The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jay73 Read it again: "[...]these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins." For, not so - the reason, not the consequence. In other words, the "virginity" in question is not literal but moral and it is this moral quality that has prevented them from defiling themselves. The word "defiled", by the way, does not refer to marital sex but to adultery (which accounts for the plural: women, not woman).

If you just turn off your ability to parse English and want it to be an effective argument badly enough, the above post makes perfect sense. But if you use English skills, it goes way off base.

"In other words, the "virginity" in question is not literal but moral" - Wait... what? Where do you get "not literal" from "for"?

"The word "defiled", by the way, does not refer to marital sex but to adultery" - You've conveniently ignored the word "virgins" in there.

"which accounts for the plural: women, not woman" - Except that it doesn't, because in this context it applies to all women, as in they've not slept with any one woman at all, hence, virgins. If it had been singular, it might mean they have not defiled themselves with Ruth over there, but they passed around Rebekah and Delilah.

If you just turn off your ability to parse English and want it to be an effective argument badly enough, the above post makes perfect sense. But if you use English skills, it goes way off base.

Hmmm, as a linguist, a voracious reader and a proven right-brainer, I don't think there's much wrong with my language skills.

"In other words, the "virginity" in question is not literal but moral" - Wait... what? Where do you get "not literal" from "for"?

Let's see. "They have not defiled themselves for they are virgins". Any grammar will tell you that "for" indicates a reason, and any dictionary that a "reason" is something preceding and motivating (in fact or at least in the imagination) an event or a state.

The same dictionary will inform you that literal "virginity" is a quality following from not having had sex. By using "for" instead of "so" or "therefore", however, the quoted passage implies that virginity is to be seen not as a consequence but as prior motivation, as preceding not having sex. Clearly, that is not the literal sense. And if it's not literal, then it must be figurative.

To understand that figurative meaning, one needs to treat the bible as any text, as a tapestry in which the various strands only make sense as parts of the whole. If one brings the rest of the book to bear on the quoted passage, a convincing case can be made that what is intended is a moral quality, something in the order of "integrity" or "moral purity". To lift the passage out of the text and take it literally would be what is usually termed "partial quoting".
I have just done a search and it would appear that I'm far from being the only one who goes "way off base" (see the many expert comments at the bottom of the page).

The only way to force "for they are virgins" into a literal meaning would be to treat it as a case of parallelism but the grammatical imbalance between the two members is far too striking to take that view seriously. I would consider it be a metalepsis instead.

"The word "defiled", by the way, does not refer to marital sex but to adultery" - You've conveniently ignored the word "virgins" in there.

No, "virgins"' has a figurative sense. Not to mention the connotations of the verb "to defile", which the Old Testament uses consistently to refer to adultery or idolatry (e.g. Exodus, Chronicles, 2 Samuel).

"which accounts for the plural: women, not woman" - Except that it doesn't, because in this context it applies to all women, as in they've not slept with any one woman at all, hence, virgins. If it had been singular, it might mean they have not defiled themselves with Ruth over there, but they passed around Rebekah and Delilah.

No. That interpretation is invalidated as soon as the proper meaning of "virgins" is perceived.

Originally Posted by jay73 The same dictionary will inform you that literal "virginity" is a quality following from not having had sex. By using "for" instead of "so" or "therefore", however, the quoted passage implies that virginity is to be seen not as a consequence but as prior motivation, as preceding not having sex.

Wrong. "For" equals "because," indicating a causal relationship. The reason they are not defiled is because they are virgins.

Originally Posted by jay73 Clearly, that is not the literal sense.

There's no link whatsoever between this thought and the one that precedes it. It's a non-sequiter. You might have well have said, "I like peanut butter, therefore the Dolphins will win the Super Bowl."

Everything that follows is based on a non-sequiter, and is thus meaningless.

The reason they are not defiled is because they are virgins.

Exactly. Doesn't it strike you as odd that someone should be "not defiled" because (s)he is a virgin instead of a virgin because (s)he has not been defiled? Think!

There's no link whatsoever between this thought and the one that precedes it. It's a non-sequiter. You might have well have said, "I like peanut butter, therefore the Dolphins will win the Super Bowl."

One of the fundamental principles in text analysis is that words aren't to be taken at face value. When someone writes "clearly", it is indeed possible (s)he is doing so to smuggle in something that is not clear at all. But to assume that, therefore, any occurrence of "clearly" is evidence of trickery may be the greatest non-sequitur of all.
I'll spell it out:
Major premise: A word that is not literal is figurative (what else would it be if neither?)
Minor premise: Word X is not literal (as was shown in my previous comments)
Conclusion: X is figurative

Originally Posted by jay73 Exactly. Doesn't it strike you as odd that someone should be "not defiled" because (s)he is a virgin instead of a virgin because (s)he has not been defiled? Think!

No, it doesn't strike me odd at all. There are a number of ways someone following Talmudic law could have been undefiled and still had sexual intercourse. As long as the contact was between married people, the wife followed the prescribed practices for purifying herself when she was unclean, and there was no contact during the unclean periods, there's no defilement.

So when the author says they haven't been defiled, he then gets more specific... they're not defiled because they are virgins. It's a perfectly valid expression.

Your reverse expression is not valid, because being a virgin is not a necessary precondition of being undefiled, any more than being a football player is a precondition of being an athlete. The former is a subset of the latter.

Originally Posted by jay73 One of the fundamental principles in text analysis is that words aren't to be taken at face value.

Argument by assertion.

Originally Posted by jay73 When someone writes "clearly", it is indeed possible (s)he is doing so to smuggle in something that is not clear at all.

I suspected that was why you were doing it.

Originally Posted by jay73 I'll spell it out: Major premise: A word that is not literal is figurative (what else would it be if neither?) Minor premise: Word X is not literal (as was shown in my previous comments) Conclusion: X is figurative

Your minor premise was not "shown" in any rational manner. You started out by mis-defining "for", pulled a non-sequiter sleight of hand, and then proceeded from those mistakes to make more of them.

I'm not a virgin, I'm not married either, been with couple of women too, will I go to some hell O' something?

Originally Posted by jay73 One of the fundamental principles in text analysis is that words aren't to be taken at face value.

If a scripture is meant to be a law, then I don't think this rule applies. Smuggling hidden meaning into a book that is meant to be a law looks counterintuitive.

Originally Posted by SigTerm If a scripture is meant to be a law, then I don't think this rule applies. Smuggling hidden meaning into a book that is meant to be a law looks counterintuitive.

No, thats the WHOLE point of religious writings. Its the word of god, so your not allowed to question it, but of course it has to be interpreted. By the right people you understand. You can't just have any oik interpreting things.

As the religious authorities we state our opinion about what the word of god means, and you're not allowed to question it. Hence you are not allowed to question our opinion, because it's the word of god. Do as we say or you'll be hung as a blasphemer.

Clever isn't it?

Originally Posted by baldy3105 No, thats the WHOLE point of religious writings. Its the word of god, so your not allowed to question it, but of course it has to be interpreted. By the right people you understand. You can't just have any oik interpreting things. As the religious authorities we state our opinion about what the word of god means, and you're not allowed to question it. Hence you are not allowed to question our opinion, because it's the word of god. Do as we say or you'll be hung as a blasphemer. Clever isn't it?

Word of God? Without proof this idea lacks authority. Also No it is stupid for something like God but clever for humans to not give clear understandable information for all people + make book itself without any special properties + not including evidence in book so we need doubt and even if it is God given "instruction manual" then so far till this day noone was able to properly translate it for everyone so that we would have only 1 religion version of God for all Earth and stuff noone could deny. Just think for second - scripture is only one and has only one meaning when translated so then if till this day we have too many versions then none is real - if there was then they would proove it but they are only guessing. Again this scripture could be given by Aliens too since we have theories about them helping us make ancient pyramids and such...also it could be true we moved here as aliens ourselves and erased our memory but before that we made book for future people.

So when the author says they haven't been defiled, he then gets more specific... they're not defiled because they are virgins. It's a perfectly valid expression.

That's just not right. Look at what follows:

For it is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankindas firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.

The verse in bold has the same type of adverbial clause introduced by for ("for they are virgins"/"for they are blameless"). In any poetic text, such parallels are not coincidental; they emphasize identity of meaning. If the first verse could be considered ambiguous (but I don't even think it is), the closing one is much less so. Therefore, to get at the proper meaning of the former, one needs to consider the latter.

That would show that "for they are blameless" is not a more specific reformulation of "and in their mouth no lies was found".

Firstly, the two clauses fulfill different syntactic functions: the first is a coordinated clause ("and...") while the second one is a subordinated clause ("for..."). But clauses with different functions do not carry the same information. Take "And I'm staying in for it's cold today". Would you claim that "for it's cold" is synonymous with "I'm staying in?".

Secondly, note the enallage (shift of voice and tense), just as in the first verse: from a passive simple past ("was found in their mouth") to an active simple present ("are blameless"). Why not "they were blameless" given the past tense in "was found"?? Because the formal difference implies the addition of new information instead of reformulation.

Thirdly, if we do think in terms of a generic formulation followed by a more specific re-formulation, the explanation breaks down completely: "for they are blameless" is less specific than "no lies in their mouth", not more.

Interpretation of the closing verse puts the first one in its proper perspective: "for they are virgins" provides a reason, not merely a synonym.To claim as a last defence that the two verses should not be connected in that way flies in the face not only of the basic rules of grammar and composition but of the characteristic rhetoric that is used throughout the Bible.

Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by baldy3105 No, thats the WHOLE point of religious writings. Its the word of god, so your not allowed to question it, but of course it has to be interpreted. By the right people you understand. You can't just have any oik interpreting things. As the religious authorities we state our opinion about what the word of god means, and you're not allowed to question it. Hence you are not allowed to question our opinion, because it's the word of god. Do as we say or you'll be hung as a blasphemer. Clever isn't it?

That sounds like an unfounded generalization to me. Surely you aren't claiming that John Milton or William Blake were at any time forbidden to have their own interpretation of the Bible? And what about the many protestant churches that broke away from Rome? The uprising of Savonarola in Renaissance Italy? The hundreds and thousands of mystics who have always lived at or even beyond the margins of the official institutions?

Originally Posted by SL00b No, it doesn't strike me odd at all. There are a number of ways someone following Talmudic law could have been undefiled and still had sexual intercourse. As long as the contact was between married people, the wife followed the prescribed practices for purifying herself when she was unclean, and there was no contact during the unclean periods, there's no defilement.

You and jay73 are arguing about meaning of bible using english translation. This not a good idea, because all hidden/special meanings of words most likely are result of translation and most likely were not present in original text. (IMO) A perfect translation(that transfers all "hidden meanings" into target language) is even less likely to exist than proof of existence/non-existence of god, so if you want to argue about meaning of bible, you really should use original text - Greek or Hebrew.

Originally Posted by SL00b And yet, the Koran talks about a flat earth, and counts five planets in some places (the number known at the time), eleven elsewhere (don't count on finding three more), so I'm very interested to know what "insights" they possessed about reproduction. Include direct references, please.

I dont know if Quran says anywhere earth is flat (show me reference). Instead Allah said different occasions, the earth has been spread out like bed.

[He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. Quran 2:22.

[It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants. Quran 20:53.



Reference of 5 planets I dont know, but for 11 stars yes it is there. But its not been mentioned that there are 11 stars or planets. It was a dream seen by Prophet Joseph and he was pointing to his 11 brothers.


[Of these stories mention] when Joseph said to his father, "O my father, indeed I have seen [in a dream] eleven stars and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me." Quran 12:4.

Very next:

He said, "O my son, do not relate your vision to your brothers or they will contrive against you a plan. Indeed Satan, to man, is a manifest enemy. Quran 12:5.

So Quran is not at all saying how many stars we have.....



Few proof of Quran in light of science:


In a very significant verse in surat Al-Najm Allah says about him self: "And that He it is who maketh laugh, and maketh weep," (Quran 53:43)

This verse contains a very nice scientific indication about the lately-discovered fact that foetus has facial expressions while he is in his mother's womb, without being taught to do so.

The miracle of man creation reveals itself in the stages of foetal development which is described by the holy Quran and begins with the creation of germ cells in his parents, then when the sperm meets the ovum fertilizing it and they form the zygote (Nutfa Amshaj) which then becomes a leech-like clot (Alaqah) then chewed-like lump of flesh (Mudgha) which turns into bones covered with flesh, then at the decisive moment this foetus is converted from just some growing cells into another creature full of life and moves in his mother's womb and his facial expressions appears clearly. As after this large technological revolution which occurred lately in scanning embryos, we can now see embryos smiling and crying in their mothers' wombs before they see light on earth.

In a very significant verse in surat Al-Najm Allah says about him self: "And that He it is who maketh laugh, and maketh weep," (Quran 53:43)

This verse contains a very nice scientific indication about the lately-discovered fact that foetus has facial expressions while he is in his mother's womb, without being taught to do so.

The miracle of man creation reveals itself in the stages of foetal development which is described by the holy Quran and begins with the creation of germ cells in his parents, then when the sperm meets the ovum fertilizing it and they form the zygote (Nutfa Amshaj) which then becomes a leech-like clot (Alaqah) then chewed-like lump of flesh (Mudgha) which turns into bones covered with flesh, then at the decisive moment this foetus is converted from just some growing cells into another creature full of life and moves in his mother's womb and his facial expressions appears clearly. As after this large technological revolution which occurred lately in scanning embryos, we can now see embryos smiling and crying in their mothers' wombs before they see light on earth.



Another:

In the Quran, Allah reveals that the creation of man is a miracle. The first human being was created by Allah shaping clay into a human form and then breathing a soul into it, Allah (SWT) says in Quran :

( Your Lord said to the angels, "I am going to create a human being out of clay. When I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration to him!") (Quran 38:71-72)

and also says :

" Then inquire of them: Is it they who are stronger in structure or other things We have created? We created them from sticky clay " (Quran 37:11)

When the human body is examined today, many elements present on the earth are also discovered to be found in the human body. Living tissues contain 95% carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, with a total of 26 different elements.

In another verse of the Quran we are told:

"We created man from an extract of clay" (Quran 23:12)

The Arabic word "sulala," translated as "extract" in the verse, means "representative example, essence." As we have seen, the information revealed in the Quran 1,400 years ago confirms what modern science tells us-the fact that the same elements as those found in the soil are employed in the human creation .

As we notice water forms the main component of the human being and any other being. Allah (SWT) says:


" and We made from water every living thing? So will they not believe?" (Quran, 21:30)

"And it is He Who created human beings from water and then gave them relations by blood and marriage. Your Lord is All-Powerful" (25:54)


Another:

Dr Keith Moore confirms embryology in Quran

Originally Posted by SL00b Prokaryotes are observable in nature, mostly as bacteria. Eukaryotes are observable in nature, most easily as the cells that make up your own body. So how do you get that these things are made up? Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's all fiction. Yes, there are some basic principles of the theory of evolution which have been used to predict certain outcomes which have not been verified... yet. The theory has also been used to predict certain outcomes which HAVE been verified, most notably in the area of identifying gaps in the fossil record prior to the discovery of fossils which filled those gaps. For example, fossil studies of a category of dinosaurs known as theropods noted the unexpected similarities with birds, and evolution suggested that modern birds are a direct descendant. Evolutionary theory predicts that there must be some sort of gap in the record that contains the transition... and boom! http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html

Science would have you believe that the most complex organ in the body evolved. How can something, that is the control center for the rest of the body, evolve over millions of years? When the other parts of the body are dependant upon it in order to even function? It would have to evolve "first" in order for all to connect to it and work. But, because it is so complex, it would take more mutations (a lot more) to form. Therefore, it would take the longest to evolve. Besides, how would the brain know the other organs existed, and it needed to control them?

And how would the nervous system know what part of the brain to connect to in order the organ to work? For if the heart gets hooked to the vision center of the brain, will we see through our chest, or will we die? And if the nervous system worked so well with connections, everyone that becomes paralyzed, would become better. But they don't. Which proves that someone had to route the nerves through the body, to the correct organs, so they will function.

Nerves can grow about an inch per month, but their path is not guided. Anyone who has had severe nerve damage knows this.

So as you look at each part of the brain, see if you can determine the order of evolution that would work for both the organs it controls, and how the brain would have had to evolve to control them. You will soon start to see that a quick creation, by a creator, would be the only way it would work.

As you look at each part of the brain and realize that it's functions are vital. Can you see even one function you can do without? In the evolution process, this is where the problem lies. Over the billions of years of evolution, the brain at different points was not fully functional, until fully evolved. And with all the main organ functions that it controls, the evolving human had to do without some of these that would be dependant upon for survival, but did not work. Example:

1) Can you have eyes and see without the vision center of your brain not working?

2) Can you heart beat without the brain stem fully evolved?

3) Can you breathe without the brain stem fully evolved?

4) Will your pancreas know how much insulin to inject into the body at any given time?

5) etc....

Connect the dots between the organs of your body, and the parts of your brain that controls it, and you'll start to see the picture. It either came together all at once, or it did not came together at all. Because for one vital organ to not work, when needed, would cause either sudden death, or a slow death. And how can something evolve, mutate, or natural selection work, when the evolving subject just keeps dying? In other words, when the evolving subject reaches a point to where it is solely dependant on it's organs, and it's brain to control them to function in sync. If they don't, evolving subject dies. And no natural selection takes place, and said subject does not evolve past a point that keeps killing it. So my question would be: How does the evolving subject get past the point that keeps killing it?

Brain facts:

You have 100 000 million brain cells. Nerve messages move at 240 mph. If you could harness the power used by your brain, you could power as a 10-watt light bulb. We remember one trillion things in a lifetime.

There are 1 quadrillion synapses in the human brain. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000 synapses! This is equal to about a half-billion synapses per cubic millimeter (a nickel is about 1mm thick). So, in a little box-like space in your brain that is 1 millimeter on all sides, you have 500 millions gaps helping you calculate everything you do, like whether you brushed your teeth yet. These synapses change all the time and underlie your reality and growth to higher states of consciousness (Statistic from Changeux, J-P. and Ricoeur, P., "What Makes Us Think?", Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 78.)

The total length of wiring between neurons is 100,000 kilometers. Most of that is the cerebral cortex talking to itself. These fibers interconnect the vast array of neural computers and create wholeness out of infinite points of dynamism. (Statistic from Coveney, P. and Highfield, R., "Frontiers of Complexity. The Search for Order in a Chaotic World," New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1995, p. 283.).