Semmelweis Reflex

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

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

 

But, once again, we come back to my point, David.

 

If you reserve the right to interpret the evidence in any way you want, then it is unlikely that you will change your beliefs.

 

That was Florduh's point, earlier.

 

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

 

A personal interpretation of the evidence is unlikely to be an unbiased one.

 

More likely you will interpret the evidence in a way that avoids the need for you to change your beliefs.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

15 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

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.

 

I just wondered. You said, "Nevertheless I am, though a sinner, a disciple of Christ." I just wondered what you believe. 

 

We often get rabid fundamentalist believers here who hit us with eternal torture in Hell, a living Holy Spirit/Jesus/God, and try to coerce us back to the religion with fear, guilt, and shame. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

 

I'm a skeptic trying to avoid the appeal to authority.

 

40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

 

Which is why they aren't likely to debate those subjects. 

 

40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

 

If there isn't evidence for and against then there is no debate. 

 

40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

 

Okay if there is a debate between science and theology on how old the universe (the heavens and earth) what would be the commonly agreed framework? 

 

40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

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.

 

 

Interpreting anything in any way one wants wouldn't be personal responsibility of interpretation, it would be personal irresponsibility of interpretation. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

16 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

But, once again, we come back to my point, David.

 

If you reserve the right to interpret the evidence in any way you want, then it is unlikely that you will change your beliefs.

 

That was Florduh's point, earlier.

 

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

 

A personal interpretation of the evidence is unlikely to be an unbiased one.

 

More likely you will interpret the evidence in a way that avoids the need for you to change your beliefs.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I agree with @florduh which is why I lean towards debate generally being a façade having more to do with ego. It's human nature to be biased, all the more need for vigilance. It isn't easy changing my beliefs. I know from personal experience. The claim of God on one side and science on the other more often than not demonstrates this. 

 

That is why I don't buy it.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm beginning to think Mr. Semi-Wise here is just trolling us with his evasions and non-answers.

[SemmelweisReflex]

13 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I just wondered. You said, "Nevertheless I am, though a sinner, a disciple of Christ." I just wondered what you believe. 

 

We often get rabid fundamentalist believers here who hit us with eternal torture in Hell, a living Holy Spirit/Jesus/God, and try to coerce us back to the religion with fear, guilt, and shame. 

 

Well, they are idiots. I have been debating the Bible online for over a quarter of a century and from the very beginning I've avoided them like the plague. I much prefer atheists. The purpose of a disciple of Christ is to try and give an informed choice for anyone interested in the possibility of accepting or rejecting Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. The outcome (rejecting or accepting) is equally desirable so long as the informed choice is available.

 

But I'm not here for that. I'm here for practice. I learn from you as you challenge me. And the ego thing has something to do with it. If I can't be true to myself I can't be true to anyone else. Including Jehovah.   

 

My advise would be the same as I practice. Avoid organized religion at all cost! And there is no need for fear, guilt or shame if you reject Jehovah God. Especially if you don't do that out of ignorance, including the ignorance of the religious hypocrite.  

[SemmelweisReflex]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm beginning to think Mr. Semi-Wise here is just trolling us with his evasions and non-answers.

 

Do you really? I mean, do you?

 

Us? As a group? Think, as ask for clarification? I'm beginning to think that the Redneck Professor isn't at all interested in anything but his own evasion. 

 

These people aren't stupid. They know what you are getting at. 

[WalterP]

 

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

I'm a skeptic trying to avoid the appeal to authority.

 

  40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

Which is why they aren't likely to debate those subjects. 

 

Au contraire.  They can and do debate about these things because of your point below.  There is evidence for and against many things within astronomy, biology and palaeontology, as well as the other sciences.  But the scientists concerned are always careful to keep their interpretations of the evidence within a framework determined by the evidence, not determined by their personal choice.  The data tells us that the distance to Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away.  But if one astronomer choses to interpret the data to say that it is 43 light years distant and another interprets it to be 430, then their debate will go nowhere.  They have allowed their personal biases to override what the evidence says. The only way they can have a meaningful debate is to let the data have the final say, not their personal interpretation of it.  

 

  40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

 

If there isn't evidence for and against then there is no debate. 

 

See my comment above.

 

  40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

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

 

Okay if there is a debate between science and theology on how old the universe (the heavens and earth) what would be the commonly agreed framework? 

 

That would depend upon what was admissible evidence to both the scientists and the theologists.  

 

  40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

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.

Interpreting anything in any way one wants wouldn't be personal responsibility of interpretation, it would be personal irresponsibility of interpretation. 

 

That wasn't the impression your earlier comments made upon me, David.

 

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. 

 

These comments strongly imply that there are no right or wrong answers.  That one person's unique interpretation is just as valid as another's.  This puts personal, subjective interpretation first, above any objective standard.

 

 

There will now be lengthy pause before I respond to anything further, David.

 

It's almost midnight here and I must catch my beauty sleep.

 

Tomorrow.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

56 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

These people aren't stupid. They know what you are getting at. 

Indeed they are not.

[SemmelweisReflex]

Quote

They can and do debate about these things because of your point below.  There is evidence for and against many things within astronomy, biology and palaeontology, as well as the other sciences.  But the scientists concerned are always careful to keep their interpretations of the evidence within a framework determined by the evidence, not determined by their personal choice.

 

Agreed. The same should apply to anything. 

 

Quote

That would depend upon what was admissible evidence to both the scientists and the theologists.

 

Okay. From a theological perspective I would insist that what the Bible says would be the evidence of, simply, what the Bible says. I assume from a scientific perspective the framework you refer to above would be the acceptable evidence. For me to say that the Bible says nothing, directly or indirectly regarding the age of the heavens and earth would be a personally responsible interpretation.  I should be able to demonstrate that, and I can, but you could use the evidence of most theological scholars who would disagree with that. That wouldn't be a personally responsible interpretation on your part. You might be able to demonstrate what the scholars say but you wouldn't likely be able to demonstrate it yourself. You would appeal to authority. I could demonstrate the error in the scholarly consensus and I could even give you the weakness, if there were any, in my own argument, but you couldn't. You would be dependent upon the scholarly consensus which is, in the case of theology, more likely tradition than Biblical. The theological and the Biblical are not necessarily the same. 

 

If you took up the irresponsible position that the Bible isn't scientific because it conflicts with the evidence of the age of the universe, i.e. the heavens and earth, that would be even more irresponsible. At least without a demonstration that would have more to do with linguistics than science. 

 

All I'm saying is that we are personally responsible for our own interpretation. Based upon the evidence when confronted with bias.

 

 

Quote

That wasn't the impression your earlier comments made upon me, David.

 

My apologies, I should have been more specific. 

 

Quote

These comments strongly imply that there are no right or wrong answers.  That one person's unique interpretation is just as valid as another's.  This puts personal, subjective interpretation first, above any objective standard.

Well, right and wrong can be subjective and one's own unique interpretation is more valid than another's to that person. You can't choose what to believe but you can fool yourself into thinking that the conclusion you have drawn isn't biased. You aren't judged in God's eyes based upon your being right or wrong. God sees the heart. Semmelweis objected to the standard and was rejected for it. He was right. The standard was wrong.  

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Indeed they are not.

 

So am I evading questions or are you crying "troll" because you don't want me to be heard? How long do I have?  

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

So am I evading questions or are you crying "troll" because you don't want me to be heard? How long do I have?  

 

 

You are welcome to stay, and be heard, as long as you'd like.

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You are welcome to stay, and be heard, as long as you'd like.

 

Thanks, I appreciate that, but can I troll, man?! Can I troll? I think I feel more welcome in the Lion's Den. Maybe I'll just hang out there and do me and let you do you. The collective "you" that is. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Thanks, I appreciate that, but can I troll, man?! Can I troll?

I'd advise against it, if you do, in fact, wish to stay, and be heard.

[sdelsolray]

49 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Thanks, I appreciate that, but can I troll, man?! Can I troll? I think I feel more welcome in the Lion's Den. Maybe I'll just hang out there and do me and let you do you. The collective "you" that is. 

 

 

Welcome.  You claim to be a Christian except when you're not.  You have studied much.  You claim to have evidence supporting your beliefs and you called it faith.  You are obviously a dualist.  You stated you are here to practice.

 

I suggest you get to it.  Please state your claims and set forth your evidence.  Easy peasy.

[SemmelweisReflex]

27 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Welcome.  You claim to be a Christian except when you're not.  You have studied much.  You claim to have evidence supporting your beliefs and you called it faith.  You are obviously a dualist.  You stated you are here to practice.

 

I suggest you get to it.  Please state your claims and set forth your evidence.  Easy peasy.

 

Thanks for the welcome. I have never claimed to be a Christian, in fact I clearly stated that I wasn't. In order to be a Christian one must be baptized. I am not. The reason for that is there is no representative of Christianity who I deem not to be either false prophets (Jehovah's Witnesses) or apostate (everyone else). 

 

I have studied much. 

 

The Latin word credit means belief. Trust. It isn't wisely given unless it is deserved. My study tests the Bible and my faith. That practice is part of the reason I'm here. I also like to discuss and debate religion. 

 

I'm not a dualist. 

 

I am stating my claims and setting forth my evidence. 

 

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Well, they are idiots. I have been debating the Bible online for over a quarter of a century and from the very beginning I've avoided them like the plague. I much prefer atheists. The purpose of a disciple of Christ is to try and give an informed choice for anyone interested in the possibility of accepting or rejecting Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. The outcome (rejecting or accepting) is equally desirable so long as the informed choice is available.

 

But I'm not here for that. I'm here for practice. I learn from you as you challenge me. And the ego thing has something to do with it. If I can't be true to myself I can't be true to anyone else. Including Jehovah.   

 

My advise would be the same as I practice. Avoid organized religion at all cost! And there is no need for fear, guilt or shame if you reject Jehovah God. Especially if you don't do that out of ignorance, including the ignorance of the religious hypocrite.  

 

I guess there's not much motivation for me to accept Christ if there's really no major consequence for not doing so. I dont mind perma-death, though I think there may be some other type of continuation like reincarnation. And after looking at some of the stories like Job, Abraham and Isaac, The Flood, I dont think I want to live in heaven with this 'loving' God forever. 

 

I agree about organized religion. Dont give up your autonomy to God (aka people in a church). I might not mind having a friend who is a God, but he wont be my 'Father', "Owner", "Master", etc. 

[WalterP]

These comments strongly imply that there are no right or wrong answers.  That one person's unique interpretation is just as valid as another's.  This puts personal, subjective interpretation first, above any objective standard.

Well, right and wrong can be subjective and one's own unique interpretation is more valid than another's to that person. You can't choose what to believe but you can fool yourself into thinking that the conclusion you have drawn isn't biased. You aren't judged in God's eyes based upon your being right or wrong. God sees the heart. Semmelweis objected to the standard and was rejected for it. He was right. The standard was wrong.  

 

Do you see the problem, David?

 

In the above paragraph you say that right and wrong can be subjective.

 

Then you go on to say that Semmelweis was right and the prevailing standard of the other doctors was wrong.

 

So, was Semmelweis subjectively right or objectively right?

 

And was the prevailing standard subjectively wrong or objectively wrong?

 

I'm confused about what you mean here.

 

Could you please explain?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Myrkhoos]

You said you do not appeal to authority. But any historical study means you appeall to the authority of the historians. Any appeal to the Bible means appealing to the authority of the Bible authors/translators/ scribes. Doesn't it?

[Myrkhoos]

By the way for a person trying to avoid "ego"- my interpretation is best bk it is mine sounds a little, well, self assured to say the least :)))

[Joshpantera]

On 6/8/2021 at 12:01 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

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. 

 

This is crux of your situation. Your beliefs are based on a "partial" removal of the pagan influence of judaism and christianity. 

 

 

So what you'll face here among ex christians (among a great many other issues) is the well known issue of just how far reaching pagan influence and origins actually go. They literally steam roll the entire bible.

 

I was raised SDA. We thought that we had weeded out the pagan influences by casting aside pagan sun worship and reverted back to the jewish sabbath from sundown friday evening to sun down saturday evening. That doesn't reach deep enough to the deeper issues of the Sabbath being tied to old El worship, the semitic deity associated with the planet Saturn. So whether worshiping on sunday or saturday, either way it's going to trace back to sun worship versus saturn worship at the core of it. Both being pagan influenced and one not resolving the other. 

 

And even more to the point, the fact that it then exposes the old polytheism of ancient judaism in the process (outlined briefly in the above video). El Elyon being the most high god and YHWH being a lesser deity among an entire pantheon of pagan deities. 

 

The act of removing or trying to cleanse the bible of pagan influence literally wipes out the entire bible from it's "Beginning." 

 

The name jesus is yeshua meaning "yahweh saves" or "yahweh is salvation." 

 

Just consider that for a moment. What is the meaning of the name of a character in a story line whose name amounts to proclaiming that an ancient, pre monotheistic and polytheistic lesser deity among a pagan pantheon of gods, saves or is salvation?????

 

The point being that Genesis is not excluded from paganism. YHWH is not excluded from paganism. Jesus is not excluded from paganism for that and myriad other reasons as well. The jesus myths are jammed full of a variety of pagan influence on top of the core pagan influence issues of YHWH himself. 

 

So when someone comes along and proclaims that they are not religious and not technically christian, but believes in the bible, this is what it looks like to people who know the fuller scope of the situation. We just see someone who, while seemingly nice, is still very confused and largely mistaken. But could potentially study on and figure their way out of the confusion if they don't stop short along the way and settle for a less than complete overview. Many to most of our members here are people who have gone all the way through with the studying to the conclusive end of it. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

By the way for a person trying to avoid "ego"- my interpretation is best bk it is mine sounds a little, well, self assured to say the least :)))

 

I'm not trying to avoid ego, I'm only acknowledging it. In my favorite Bible translation, from the very start of my studies, my favorite bible verse was Micah 6:8. It reads: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, And to walk in modesty with your God!" The Hebrew word for modesty literally means to be aware of ones own strengths and weaknesses. 

 

Ego is defines as "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance; the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity." In that translation the word has a reference to Proverbs 8:13, which mentions hatred of self exaltation. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

You said you do not appeal to authority. But any historical study means you appeall to the authority of the historians. Any appeal to the Bible means appealing to the authority of the Bible authors/translators/ scribes. Doesn't it?

 

Well, yes and no. Sort of. Avoiding the logical fallacy of appeal to authority concerns a selective or exclusionary approach to authority, not a total disregard. An appeal to authority wouldn't carefully consider the merit of the data given by authority based upon evidence, it would cherry pick the data to support their confirmation bias. 

 

So I don't disagree with the Bible's creation account just because the theory of evolution does and nor do I believe anything the Bible says just because it says it. Or just because I want to interpret it in a certain way. 

 

You can't read one small portion of the Bible and assume that it means what it says. It gives you the story in other's perspectives. For example, Eve's perspective. The serpent appeared to talk to Eve. Snakes don't talk. The Bible says the snake talked but the snake didn't talk. 

Similar examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true is the ass in the case of Balaam. But also in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land.

 

Satan used the serpent as a puppet to deceive Eve. The angel did the same to Balaam's ass. Samuel's spirit was a demon and the Nephilim all perished much earlier in the flood. 

 

Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.

This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman. 

 

The Bible itself warns it's readers not to trust it, to test the inspired expression. The Bible isn't, by any means, infallible. Anyone who suggests it is infallible doesn't know what they are talking about. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

Excellent post, Joshpantera! Good job. Thank you for taking the time to do that. 

 

First of all, let's clarify what pagan means. It literally means outside of. So the Roman soldiers saw the rural people outside of the city as problematic as far as recruiting goes. They weren't as likely to be attacked as the city folk so weren't as likely to feel the need to take up a defensive position. Those people were also problematic to the Christian missionaries. To the Romans the Christians were pagan and to the Christians the Romans were pagan. Outside of. Heathen and barbarian have similar etymologies.  Heathen, from the hearth, were rural land owners. It was originally a term of respect. Barbarians were foreign speaking. The repeating of bar (bar, bar) referenced a stammering struggle with language. It wasn't a derogatory term originally either. If you admitted being a barbarian it simply meant you didn't speak the language well. Of course all of these terms transmogrified into derogatory terms due to the proclivity of the human race to manifest xenophobic tendencies. 

 

The Bible doesn't necessarily equate pagan as bad. Tombstones, wedding rings, windchimes are all pagan. Pagan names were adopted. The months of the calendar. Baptism was originally a pagan practice of public declaration. It's only when religious thinking and practice is outside of the prescribed thinking or practice that it becomes problematic. So, the immortal soul, hell, trinity, rapture, Christmas, Easter et cetera.

 

Some of that is reflected in the video. You have to be extra careful with that sort of poor "scholarship." It may sound good and tell you what you want to hear, but look closer. El is a Hebrew word from a root word that means mighty. El and it's many variations are translated as god, gods, or with the definite article God. So Dagon, Molech, Baal, Tammuz, etc. are all el. Gods. Moses was a god, the judges of Israel were gods, Satan and all of the angels are gods. It simply means mighty. Saying El became Jehovah is nonsense. And, the Bible writers were not monotheistic or polytheistic. They were Henotheistic. They acknowledged multiple gods.

 

I couldn't watch the video because the quality was so poor. I've got this new laptop which I don't care much for. I gave my desktop to my dad. It had a 27 inch monitor with 5.1 surround sound. I don't know if it's just me, but I can't see the fucking thing. 

 

I don't know if it mentions the Jesus / Horus comparisons like many of that shit does, but all you have to do is research that stuff. Mythologist as well as careful theology can easily demonstrate that stuff to be nonsense. Jesus and Horus weren't born on December 25. Horus wasn't born from a virgin. Myths and truths intermingle over great periods of time. Saying they were both born on that day is like saying US presidents are only born on President's day. Jesus was born probably sometime during the first week of October. The Bible doesn't say directly but if you follow an accurate timeline, which the Bible does give, you can place it there. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

These comments strongly imply that there are no right or wrong answers.  That one person's unique interpretation is just as valid as another's.  This puts personal, subjective interpretation first, above any objective standard.

Well, right and wrong can be subjective and one's own unique interpretation is more valid than another's to that person. You can't choose what to believe but you can fool yourself into thinking that the conclusion you have drawn isn't biased. You aren't judged in God's eyes based upon your being right or wrong. God sees the heart. Semmelweis objected to the standard and was rejected for it. He was right. The standard was wrong.  

 

Do you see the problem, David?

 

Yes. 

 

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

In the above paragraph you say that right and wrong can be subjective.

 

Correct.

 

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Then you go on to say that Semmelweis was right and the prevailing standard of the other doctors was wrong.

 

Correct.

 

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

So, was Semmelweis subjectively right or objectively right?

 

It doesn't matter. He was right. If some guy has a hunch that going from the morgue to natal care without washing their hands is the right thing to do and some other guy says his hunch isn't relevant because all of the scientific data disagrees I would at least give the guy with a hunch the benefit of the doubt. 

 

I get the point that you are laboring. That one has to guard against subjectivity and strive for objectivity and I agree. That could be the very definition of personal responsibility in interpretation. 

 

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

And was the prevailing standard subjectively wrong or objectively wrong?

 

I'm confused about what you mean here.

 

Could you please explain?

 

What I mean is that it's human nature to extoll objectivity in the guise of subjectivity.