The very last word about free will: There isn’t any!
A number of cosmologists (as opposed to cosmetologists who do your hair, makeup and nails) claim that an entire universe is spun off for every decision point ever made. There are multiple universes all over the place. There is one where Paul is not gay. There is one where Kathy is an atheist.
Therefore, if you are suffering from making spectacularly bad decisions, it merely means you are in the wrong universe: Somewhere, there is a better looking, happier, richer you living it up.
It also means that there are any number of versions of you living a much more miserable life in ways you probably can’t imagine. Count your blessings.
And in some of these universes you are already dead and have been for a long time.
Now then.
And assuming that all or any of this is true (it’s only science after all), what about Jesus?
How many universes are out there where there is no savior because Christ sinned or was never born at all?
It gives new meaning to his dying “once for all”.
Yes, I know I’m hilarious. People have told me that I’m a little funny, which I choose to interpret as a compliment.
Victoria, in regards to our previous convo on substances. Had a really intense night last night, now I remember why I had stopped doing this.
Definitely gives you different perceptions, but they are subjective. Still didn’t lead me closer to truth. just created a hyperactive mix of lucid impressions….
“Victoria, in regards to our previous convo on substances. Had a really intense night last night, now I remember why I had stopped doing this.”
Hey Ryan. It’s still early here, around 6:30AM and I’ve been up since 4:45AM, so I’ve still got cobwebs in my brain. You might have to refresh my memory about our last convo being about substances. I don’t recall us having a conversation of that nature regarding cannabis and alcohol.
Btw, I’d already seen all 3 of those videos you shared. That’s one of my favorite YT channels — I’m subbed, but I appreciate you taking the time to share them.
So what’s going on with you, my friend? Were you experimenting last night — trying to “cleans the doors of perception”? Did you combine both substances? That’s a nono. 😀
As far as “truth” goes, I will admit that I’m not into the search any more. I have a contentment, a peace I never had when I was a believer. Doesn’t mean that I am not curious or have no desire to understand the nature of reality. I do, which is why I have a passion for research, but I don’t have this intense drive to know “truth”. Been there, done that. Aged me. LOL
All things in moderation, Portal, including moderation – and abstention. I don’t do cannabis – can’t stand the stuff – but I DO have a theory on alcohol —
A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that get killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving.
In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells, but naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way regular consumption of alcohol eliminates the weakest brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few drinks.
well, the gay pride parade was like a thousand lesbians
and 500 baby carriages,
for real,
and only a handful of cute guys.
no nudity
the entertainment had technical issues the entire time and was torturing my ears,
young children running around everywhere.
the headline performer was a drag queen from back when I was 17,
38 yrs ago,
can you imagine? how tired is that??????
PORTAL
why must your god be so cruel?,
first Kathy and now this!
had it not been for the vast quantities of WEED and VODKA I had consumed,
I would have never survived a minute of it.
but I’m feeling you, man, I have quite a hangover,
but it doens’t make me want to turn to jeeezzzuuuussss!
I could make a long list, why dont we start here on nate’s blog? he has many things he has written about that also trouble me. why dont you peruse his blog list and pick the one you’d like to discuss?
The things currently on my mind would be things like the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7, the differences in the gospel accounts, the issues with Matthew 24 and the book of daniel… ”
William, you’ve let me know that you have an issue with me making accusations about dishonesty etc .. but if you wouldn’t do things that truly seem dishonest, then I wouldn’t make
the accusations.
I had asked for specifics on what you believe are contradictions.. I explained that I don’t have a lot of time / don’t want to waste a lot of time.. so chose a few.. you couldn’t have been more vague and asked for more of my time.. you DIDN’T give specifics, then you suggest I search Nate’s blog to select “your” contradictions.. this is game playing to me. And it’s blatantly dishonest.
What contradictions of Isaiah’s prophecy?? be specific! What “differences in the gospels? be specific! What issues with Matthew 24???
and kathy, maybe ruth is right, maybe it’s because you constantly misuse words that we’re not answering your questions to your satisfaction.
for instance, i’m not a liberal, yet you seem to keep lumping me in that category.”
William, if you or Nan or anyone here espouses non liberal views, I’ll gladly stop calling you
all liberals.. and I’ll apologize for calling you the name that clearly no one wants to be.
Dave, the KJV has been translated to the NIV. Both are in English.
Where did you hear that? Here’s what the preface to the NIV says:
For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout.”
That was another “stupid” assumption on my part.. but it actually makes my overall point about the DSS.. my mistake is the same one you are making.. you assume that any translations or “changes” that came after the DSSs is a change FROM the DSSs. And this is an incorrect assumption.
“I could understand “sons of the gods” being changed to “angels” in the LXX as perhaps a way of updating the language, but to then change to “sons of israel” in the MT is too big a change to use your “updating the language” theory. ”
Updated language isn’t my argument for “sons of Israel”.. it’s an interpretation argument.
“You didn’t answer my question.. what other parts of the song supports your interpretation?
Most of the song is about Yahweh, so there’s no need to talk about Elyon except towards the beginning when he is dividing up the nations. However, there is another reference to the other gods at the end of the song which I mentioned previously. The song ends with: Deut 32:43 – 4QDeut (DSS):
“Praise, O heavens, his people
Kneel before him, all you gods”
This was changed in the LXX to “you angels of God” and in the MT to “rejoice with his people”, another big change in the Masoretic Text.”
Why can’t this mean “angels of God”? And if Yahweh and Elyon are not the same God, what other scripture supports this belief? Again, I allude to the surrounding context and overall context of the Bible.. and also, again, the overwhelmingly obvious question that if there was an intent to deceive and change the “truth” of multiple gods.. then why did they allow so many to stay in the Bible??
“I’ll apologize for calling you the name that clearly no one wants to be.”
Quite the contrary – “liberal comes from the Latin stem, “liber,” which means “to free” – Liberals want progressive changes for the better, while conservatives want things to stay exactly as they are, or return to an earlier, even more repressive time.
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
• ( Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
• ( Liberal) (in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party : the Liberal leader.
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 [ attrib. ] (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
3 (esp. of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact : they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation.
4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts : liberal amounts of wine had been consumed.
• (of a person) giving generously : Sam was too liberal with the wine.
“Liberal” is a badge of honor that I will proudly wear.
Adjective: Resistant to change, unimaginatively conventional, non-progressive
Noun: A person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
Yup! I’m with you, Arch. I’d far rather be a Liberal (progressive, open to new ideas) than a Conservative (conformist, old-fashioned).
In fact, I think anyone who clings to their conservative views is eventually going to be left behind. They will scream and kick and hang on to their “traditional values” until their fingernail are bleeding, but eventually, the world is going to move on without them.
Kathy: “That was another “stupid” assumption on my part.. but it actually makes my overall point about the DSS.. my mistake is the same one you are making.. you assume that any translations or “changes” that came after the DSSs is a change FROM the DSSs. And this is an incorrect assumption.”
It’s not an incorrect assumption, it’s an assumption based on standard rules of scholarship. Just to put some perspective on this, here are some dating estimations for when the three different sources were written: DSS: 300 BCE to 100 CE, LXX: 200 BCE to 100 BCE, MT: 700 to 1000 CE. According to the two earliest sources, Yahweh is either one of the angels or one of the sons of god receiving the nation of Jacob as his inheritance. When you put in “sons of Israel” the two verses no longer make sense. I think it is a fair assumption to say that a scribe changed a word to try and cover up the polytheistic implications. To say that the most recent source by several hundreds of years is the correct one and that the two oldest sources are incorrect goes against all the basic rules of scholarship. Unless you’re a Christian scholar in which case you just pick whichever one works the best with your doctrines.
Updated language isn’t my argument for “sons of Israel”.. it’s an interpretation argument.
I’m not following you. Why should a scholar have any reason to make an interpretation if he is just copying Hebrew to Hebrew. Somewhere along the line somebody changed the Hebrew wording.
Nothing in the verses indicates that God was “leaving” an inheritance to Himself.. it just states that God’s portion was Israel.
No, it says that Yahweh’s portion was Israel, his inheritance, when Elyon was dividing up the nations.
From what we know about the canaanite pantheon, El or El Elyon was the chief god and had 70 sons that were also gods. Among these sons were Baal, Dagon, Molech and Chemosh. These gods are mentioned multiple times throughout the Old Testament. You admitted that the Israelites worshiped these “false” gods, but you didn’t really acknowledge what the Israelites actually believed about these gods. Does it make any sense to think that they knowingly worshiped false gods?
“According to the two earliest sources, Yahweh is either one of the angels or one of the sons of god receiving the nation of Jacob as his inheritance.”
Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?
“To say that the most recent source by several hundreds of years is the correct one and that the two oldest sources are incorrect goes against all the basic rules of scholarship. Unless you’re a Christian scholar in which case you just pick whichever one works the best with your doctrines.”
What rules support that the older texts are the correct texts or that they are the source for the newer texts?
“When you put in “sons of Israel” the two verses no longer make sense. I think it is a fair assumption to say that a scribe changed a word to try and cover up the polytheistic implications. ”
This is an assumption that the DSS are the correct text.. and you have no basis for this claim Dave. That they are the oldest we have doesn’t automatically make them right.. if a scribe can make a change from the DSS then a scribe could have made a change TO the DSS as well.
Finding Truth 
Paul, I hope that doesn’t mean STINK bomb!! 🙂
LikeLike
The very last word about free will: There isn’t any!
A number of cosmologists (as opposed to cosmetologists who do your hair, makeup and nails) claim that an entire universe is spun off for every decision point ever made. There are multiple universes all over the place. There is one where Paul is not gay. There is one where Kathy is an atheist.
Therefore, if you are suffering from making spectacularly bad decisions, it merely means you are in the wrong universe: Somewhere, there is a better looking, happier, richer you living it up.
It also means that there are any number of versions of you living a much more miserable life in ways you probably can’t imagine. Count your blessings.
And in some of these universes you are already dead and have been for a long time.
Now then.
And assuming that all or any of this is true (it’s only science after all), what about Jesus?
How many universes are out there where there is no savior because Christ sinned or was never born at all?
It gives new meaning to his dying “once for all”.
Yes, I know I’m hilarious. People have told me that I’m a little funny, which I choose to interpret as a compliment.
At least in this universe.
LikeLike
I’m pretty much satisfied with the one I’m in, it’s a whole lot better than the one I came from.
LikeLike
Victoria, in regards to our previous convo on substances. Had a really intense night last night, now I remember why I had stopped doing this.
Definitely gives you different perceptions, but they are subjective. Still didn’t lead me closer to truth. just created a hyperactive mix of lucid impressions….
I think I’ll go back to abstaining again
LikeLike
Also, I found this interesting 🙂
LikeLike
“Victoria, in regards to our previous convo on substances. Had a really intense night last night, now I remember why I had stopped doing this.”
Hey Ryan. It’s still early here, around 6:30AM and I’ve been up since 4:45AM, so I’ve still got cobwebs in my brain. You might have to refresh my memory about our last convo being about substances. I don’t recall us having a conversation of that nature regarding cannabis and alcohol.
Btw, I’d already seen all 3 of those videos you shared. That’s one of my favorite YT channels — I’m subbed, but I appreciate you taking the time to share them.
So what’s going on with you, my friend? Were you experimenting last night — trying to “cleans the doors of perception”? Did you combine both substances? That’s a nono. 😀
As far as “truth” goes, I will admit that I’m not into the search any more. I have a contentment, a peace I never had when I was a believer. Doesn’t mean that I am not curious or have no desire to understand the nature of reality. I do, which is why I have a passion for research, but I don’t have this intense drive to know “truth”. Been there, done that. Aged me. LOL
LikeLike
All things in moderation, Portal, including moderation – and abstention. I don’t do cannabis – can’t stand the stuff – but I DO have a theory on alcohol —
A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that get killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving.
In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells, but naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way regular consumption of alcohol eliminates the weakest brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few drinks.
LikeLike
LMAO
LikeLike
Hey Ryan, what Arch was saying was that when he drinks, he thinks clearly about nothing. 😀
LikeLike
One would think all that acid dripping off your fingertips would burn your keyboard —
LikeLike
Sorry Arch, never dropped or dripped acid in my life.
*wubbles*
LikeLike
LikeLike
Just injecting a little Sunday humor:
LikeLike
hmmm..joke’s on me, I guess. My comic didn’t post.
LikeLike
It looks like that cartoon was written with Kathy in mind!
LikeLike
haha, great turn the conversation took,
well, the gay pride parade was like a thousand lesbians
and 500 baby carriages,
for real,
and only a handful of cute guys.
no nudity
the entertainment had technical issues the entire time and was torturing my ears,
young children running around everywhere.
the headline performer was a drag queen from back when I was 17,
38 yrs ago,
can you imagine?
how tired is that??????
PORTAL
why must your god be so cruel?,
first Kathy and now this!
had it not been for the vast quantities of WEED and VODKA I had consumed,
I would have never survived a minute of it.
but I’m feeling you, man, I have quite a hangover,
but it doens’t make me want to turn to jeeezzzuuuussss!
LikeLike
Black Ops Mikey makes the most sense,
“string theory”,
cats love string
LikeLike
William,
“Kathy, that’s cool.
I could make a long list, why dont we start here on nate’s blog? he has many things he has written about that also trouble me. why dont you peruse his blog list and pick the one you’d like to discuss?
The things currently on my mind would be things like the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7, the differences in the gospel accounts, the issues with Matthew 24 and the book of daniel… ”
William, you’ve let me know that you have an issue with me making accusations about dishonesty etc .. but if you wouldn’t do things that truly seem dishonest, then I wouldn’t make
the accusations.
I had asked for specifics on what you believe are contradictions.. I explained that I don’t have a lot of time / don’t want to waste a lot of time.. so chose a few.. you couldn’t have been more vague and asked for more of my time.. you DIDN’T give specifics, then you suggest I search Nate’s blog to select “your” contradictions.. this is game playing to me. And it’s blatantly dishonest.
What contradictions of Isaiah’s prophecy?? be specific! What “differences in the gospels? be specific! What issues with Matthew 24???
LikeLike
William, cont..
“william
October 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm
and kathy, maybe ruth is right, maybe it’s because you constantly misuse words that we’re not answering your questions to your satisfaction.
for instance, i’m not a liberal, yet you seem to keep lumping me in that category.”
William, if you or Nan or anyone here espouses non liberal views, I’ll gladly stop calling you
all liberals.. and I’ll apologize for calling you the name that clearly no one wants to be.
LikeLike
Dave,
“Hi Kathy,
Dave, the KJV has been translated to the NIV. Both are in English.
Where did you hear that? Here’s what the preface to the NIV says:
For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout.”
That was another “stupid” assumption on my part.. but it actually makes my overall point about the DSS.. my mistake is the same one you are making.. you assume that any translations or “changes” that came after the DSSs is a change FROM the DSSs. And this is an incorrect assumption.
“I could understand “sons of the gods” being changed to “angels” in the LXX as perhaps a way of updating the language, but to then change to “sons of israel” in the MT is too big a change to use your “updating the language” theory. ”
Updated language isn’t my argument for “sons of Israel”.. it’s an interpretation argument.
“You didn’t answer my question.. what other parts of the song supports your interpretation?
Most of the song is about Yahweh, so there’s no need to talk about Elyon except towards the beginning when he is dividing up the nations. However, there is another reference to the other gods at the end of the song which I mentioned previously. The song ends with: Deut 32:43 – 4QDeut (DSS):
“Praise, O heavens, his people
Kneel before him, all you gods”
This was changed in the LXX to “you angels of God” and in the MT to “rejoice with his people”, another big change in the Masoretic Text.”
Why can’t this mean “angels of God”? And if Yahweh and Elyon are not the same God, what other scripture supports this belief? Again, I allude to the surrounding context and overall context of the Bible.. and also, again, the overwhelmingly obvious question that if there was an intent to deceive and change the “truth” of multiple gods.. then why did they allow so many to stay in the Bible??
”Can we just admit this passage is troubling?” Again, I refer you to this: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/sons-of-israel-or-sons-of-god-in-deuteronomy-328
I did read that Kathy, did you? It does not cover the point I made about the inheritance.”
Nothing in the verses indicates that God was “leaving” an inheritance to Himself.. it just states that God’s portion was Israel.
LikeLike
“I’ll apologize for calling you the name that clearly no one wants to be.”
Quite the contrary – “liberal comes from the Latin stem, “liber,” which means “to free” – Liberals want progressive changes for the better, while conservatives want things to stay exactly as they are, or return to an earlier, even more repressive time.
“Liberal” is a badge of honor that I will proudly wear.
LikeLike
CONSERVATIVE
Adjective: Resistant to change, unimaginatively conventional, non-progressive
Noun: A person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
Yup! I’m with you, Arch. I’d far rather be a Liberal (progressive, open to new ideas) than a Conservative (conformist, old-fashioned).
In fact, I think anyone who clings to their conservative views is eventually going to be left behind. They will scream and kick and hang on to their “traditional values” until their fingernail are bleeding, but eventually, the world is going to move on without them.
LikeLike
It’s not an incorrect assumption, it’s an assumption based on standard rules of scholarship. Just to put some perspective on this, here are some dating estimations for when the three different sources were written: DSS: 300 BCE to 100 CE, LXX: 200 BCE to 100 BCE, MT: 700 to 1000 CE. According to the two earliest sources, Yahweh is either one of the angels or one of the sons of god receiving the nation of Jacob as his inheritance. When you put in “sons of Israel” the two verses no longer make sense. I think it is a fair assumption to say that a scribe changed a word to try and cover up the polytheistic implications. To say that the most recent source by several hundreds of years is the correct one and that the two oldest sources are incorrect goes against all the basic rules of scholarship. Unless you’re a Christian scholar in which case you just pick whichever one works the best with your doctrines.
I’m not following you. Why should a scholar have any reason to make an interpretation if he is just copying Hebrew to Hebrew. Somewhere along the line somebody changed the Hebrew wording.
No, it says that Yahweh’s portion was Israel, his inheritance, when Elyon was dividing up the nations.
From what we know about the canaanite pantheon, El or El Elyon was the chief god and had 70 sons that were also gods. Among these sons were Baal, Dagon, Molech and Chemosh. These gods are mentioned multiple times throughout the Old Testament. You admitted that the Israelites worshiped these “false” gods, but you didn’t really acknowledge what the Israelites actually believed about these gods. Does it make any sense to think that they knowingly worshiped false gods?
LikeLike
[Why should a scholar have any reason..] – I meant to say scribe, not scholar.
LikeLike
“According to the two earliest sources, Yahweh is either one of the angels or one of the sons of god receiving the nation of Jacob as his inheritance.”
Can you post the passages again that you are using to make this assumption?
“To say that the most recent source by several hundreds of years is the correct one and that the two oldest sources are incorrect goes against all the basic rules of scholarship. Unless you’re a Christian scholar in which case you just pick whichever one works the best with your doctrines.”
What rules support that the older texts are the correct texts or that they are the source for the newer texts?
“When you put in “sons of Israel” the two verses no longer make sense. I think it is a fair assumption to say that a scribe changed a word to try and cover up the polytheistic implications. ”
This is an assumption that the DSS are the correct text.. and you have no basis for this claim Dave. That they are the oldest we have doesn’t automatically make them right.. if a scribe can make a change from the DSS then a scribe could have made a change TO the DSS as well.
LikeLike