Mind if I Try to Start a Religious Debate?

[Esau of Isaac]

I put it in spoiler tags, as this is off topic. If you can tell me what the founders of the United States meant by these laws

First, the Constitution of the United States: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

In the Preamble, what do the founders of the United States mean by "promote the general welfare?" If we got one Liberal attorney, one Conservative, and one Moderate, would all three agree on what it meant? Does it mean we create a welfare/social security system? If so, why was it only implemented during FDR's presidency? What does "secure the blessings of liberty" mean?

Jump down to the end of Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

What did the founders of the United States consider "necessary and proper?" Were the Sedition Acts necessary and proper? Or perhaps the Japanese internment camps? Was the Patriot Act "necessary and proper?" Would John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson consider them such?

Look at Article I, Section 9: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

What did the Founders consider a rebellion? Would the Civil Rights movement be a rebellion? What circumstances did they feel suspending Habeas Corpus would be necessary? What type of rebellion or invasion did the Founders think would justify detention of US citizens with no evidence?

The Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did the Founders mean that each person can own a gun, or did the mean each state could keep it's own militia that was separate from the US military? Or did they mean both? In government class, I was taught it meant the latter and not the former. I've found that's not necessarily true however.

Amendment IV: "The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Did the Founders intend for this to apply to airport security screenings? Did they consider it reasonable to search someone simply because they are using a particular mode of travel?

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What rights did the Founders have in mind? Did this include the ownership of slaves (which would later be prohibited)? Did they mean state laws, or were they talking about US Citizens?

If we were to take a group of lawyers from different socio-economic backgrounds, different schools of law, different fields of law, and different years of experience at interpreting law, do you believe they would all have the same interpretation of what these laws mean, and they would all agree with each other's opinion of how they apply? I personally do not believe so. That's just talking about people trained to read and interpret laws. Do you believe the average person agrees with everyone else as to what all this means? I wouldn't say so. It's not a minority that wants to make life difficult for everyone either: the right to bear arms is incredibly controversial. Many people want to do away with Welfare/SSI/Unemployment checks, and many people argue to keep them because that is part of the government's responsibility. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" is a bit tricky as well: does that give the government free reign to do whatever it wants so long as it's justified as "necessary and proper?"

I'm not sure what part of the country you live in where everyone (Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates, etc) all agree and have the same understanding of what the Constitution promises, but I wouldn't mind seeing this place.

Okay, yeah, it's debatable how broadly they termed these to be meant, because they were intentionally general statements. But there is no debate over the meaning of what these things are. We know when they say "promote the general welfare" what they are saying, for example, just not how specifically it is to be applied.

They are historical figures whose minds we cannot go into. How can we know with certainty what they wanted to say?

By reading what was written and knowing the meanings of words I guess? I don't understand, are you saying that there were no such things as the Yahwists, Deuteronymists, etc? Are you saying that these separate groups did not have a specific storytelling format, and that they didn't have members with specific religious beliefs and objectives?

Infinitely many readings. It depends on what you mean by "about." Do you mean that I am not educated enough on the Bible? Or do you mean that I am not educated enough in philosophy of language? Do you mean that I am not educated enough in arguing? Or logic?

This is exactly what I mean. There can be various potential readings that we cannot prove without looking into your head. Sadly, we cannot look into the heads of historical figures.

There are an infinite number of readings you can fall into if you are an idiot or English is your twentieth language, but if you can actually understand words and have a functioning IQ above room temperature it's pretty easy to see what I am saying.

I know it is difficult for you to concede a point, but you do understand that sentence right?

You claim that with "proper" education (proper itself is an elitist word) one knows which texts are literal and which are metaphorical. What is proper education? Is there no debate between people of proper education?

Proper being correct? I don't know, what do you call a proper education on math? There are basic college courses on studying the Bible.

There might be debate over people of proper education, but I doubt it will be anything like how you imagine. There are debates over Global Warming, but there is no debate over whether it is happening, just how to attribute it. Sort of like that, I suppose

Edited May 23, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Chiki]

How many readings does this sentence have: "The man hit the woman on the table."

What does that sentence mean to you?

[Esau of Isaac]

How many readings does this sentence have: "The man hit the woman on the table."

What does that sentence mean to you?

I can't really say what that means to me without repeating the sentence word for word.

[Phoenix Wright]

No, I am saying that it is uncertain.

OK, but how uncertain? Does our uncertainty of the text warrant a justification to accept anyone and everyone's interpretation as a viable one, or can we clearly accept some interpretations over the rest? I'd argue it's the latter.

We don't need to have absolute certainty of anything in order to accept it as fact.

[Steampunk]

We know when they say "promote the general welfare" what they are saying, for example, just not how specifically it is to be applied.

Those statements are vague because the people who wrote the Constitution knew what they meant by those statements. It's like how we leave brief notes that don't make sense to anyone else, but we understand them because we know what we were thinking when we wrote them. Two hundred twenty-six years later, their "notes in the margins" don't make as much sense. Just like attorneys and the Constitution, even though someone may have the right qualifications, what they interpret may not be what the author intended. We can only guess what the meaning is using knowledge of a document's context and hope we get it right. At the end of the day though, it's purely arbitrary: something is considered factual or metaphorical simply because someone says so. We can't email John or Luke and ask them: someone has to make a judgement call based on what they think is fact or fable, and that someone is decidedly not a first-hand witness. A good example is the story of the Exodus. Is that a historic account or allegory? Which parts are factual and which aren't? It's all up to whomever is reading it. That's my point and I think I've made it, so I won't beat it to death.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Sheik

[Esau of Isaac]

Those statements are vague because the people who wrote the Constitution knew what they meant by those statements. It's like how we leave brief notes that don't make sense to anyone else, but we understand them because we know what we were thinking when we wrote them.

We know what they meant. They are general statements. When I say "our laws provide the framework for society," that can mean several things, but the meaning of that general statement itself is impossible to miss.

[Chiki]

"The man hit the woman on the table" can mean the following:

The man hit a unique on-the-table woman.

The man hit a unique woman, and that woman is on the table.

These two readings are pretty much identical, but parsed differently. But here is the third crucial one:

The man hit the woman while the man himself was on the table.

This sentence can mean two things: either a man hit a woman who herself is on the table, or a man on the table hit the woman.

How do we figure out which meaning is the right one? We have to go inside the head of the person who said it. That is the only way to find out what the sentence means. Meaning is something that is just in the head.

Think of it this way. If you saw a bunch of ants draw a picture of Winston Churchill, it doesn't mean that they themselves know who Winston Churchill is. It's because you gave meaning to the picture of Winston Churchill that you think so.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

Good thing the Bible's stories aren't all made of one sentences and written in English. Otherwise you'd have a valid point

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Wow... All the posts are too much for me to read right now, so forgive me for that. All I'll say is that I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is 100% fact. I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, and I believe that Christian scientists have given evidence against evolution. I have to add to that though that whatever they find is always going to be twisted or altered to make them look wrong, because that's how the world is (I have personally experienced this), but I will not argue about it (or anything else I've said), BUT I must also say that science has done loads of wonderful things (like proving the earth is round) and I am NOT saying I hate it or discard it, because I most certainly do not. I believe that the earth is only around 6-to-10 thousand years old. That is all. Thanks if you read what I said. Again, not gonna argue about any of it, I don't like arguing. Now farewell, have fun with the rest of this thread.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Fire Emblem Fan

[Chiki]

So, you would agree that all meaning is in the head. Why wouldn't this apply to all languages and ambiguous sentences in the Bible iif meaning as a whole is just in the head? It's a well known linguistic fact that both syntactic and semantic ambiguity exist in all languages.

But then you're giving up the argument, because we have no other way of deriving meaning from sentences other than looking in a person's head. Certainly, we can understand the (or at least a vast majority of the) words the writers of the Bible used. But when it comes to literal vs. metaphorical, we can't really know for certain unless we look into the heads of the writers as long as it isn't painfully obvious what the meaning is.

but the meaning of that general statement itself is impossible to miss.

As Sheik pointed out here:

Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This sentence is ungrammatical (at least in our English it makes no sense). It's really hard to make any sense of this sentence, even for well-educated individuals. It could mean that, as Sheik points out, either a militia can own guns or everyone can. The general statement of this sentence is very difficult to understand.

[Steampunk]

We know what they meant. They are general statements. When I say "our laws provide the framework for society," that can mean several things, but the meaning of that general statement itself is impossible to miss.

Impossible to miss, yet you didn't explain what the Founders meant by a single one of them. If you are claiming that we can understand what Peter meant by his statements without relying on our own judgement to the extent that Peter's original message becomes diluted by our own assumptions of his meaning, then it stands to reason you can tell me what John Adams believed "securing the blessings of liberty" meant without filling in too many gaps with your own opinion. In both cases, we are presumably able to understand the operation of another's mind and rely on our own discretion to a minimal extent unless you mean that people make educated guesses about the author's intentions (which is largely at the mercy of the person interpreting). So, tell me if the drafters of the Constitution intended for government agents to search every airline passenger (or, let's say stagecoach passenger since they existed during that time) as per Amendment IV. You should also be able to tell me if they intended for Amendment II to refer to private gun ownership or state militias or both. I'm afraid simply saying "everyone knows what that means" doesn't quite cut it since there's a world of difference between the three choices. Considering a healthy number of people consider airport screening unconstitutional, it seems that not everyone knows what Amendment IV means either.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Sheik

[eclipse]

Man, I shouldn't be in here doing this again. This is a topic about RELIGION. I don't mind an analogy or two, but don't veer too far off-topic!

[Chiki]

As it turns out, there's syntactic ambiguity (same ambiguity in "the man hit the woman on the table") in the Bible too.

Exodus 14:30: For Israel saw Egypt dead on the bank of the sea.

Either Israel saw Egypt dead and Israel saw it on the bank of the sea, or Israel saw that Egypt was dead while Egypt was on the bank of the sea.

Which one is it? Can you show me evidence that it's one meaning?

[Espinosa]

A different language translation of that, which I just opened up (based on the originals and not 10th translation of something as some people here keep repeating), literally reads 'Israeli (sons) saw Egyptians dead on the bank of the sea' or a passive 'Egyptians were seen...' It should help even more if you can read the originals. I don't see how it has any significance for the Christian faith though (or even its polemics with whoever else). There could be far more important discrepancies you could choose to cite from the church history, such as some of the things brought up in the early 'universal' councils for instance, but you're not citing anything remotely meaningful.

[Chiki]

Israeli (sons) saw Egyptians dead on the bank of the sea

Umm.. the ambiguity is still there. Either the Israelis saw the Egyptians dead while the Egyptians were on the bank of the sea, or the Israelis were on the bank of the sea.

Anyway, Esau's claim was that "each can be derived as clear as day." That certainly isn't true, regardless of the importance of the sentence.

[Espinosa]

Common sense seems to suggest the Egyptians were the ones seen dead on the bank of the sea (they were found on the bank of the sea), but the opposite would change very little if anything.

Anyway, one should probably acknowledge that certain parts of the scripture are not understable with current life (and other) experience, St. John's revelation being the most obvious example.

[Steampunk]

Man, I shouldn't be in here doing this again. This is a topic about RELIGION. I don't mind an analogy or two, but don't veer too far off-topic!

But how are we supposed to properly discuss a topic without spending pages bickering about something that has nothing to do with it? #sarkazm

Anyway, like I said: I think I've made my point and there's no sense in going on (the Constitution is a debate all its own). I'll leave it up to you guys as to whether anything I've said makes sense.

[Esau of Isaac]

So, you would agree that all meaning is in the head. Why wouldn't this apply to all languages and ambiguous sentences in the Bible iif meaning as a whole is just in the head? It's a well known linguistic fact that both syntactic and semantic ambiguity exist in all languages.

It's not that it doesn't apply to all languages, it's that the ambiguity isn't present in a complete work because it's not one sentence where the subject and action can carry dual meanings. There are areas that have dual meanings, usually because of the Bible's very famous (and perhaps infamous) plays on words, but your example simply doesn't carry over to a larger scale. The meaning of it is all in our heads, yeah, but the meaning of everything I am typing now is in my head and you understand me fine.

Well, for the most part at least.

But then you're giving up the argument, because we have no other way of deriving meaning from sentences other than looking in a person's head. Certainly, we can understand the (or at least a vast majority of the) words the writers of the Bible used. But when it comes to literal vs. metaphorical, we can't really know for certain unless we look into the heads of the writers as long as it isn't painfully obvious what the meaning is.

It's painfully obvious what they mean. These stories are derived from different schools of thought. When you see genealogies or specific numbers used repeatedly in the Bible? Those are indicators of who wrote what.

This sentence is ungrammatical (at least in our English it makes no sense). It's really hard to make any sense of this sentence, even for well-educated individuals. It could mean that, as Sheik points out, either a militia can own guns or everyone can. The general statement of this sentence is very difficult to understand.

It's not difficult to understand. Any grown male was a member of the militia. Proper education of history leads anyone to easily understand that this was targeted towards the general populace. Just like proper education of the Bible stops someone from asking stupid questions that are answered through knowledge information surrounding it.

Impossible to miss, yet you didn't explain what the Founders meant by a single one of them.

Because I assume you are capable of reading. We have gotten through a good five or so responses and I'm pretty sure that's not through random clacking on the keyboard.

If you are claiming that we can understand what Peter meant by his statements without relying on our own judgement to the extent that Peter's original message becomes diluted by our own assumptions of his meaning, then it stands to reason you can tell me what John Adams believed "securing the blessings of liberty" meant without filling in too many gaps with your own opinion.

I mean I can state it plainer language but it's just repeating what it says. Securing the blessings of liberty means to ensure the benefits of liberty. It doesn't specifically mean anything. It's the preamble, a general statement and introduction to a document of law. It's a general statement and is not single specifying anything. I have no idea why we are still debating this.

So, tell me if the drafters of the Constitution intended for government agents to search every airline passenger (or, let's say stagecoach passenger since they existed during that time) as per Amendment IV.

No. There is no mention made of any airline or stagecoach made. Just a general statement made of a freedom. That is why the judicial branch of law exists. To narrow these general freedoms into specific liberties.

I'm afraid simply saying "everyone knows what that means" doesn't quite cut it since there's a world of difference between the three choices. Considering a healthy number of people consider airport screening unconstitutional, it seems that not everyone knows what Amendment IV means either.

You are twisting what I am saying into an argument I am not making. Everyone can read and understand the sentences and meanings behind the sentences that are written. They might not be sure how to apply them in modern society, or in a manner of law, but they know what is being stated. You know what aspirin are. You know what a headache is. You know what a need is. So you know what I mean when I say "I have a headache, I need some aspirin." Even if I said something more ambiguous like "I'm in pain, I need something," you still know what I am saying. No, you can't say exactly what I am feeling when I write that. But since you understand the English language you're aware of the words I am using and their meaning, even if it is a general statement.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Redwall]

Wow... All the posts are too much for me to read right now, so forgive me for that. All I'll say is that I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is 100% fact. I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, and I believe that Christian scientists have given evidence against evolution. I have to add to that though that whatever they find is always going to be twisted or altered to make them look wrong, because that's how the world is (I have personally experienced this), but I will not argue about it (or anything else I've said), BUT I must also say that science has done loads of wonderful things (like proving the earth is round) and I am NOT saying I hate it or discard it, because I most certainly do not. I believe that the earth is only around 6-to-10 thousand years old. That is all. Thanks if you read what I said. Again, not gonna argue about any of it, I don't like arguing. Now farewell, have fun with the rest of this thread.

I wonder why people make these sorts of posts to begin with if they're not even going to cite any sources or stick around for discussion.

-If you believe in a heliocentric solar system (as Rick Perry seems to, since he compared himself to Galileo during the presidential campaign) and if you know basic trigonometry (parallax), you cannot believe in a young universe unless the speed of light has somehow varied with time.

-Science can't prove jack. It can disprove things, and so far, evolution has not been disproven, even though there are countless ways to do so in principle.

[Chiki]

Alright, Esau, you avoided my examples about ambiguity in the Bible. Please tell me what is meant by:

Exodus 14:30: For Israel saw Egypt dead on the bank of the sea.

Exodus 15:10: They sank like lead in mighty waters.

Genesis 39:17: The servant that you brought in came to me to have sex with me!

The first one I already explained.

In the second one, one can either sink "like lead in mighty waters," or sink like lead "in mighty waters." See the difference? Which one is it? Can you point to any well-educated individual who can tell me which one it is?

The third one is pretty funny, but it's still there. Either the servant came to have sex with that person, or the servant who one brought in to have sex with that person came. Which one is it?

For the first one, Espinosa explains that the Egyptians were found on the bank of the sea. But this doesn't rule out the possibility that the Israelis saw the Egyptians while the Israelis were on the bank of the sea.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Olwen

[Espinosa]

2) They sank, like lead, in mighty waters. Otherwise the similie is unnecessarily specific.

3) To convey that other meaning, one would rather say "The servant you brought in to have sex with me came to me", which is impossible with your cited exact word order.

By the way, have you considered reading some literature and thinking about the ambiguity of the word 'come' everytime you encounter it? Sounds like an equally meaningful activity.

[deleted35362]

Wow... All the posts are too much for me to read right now, so forgive me for that. All I'll say is that I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is 100% fact. I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, and I believe that Christian scientists have given evidence against evolution. I have to add to that though that whatever they find is always going to be twisted or altered to make them look wrong, because that's how the world is (I have personally experienced this), but I will not argue about it (or anything else I've said), BUT I must also say that science has done loads of wonderful things (like proving the earth is round) and I am NOT saying I hate it or discard it, because I most certainly do not. I believe that the earth is only around 6-to-10 thousand years old. That is all. Thanks if you read what I said. Again, not gonna argue about any of it, I don't like arguing. Now farewell, have fun with the rest of this thread.

Wow...my head...

...okay, no offense, but I really hope you're a troll. Creationism isn't a science, first of all. The "things they find" are text they study in the bible to draw conclusions from interpretation. You have no grounds to call the bible 100% fact while people who study religion ponder the meanings of the scriptures and debate amongst each other even to this day. Scientists don't declare any of their theories and laws to be 100% factual either.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Boney

[Chiki]

2) They sank, like lead, in mighty waters. Otherwise the similie is unnecessarily specific.

3) To convey that other meaning, one would rather say "The servant you brought in to have sex with me came to me", which is impossible with your cited exact word order.

By the way, have you considered reading some literature and thinking about the ambiguity of the word 'come' everytime you encounter it? Sounds like an equally meaningful activity.

You still aren't comprehending the point. Esau said "each." I know this is a stupid activity, but he won't deny the truth no matter how hard I try.

And the second meaning does work. Just look up syntactic ambiguity in the Bible.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Chiki

[Esau of Isaac]

Exodus 15:10: They sank like lead in mighty waters.

Genesis 39:17: The servant that you brought in came to me to have sex with me!

In the second one, one can either sink "like lead in mighty waters," or sink like lead "in mighty waters." See the difference? Which one is it? Can you point to any well-educated individual who can tell me which one it is?

Do you want me to point you to someone that can read the original passages? It's pretty evident it's saying it sank because it was heavy like lead.

The third one is pretty funny, but it's still there. Either the servant came to have sex with that person, or the servant who one brought in to have sex with that person came. Which one is it?

http://biblehub.com/genesis/39-17.htm

This is reminiscent of other passages with similarly astoundingly bad translations. I'm not sure where you pulled that one from.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Esau of Isaac