Q: Can the mind-set of the biblically minded be generalized that they are better understood in some coherent context?
For example.
Are they generally heterosexual?
Do they consider YHWH to be Masculine in their imagery of HIM?
Do they idolize the Bible?
What other general characteristics can be added to this list, re the OPQ?
*Thanks to nobspeople for the inspiration for the thread question
The Biblically Minded
Moderator: Moderators
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #41The Great Pumpkin is the first thing that comes to mind for me.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #42And probably just as close to the truth as any.
.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #43A prime advantage of the heavenly gourd is that you only have to worry about it a few weeks each year. Once you get to Thanksgiving you're home free until next fall. Some forms of YHWH induce worry every day of the year especially on Saturday or Sunday or whatever day it is your supposed to do nothing at all or all kinds of stuff depending on what one interprets the rules to be and on which day your supposed to do nothing or a bunch of things.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 3552 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #44Exactly. The idea of a Cosmic Intelligence behind it all is and undisprovable claim and may be true, even though those who believe in some Sortagod Irreligious theists) tend to regard as 'evidence' what is actually instinctive and limited human thinking, like seeing a natural thing and supposing a huge invisible human (or cosmic mind) had made it.
They look at a sky full of stars and demand 'how could that come about unless a big invisible human made it?' But if they understood the subatomic complexity of a pebble they could ask themselves the same question, but because it is not big and awesome, they don't. They may point to a tree, or a bird or the human bod and see 'design', but do they suppose that a Cosmic Mind designs and makes each snowflake? Quite apart from the compelling morphological evidence for an evolutionary process in all things, the creationist argument is unsound and invalid, and the mindset is such that it want to reject any explanation that undermines it, like quadrapedal morphology in birds and whales, the relative simplicity of the generic switching system (rather than it being some adunaic -code software -language) and the validity of the abiogenesis hypothesis.
I didn't mention the Cosmic heavy elements or the evolutionary process found in stratified sequence, because all the above is about the case for a cosmic mind of some kind and how it isn't as good as sortagoddits suppose, but is undisprovable and possible, and it isn't about the Biblical mindset (and even that isn't always Young Earthist) but is (or should be, logically, non religious.
Of course even Hindus use the term 'God' to denote the non -Biblical mind behind everything, and one could equally say Krishna, Santa or the Great Pumpkin. The Biblical as distinct from the Sortagoddist (irreligious Theist) mindset relates the evidence for a Cosmic Mind to the terms, claims and poetic passages of the Bible. The irreligious theist doesn't (1). And of course atheist (or irreligious) physicists can use the term 'God' metaphorically to refer to physics, existence or the unknown, and I wish they didn't, as theists have persistently leaped on that to insist that the smartest minds were God -believers, even if .not 'Bible' - god believers.
Because the Biblical mindset that is so problematical is this assumption that the god of their particular religion is the true one and all the Cosmic Origins arguments are aimed at this Bible -god ("Leap of Faith"). Which is why Allah is so handy, as one day I am going to play along with the Cosmic Origins argument and declare myself convinced that a Mind made everything, and then I'll say I'll start reading the Quran tomorrow.
"No, no, it's Jehovah, the God of the Bible, is the true one."
Which is what the argument should have been in the first place, as the Cosmic origins argument and the religious argument are two different arguments, just as Religion and evolution is unrelated though the Biblical mindset seems to have been talked into believing that one cannot be a Christian unless they believe Genesis to be factual and 'Evilooshun' wrong. But of course, Muslims use Cosmic Origins and evolution -denial to argue for Islam, too.
(1) or maybe they do, and the 'refusal to use the Bible' as part of the argument instead of just pushing Cosmic origins arguments may be because it hasn't gone well for them in the past, or they may be cultural/political Christians, maintaining the Bible they don't believe in because it is the best barrier or defence against the politics they dislike. I've come across that often enough.
They look at a sky full of stars and demand 'how could that come about unless a big invisible human made it?' But if they understood the subatomic complexity of a pebble they could ask themselves the same question, but because it is not big and awesome, they don't. They may point to a tree, or a bird or the human bod and see 'design', but do they suppose that a Cosmic Mind designs and makes each snowflake? Quite apart from the compelling morphological evidence for an evolutionary process in all things, the creationist argument is unsound and invalid, and the mindset is such that it want to reject any explanation that undermines it, like quadrapedal morphology in birds and whales, the relative simplicity of the generic switching system (rather than it being some adunaic -code software -language) and the validity of the abiogenesis hypothesis.
I didn't mention the Cosmic heavy elements or the evolutionary process found in stratified sequence, because all the above is about the case for a cosmic mind of some kind and how it isn't as good as sortagoddits suppose, but is undisprovable and possible, and it isn't about the Biblical mindset (and even that isn't always Young Earthist) but is (or should be, logically, non religious.
Of course even Hindus use the term 'God' to denote the non -Biblical mind behind everything, and one could equally say Krishna, Santa or the Great Pumpkin. The Biblical as distinct from the Sortagoddist (irreligious Theist) mindset relates the evidence for a Cosmic Mind to the terms, claims and poetic passages of the Bible. The irreligious theist doesn't (1). And of course atheist (or irreligious) physicists can use the term 'God' metaphorically to refer to physics, existence or the unknown, and I wish they didn't, as theists have persistently leaped on that to insist that the smartest minds were God -believers, even if .not 'Bible' - god believers.
Because the Biblical mindset that is so problematical is this assumption that the god of their particular religion is the true one and all the Cosmic Origins arguments are aimed at this Bible -god ("Leap of Faith"). Which is why Allah is so handy, as one day I am going to play along with the Cosmic Origins argument and declare myself convinced that a Mind made everything, and then I'll say I'll start reading the Quran tomorrow.
"No, no, it's Jehovah, the God of the Bible, is the true one."
Which is what the argument should have been in the first place, as the Cosmic origins argument and the religious argument are two different arguments, just as Religion and evolution is unrelated though the Biblical mindset seems to have been talked into believing that one cannot be a Christian unless they believe Genesis to be factual and 'Evilooshun' wrong. But of course, Muslims use Cosmic Origins and evolution -denial to argue for Islam, too.
(1) or maybe they do, and the 'refusal to use the Bible' as part of the argument instead of just pushing Cosmic origins arguments may be because it hasn't gone well for them in the past, or they may be cultural/political Christians, maintaining the Bible they don't believe in because it is the best barrier or defence against the politics they dislike. I've come across that often enough.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #45[Replying to Miles in post #40]
Nice I guess, but I fail to see the relevance.
YHWH is within all creation, and as such, depending upon the nature of the form YHWH occupies, depends upon the information the form can receive.
A Galaxy, a planet...a biological form...So what different kinds of form can YHWH occupy?
-
- Sage
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 225 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #46For Christians Greek is the original language, just as much as Hebrew is. Christian theology about the Holy Spirit comes much more from the New Testament than from the Hebrew scriptures. That said, “Holy Spirit” is usual gender neutral in Greek. Except for the masculine pronoun, Christians rarely (I cannot think of a single instance) use masculine imagery for the holy Spirit.Goat wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:15 pm I am sure you consider the Holy Spirit as part of god. Did you know in the original Hebrew, the term 'holy spirit' is feminine? It usually is used when God is doing the act of creation. Thus, the phrase 'God made man in his own image, male and female he made them' indicates that according to the Jewish scriptures, God has both male and female attributes, thus, mankind is created both male and female.
The reason that you are only aware of God to be masculine is that the Greek, and then later the Latin had 'holy spirit' as masculine, yet in the original language , it was feminine.
I also stated that Christians do not consider God to be masculine (as opposed to feminine).
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin
-Charles Darwin
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #47Well, Christians took a lot of things from the Greek Translations, but translations are not always accurate. There are assumptions made by the early Christians about what is written , because of the ministrations. It shows that the attitudes shift to much more patriarchal, due to the language shift.bjs1 wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 12:23 amFor Christians Greek is the original language, just as much as Hebrew is. Christian theology about the Holy Spirit comes much more from the New Testament than from the Hebrew scriptures. That said, “Holy Spirit” is usual gender neutral in Greek. Except for the masculine pronoun, Christians rarely (I cannot think of a single instance) use masculine imagery for the holy Spirit.Goat wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:15 pm I am sure you consider the Holy Spirit as part of god. Did you know in the original Hebrew, the term 'holy spirit' is feminine? It usually is used when God is doing the act of creation. Thus, the phrase 'God made man in his own image, male and female he made them' indicates that according to the Jewish scriptures, God has both male and female attributes, thus, mankind is created both male and female.
The reason that you are only aware of God to be masculine is that the Greek, and then later the Latin had 'holy spirit' as masculine, yet in the original language , it was feminine.
I also stated that Christians do not consider God to be masculine (as opposed to feminine).
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 3552 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #48I bet they do. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a colleague and i observed that applying gender to a god (name your own) was rather absurd. It should logically be gender neutral. She replied that this was 'disrespectful' to God. This was a woman, mind in the 70's when Feminism was just getting it up the nose. Verily, verily, Faith in Christian Dogma messes with the head.bjs1 wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 12:23 amFor Christians Greek is the original language, just as much as Hebrew is. Christian theology about the Holy Spirit comes much more from the New Testament than from the Hebrew scriptures. That said, “Holy Spirit” is usual gender neutral in Greek. Except for the masculine pronoun, Christians rarely (I cannot think of a single instance) use masculine imagery for the holy Spirit.Goat wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:15 pm I am sure you consider the Holy Spirit as part of god. Did you know in the original Hebrew, the term 'holy spirit' is feminine? It usually is used when God is doing the act of creation. Thus, the phrase 'God made man in his own image, male and female he made them' indicates that according to the Jewish scriptures, God has both male and female attributes, thus, mankind is created both male and female.
The reason that you are only aware of God to be masculine is that the Greek, and then later the Latin had 'holy spirit' as masculine, yet in the original language , it was feminine.
I also stated that Christians do not consider God to be masculine (as opposed to feminine).
-
- Sage
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 225 times
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #49Did you call God “it”? If so, I would agree with your colleague that this was disrespectful. Every person I have ever encountered irl who has called God an “it” did so with the goal of being disrespectful (more to the believer they were talking to than to God). It is disrespectful to call a person “it.”* Even the modern non-binary gender movement recognizes a person is never an “it,” and saying so is disrespectful. They have taken the pronoun “they.”TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:24 am I bet they do. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a colleague and i observed that applying gender to a god (name your own) was rather absurd. It should logically be gender neutral. She replied that this was 'disrespectful' to God. This was a woman, mind in the 70's when Feminism was just getting it up the nose. Verily, verily, Faith in Christian Dogma messes with the head.
The pronoun “they” is problematic since a single person is not plural, but given the choice it was clear that “they” is preferable to “it.” Christians chose to resolve the issue by use the masculine pronoun “He” while recognizing that God is not literally male.
*”Person” in the philosophical sense, not in the more limited sense of “a human.”
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin
-Charles Darwin
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: The Biblically Minded
Post #50Calling God HE has biblical reasons:
Exo. 15:3 Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name.
The hebrew word used there (ish) means "a male, husband, ...", which of course does not mean that God has human gender, but that His personality is like masculine, manly, powerful in strength... and his relationship with his faithful universal family is like that of a husband, or Father in other aspects.
The personal pronoun used by Jesus (who is the Son of Jehovah and was at his side before becoming a human being) and by all the biblical writers to refer to Jehovah, is HE/HIM (3rd Person, Singular Masculine).
Exo. 15:3 Jehovah is a manly person of war. Jehovah is his name.
The hebrew word used there (ish) means "a male, husband, ...", which of course does not mean that God has human gender, but that His personality is like masculine, manly, powerful in strength... and his relationship with his faithful universal family is like that of a husband, or Father in other aspects.
The personal pronoun used by Jesus (who is the Son of Jehovah and was at his side before becoming a human being) and by all the biblical writers to refer to Jehovah, is HE/HIM (3rd Person, Singular Masculine).