Benefits of being PhD?
category: general [glöplog]
Gloom...*sigh*. In Jewish tradition there is indeed punishment of those passed away who did evil or rebelled against God, the punishment of the grave is their idea. and it passed over into NT as the fiery pit.
Daniel
12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.
matt:
13:50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
mark:
9:48 where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched/b].
rev:
20:14 Then Death and Hades were [b]thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire. 15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire
4:10 that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb.
etc.etc...
and it was God who cleared a streight path for those who wished to behave themself
A scientists would be interrested in following the strict rules of the languages in question, and would soon notice that in regard to the Quran, a lot of alterations of grammer has happened through the ages, so he would properbly brush all those aside and look at the text as is. Due to how the arabic (semitic) language work, God is never actually called male, the word THE GOD (Al ILYAH) is male, thus "The God" (the word) is a he when you adress it, but speaks nothing of the actual sex of the words wearer.
A scientists would soon discover that the punishment for theft cannot be cutting of peoples hands because the original arabic says that you have to cut of 2 or more hands for such a crime (if you go by the grammar), and reading this passage like this, renders another passage useless because it uses the same terms to describe someone who was cutting fruits who cut her hand in the prcess. Did she cut of 2 or more hands of herself? This is the approach a scientists would take, and this is the approach that scientists takes, as free of personal bias as poor reasoning as they can be.
yes if you chose read it like you do (when the devil reads the bible, comes to mind). If you read the message of it, and look at it in the context of when it was written another take is :" Abraham was willing to sacrifice everything he loved the most to be with God", as we are told in that very story that he sacrficed his favourite son, one that was given to him in very old age when the thought himself to be sterile. Well thank you for this clear display of Bias and ignorance, you wouldnt happen to have a humanistic pHd would you? have a nice day mate :)
Daniel
12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.
matt:
13:50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
mark:
9:48 where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched/b].
rev:
20:14 Then Death and Hades were [b]thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire. 15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire
4:10 that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb.
etc.etc...
Quote:
it was God who prepared the fires of hell for unbelievers
and it was God who cleared a streight path for those who wished to behave themself
Quote:
a scientist would be interested in the most straightforward interpretation.
A scientists would be interrested in following the strict rules of the languages in question, and would soon notice that in regard to the Quran, a lot of alterations of grammer has happened through the ages, so he would properbly brush all those aside and look at the text as is. Due to how the arabic (semitic) language work, God is never actually called male, the word THE GOD (Al ILYAH) is male, thus "The God" (the word) is a he when you adress it, but speaks nothing of the actual sex of the words wearer.
A scientists would soon discover that the punishment for theft cannot be cutting of peoples hands because the original arabic says that you have to cut of 2 or more hands for such a crime (if you go by the grammar), and reading this passage like this, renders another passage useless because it uses the same terms to describe someone who was cutting fruits who cut her hand in the prcess. Did she cut of 2 or more hands of herself? This is the approach a scientists would take, and this is the approach that scientists takes, as free of personal bias as poor reasoning as they can be.
Quote:
but take the story of Isaac's sacrifice (or Ishmael). This is a disgusting message
yes if you chose read it like you do (when the devil reads the bible, comes to mind). If you read the message of it, and look at it in the context of when it was written another take is :" Abraham was willing to sacrifice everything he loved the most to be with God", as we are told in that very story that he sacrficed his favourite son, one that was given to him in very old age when the thought himself to be sterile. Well thank you for this clear display of Bias and ignorance, you wouldnt happen to have a humanistic pHd would you? have a nice day mate :)
not sacrificed, was willing to sacrifice...
bloody fucking hell! why are you all discussing religion all the sudden? this is about phd. and yes, i do think that while it's a private matter of each scientist if he's christian or muslim or whatever, religion has a worth in science only as a study object. all the attempts to work out a "science with religion" or "spiritual science" are nothing but retrograde bullshit. and now lets get back to topic.
And Jews would be quick to point out that shame is not torture. It's just facing the "reality of your life", not a punishment but a consequence. And it's a temporary thing, too, a cleansing process sort of like self-inflicted purgatory. The new testament stuff has a much heavier torture theme, and it's more clearly punishment, but you have questions like whether the fire itself is eternal or you will actually burn in it forever. Either way, it's an ugly image of "loving" God, and the crude pseudo-morality throughout makes for some very uninspiring books. It is not something one would be impressed by unless you happened to believe that there was some truth to the metaphysics.
Behave themselves by believing, yes. There is punishment for people who do bad things like brag about charity, sure, but the overall purpose of Hell seems to be punishing unbelievers for the crime of unbelief. The Quran is very explicit in that respect.
You're right. Obviously Ishmael is a metaphor for something that Abraham loved very much but which could be killed with no moral implications. So, when the devil shows up to talk him out of killing his beloved son (the devil is so EVIL isn't he) he's actually appealing to Abraham's selfishness. You know, I stand corrected. If you take it the Quran uses people as metaphors for animals or inanimate objects, then yes, some of the ugly stuff isn't that ugly anymore. It's just bad literature.
Your fanciful interpretations aside, traditionally Muslims defend the story by saying the commandment to kill Ishmael was not from God at all (since God forbids human sacrifice and you can play around with obscure semantics to make the origin of the command unspecific). Which of course is strange as then Abraham is rewarded for idolatry. But whatever.
Quote:
and it was God who cleared a streight path for those who wished to behave themself
Behave themselves by believing, yes. There is punishment for people who do bad things like brag about charity, sure, but the overall purpose of Hell seems to be punishing unbelievers for the crime of unbelief. The Quran is very explicit in that respect.
Quote:
yes if you chose read it like you do (when the devil reads the bible, comes to mind). If you read the message of it, and look at it in the context of when it was written another take is :" Abraham was willing to sacrifice everything he loved the most to be with God", as we are told in that very story that he sacrficed his favourite son, one that was given to him in very old age when the thought himself to be sterile. Well thank you for this clear display of Bias and ignorance,
You're right. Obviously Ishmael is a metaphor for something that Abraham loved very much but which could be killed with no moral implications. So, when the devil shows up to talk him out of killing his beloved son (the devil is so EVIL isn't he) he's actually appealing to Abraham's selfishness. You know, I stand corrected. If you take it the Quran uses people as metaphors for animals or inanimate objects, then yes, some of the ugly stuff isn't that ugly anymore. It's just bad literature.
Your fanciful interpretations aside, traditionally Muslims defend the story by saying the commandment to kill Ishmael was not from God at all (since God forbids human sacrifice and you can play around with obscure semantics to make the origin of the command unspecific). Which of course is strange as then Abraham is rewarded for idolatry. But whatever.
I'll ask my sister... She received her PhD yesterday \o/
Quote:
The Quran is very explicit in that respect.
Indeed it is. those who are disbelievers are clearly exposed as being those that commit bloodshed, those who murder etc.. The Quran defines "disbelievers" the kafirs very wel,and it is not just everyone and anyone who does not believe in God. Disbelief is according to the Quran linked directly to actions of people more than the held beliefs of people
Quote:
If you take it the Quran uses people as metaphors
well, why not let the Quran answer that question:
"“Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that;....."
modern arab interpreters tend to forget about this verse and others like it. The Quran states in no uncertain term that it is dealing in parables..
Quote:
Your fanciful interpretations aside
what is so fancy about using the grammar of the day it was written contrary to modern schools of islam who uses modern grammar on ancient texts? yes the meaning becoems different from the one know as islam today, which is in reality rather new and used to be called petro-islam just 30 years ago because it was so new, but the meaning becomes closer to what it was by using rules of grammar as close to the original as is possible.
you wanna keep going or???
Quote:
are nothing but retrograde bullshit.
kindda like humanistic PhD's. the arrogant idea that society should pay for your personal history fetish. I have one aswell, as is obvious, but I don't expect my neighbours to pay for it because it's relevance to my neighbours and my society is zero, null, none what so ever and only my peers, the other people who gets public funding for their personal hobbies will ever even read the book i published....I write a lot of articles on islam and religion, articles read and commented by people who are officially much better educated than I am. Noone else than geeks like myself, ever reads my articles, thus i am part of a "history scene", and society should have no obligation to pay for "scenes" or other hobbies people may have.
Quote:
"“Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that;....."
A parable is a story which is read not for its literal meaning but for some sort of moral message. If it's intended to be a parable you can't dismiss the story for being fictional, but the moral message is the same. That's the whole point of a parable. Of course it is not a literal account because God and the Devil don't literally exist. The question is whether it's a parable about human sacrifice or not. Either:
A) The story talks about God asking Abraham to murder his son to prove that he is obedient. Paints an ugly picture of God, and makes Satan the good guy (a recurring theme in the Abrahamic religions, mind you).
B) Ishmael is a metaphor for something with only material value. To use Ishmael in this way is very uncharacteristic, as Ishmael himself is a prophet and an important figure in Islam, which I guess is why you'd find so few Muslims willing to accept that he is used here as a metaphor for something other than Abraham's beloved son. And to use *any* human being as such a metaphor still gives some insight into the mind of the author.
Like, imagine Lord of The Rings, only instead of orcs Tolkien had used the term "black people". Anyone reading that would rightly conclude that Tolkien was a racist. No amount of "it's only a metaphor" apologetics would remove the racism.
What you're saying, then, is that the story of Ishmael's sacrifice was written by someone who thought a son was a suitable metaphor for some posession that you might destroy to please God. So you establish that the author is himself a barbarian comfortable with the idea of human sacrifice, yet you still think the obvious interpretation involving a bloodthirsty God is unlikely to be intentional?
Quote:
you wanna keep going or???
You think you sound convincing? o.O
E-mail, guys. Please use it.
since when "society" pays for my phd? where can i line up? right now i am a normal employeeat the university DOING STUFF (translations, organizing etc.) that i get money for. it's not like iget money for nothing. and when i will succeed in getting funding to work on my phd fulltime, it is stillnot "society" which pays me for nothing, but a political party or a trade union (depends on the funding).
and itS not about a "personal history fetish". it's about the society learning about its past. and if you think that it's unimportant than you don't understand what society is about.
but why am i argueing with an obvious troll.
and itS not about a "personal history fetish". it's about the society learning about its past. and if you think that it's unimportant than you don't understand what society is about.
but why am i argueing with an obvious troll.
par⋅a⋅ble [par-uh-buhl] Show IPA
–noun 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.
yes...i really am that convincing! You completely ignore that patriachal society from which many of these teachings came. The son is the property of the father, and not a whole lot have changed in those areas since then, although change is comming. So while the 2 examples you put up is true according to the taboos of our own social structure it isnt in theirs. Which is the better or least evil? our own obviously, but they would say the same thing, so the examples are emotionally loaded from the get go.
Dip...I know people pay part the cost themself, for the title. I am not talking about the Phd itself, but merely making refference to the people I am in contact with who never had a real job in their life, and to this day "study religion" on public grant money so they can write technical book for their peers to read. money made avaible by having the PhD, from what I understand.
You study history, you of all people should know how unrealiable the source material can be. and more often than not, it is unreliable. How can there by somethign such as a history Kanon? how can it even be reffered to as a science with such a starting point. You know the saying, history is written by those who dominate, and it is not an indicator of its truthfulness. What we can learn is what people back then tells us is true, and it may or may not be true.
From my own strudy of Islam, one of things that stroke me hard was how the same snippet of wrong information can travel across a whole continent and get retold by different collectors of the hadith. Snippets passed as historical fact, and found validated (even by secyular western scholars) merely because of the many mentions from various peoples across the arab peninsula. many sources point towards the same thing, ergo it must be true. I am convinced that you are smart enough to understand why this is a pretty bad and unscientific method. And thats just one I have had to deal with from paid "professionals" in the group work im part of, unwinding semitic, but particularly arabic religious tradition and history.
–noun 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.
yes...i really am that convincing! You completely ignore that patriachal society from which many of these teachings came. The son is the property of the father, and not a whole lot have changed in those areas since then, although change is comming. So while the 2 examples you put up is true according to the taboos of our own social structure it isnt in theirs. Which is the better or least evil? our own obviously, but they would say the same thing, so the examples are emotionally loaded from the get go.
Dip...I know people pay part the cost themself, for the title. I am not talking about the Phd itself, but merely making refference to the people I am in contact with who never had a real job in their life, and to this day "study religion" on public grant money so they can write technical book for their peers to read. money made avaible by having the PhD, from what I understand.
You study history, you of all people should know how unrealiable the source material can be. and more often than not, it is unreliable. How can there by somethign such as a history Kanon? how can it even be reffered to as a science with such a starting point. You know the saying, history is written by those who dominate, and it is not an indicator of its truthfulness. What we can learn is what people back then tells us is true, and it may or may not be true.
From my own strudy of Islam, one of things that stroke me hard was how the same snippet of wrong information can travel across a whole continent and get retold by different collectors of the hadith. Snippets passed as historical fact, and found validated (even by secyular western scholars) merely because of the many mentions from various peoples across the arab peninsula. many sources point towards the same thing, ergo it must be true. I am convinced that you are smart enough to understand why this is a pretty bad and unscientific method. And thats just one I have had to deal with from paid "professionals" in the group work im part of, unwinding semitic, but particularly arabic religious tradition and history.
I'm currently reading a book about depth psychology (Freud, Adler, Jung, etc.). Each chapter was written by a different person. Short biographies of the authors are provided in the appendix. All of these authors have quite impressive CVs: Most of them studied psychology, some even studied other curricula in parallel; all of them graduated within a short time; some of them obtained a PhD, and one person's PhD thesis was even awarded a prize. But...
I had the impression that these people, despite having an impressive CV, have not really achieved anything. They have learned a lot about Freud, Adler, Jung etc., they have (obviously successfully) tried to read and understand their theories, well enough to be able to write essays about them, which convey their theories to laymen, and to critically analyse these theories and point out weaknesses (e.g. Jung's fascination for Hitler).
What I mean is: These people were very successful in academic terms. But, as far as I see it, none of them has really generated any new ideas, any new hypotheses, any new theories, any new approaches to treating psychic disorders and diseases, etc.
In contrast to that, really innovative people often have a much "lower" level of formal education. Freud, Adler and Jung themselves, for example, never studied psychology - all of them were medical doctors. It seems to be significant to me that people who are widely considered to be pioneers and innovators in psychology were actually no psychologists themselves.
And I guess the same applies to many walks of life - many highly innovative people were (and are) self-taught "laymen".
I had the impression that these people, despite having an impressive CV, have not really achieved anything. They have learned a lot about Freud, Adler, Jung etc., they have (obviously successfully) tried to read and understand their theories, well enough to be able to write essays about them, which convey their theories to laymen, and to critically analyse these theories and point out weaknesses (e.g. Jung's fascination for Hitler).
What I mean is: These people were very successful in academic terms. But, as far as I see it, none of them has really generated any new ideas, any new hypotheses, any new theories, any new approaches to treating psychic disorders and diseases, etc.
In contrast to that, really innovative people often have a much "lower" level of formal education. Freud, Adler and Jung themselves, for example, never studied psychology - all of them were medical doctors. It seems to be significant to me that people who are widely considered to be pioneers and innovators in psychology were actually no psychologists themselves.
And I guess the same applies to many walks of life - many highly innovative people were (and are) self-taught "laymen".
Quote:
since when "society" pays for my phd? where can i line up? right now i am a normal employeeat the university DOING STUFF (translations, organizing etc.) that i get money for.
Well, at least the state universities - where people earn their PhDs - are funded by the "society".
If you believe in any religion, you're an idiot. I do feel sorry for you though.
science is a religion, in practice, for most people
no.
yes it is .|.
lol
no.
what x said.
Is too.
havent seen scientists blow themselves up in shopping malls yet to get attention for science..
You misunderstand, I'm not saying scientists are like priests. But rather that people must take science on faith because noone has the time to check everything themselves. The belief from the point of view of everyone other than the scientist researching the issue he makes a statement about, is no different to followers of a religion.
well there's a little difference though. you can always repeat the experiment and observe the consequences yourself.
on the other hand, would anyone please talk to god again?
on the other hand, would anyone please talk to god again?
Quote:
You misunderstand, I'm not saying scientists are like priests. But rather that people must take science on faith because noone has the time to check everything themselves. The belief from the point of view of everyone other than the scientist researching the issue he makes a statement about, is no different to followers of a religion.
Amen. And it's quite funny to see it's followers squirm when faced with the obvious fact. It is not like science has ever been used to decieve all of us, or still are. History is laughably called a science...LOL...not only is the source material spurious at best, history becomes kanonized which in effect just means that enough people insist that something happenened and wrote it down, which serves as it's evidence. 1 billion people believe Jesus is going to come back, going by the litmus test of historical texts, they are right...it is a historical fact! ...who gives a shit what I think, this is science! they have studied the texts that they have been told to study, the texts which we agree contains the truth...LOL
Not like prists?
I beg to differ...