In the Beginning...

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Here's the thing; I agree with this statement. With caveats. I think that the Jesus of the time clearly thought that God was the god of the Jews. But I think the vibe of Jesus was that he would pivot once he learned more about the god of the Jews.

Jesus worshiped a god that murdered people with a Flood. But if he knew what we knew now, he'd be quite against the idea. He'd want people to worship the truest version of God they new about, not some false variant.

While Jesus was born Jew I dont see why (as a self-proclaimed son of God) he wouldnt claimed the whole creation. I would understand some sense and feeling of exclusivity on the side of Jews becouse of their history, traditions etc. but not in the case of someone with spiritual stature of Jesus. I believe he was an universal figure.
I would say Jesus literaly 'created' the benevolent compassionate loving God as we understand it today. It was Jesus who humanised Europe from the cross becouse it was his ideals which much later the humanist had turned to and claimed it for all not just Christianity.
I dont think he challenged the traditions of his time unnecasarily but there are couple occasions when he did. He wasnt afraid to redefine the concept and the traditions for clearly that is what he felt as his mission.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As a devout atheist, can I just say that spending two pages debating whether the Moon is actually a light or not is incredibly pedantic. Even I can read the quoted passage as reading "God placed some things in the sky to light up the Earth below (or to 'act as lights' if you prefer), and he did it in such a way that different things will light up the Earth at different times of day" and accept that as being both meant literally AND that it's a pretty accurate description of reality. Apart from the whole God putting them there part, but that's a different story.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do it yourself. Get a quiet place, find your center and record your thoughts. Do this regularly for a couple of months and you might have something to contribute.

"Provide evidence yourself" is not a particularly credible route to take in response to a request for evidence backing a claim.

I assume you mean some kind of spiritual center and not a literal center of mass/gravity (though I could probably find the latter, I doubt it's useful here), which means "finding" it carries only so much meaning as I or others believe it carries (not to mention I could provide no evidence/testable consequences in either case), depending on whose belief is relevant. It's not your real objection, it's an offhand dismissal when the request for things that we can observe in reality threatens to show nothing is there.

well you just missed the whole poetic significance.

You can have (or lack) poetic significance without paying reality any mind, aside from the usual requirements to convey and read it. However, poetic significance doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened "in the beginning".

 

[onejayhawk]

As a devout atheist, can I just say that spending two pages debating whether the Moon is actually a light or not is incredibly pedantic.

Really? Pedantic I get, but incredibly pedantic?

"Provide evidence yourself" is not a particularly credible route to take in response to a request for evidence backing a claim.

That is not, "Provide evidence yourself." That is, "Test it yourself because you are refusing to accept second-hand reports." As such, it is entirely credible.

I assume you mean some kind of spiritual center and not a literal center of mass/gravity (though I could probably find the latter, I doubt it's useful here), which means "finding" it carries only so much meaning as I or others believe it carries (not to mention I could provide no evidence/testable consequences in either case), depending on whose belief is relevant. It's not your real objection, it's an offhand dismissal when the request for things that we can observe in reality threatens to show nothing is there.

Center in the martial arts/meditation sense. When you find an internal balance it is easier to ignore physical stimulus. Finding the center of mass is part of the process because it needs to be directly above a support point. "Things" may be physical or metaphorical. Generally, when things are in balance cogitation works more efficiently. More to the point, observation is easier.

It is a poor scientist that will not make direct observation given the opportunity.

J

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Really? Pedantic I get, but incredibly pedantic?

It's the re-hashing and repeating over a dozen-ish posts that elevates it up to "incredibly" levels. Is it a self-powered light source in and of its own right? No. Does the passage in question make any specific claim that it is? No. Is it a source of light in the sky that illuminates the Earth? Yes. Does the passage in question say that that is what it is meant to do? Yes. Seems pretty good to me.

I mean if you really want to pick holes in it you could point out that Moon isn't always in the night sky and so doesn't fulfil its purpose in that regard.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not wanting to appear the troll, but gotcha. Besides, the moon does radiate in the visual range.

The whole question of sequence and causality is tricky. In Macbeth, Birnam forest does not come to Dunsinane. It only appears to come and that only from one viewpoint. Yet, the prophecy is fulfilled.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Does the passage in question make any specific claim that it is? No.

Uhh, yes it does:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Does the passage in question make any specific claim that it is?

Irrelevant. As has already been pointed out, "the passage in question" states clearly that the moon was created as "a light" with the sun. The sun is clearly a light. The moon is clearly not a light. You can twist the interpretation all you want, but you can not make the moon a light. It is a rock that reflects the suns light. Shining a light onto a rock does not make the rock a light.

Is it a source of light in the sky that illuminates the Earth?

No its not. Again, the source of light is the sun. The moon merely reflects the sun's light. I mean if you want to argue about this fine, let's argue about it. Don't declare the discussion "overly pedantic" then proceed to offer your own erroneous "pedantic" opinion, and think that your unilateral declaration of the issue as "pedantic" is going to prevent a response. That's just a version of playing the "I don't want to get into a discussion about XYZ but here is my opinion about XYZ... now nobody can respond because I said I didn't want to discuss it", game.

 

[Berzerker]

No. The sun is bright and the moon reflects the sun. The moon is not a light, and therefore Genesis is wrong. Fundamentalists can not accept the idea that Genesis is wrong so then they start resorting to reinterpreting the words to twist and contort it right again, but the problem is that this only convinces other Fundamentalists.

do your kids think the moon isn't bright?

have them google 'bright moon'

you're interpreting a word you haven't researched while accusing others who have of twisting it

 

[Sommerswerd]

do your kids think the moon isn't bright?

First, my oldest kid is 6. You consider him an authority? Second, fine, assuming you consider my 6 year old an authority... Go back to the beginning of this discussion about the moon... My 6 year old is the one who stated that the moon is not a light. So, you have your answer. Does that change your mind? Or was your question rhetorical?

have them google 'bright moon'

Who? The 2 year old? Are you serious?

you're interpreting a word you haven't researched while accusing others who have of twisting it

What word are you suggesting I "research"? Moon?

The bottom line is the moon isn't bright, because the moon does not generate light. If you observe the moon without any sunlight shining on it, it will be completely dark. It only becomes illuminated when the suns light shines on it. So the moon is not "bright at all. The sun shines bright light on the moon. If you disagree with this, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Before I mentioned I think we need sort of more plasticity in mind otherwise we are just going to replace a religious dogma with an intellectual or scientific one.
In the morning we can see sun rising in the east. Is the sun realy rising? From the point of view of our senses this is true but not from the point of view of our intelect. Do we need to stop saying that sun is rising becouse we have a knowledge of the scientific truth which contradicts practical experience of our senses? Simmilarly speaking of moon as a source of light has its own practical truth.

 

[Lexicus]

In the morning we can see sun rising in the east. Is the sun realy rising? From the point of view of our senses this is true but not from the point of view of our intelect. Do we need to stop saying that sun is rising becouse we have a knowledge of the scientific truth which contradicts practical experience of our senses? Simmilarly speaking of moon as a source of light has its own practical truth.

No one is saying otherwise, the issue is some people are claiming Genesis is science.

 

[Berzerker]

First, my oldest kid is 6. You consider him an authority?

You mentioned his opinion of Genesis, now you dont care what he says?

Second, fine, assuming you consider my 6 year old an authority... Go back to the beginning of this discussion about the moon... My 6 year old is the one who stated that the moon is not a light. So, you have your answer. Does that change your mind?

ask him if the moon is bright

What word are you suggesting I "research"? Moon?

'light' and its use in the Bible

The bottom line is the moon isn't bright, because the moon does not generate light.

astronomers say the moon is the brightest object in the night sky, they even have a scale for measuring brightness

If you observe the moon without any sunlight shining on it, it will be completely dark.

earthshine illuminates the moon too

It only becomes illuminated when the suns light shines on it. So the moon is not "bright at all. The sun shines bright light on the moon. If you disagree with this, then I don't know what to tell you.

objects reflecting sunlight are often described as bright, like windows, metal, water, etc... even blindingly bright.

I never said the sun doesn't shine bright light on the moon and people knew the sun illuminated the moon, the phases make it obvious

 

[Birdjaguar]

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, though. It's basically on the level of hearsay, if not lower.

It shouldn't be discarded as it could hint at actual evidence being available. It could be BS, or it couldn't, we have no idea. It's worth investigating to determine if you can find actual evidence or not. Only then, if you haven't found any actual evidence, can you discard the hearsay/anecdote, or at least throw it in the "maybe check again at some point in the future when we have better technology or can do studies we couldn't do before or whatever" pile. Maybe it will end up being true, maybe not. We have no idea. It's anecdotal, it doesn't help us understand reality any better. But it could lead to it, if we keep at it!

So it shouldn't be necessarily discarded but it should definitely not be accepted. Only accept things that have been verified.

Most of us, including you Warpus, accept anecdotal evidence as being true in many many situations. So I ask, in which situations do we need verification to prove truth and in which do we not?

His assumption is a lot more than that, his assumption is that all that exists is God. That's a lot more specific than what you said, and unfortunately all it is is an assumption - one that can't even be tested.

We have no way of knowing whether his assumption is true or not. It's in the hearsay pile. Actually, I suppose I would put it more in the "thought experiment" pile.

I think that MS assumes that that there is a fundamental unifying essence and that he calls this entity "god". One could call it any number of things. The Vedic tradition call it Paramatma or oversoul or universal self. It resides in a perpetual state of Sat Chit Ananda. How one calls this unifying essence is pretty arbitrary. The attributes one ascribes to it begin the differentiation and often creates starkly different paths.

If one begins with this assumption, if follows quite naturally that all finite existence, including people, are manifestations of Paramatma or god. Snails, cats and people are all in essence, Paramatma, but each has a different consciousness (and physical form) which limits their capabilities.

The assumption of Paramatma cannot be tested or verified. One has to accept it or not. Anecdotal evidence over several thousand years has led some people to accept it as true.

You assume that the only path to knowing what is true is rigorous investigation, observation, and verification of physical things and processes. This necessarily says that unless we can perform those kinds actions or can see a path to performing those actions, something doesn't exist.

That assumption cannot be tested either. It is not dissimilar to a blind child thinking that the world is limited only to the things it can touch, hear, smell and taste. (Are my biases showing? )

Your assumption has led you down a path that narrows what can be true and biases one's thinking away from anything that cannot be observed and measured.

MS's starting point has led him down a path that allows for a more experiential approach (without necessarily discarding science) that embraces levels of consciousness different from what we typically experience.

 

[Lexicus]

I never said the sun doesn't shine bright light on the moon and people knew the sun illuminated the moon, the phases make it obvious

The phases only make it obvious to you because of what you already know about the Sun and Moon. As best as I can determine it was Anaxagoras who first reasoned that the Moon reflects the Sun's light, in ~450 BC.

 

[Berzerker]

The phases only make it obvious to you because of what you already know about the Sun and Moon. As best as I can determine it was Anaxagoras who first reasoned that the Moon reflects the Sun's light, in ~450 BC.

What do I know about the sun and moon thats relevant? The phases (and eclipses) make it obvious to anyone watching them, the moon's brighter side faces the sun

as for who first figured it out, we dont know that but I'd bet money it wasn't some guy living ~2500 years ago... It wouldn't take an intellectual giant to figure it out, a child would notice how the moon's light changes depending on its location at sunset.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Before I mentioned I think we need sort of more plasticity in mind otherwise we are just going to replace a religious dogma with an intellectual or scientific one.
In the morning we can see sun rising in the east. Is the sun realy rising? From the point of view of our senses this is true but not from the point of view of our intelect. Do we need to stop saying that sun is rising becouse we have a knowledge of the scientific truth which contradicts practical experience of our senses? Simmilarly speaking of moon as a source of light has its own practical truth.

I have no problem with the colloquial term of "moonlight", "sunrise" etc for the sake of simplicity. All this hand-wringing over "OMG are you saying we can't call the moon a light?!?", is just irrelevant, hyperbole and changing the subject.

The point, once again is that when Genesis was written, the author thought the moon was a light, just like the sun. The author had no understanding that the moon was not just a nighttime version of the sun. If we agree on this, then the rest isn't all that important to me in this context.

The other point/possibility is that the author knew that the moon was not a light like the sun but just put it in the same category as the sun because it made the story simpler and easier to understand. If this is the case, then Genesis is not intended to be accurate, but instead just intended to be a nice story that is easy to understand and follow. If this is your view, I can accept that possibility no problem, even if I don't agree with it.

You mentioned his opinion of Genesis, now you dont care what he says?

I'm expressing skepticism at your implication that you care what he says. Especially since I told you point-blank that my son was adamant that the moon is not a light. He doesn't agree with you. Period. You asked, he already answered. Either accept that and move on, or don't. So no, I'm not interested in playing 20 questions about the opinions of a 6 year old. C'mon man be serious. Also, I'm not researching the word "light", as I said, I have no issue with the colloquial use of the word.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The point, once again is that when Genesis was written, the author thought the moon was a light, just like the sun. The author had no understanding that the moon was not just a nighttime version of the sun. If we agree on this, then the rest isn't all that important to me in this context.

The other point/possibility is that the author knew that the moon was not a light like the sun but just put it in the same category as the sun because it made the story simpler and easier to understand. If this is the case, then Genesis is not intended to be accurate, but instead just intended to be a nice story that is easy to understand and follow. If this is your view, I can accept that possibility no problem, even if I don't agree with it.

I don't know how one can get an accurate answer to that question. Warpus would probably label it "hearsay" or worse and not verifiable whatever position one takes.

What we think we know: Genesis was written in the 6th C BCE by one or more people. At that time the science of astronomy was led by the Babylonians who already had star charts, planetary tables and knowledge of eclipses. Babylonian astronomy has its own roots in Sumer.

Perhaps we can assume that an educated person (one able to write) in Jerusalem would also know something about the long tradition of astronomy that was based not so far away in Babylon. It is hard to know what would have been common knowledge back then.

To know what was in the mind of the author of Genesis chapter 1, one would take into consideration why the story was put down on paper in the first place. Perhaps God told Moses to do so. Perhaps not.

Spoiler :

This leaves the question of when these works were created. Scholars in the first half of the 20th century came to the conclusion that the Yahwist was produced in the monarchic period, specifically at the court of Solomon, 10th century BCE, and the Priestly work in the middle of the 5th century BCE (the author was even identified as Ezra), but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist was written either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.[6]

As for why the book was created, a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial is "Persian imperial authorisation". This proposes that the Persians, after their conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Temple and who traced their origin to Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made up the "elders" and who traced their own origins to Abraham, who had "given" them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had its own "history of origins", but the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text.[19]

 

[Hygro]

The greater light isn't the sun, the lesser isn't the moon. Daylight is the greater light. Night-time light is the lesser light.

Boom problem solved, language consistent with the above Bible quote. :banananananana:

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not wanting to appear the troll, but gotcha.

"Gotcha" as in you understand what I'm saying? Or as in "haha, I have ensnared you in my trap"? If it's the latter then I don't really see what you mean.