individual would first be obligated to reach that conclusion after review of each argument and passage it contained.

[iamnotback]

So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading erroneously selfish propaganda (that their way is the correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.
...
We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.

With this opinion you are making a "religious" choice of your own. You are committing yourself to the belief that religion is not an objective measure of Truth.

I am approaching ("seem to be coming to" which isn't entirely committed) committing myself to the impossibility of falsifying any total order of the universe and thus the impossibility of any objective measure of absolute Truth.

There doesn't seem to be any other choice if one is rational.

But please don't conflate...

This inevitably leads to moral relativism and it is moral relativism that can take you to acceptance of slavery or genocide or "culling the herd" as the effective strategy of alpha males. I do not deny that reason can take you to these conclusions. However, before reason and before logic comes a critical metaphysical choice! Make a different choice and reason will take you in a diametrically opposing direction! Other have highlighted this choice to you before.

I expected that "moralizing" (panic?) reaction from you and was waiting for a new opportunity to teach/share some of my different ways of conceptualizing matters once again. I hadn't done much high-level philosophical sharing since my prior seminal essays because of my chronic illness (which you know from private messages may be miraculously on the mend).

Afaics, you are conflating the logic of what is w.r.t. to a total universal order/truth, with my freewill to choose a personal strategy within my partial order. I exist not within the totality of the universe (speed-of-light is quantized thus not all of the information of the universe can reach to or from me, not in real-time nor even in my lifetime) but within the partial order that I have some freewill to choose to some extent.

Thus I am rationally free to choose a strategy which might for example include certain values/ethics because I feel/think they promote the existence that I not only prefer but also because I think it benefits me somehow and that can include the benefit of loving (needing) humanity. Without other people in this world, my opinion is I wouldn't have much reason to exist. It would be lonely and unimportant. I expect I would quickly tire of the AI virtual reality bots unless they were truly alive and in which case they take on all the attributes of people having their own freewill.

They will destroy themselves. No problem. Let them.

Those of us who are capable will side-step their system with a decentralized knowledge age.

This is evolution at work. Survival-of-the-fittest. The weak will cull themselves.

l3552 was not perhaps not very diplomatic but he was essentially arguing that your error is not one of intellect but of metaphysics.

It is entirely inefficient to bog myself down trying to convince leftists that their strategy is not humane, bankrupting, etc.. They are free to choose. I'd rather focus my effort on achieving and promoting the values that I think are valuable.

“It amazes that otherwise bright people can’t understand the simple concept that economic collapse doesn’t convert collectivists into anarchists.”

Fix your life? Fix your metaphysics
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/06/fix-your-life-fix-your-metaphysics.html

Metaphysics are your fundamental assumptions. These are chosen: they were chosen by you (although you probably weren't aware of choosing them, but just passively accepted them).

Fundamental assumptions are chosen - but they are not arbitrary; because the assumptions have consequences. You can choose whatever you want to believe - but sometimes you will not be able to make yourself live-by these chosen beliefs; and other times you will live by them (including thinking by them) such that they lead to nonsensical and therefore self-refuting outcomes.

The trouble is that in a world where people have stopped thinking- and when their assumptions lead to incoherent, nonsensical conclusions, instead of sorting-out their metaphysics - they just stop thinking (easier to do than ever before in human history - due to the ubiquity of mass media and social media).

Anyway - my point is that if you have certain (very common) assumptions, then you will either have a nihilistic, hope-less and despairing world view --- or else you will have to stop yourself thinking about anything serious.

There are innumerable commonly-held assumptions that lead to this: that Man has no free will, that the world is either random and unpredictable or else rigidly predetermined, that nothing exists except what has been described by 'science', that morality is a matter of opinion, that beauty is wholly in the eye of the beholder... oh, there are dozens of such.

Indeed, most of people's primary assumptions nowadays are of a type that lead to nonsensical or incoherent conclusions - so it is futile to complain about the low standard of rational public debate when rational debate is only possible on the basis that people are able and willing to examine and revise their assumptions when they lead to absurd outcomes.

Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

Whereas (as quickly becomes apparent in any disagreement) unless there is agreement on metaphysical assumptions then the cannot even be agreement on what counts as evidence, leave aside the matter of evaluating the strength of evidence...

The above is all very true and entirely consistent with what I have clarified for you about my stance above. I had independently come to the realization that many of my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values. I made compromises that seemed convenient but in the long-run defeated my value system (hopefully not for my entire life). Also my value system was wavering because it wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated in my mind, but more of a defacto hodgepodge of my upbringing (which itself was a hodgepodge of value systems).

But I'm sorry to Judaism, but I just don't think whether a cheeseburger or shawarma are kosher has any relevance whatsoever to my choice of metaphysics.

I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules and rituals just for some group evolutionary strategy.

I also thought many times in the past about being part of some group, but I know that I will always be pressured by the group into some values which I don't agree with. I think this violates my optimum degrees-of-freedom. I understand the rationality of benefiting from a group... but I just was never a conformist. I both suffered and benefited greatly in my life from being very independent minded. It is a tradeoff. Some people like to be part of a well defined group. About the extent of that for me was being the team member on sports team. Team werk I like, but even then I like that I am free to exit a morass and find a better situation. However, that doesn't mean I didn't keep fighting hard on a team that was an underdog or underperforming. I often saw that as an opportunity for me to try to excel and carry more load for the team. But only if I could make a difference. I do exit true morasses wherein I can't get any ROI on effort. In sports, every great play is seen regardless of the outcome of the game.

And I am not going to be a preacher or a disciple who tries to teach others how to find a good metaphysics. No that is all too inefficient for me, because people don't change much and the process is more of a group effect over many generations, i.e. a culture. I am accustomed to impacting millions of people by programming code within weeks or months. And I will continue to try to impact humanity for the better that way. That is one aspect of my metaphysics. Note in my youth I was sort of a counselor and tutor to my friends. So there was a time when I did that, and I probably would do it to people very close to me. But taking that role to public scope is not my choice of vocation.

I have always and will always try to help people, but those who bog me down will get passed over because they are retarding me from helping many more others. So this means I am not likely to give my life to save the life of a single Jew in WW2 if I felt I could do more good more efficiently by not doing that action. Yet I would certainly donate money (within my means) to help those in dire need. Yet I would sacrifice my life without much thought, for those who are close to me. I certainly agree with the commandments to always be helping some of the poor and I have been doing that my entire life. Even entirely bankrupt now (and even when I had been so sick with no end of the tunnel yet in sight wherein I might recover and become financially viable again), I continue to help the poor every week.

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

Edit: Here is an interesting little video that goes over the differences between Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRb7DhWS6Z8&list=PLhG1viERKhXfnbaJp2JlphCVX3OvewpFp

Your missed the most important difference here which is essentially one of centralization.

I didn't miss that, even though I didn't write it. How could I possibly miss that! You know I am all about identifying decentralization structure.

Judaism as opposed to most religions lacks a centralized authority.

Afaik most religions don't have a centralized authority Christianity doesn't. Islam has different sects also. And apparently the Rabbis centralized one of the Jewish sects by controlling the writing down and the ongoing interpretation of the Talmud. Wasn't it that aspect which Jesus rebelled against?

Although historically they once had a Great Sanhedrin which served this function nothing of the kind currently exists. Instead each synagogue functions independently under the direction of a Rabbi. Karaite challenges Rabbinic authority placing responsibility entirely on the individual.

Except when eating a Shawarma?

Note I realize that Jews may have a higher rate of success in life due to the strong self-discipline in their culture. I had been into self-discipline in many facets. For example I am probably more self-disciplined in correct diet and exercise than most people (including perhaps many Jews). But lapses in one area of self-discipline can crash one's life. I have experienced this failure, so it would be hubris of me to say that I don't need to be more aware of guidance on self-discipline.

[BADecker]

Was the creation accomplished in 6 days... plus a following day of rest?

From the standpoint of our simple determinations, we do not know because we were not there, and there are way too many things that could have happened that are way beyond our ability to determine.

For example. The whole plan of the universe existed in the mind of God "before" He started creation. Since God used a tiny amount of His great strength to create the universe, the fact that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars... and the fact that the 24-hour day existed before the scribing of the planetary action by which we understand the 24-hour day... shows that God's power carried everything just as He had it written down in the Bible, no matter how we want to delude ourselves into thinking things happened.

Yet by the same logic is it not possible that events occurred as written in Genesis but human understanding is simply incapable of fully grasping them? Perhaps we were given knowledge that is true yet simplified to a level that enabled us to have some basic understanding of a process that is simply beyond us? We had a discussion along these lines earlier.

I always liked how God created light on the first day, and the sun and stars (which make the light, and the 24-hr day) on day 4...  That's quite a magic trick!

...

If I were God... I'd probably create the sun, stars and light all at the same time... and then I'd create plants afterwards... but that's just me... perhaps I'm smarter than God... perhaps a 5th grader could tell you that you can't create light before stars...

You can't create light before stars... are you sure about that?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed

Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.

According to current scientific models there was hundreds of thousands of years of light without stars.

Genesis 1-3:

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Perhaps when scientists add all kinds of other theories and ideas, their model will change. They do have some serious science fiction there, or a religion if they believe it in the face of it not having been proven true.

My point is that God is unlimited in what He can do.

In the New Testament, God tells us, through Jesus, that not one jot or tittle will fall from the law until everything is fulfilled. This might mean that all the laws of physics will remain stable until the time of the end. But the "time" of the beginning is before physics was set up in its entirety.

We don't have the info necessary to see what things were like before physics was set up. We can only take God at His word, or remain without knowledge and guess instead.

[iamnotback]

This might mean that all the laws of physics will remain stable until the time of the end. But the "time" of the beginning is before physics was set up in its entirety.

We don't have the info necessary to see what things were like before physics was set up.

The law of thermodynamics is implicitly fundamental. It can't be any other way, unless past and future become undifferentiated but then everything is static.

[CoinCube]

I...seem to be...committing myself to... the impossibility of any objective measure of... Truth.

...

Thus I am... free to choose... values/ethics.. I feel...benefits me.

...

I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules

...

group... values... violate... my optimal degrees-of-freedom.

...


my value system... wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated

...

my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values

...

I ... suffered ... greatly in my life

I have reduced your argument to its core premises and conclusions. It is for you to decide if further reflection is warranted.

[CoinCube]

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

It may be highly unwise to dismiss proper interpretation of religious dietary restrictions as illusion or meaningless "group think".

See:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg17252945#msg17252945

[ovvidiy]

I don't believe in Darwin's theory! I do not believe man came from apes, and other monkeys not turning into people. I think that landed on the Ground some meteorite and brought life. And how it has adapted and mutated it already another thing.

[iamnotback]

I...seem to be...committing myself to... the impossibility of any objective measure of... Truth.

...

Thus I am... free to choose... values/ethics.. I feel...benefits me.

...

I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules

...

group... values... violate... my optimal degrees-of-freedom.

...


my value system... wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated

...

my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values

...

I ... suffered ... greatly in my life

I have reduced your argument to its core premises and conclusions. It is for you to decide if further reflection is warranted.

That is bullshit that you gutted the context. For example when I stated that I am free to choose a set of values, it is in large part because there either wasn't a well defined value system in my family (upbringing) or it was a hodgepodge of values that wasn't working for my nuclear family. Thus why would I emulate/continue what wasn't working? To quote that out of context and try to insinuate that I think I should change my value system willynilly, is disingenuous discussion. It is also spiteful and hateful to intentionally try to take advantage of another person's life situation and intentionally attempt to twist the meaning of what they have written to serve your selfish aspirations to defend the absolutist morals of some faith. I conveyed that I am trying to more clearly understand what my value system is and should be. I understand you think that without subjugating myself to a Christian God, then I will suffer. Did the Jews not suffer in the Holocaust because they choose a religion which caused them to be targeted. It is absolute bullshit to judge another person this way. You aren't even close to reaching ethical and spiritual Zen with that stance. It may be true the allegation that the Jews lack the insight of Jesus. They think they are the chosen ones. Lol. Btw, I wasn't criticizing the Jews. I was saying that I wouldn't want to submit to a religion which tries to control my diet and they can't even agree on the interpretation between different sects. But those who want to choose that are free to do so. I have no desire to tell them not to or to try to criticize them. But if I am sharing about what I would choose for myself, I can speak honestly.

Afaics, you are moralizing and judging (probably because you observe that I have vacated the foundation of your value system of an absolute truth, therefor you must attack mine). Please read Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.

I really "enjoyed" (more correct term may be 'riveted by') this movie Finding Home last night:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3319398/videoplayer/vi2310911513?ref_=tt_ov_vi  (there is a trailer video)
http://www.findinghomefilm.com/about/film/
http://corneredglobe.com/finding-home-cambodias-prostitution-epidemic/

It is available on Netflix.

It was interesting on many levels, most of which is just the emotional connection to the girls and their sadness, hardships, and triumphs. But it was also interesting the negative role that religion played in their debacle.

There are many different religions, because there is no absolute truth. We typically pick a set of values that make sense within your family background, culture, and what we and the people we love can believe in.

The Jews have a strong discipline and culture, and they have the right to think very highly of it because it is quite successful for them. But it does have the the downside that they alienate the goyim and there has been at least one purge already because the Jews are seen as outsiders or parasites. I am not saying I agree with the Nazis but it is a risk one takes when choosing to be a Jew. So if you can judge me and say that my problems in life are due to my choices in life including my choice of value system, then I can also turn that mirror back on the Jews and say they reaped what they sowed in Nazi Germany. I am not that judgmental so as to blame their deaths on their choice of religion, but if you are going to really want to look at the speck of dust in my eye, perhaps you may want to check if there is plank of wood in your own. We were having a discussion here about the science and facts. I merely opened up and shared my viewpoints at this time. I guess that turned into an attack on me personally, when we were supposed to be discussing systems not personal triumphs and failures.

No choice of value system and culture is free. There are tradeoffs. Because there are no absolutes.

There is no system which would bring absolute harmony to mankind. The human ecosystem is just like nature. Diversity is important for evolutionary resiliency.

Any group which thinks it has the absolute moral correctness, is already by definition an immoral system IMO.

The challenge and problem of recognizing this reality, is to establish a firm individual value system that can be successful. This is a very big challenge, because avoiding the question of a value system can leave one rudderless and prone to falling into unsuccessful diversions.

My strong distaste for the leftist religion is because they attempt to bind those outside their choice of religion to obligations that their religion deems important. They are not minding their own business. Any religion which does not respect the freewill of others to choose their own value system, is IMO the greatest evil.


While we are pontificating, those (I presume GOYIM) Americans in that video above are actually doing something for those girls in Cambodia. How many Jews are there actually doing something?

Yesterday I took young boys from the squalor area to go play basketball on a nice court. Tomorrow (actually today, it is 2am) I send some money to help some very young kids who live in squalor have a Xmas experience. I am not normally talking in public about what I am doing in this respect (I did document the donations after typhoon Yolanda for tax reasons in case IRS would try to insinuate I pocketed money). Please don't incite me to. The Bible instructs to not let our other hand know what the other hand is giving to the poor.