Jump to content

Semmelweis Reflex


Recommended Posts

A brief introduction. If questions are allowed in the introduction forum I would be happy to answer them. 
 
I'm an irreligious Bible believer, meaning I'm not a part of any organized religion. My beliefs are based upon Bible study and removal of the pagan influence of Judaism and Christianity; for example, the cross from Tammuz and Constantine, hell from Milton and Dante, immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, Christmas from the winter solstice and Dickens, and Easter from Astarte. Also I respect other beliefs and lack thereof and hope we can have some interesting discussions. I have a thick skin and I'm not here to judge or convert anyone. 
 
I don't consider myself a Christian per say, since I haven't been a part of any religion and therefore can't have been baptized. Nevertheless I am, though a sinner, a disciple of Christ. That hasn't been an easy journey and I kind of suck at it, but I keep trying. 
 
I've been reading some posts here and it looks like I'm really going to like it here. It looks like a real nice forum with interesting people. 
 
You can call me SR or by my real name, David. Semmelweis Reflex comes from a website I started about a month ago but don't know if I will do anything with. After many years of religious discussion on forums like this and working on my own websites over the years I took a detour from religion and did some research in medicine. 
 
Thanks for your time, 
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

 

Hell, at least. is not from Dante and Milton. There are numerous references to it in Church fathers in the first five, six centuries abd debates about it. Also Islam has this idea from the beggining.

.   But why do you view the Bible as a source of authority?  While rejecting so much from the traditions that actually preserved it? Why is your interpretation better than, let's say, Basil of Caesarea? He did live much closer to the events - 4-5 century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

Hello there.

 

 

Hell, at least. is not from Dante and Milton. There are numerous references to it in Church fathers in the first five, six centuries abd debates about it. Also Islam has this idea from the beggining.

.   But why do you view the Bible as a source of authority?  While rejecting so much from the traditions that actually preserved it? Why is your interpretation better than, let's say, Basil of Caesarea? He did live much closer to the events - 4-5 century.

 

Hello, and thanks for the response.

 

You are absolutely right. Hell isn't from Dante and Milton just as Christmas isn't from Dickens, but was popularized and therefore introduced into apostate Christian teachings by those people. Mythologies and facts are temporal. They are weaved together in a sort of tapestry that spans the steady stream of time. Both quixotic and mundane. Words are like that as well. So, Moses used the Hebrew sheohl (transliteration sheol) and Peter used the Greek haides (transliteration hades) as the unseen resting place of the dead. The common grave. The King James Version translated those words as hell, which meant, at that time, a covered place. For example, helling potatoes meant putting them underground as in a cellar. Helling a house meant to cover a portion with tile. A book heller was the one putting the final cover on a book. Similar words from the same root are shell, hull (covering of a nut or portion of a ship). Heal is the covering of a wound, hill is a covering of dirt or rock on flat ground, hole is an uncovering. 

 

To the Buddhist or Hinduist hell would be either a temporary place of moral refining, of rebirth, or an underworld where demons torment the immortal souls of the dead.  

 

Peter used the Greek Tartarus as a condition of debasement. It existed in heaven where the disobedient angels who forsook their spirit form and became men, producing the Nephilim prior to the flood. (2 Peter 2:4; Genesis 6:1-4; Ephesians 6:10-12; Jude 1:6) The word literally means the lowest place, but Greek philosophers before Peter's time used it as a literal place of torment. Homer's Iliad, for example.  

 

The Greek word Gehenna was also translated as hell. It's a literal place - a valley South and South-West of ancient Jerusalem; the modern day Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom), a deep, narrow valley. 

 

Here is an article from an old website of mine on the web archive further explaining it if you are interested. It's a bit wonky because they don't publish images or css exactly as it appeared but it still works. Hell On Pathway Machine

 

Edited to add the following: I got so excited I forgot to answer the second part of your response. My interpretation is the best for me at this time. I may take into consideration any data available to me and completely change my mind. I think interpretation is a sort of personal responsibility.

 

As for Basil of Caesarea, the fourth century is when apostasy really began to take over Christian thinking. Constantine the Great's influence on traditional Christianity, in 325 CE is similar to that of Alexander the Great's influence on Jewish thinking in the summer of 332 BCE. These influences are pretty well documented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Hello, and thanks for the response.

 

You are absolutely right. Hell isn't from Dante and Milton just as Christmas isn't from Dickens, but was popularized and therefore introduced into apostate Christian teachings by those people. Mythologies and facts are temporal. They are weaved together in a sort of tapestry that spans the steady stream of time. Both quixotic and mundane. Words are like that as well. So, Moses used the Hebrew sheohl (transliteration sheol) and Peter used the Greek haides (transliteration hades) as the unseen resting place of the dead. The common grave. The King James Version translated those words as hell, which meant, at that time, a covered place. For example, helling potatoes meant putting them underground as in a cellar. Helling a house meant to cover a portion with tile. A book heller was the one putting the final cover on a book. Similar words from the same root are shell, hull (covering of a nut or portion of a ship). Heal is the covering of a wound, hill is a covering of dirt or rock on flat ground, hole is an uncovering. 

 

To the Buddhist or Hinduist hell would be either a temporary place of moral refining, of rebirth, or an underworld where demons torment the immortal souls of the dead.  

 

Peter used the Greek Tartarus as a condition of debasement. It existed in heaven where the disobedient angels who forsook their spirit form and became men, producing the Nephilim prior to the flood. (2 Peter 2:4; Genesis 6:1-4; Ephesians 6:10-12; Jude 1:6) The word literally means the lowest place, but Greek philosophers before Peter's time used it as a literal place of torment. Homer's Iliad, for example.  

 

The Greek word Gehenna was also translated as hell. It's a literal place - a valley South and South-West of ancient Jerusalem; the modern day Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom), a deep, narrow valley. 

 

Here is an article from an old website of mine on the web archive further explaining it if you are interested. It's a bit wonky because they don't publish images or css exactly as it appeared but it still works. Hell On Pathway Machine

 

Edited to add the following: I got so excited I forgot to answer the second part of your response. My interpretation is the best for me at this time. I may take into consideration any data available to me and completely change my mind. I think interpretation is a sort of personal responsibility.

 

As for Basil of Caesarea, the fourth century is when apostasy really began to take over Christian thinking. Constantine the Great's influence on traditional Christianity, in 325 CE is similar to that of Alexander the Great's influence on Jewish thinking in the summer of 332 BCE. These influences are pretty well documented.

      Dante and Milton in the West maybe. I do not think their influence in the East was that great, and Hell was highly agreed upon doctrine in the East well before them.

    Well, before Constantine there were also tens if not hundreds of sects. These are as well documented. Disagreements between Christianity are as old as it is. Mentions of "heresy" ( such a loaded word) are in the Epistles.

    Why do you think interpretation is a personal responsability and your interpretation is the best. Legititimate question. What standard of hermeneutics are you using ? Like, why do you think Constantine is a heretic, and you have the right interpretation and not the other way around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

      Dante and Milton in the West maybe. I do not think their influence in the East was that great, and Hell was highly agreed upon doctrine in the East well before them.

    Well, before Constantine there were also tens if not hundreds of sects. These are as well documented. Disagreements between Christianity are as old as it is. Mentions of "heresy" ( such a loaded word) are in the Epistles.

    Why do you think interpretation is a personal responsability and your interpretation is the best. Legititimate question. What standard of hermeneutics are you using ? Like, why do you think Constantine is a heretic, and you have the right interpretation and not the other way around?

 

The traditional Christian teaching of hell comes from the Chaldeans long before the Bible was written. The writers of the Bible didn't teach it but it was adopted later by apostate Christianity. How do I know this? By researching. That teaching postulates that the immortal soul of the wicked is tormented literally forever in a fiery demon inhabited nether region. The Bible says the soul is mortal. It dies. (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and it says that the wages of sin is death. We are acquitted of our sins upon death. (Romans 6:7, 23)

 

Interpretation is a personal responsibility because you are personally responsible for it. Mine is the best because it's mine. That goes back to research. Your personal interpretation is yours alone and is also based upon a similar methodology. I'm not saying one is right or the other wrong. It's very simple. My conclusion is based upon the data I've found and yours is based upon the data you've found. 

 

I think that Constantine was apostate because he was pontifex maximus and served as such as late as only three days before his death. His motives were political and he rewarded those under his influence with prestige, power and wealth. He was a sun god worshipper, his symbol the phallic cross which originated with Nimrod, known as the Sumerian king Dumuzi (Tammuz of Ezekiel chapter 8). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello David.

 

I find it wryly amusing that your posts have been moved to the Debating area of this forum.

 

Especially in the light of what you say here.

 

Interpretation is a personal responsibility because you are personally responsible for it. Mine is the best because it's mine. That goes back to research. Your personal interpretation is yours alone and is also based upon a similar methodology. I'm not saying one is right or the other wrong. It's very simple. My conclusion is based upon the data I've found and yours is based upon the data you've found. 

 

How can your interpretations possibly be debated if the only standard of interpretation you'll accept is your own?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Hello David.

 

I find it wryly amusing that your posts have been moved to the Debating area of this forum.

 

Especially in the light of what you say here.

 

Interpretation is a personal responsibility because you are personally responsible for it. Mine is the best because it's mine. That goes back to research. Your personal interpretation is yours alone and is also based upon a similar methodology. I'm not saying one is right or the other wrong. It's very simple. My conclusion is based upon the data I've found and yours is based upon the data you've found. 

 

How can your interpretations possibly be debated if the only standard of interpretation you'll accept is your own?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I'm not sure how to answer that. On one hand who's standard could I possibly have but my own? To answer your question I would have to say that my interpretations can be debated successfully by presenting me with the data which would make another's standard my own. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I'm not sure how to answer that. On one hand who's standard could I possibly have but my own? To answer your question I would have to say that my interpretations can be debated successfully by presenting me with the data which would make another's standard my own. 

 

 

Yes, it's quite a conundrum isn't it, David?

 

 

If two people have differing interpretations of the same thing, yet both believe that their own standard of interpretation is the best, what could be done?

 

I certainly don't know.

 

That's why I usually don't bother getting involved in 'debates' where a common standard hasn't been agreed upon.

 

So-called debates that are just clashes of personal preference are of no interest to me.

 

 

But, if someone were to present something objective and not just their subjective opinions, I might be interested.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 minutes ago, WalterP said:

But, if someone were to present something objective and not just their subjective opinions, I might be interested.

Most are only interested in "proving" their own view and mindset. An unbiased look at actual facts rarely happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, florduh said:

Most are only interested in "proving" their own view and mindset. An unbiased look at actual facts rarely happens.

 

Indeed.

 

Also, given that proofs only exist in mathematics and in logic, unless the cited evidence is mathematical or logical, nothing is actually 'proven'.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Yes, it's quite a conundrum isn't it, David?

 

I don't think so. 

 

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

If two people have differing interpretations of the same thing, yet both believe that their own standard of interpretation is the best, what could be done?

 

I certainly don't know.

 

Debate, of course.

 

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

That's why I usually don't bother getting involved in 'debates' where a common standard hasn't been agreed upon.

 

A common standard? You debate only if you agree with your opponent? The outcome is settled before the debate? That doesn't sound like debate to me. Debate is either an art form and the one winning isn't necessarily right nor the loser wrong, or debate is an effort to present the most logical argument. Either way sounds more like an exercise of the ego rather than a determination of a standard agreed upon. If the former then winning a debate is only ever established in the mind of the victor. Both sides. If the latter then the victor is likely only the one in agreement with the majority witnessing the façade of a debate.

 

I don't win many debates.

 

 

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

So-called debates that are just clashes of personal preference are of no interest to me.

 

But, if someone were to present something objective and not just their subjective opinions, I might be interested.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  35 minutes ago, WalterP said:    Yes, it's quite a conundrum isn't it, David?

I don't think so. 

  7 minutes ago, WalterP said:  If two people have differing interpretations of the same thing, yet both believe that their own standard of interpretation is the best, what could be done?  I certainly don't know.

 

Debate, of course.

 

Only if all participating parties agree that it is possible for them to lose the debate and that if they lose, it is incumbent upon them to discard their previous views and to adopt new ones.  If there is no willingness on their part to have their minds changed, then what is the point of debate?  Debating for debating's sake?  What's the point of that?

 

  7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

That's why I usually don't bother getting involved in 'debates' where a common standard hasn't been agreed upon.

 

A common standard? You debate only if you agree with your opponent? The outcome is settled before the debate? That doesn't sound like debate to me. Debate is either an art form and the one winning isn't necessarily right nor the loser wrong, or debate is an effort to present the most logical argument. Either way sounds more like an exercise of the ego rather than a determination of a standard agreed upon. If the former then winning a debate is only ever established in the mind of the victor. Both sides. If the latter then the victor is likely only the one in agreement with the majority witnessing the façade of a debate.

 

I don't win many debates.

No David.  The outcome is not what is settled before the debate.  What is settled and agreed upon by the debating parties beforehand are the terms and conditions under which the debate will take place.  What is admissible and what is not.  I do not consider matters of purely personal interpretation to be admissible in a debate because that is not a standard I would impose on anyone else.  

 

  7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

So-called debates that are just clashes of personal preference are of no interest to me.

But, if someone were to present something objective and not just their subjective opinions, I might be interested.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. 

 

 

 

 

Then it seems that we have nothing to debate, David.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WalterP said:
Only if all participating parties agree that it is possible for them to lose the debate and that if they lose, it is incumbent upon them to discard their previous views and to adopt new ones.  If there is no willingness on their part to have their minds changed, then what is the point of debate?  Debating for debating's sake?  What's the point of that?
 

 

That is why I said a successful debate is my willingness to accept the opposing interpretation based upon the data presented.  

 

 

13 minutes ago, WalterP said:

The outcome is not what is settled before the debate.  What is settled and agreed upon by the debating parties beforehand are the terms and conditions under which the debate will take place.  What is admissible and what is not.  I do not consider matters of purely personal interpretation to be admissible in a debate because that is not a standard I would impose on anyone else.  

 

If both sides had no personal interpretation there would be no need for the debate. All you are really saying is that you are doing precisely what you are implying I am doing. 

 

13 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Then it seems that we have nothing to debate, David.  

 

That much is obvious, but we needn't have agreed to that from the beginning, did we?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:
A brief introduction. If questions are allowed in the introduction forum I would be happy to answer them. 
 
I'm an irreligious Bible believer, meaning I'm not a part of any organized religion. My beliefs are based upon Bible study and removal of the pagan influence of Judaism and Christianity; for example, the cross from Tammuz and Constantine, hell from Milton and Dante, immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, Christmas from the winter solstice and Dickens, and Easter from Astarte. Also I respect other beliefs and lack thereof and hope we can have some interesting discussions. I have a thick skin and I'm not here to judge or convert anyone. 
 
I don't consider myself a Christian per say, since I haven't been a part of any religion and therefore can't have been baptized. Nevertheless I am, though a sinner, a disciple of Christ. That hasn't been an easy journey and I kind of suck at it, but I keep trying. 
 
I've been reading some posts here and it looks like I'm really going to like it here. It looks like a real nice forum with interesting people. 
 
You can call me SR or by my real name, David. Semmelweis Reflex comes from a website I started about a month ago but don't know if I will do anything with. After many years of religious discussion on forums like this and working on my own websites over the years I took a detour from religion and did some research in medicine. 
 
Thanks for your time, 
David

 

Welcome to our little corner of cyberspace.

 

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/eab87bcf-be30-4a11-8286-4fd6430b2d0e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

That is why I said a successful debate is my willingness to accept the opposing interpretation based upon the data presented.  

 

 

I can't square this statement with what you say about interpretation being a personal thing.

 

Scientists do not hold to their own, uniquely personal interpretations of what a star is, what an enzyme is or what a trilobite is.

 

They agree on a common frame of reference that is determined by the evidence, not by their personal choice.

 

If they want to debate about these things, then they do so within that commonly agreed framework.

 

Quote

 

If both sides had no personal interpretation there would be no need for the debate. All you are really saying is that you are doing precisely what you are implying I am doing. 

 

I have just demonstrated that debates can take place without the need for personal interpretation.

 

Quote

 

That much is obvious, but we needn't have agreed to that from the beginning, did we?

 

 

David, we cannot debate each other if you and I cannot agree upon the terms and conditions under which the debate should take place.

 

Just as scientists agree to exclude personal interpretation from their debates, so we must endeavour to do the same.

 

But if you reserve the right to interpret anything in any way you want, then there is only one standard to which you can be held.

 

Your own.

 

 

 

So why debate at all?

 

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Indeed.

 

Also, given that proofs only exist in mathematics and in logic, unless the cited evidence is mathematical or logical, nothing is actually 'proven'.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Proving something in a court of law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, midniterider said:

 

Proving something in a court of law?

 

I was talking about absolute proofs, midniterider.

 

Something 'proven' in a court of law is not an absolute proof because it might be overturned by forthcoming evidence.

 

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WalterP said:

 

I was talking about absolute proofs, midniterider.

 

Something 'proven' in a court of law is not an absolute proof because it might be overturned by forthcoming evidence.

 

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

 

Walter.

 

Hey, no fair trying to wiggle out of my word trap, buddy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:
A brief introduction. If questions are allowed in the introduction forum I would be happy to answer them. 
 
I'm an irreligious Bible believer, meaning I'm not a part of any organized religion. My beliefs are based upon Bible study and removal of the pagan influence of Judaism and Christianity; for example, the cross from Tammuz and Constantine, hell from Milton and Dante, immortal soul from Socrates, trinity from Plato, Christmas from the winter solstice and Dickens, and Easter from Astarte. Also I respect other beliefs and lack thereof and hope we can have some interesting discussions. I have a thick skin and I'm not here to judge or convert anyone. 
 
I don't consider myself a Christian per say, since I haven't been a part of any religion and therefore can't have been baptized. Nevertheless I am, though a sinner, a disciple of Christ. That hasn't been an easy journey and I kind of suck at it, but I keep trying. 
 
I've been reading some posts here and it looks like I'm really going to like it here. It looks like a real nice forum with interesting people. 
 
You can call me SR or by my real name, David. Semmelweis Reflex comes from a website I started about a month ago but don't know if I will do anything with. After many years of religious discussion on forums like this and working on my own websites over the years I took a detour from religion and did some research in medicine. 
 
Thanks for your time, 
David

 

So do you believe Jesus is real? Alive? And if so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, midniterider said:

 

Hey, no fair trying to wiggle out of my word trap, buddy. :)

 

I don't mind fessing up to not being as careful as I should have been.

 

Kudos to you for keeping me honest.

 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

I was talking about absolute proofs, midniterider.

 

Something 'proven' in a court of law is not an absolute proof because it might be overturned by forthcoming evidence.

 

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

 

Walter.

 

Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. Science is self correcting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

So do you believe Jesus is real? Alive? And if so, why?

 

Real? Yes. Alive? No. At least not in the human form he was known as. He was a spirit creature prior to and following that human form. Why? The evidence I've gathered leads me to conclude this. It's faith. Belief. Anecdotal evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. Science is self correcting. 

 

Are you suggesting that belief systems should not be self correcting?

 

That, in the face of persuasive evidence, a person should not change their beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WalterP said:

 

Are you suggesting that belief systems should not be self correcting?

 

That, in the face of persuasive evidence, a person should not change their beliefs?

 

No, I'm not saying that. Thus my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Welcome to our little corner of cyberspace.

 

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/eab87bcf-be30-4a11-8286-4fd6430b2d0e

 

Now that song is stuck in my head. Found myself rummaging through the fridge whistling it. 

 

Thanks for the welcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.