Phew!
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Folks, let’s come together on this.
It doesn’t matter if it was good luck or the work of a space god that saved this child.
Thank godness/goodness for the outcome.
#26 – There’s a difference between being intellectually challenged and childish, bigoted name calling which, based on this comment thread, seems to be what bobbo navigates towards.
#25–qb==I’ve been reading up on God=Yahweh. Yahweh battling other gods. Polytheis leading to monolatry (a new word/idea for me) leading to monotheism.
Is it your opinion that Yahweh in early jewish scripture did indeed defeat Baal or whoever to take control of the universe and does the old testament actively “change” these earlier accounts or does it more innocently pick and choose what accounts it uses, perhaps picking up the story at a later time.
Or am I missing something else?
#31–craplet==what do you have against name calling?
theres a lip on most locations to let Water roll Off the walk way. Its not much.
You can FEEL it if you roll things over it.
Why did she release the buggy? DIDNT the buggy have a BREAK, to stop it from moving??
That thing really ran away.
The mother should have tethered the stroller securely to a large balloon.
It wasn’t god. It was the child’s imaginary friend.
#19 Bobbo
Having read the bible doesn’t make one a scholar, however, if you’re interested in my opinion, God, if such a thing exsists is symbolic. I believe that the symbolic governs change everywhere in the universe, and that the physical is just the residue of the symbolic. If there is a God I doubt it exsists to protect us, more logically it would defend the universe. If a little girl dies it’s a tragedy for family and friends, because of their loss, but there are broader forces at work. Nobody here gets out alive, it can end at any moment for any or all. Near as I can tell we’re here to learn and grow from the experience. Certain lessons have to do with context, others are character, but those that don’t learn suffer because of it. Not because god wants that, it’s because of the structure in the symbolic itself. That’s why every decision you make conditions your self image and influences the way you perceive and interpret your experience. The physical universe is the place where all the potential of the symbolic must eventually come into expression.
Surviving the unexpected isn’t a matter of divine intervention, but it is the test and the filter of values that enables the expression of symbolic potential. It’s what we judge by and how we’ll be judged.
I’ve come to equate god with love because that’s what I want from life.
This would not have happened if the mother had not let go of the stroller to talk on her cell phone! How stupid. And, this has nothing to do with god gods or chaos! Idiots.
#35 Chuckles – You win!
Chuck, you have put a smile on an otherwise nasty day for me.
THANKS. 🙂
Thank God a good argument on religion is going on here!
Oh wait … that happens every day.
Why do people care about religion so much?
A universe with a God or no god or 15 gods, you still have to sleep, eat some tasty animals or dead plant matter, breathe air and use the restroom.
@ Bobbo
Civility is the true test of intellect.
The reason is that name calling generally doesn’t inspire someone to listen to your point of view.
(Name calling does have a use though. Like easily offended politically-correct dittohead robots with irrational points of view, those people you are supposed to offend them more to help desensitize them.)
#37–amodedoma==didn’t we already try at a serious conversation? I think we use/understand “words” so differently that an exchange of “ideas” becomes problematic if not impossible.
for instance==you use the word/concept of “symbolic” in ways that are complete nonsense to me. Maybe that is only fitting in a discussion about god.
But from a thread last week, I am still learning about the genesis of god, the single diety, worshipped by christians, jews, and muslims. Interesting that, the “same god” notion. How dissimilar can the religion/dogma be before it really isn’t the same god? Same god, but different bibbles. Same god but different basic concepts about what he is after “all powerful, all good, got hell waiting for disbelievers”
The thread last week was about “bara” and how god did not create the universe out of nothing, but rather separted the earth from the water. I’m not quite sure if that leaves who created the earth/water combo to begin with==Yahweh or some other god that got vanquished.
As I think about it more, I do wonder how interesting/relevant it really is. I did think the God of the Bible was a version of Zeus or Ra which is interesting ((ideas forming as I type))==so, monolatry really has been a large part of my unconscious god image.
I’m just curious in how “formal” the evolution of god is from actually being a member of a contesting group of gods.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” only indicates to me that the worship of false gods, ie==”they” don’t exist” is not approved. Course, that really is also consistent with don’t worship those other gods that do exist that I just beat in a contest.
This is all about a “factual” investigation, not a theological one.
Amodedoma==there are some subjects wherein maximum benefit is derived from maximum disagreement and resolution ((kinda like name calling)) and others where the maximum, if not only progress, can be made from minimal disagreement in shades only to bring one side along with the other.
For me, I can only learn on this subject from someone who agrees with me with slight differences, and those differences are interesting to explore. You and I are too far apart to learn from each other====I suspect. But in good faith, I’m always willing to be surprised.
#42–HMyers==you say: “@ Bobbo
Civility is the true test of intellect.” /// and I agree–except from the other direction as you hint at with your continuing post. I just take that idea a little farther. That and an inward directed issue==I think it is funny, it amuses me and since contesting issues of faith/ideology with bibble thumpers has little return outside what can be self derived, the temptation is too much.
Besides==I am just as insulted by statements demanding/assuming faith as the faithful are by my name calling. Civility becomes a false sense of legitimacy that I reject.
Harold Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen To Good People is an interesting take on the problem of theodicy (which I didn’t even know was a term until I saw it in wikipedia). Basically you have three statements, of which only two can be true:
1. God is a loving God.
2. God is an all-powerful God.
3. Bad things happen to good people.
Spoiler alert: Kushner believes 1 and 3 are true. It’s an interesting problem for a theist. Some people’s prayers are “answered”, some people’s prayers aren’t. Why?
#45–Phydeau==when you start with a false premise, logic will take you to many strange places.
I like the thought experiment ((a hypothetical if you will===YIKES!!))
Imagine a universe with a god with whatever properties you imagine he has. What would that universe look like: ((fill this in yourself.))
Now–imagine a universe without any gods at all==completely materialistic. What would that universe look like: and the answer is===just like the one we are in.
Question: what kind of universe do you think we are in?
#43 Bobbo
I must admit I enjoy contrasting my opinions with yours regardless of your difficulty to comprehend or your desire to learn from said experience. I derive no personal pleasure from your agreement or disagreement on the subject of any of my opinions. I’m not here to teach or to evangelize. For some reason I do not fully comprehend many of your opinions inspire a reaction in me. I just follow it to see where it takes me. Creative self expression is enjoyable and it gives one a chance to reflect and learn from oneself. I appreciate your patience, If you find it distasteful that I should ‘use’ you in this way, just say so and I shall refrain from directing my posts to you.
#47–amodedoma==I’m sure you are being consistent with what I posted, but somehow you have me wrong. Hah, hah. That word thingy again = OR = we are both so self involved we can brook no disagreement====except from those who basically agree with us with only slight ripples to be leveled out?
But–don’t you find “personality postings” to be quite tedious==or do you want to continue?
#46 lol, well bobbo, I consider the existence of God as beyond the realm of science and logic. I don’t think you can prove or disprove it. So logic doesn’t really apply.
So that theodicy scenario obviously only applies to some who assumes as a given the existence of a God.
Whoops, I meant logic doesn’t apply when you’re trying to figure out whether God exists. If you take the existence of God as a given, then logic applies to the theodicy problem, within that context.
#49–phydeau==well, thanks for levelling that little ripple==but its “deeper” than that isn’t it?
If your god is “beyond logic” then he could exist but formal rules of logic as used in theodicky would have no use.
Kinda like infinity. Who knows?
#51 True, who says a God would have to follow our rules of logic?
Said the ant to Hal 6000.
#48
This particular line of discussion would be impossible to continue on the base of insufficient commonality in terms. My use of the word symbolic to you is meaningless to you because symbolic to you is just a word. I see symbolic as the perfect potential in a perfect universe. It is the incipient cause and the universe is it’s effect. In your own DNA you carry a physical reperesentation of a symbolic entity powerful enough to have created the shell that contains you. None of this communication will make any sense to you unless you’re capable of interpreting it symbolically.
That might not have happened had the platform
not been sloaped towards the tracks.The pram
only rolled when it was directed toward the track but did not roll when parallel with the track. It is extremely stupid to have the platform sloaping toward the track.
She should sue the subway company.
#55 “Sue the subway company?”
The mother is completely at fault for not watching the stroller while talking on the cell phone. God has nothing to do with this one way or another.
#54–amodedoma==your use of the word symbolic is meaningless to me because I don’t make up my own definitions to confound the sheep. I use the dictionary:
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbol
sym·bol·ic
Pronunciation: \sim-ˈbä-lik\
Variant(s): also sym·bol·i·cal \-li-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1610
1 a : using, employing, or exhibiting a symbol b : consisting of or proceeding by means of symbols
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a symbol
3 : characterized by or terminating in symbols
4 : characterized by symbolism
Which isn’t very helpful unless one defines symbol:
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbol
Main Entry: 1sym·bol
Pronunciation: \ˈsim-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Late Latin symbolum, from Late Greek symbolon, from Greek, token, sign; in other senses from Latin symbolum token, sign, symbol, from Greek symbolon, literally, token of identity verified by comparing its other half, from symballein to throw together, compare, from syn- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date: 15th century
1 : an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : creed
2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible
3 : an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities
4 : an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed
5 : an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the capacity to excite or objectify a response
With the foregoing, my understanding of a god would be that he is not symbolic of anything else but rather is that thing. So, you don’t understand the nature of god, nor of symbols. How can we discuss either?
That white stripe is there so this sort of thing doesn’t happen. It looks like it malfunctioned somehow. They should look into this.
# 33 bobbo
I think there was a battle for the hearts and minds of the Jewish people between Yahweh and Ba’al (1 Kings for example). In other words, the fight between Yahweh and Ba’al was a fight for the control of the Jews. (e.g. left vs. right in US)
They didn’t move en masse to monotheism (like you’re finding out) but evolved as a people and nation. It was intertwined with their final settlement and was as much social and political as it was religious. In other words, it was an identity issue. The wording of the texts probably changed over time due to differences in language, errors, or points of view.
Later, as Greek philosophy (especially Socratic/Platonic school) permeated the Mediterranean there was a natural alignment between with the new monotheism which made it more credible. This is the reason why Christianity (which was just another Jewish sect at first) spread so easily among the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews.
BTW, before anyone jumps on me again for claiming that I’m bad mouthing the Bible – I don’t feel this diminishes your faith in any way.