Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Not sure it's a metaphor. Back then, people thought that your heart was the seat of thinking. They had no idea what the brain was.

HEART (Hebr. "leb," or "lebab").

By: Kaufmann Kohler, Tobias Schanfarber, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., Adolf Guttmacher
Table of Contents

    Its Psychical Aspects.
    Is the Seat of Volition.
    —In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:
    1. As the Seat of the Physical Organism:
    2. As the Seat of All Morality and of All Moral and Spiritual Functions:
    3. As the Seat of the Intellect and the Will:

The seat of the emotional and intellectual life. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. iv. 23)

The three special functions, knowing, feeling, and willing, ascribed by modern psychologists to the mind, were attributed to the heart by the Biblical writers (comp. Assyrian "libbu" = "heart," in Delitzsch, "Assyrisches Handwörterb." p. 367). In the Book of Daniel intellectual functions are ascribed not to the head only (Dan. ii. 28; iv. 2, 7, 10 [A. V. 5, 10, 13]; vii. 1, 15), but also to the heart (ib. ii. 30).
Its Psychical Aspects.

The heart as the seat of thought is referred to in "ma?shebot libbo" (thoughts of his heart; Ps. xxxiii. 11) and in "morashe lebabi" (possessions or thoughts of my heart; Job xvii. 11). So "amar beleb" (Obad. i. 3), "amar el leb" (Gen. viii. 21), "dibber 'im leb" (Eccl. i. 16) (= "to speak to the heart" or "to oneself"), mean "to think." The heart knows and perceives (Deut. xxix. 3 [A. V. 4]); it remembers and forgets (I Sam. xxi. 13 [A. V. 12]; Deut. iv. 9). "A dead man out of heart" (A. V. "mind"; Ps. xxxi. 13 [A. V. 12]) means a dead man forgotten. The man of understanding is called "ish [plur. "anshe"] lebab" = "the man of heart" (Job xxxiv. 10, 34), and the man without understanding "?asar leb" (Prov. x. 13) or "en leb" (Jer. v. 21), "the man void of heart" or "without heart."
Chatter / Re: Well, finally ordered that pillow I was talking about!
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 12:32:10 AM »
Merged this topic with the topic formerly known as ZenoGuy is going to have a fun future month...

Jstwebbrowsing, if the story had completely neglected to include any hint or mention of god hardening the Pharaoh's heart, would any information of value have been lost in the story?

It's just, to me, it seems to only serve to obfuscate the meaning[1].  It doesn't seem to add anything.  In any sense.  Like, it doesn't give the narrative any additional drive, or inform on the motivations of the people involved, or describe the situation in better detail.  It is worse than gratuitous - it is confusing.  I know, I know - you're not confused by it.  Fine.  But, comparatively, it seems more confusing compared to a text that did not include that gratuitous statement.

Maybe not.  But it's confusing to me, and it seems ridiculous that such an implication is included in the first place.  How do you imagine it got included?  Did someone accidentally write that down?  Were they describing a vision and interpreted some 'spirit thingie' as 'god's presence of metaphorically and indirectly being a causal agent (though not responsible for) in the hardening of the Pharaoh's heart'?

"For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,+ so that through our endurance+ and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope" (Romans 15:4)

"Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us+ upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come" (1 Cor 10:11)

Passages such as the one we are discussing allow us to see beyond what's on the surface into the root cause of the problem so we can guard against it ourselves.  For example, there are passages in the scriptures that may paint us in a bad light and really ruffle our feathers.  We can respond in a couple different ways.  We can pridefully harden our heart and ignore any counsel or we can humbly accept it as discipline and respond in a favorable way.

And this doesn't only apply when dealing with God.  Anytime someone criticizes us, instead of considering what has been said, we can harden our heart and become pridefully beligerent or completely ignore what's been said.

Passages like this allow us to see that the problems arise from a hardened heart.  So if one wants to work toward a solution, you begin with softening your heart.

"Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it." (Provers 4:23)

k this is what you just did:

You explained the rules of addition.  Based on those rules of addition, I note that it seems odd that 5 + 9 = -34532.4534.  In response to me noting that oddity, you re-explain the rules of addition.

I'm asking you, specifically, with the mentioning of god hardening, what would have been lost if that were not mentioned?  What, specifically, is being revealed beyond the surface that otherwise is not by saying 'god hardened the Pharaoh's heart'?

It's an incredibly specific question.  Your response just completely dodges it.  I'm asking what would information would have been missing if specific passage x was not included.  You tell me that sometimes passages are included to provide more information.  That's not an answer.
The longer I'm an atheist, the more I'm stunned at some believers' ability to compartmentalize:

From the linked article:
A local mom pleaded for a Mother's Day miracle earlier this month. She was in desperate need of a kidney transplant and her children set up a social media campaign in hopes of finding a match.

Laurie Vargo-Wilke is hours away from surgery. Her prayers have been answered and a kidney to be donated but this story is bittersweet.

"It's kind of hard to be happy under the circumstances. I mean, I'm thankful and I'm grateful but then my heart goes out to the family for losing their son," she said.

In this particular case, I can actually understand her not wanting to think through the implications, but that doesn't make her god any less monstrous. If she's right and this is the answer to her prayer, her all-powerful (should have healed her so she didn't need a transplant), all-knowing (would have steered the now unneeded donor away from being in that fire), all-loving (could have spared her, the donor and their families all that grief and pain) god chose one of the most Rube Goldberg[1]-esque solutions it could have, short of having one of her own children be the donor.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. All those missed opportunities, for an omnigod, just do not make sense. If it existed.

They literally eat the results of evolution--mutated corn, mutated bananas and milk from mutated cows-- in their cereal bowls every day.

This is not what I see people deny.  What I see people deny is that the corn will ever bring into existence something other other than what it already is......corn.

See the picture of corn on this page.

While there is a difference, do you notice that one thing has stayed the same?  This is also the result of selective breeding, which is mixing traits that are already available within the corn.  So it appears what you call mutated, others call [unnaturally] selectively bred.

I also see people deny that random mutation/natural selection is a primary mechanism for change.

What are we debating here? "Normal" plant breeding techniques, since maybe the 1950's have involved X-Radiation and mutagens to randomly muck up the DNA of thousands of seedlings and cuttings. The resultant DNA has been randomised, and the changes cannot be considered part of the original design. Your claim is that corn is like packs of cards being shuffled in different ways: that we always end up with standard corn cards in the result. Mutagenesis techniques involve shooting decks of cards with a shotgun full of crap, so that parts of one card go missing, and parts of other cards end up wedged into others.

DNA is like binary... well it's quaternery. But I will use binary for this demonstration.

Say we start with sequence 0101010101010 and we say that this is part of corn DNA, and always has been. Then we blow a hole in it, with a shotgun, so we get 0100000101010. Just because 1 bits have gone missing does not mean we now have a subset of corn DNA. If 0100000101010 has never, in the history of corn, ever existed, then the lack of 1s still comes from outside corn DNA. If subjecting DNA to a chemical mutagen causes a DNA assembler enzyme to fix a few more 1s into a thread, we can end up with 1111010101010. Just because the extra 1s happened to be lying around, does not mean that the sequence 1111010101010 comes from corn.

Natural mutation is similar, but at a slower rate.

do you notice that one thing has stayed the same?

Yes, I notice that you still don't subscribe to modern genetic engineering journals, and have still only read criticisms of evolution from websites run by people who don't know anything about the subject.

Correct.  And I am challenging the claim, "There's no objective evidence that the universe was purposefully created by a sentient being."

It would be just like me saying, "there's no objective evidence that aliens exist". 

He's correct. You said it again, right under him. But your perception of what he is saying, is so biased, that you can't read what he said.
So then, what you're saying, is that you don't know what you actually meant.
Chatter / Re: What do you guys do for fun when you're not here?
« Last post by jynnan tonnix on Yesterday at 11:04:02 PM »
Or, if not a musician, what music do you enjoy listening to? Even in the world of Christian music there are, no doubt, as many genres and styles as in the secular world. What makes your ears perk up and pulls you along with it? Things more along the lines of rock? or gospel? or folk music? Classical? Reggae? Barbershop quartets?

How about art? There are Christian examples from all styles...what makes your eyes happy? Representational or more abstract? Impressionist or photorealistic? Renaissance? Graffiti? Art Deco? Anything?




What might you be enjoying on any given day, whether it is steeped in Christianity or not

We just don't know much about you, and this thread is, basically, just about getting a bit more of a sense of what we, as individuals, enjoy in those times we kick back without there being any expectations of us. I would think we all have those times. Or do you think that God expects us to forego those completely in favor of spending every moment worshiping him?

And if you do believe that, then does it really make sense to worship a being who could imbue us with the capacity to enjoy such a wide variety of experiences while decrying some 90% of them as sinful (or, at least, sinful if not carefully guarded to ensure that we remember to give him credit for every moment)?

Not saying that you do or don't believe this is the way we are expected to live our lives, by the way...just nudging a few options your way so that we can maybe get to know you just a little better.
And I corrected you. 

Because if you can't, then it means you don't know what you're saying.

I am not the person to teach someone the common everyday use of language which I'm sure they already know.  I just provided a list of heart metaphors and their meaning.  If you still don't understand then you could do some research on your own.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10