A common Libertarian round point seems to be about gold I think, alledgedly owning it is illegal or something? What are the current issues with gold? I am just ever so slightely paranoid enough about WWIII that I have the urge to build a bomb shelter and keep a supply of gold since it would still hold its value in contrast to paper money.
Anything wrong with hoarding gold?
Damnit, why can't I get in touch with my inner Dragon Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Can you eat gold?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"A common Libertarian round point seems to be about gold I think, alledgedly owning it is illegal or something?"
Not even close. If anything they would feel that paper money should be illegal and only gold, silver, and precious metals should be made legal tender. The argument is that if you have more fake income than real valuables to back it up there will always be a financial crisis leaving the government vulnerable to collapse.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I say again, can you eat gold? All legal tender is is the potential for goods and services. Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes, its not toxic neh?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
During parts of the late 60s/early 70s I think it was illegal to "hoard" gold and silver. I'm pretty sure that's changed since then.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I say again, can you eat gold? All legal tender is is the potential for goods and services. Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty. If you want to stock up for the end of the world, stock up on food, blankets, fabric, seeds, or fuel. Learn to sew, or blacksmith, or build engines, or grow crops. If you stock up on gold you'll have a whole bunch of pretty rocks, you'll sure be of use when the apocalypse comes.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Private ownership of gold (bullion, gold that isn't made into something useful or decorative) might be illegal in some countrys. It was in the US from the early depression until about 1975. But for you, no problem. Come on down. We have tons if it here in Nevada. You just have to dig it up. (and process it) Lots of Canadians do. P.S Oh, bring lots of money. The diesel to dig it up will cost you about what the gold is worth.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: If you want to stock up for the end of the world, stock up on food, blankets, fabric, seeds, or fuel. Learn to sew, or blacksmith, or build engines, or grow crops.
. . .and be eaten by the zombies, since you left "bullets" off your shopping list.
Well, I guess you could pour fuel on them and light them on fire.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It was not an exclusive list. Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
A friend (an old one) who lived through the economic meltdown of prewar Germany, and later through the mess at the end of the war told me that if you really want to hoard for an apocalypse, you should store cooking oil and alcohol. Anything eatable you can scrounge up will work better with the cooking oil and if you really need something else, you can trade for the alcohol. It's the only commodity that is always in demand.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: ...and be eaten by the zombies, since you left "bullets" off your shopping list.
...not to mention a machete.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty.
An important part of why it's valuable is also because of its relative scarcity.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Shotguns always nice for taking care of zombies but theiir just so darn hard to maintain.
What did Zombie Survival guide suggest? Machete and knife right?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I hear one should stock up on Nuka-Cola bottle caps
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I say again, can you eat gold? All legal tender is is the potential for goods and services. Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty.
Pretty and rare, your thinking of diamonds, which are pretty and actually worthless, dug up by slave labor, and force fed to us by Zales. I hope one day I can find someone to marry me who doesn't want a diamond ring, as buying one would seriously compromise my ethics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I say again, can you eat gold? All legal tender is is the potential for goods and services. Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty.
Wrong. Its value comes from the fact that the government can't just create it on a whim, thereby stripping it of value.
You can't eat paper money either, which is why the line "can you eat gold" is so ridiculous. Gold also stands for goods and services. And the government can't just run the printing presses and produce gold from nothing.
What kind of a fantasy world do we live in where we think that printing another $400+ billion dollars of funny money will do anything but lower the value of every dollar in existence? Yes, money stands for goods and services. If X amount of money represents Y amount of goods and services, and you double the amount of money, then each unit of money is now worth half the goods and services it was previously worth.
In ancient times, they used to shave coins. It was essentially the same mechanism. They'd take a little off of each coin, so that it wasn't particularly noticable, and they'd wind up with a ton of extra gold or silver or copper. Do you know why dimes and quarters have rough edges? It's precisely to prevent people from doing that.
But shaving coins is nothing compared to the wholesale theft of running the printing presses at the mint.
Watch this. Forget that Ron Paul is in it. Listen to what he says and think about it.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Lisa, I think that sarcasticmuppet was mostly referring to this part of Blayne's post:
quote:I am just ever so slightely paranoid enough about WWIII that I have the urge to build a bomb shelter and keep a supply of gold since it would still hold its value in contrast to paper money.
The point being, that in a post apocalyptic scenario, gold wouldn't necessarily retain much value either, and certainly would not be as immediately useful or valuable as food and other survival goods.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:I hope one day I can find someone to marry me who doesn't want a diamond ring, as buying one would seriously compromise my ethics.
If you end up with someone who does want a diamond, you can get a Polar Diamond from Canada. Still artificially expensive for something pretty and worthless, of course, but no slave labor worries. Alternately, you can take a trip to Arkansas together and dig up your own diamond in the diamond field national park there. Much more romantic and meaningful.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by String:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I say again, can you eat gold? All legal tender is is the potential for goods and services. Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty.
Pretty and rare, your thinking of diamonds, which are pretty and actually worthless, dug up by slave labor, and force fed to us by Zales. I hope one day I can find someone to marry me who doesn't want a diamond ring, as buying one would seriously compromise my ethics.
Not true at all, but don't let actual facts stand in your way NOW....
Diamonds really aren't all that rare. Gem quality ones are though.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I'm not defending paper money either. I'm saying that in Blayne's hypothetical in the first post, it would be stupid to hoard gold instead of things that have immediate value in a life-threatening situation, like food, clothing, transportation, crops, etc. If all you have to trade is a rare and shiny rock, how long are you going to last when people don't need rare and shiny rocks, and barter with the guy who has chickens, or can make you a coat to last through the winter, or can fix the engine on your car?
My engagement ring has a lab-grown ruby. The stones on my brother's wife's ring were vintage from her grandmother. My best friend's ring is a star sapphire. Diamonds from Zales among my circle of friends are somewhat out of fashion.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
You can send ashes of loved ones into a company and have them make you a diamond.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [.
You can't eat paper money either, which is why the line "can you eat gold" is so ridiculous.
Thats not true, it just doesn't taste that good. My stomache was worth at least a dollar in my younger years.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
"Oh, what's that you're wearing?" "Grandma."
o_O
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I were buying a diamond ring today, I think I'd go for an artificial diamond.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes, its not toxic neh?
Of course it is, in anything more than trace amounts -- all heavy metals are!
You must have missed that episode of House.
String, thanks, but you're not my type. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I would not hoard diamonds as a hedge against future economic bust, since it is well known that diamonds are currently artificially inflated to over twice their actual value by the diamond cartels acting in collusion, and everyone lets them do it. Industrial diamonds can be manufactured, though I have heard they tend to have "five times the fire" as natural diamonds. mr._poteiro_head may have a point about preferring the artificial diamonds.
Gold is said to have "intrinsic" value. Probably this is because of the hypnotic effect it has on some people. Ultimately, like anything else, the value of gold depends on the way in which people choose to value it. It is just not quite so obvious as it is with paper money.
In all likelihood, the day will come when gold will become worthless. Bible prophecy talks about a time when gold is viewed like garbage. "They shall fling their silver into the streets, and their gold shall become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. They cannot satisfy their appetite, nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling." (Ezekiel 7:19; NASB; see also James 5:3)
But until the very end, gold will likely be the last thing to lose its value, and will be an effective hedge against inflation.
When disasters like 911 come, and the economy tanks (especially airline and insurance stocks), or even when major wars break out and investors generally panic, investments in commodities related to gold and stocks of gold producers have always increased in value.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, that's partly because gold is seen as a hedge against disaster. If the economy ever really collapses, gold will be largely useless in barter. Me, I'll be wanting batteries. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll be wanting antibiotics.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I'll be wanting cigarettes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"If the economy ever really collapses, gold will be largely useless in barter."
I really don't believe this at all unless you are talking about an apocalypse of Biblical proportions. Otherwise, gold is malleable for jewelry and fine products. There are other metals that can be said the same thing about them.
I just don't believe the barter system will ever become food for clothing primarily. History has never proven (even in the most primitive of societies) that is the case, even if you are talking seashells on the seashore.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Jewelry is a luxury item, available when all of the actual needs are met, which requires some level of prosperity and sufficiency. Like I said, other than use in electrical workings (or dentistry), it's just pretty.
I remember the scene from Alas, Babylon when the guy who ran the service station sold all of his stock for cash. At the end of the day, he had enough money to retire, but he didn't have enough gas to drive home.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
The primarily Libertarian concern is that American money is no longer a "gold-backed security".
Once upon a time our money was worth a directly proportional amount of gold. With FDR's reforms and the Federal Reserve's changes to our economic system, there is no longer a direct correlation to our actual currency and our nation's gold reserve.
Thus, the government can inflate the amount of money in circulation and de-value the actual purchasing power of the money that you hold --- ie, printing more money.
The Libertarian perspective is that the government doesn't have the right to de-value your money (or what is essentially the direct product of your labor). Your money should alwasy be a direct reflection of a proportion of gold (or thereabouts) and not subject to valuation by the whims of the Federal Reserve.
You'd think the Ayn Rand's followers should believe the same thing --- but even though Alan Greenspan was one of her biggest devotees, the reality rarely matches the ideal.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I would not hoard diamonds as a hedge against future economic bust, since it is well known that diamonds are currently artificially inflated to over twice their actual value by the diamond cartels acting in collusion, and everyone lets them do it. Industrial diamonds can be manufactured, though I have heard they tend to have "five times the fire" as natural diamonds. mr._poteiro_head may have a point about preferring the artificial diamonds.
Gold is said to have "intrinsic" value. Probably this is because of the hypnotic effect it has on some people. Ultimately, like anything else, the value of gold depends on the way in which people choose to value it. It is just not quite so obvious as it is with paper money.
In all likelihood, the day will come when gold will become worthless. Bible prophecy talks about a time when gold is viewed like garbage. "They shall fling their silver into the streets, and their gold shall become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. They cannot satisfy their appetite, nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling." (Ezekiel 7:19; NASB; see also James 5:3)
But until the very end, gold will likely be the last thing to lose its value, and will be an effective hedge against inflation.
When disasters like 911 come, and the economy tanks (especially airline and insurance stocks), or even when major wars break out and investors generally panic, investments in commodities related to gold and stocks of gold producers have always increased in value.
Pfft. Everyone knows Biblical End Days is a hoax and fraud. Chaos Theory alone is enough to disprove it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Doesn't Gold, Diamonds etc have value in industrial applications? Like Drill bits?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I'm not defending paper money either. I'm saying that in Blayne's hypothetical in the first post, it would be stupid to hoard gold instead of things that have immediate value in a life-threatening situation, like food, clothing, transportation, crops, etc. If all you have to trade is a rare and shiny rock, how long are you going to last when people don't need rare and shiny rocks, and barter with the guy who has chickens, or can make you a coat to last through the winter, or can fix the engine on your car?
Fair enough. I don't always read through Blayne's posts. The syntax hurts.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Doesn't Gold, Diamonds etc have value in industrial applications? Like Drill bits?
Gold is extremely useful in electronics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: You'd think the Ayn Rand's followers should believe the same thing --- but even though Alan Greenspan was one of her biggest devotees, the reality rarely matches the ideal.
Alan Greenspan abandoned Objectivism. If you want to see what he had to say about the gold standard back when he was still an Objectivist, find a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and read his essay "Gold and Economic Freedom". Actually, here it is online.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Link. This video shows how balance of trade issues are different under a gold standard. The reason it doesn't work like that nowadays is the different fiat currencies in different countries, which are artificially inflated at different rates.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I'm not defending paper money either. I'm saying that in Blayne's hypothetical in the first post, it would be stupid to hoard gold instead of things that have immediate value in a life-threatening situation, like food, clothing, transportation, crops, etc. If all you have to trade is a rare and shiny rock, how long are you going to last when people don't need rare and shiny rocks, and barter with the guy who has chickens, or can make you a coat to last through the winter, or can fix the engine on your car?
Fair enough. I don't always read through Blayne's posts. The syntax hurts.
Gotcha Journalism at its finest.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Gold has some limited value in industry, particularly electronics, because it is a very good conductor of electricity. But not enough to make it more useful than copper. Silver is nearly as good a conductor as gold, and at least used to have heavy demand in photography for making photo-sensitive emulsions (silver chloride, etc.), but with the rapid advancement of digital photography, there is less and less need of silver.
Gold has use in jewelry, sure, but how long will there be enough wealthy people to whom this status symbol matters? Once enough millionaires go bankrupt, demand for gold to make jewelry will sharply decline. And those who are not wealthy will be hocking their wedding rings to buy bread.
I maintain, the only real reason gold has sustained value is because of the fascination many people have with it; and once that fascination dies, then gold will have diminished value, because in fact it has really been true all along that it is only the value people choose to view gold as having that matters.
It just takes longer for this reality to settle in with gold than it does for other objects of wealth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Why would enough millionaires go bankrupt? There's over 6 billion people there enough rich people and mediumly wealthy people in the world of being generated by the overall growing economy that that is not an issue.
Even for the non wealthy poor people like gold, its not THAT expensive to have a little bit of it, my personal goal inlife is to get a silver and gold fob watch.
Since the fascination with gold hasn't faded over 50,000 years of human recorded history why would it ever fade?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Gold has some limited value in industry, particularly electronics, because it is a very good conductor of electricity. But not enough to make it more useful than copper.
For most applications, that's true. In understand that there are some applications where it is more useful.
quote:Silver is nearly as good a conductor as gold
One big advantage gold has over silver is its resistance to corrosion or oxidation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Gold is also very useful for electron microscopy and a wide range of interfacial technologies. I can think of dozens of things I've used gold for in the lab.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes, its not toxic neh?
Of course it is, in anything more than trace amounts -- all heavy metals are!
You must have missed that episode of House.
String, thanks, but you're not my type.
actually according to the article pure gold is both non toxic and non irritating, its often put on food as good leafs in fancy restaurants.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Since the fascination with gold hasn't faded over 50,000 years of human recorded history why would it ever fade?
Gold has always been a luxury item. In a post apocalyptic world where virtually everyone is struggling for the basics of food, medicine, shelter, fuel and shelter, few people would be willing to trade those things for trinkets like gold. I suspect that even the people who are very wealthy would be more likely to seek some of the luxuries we've all come to view as necessities long before they'd be looking for gold.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have heard that truly 100% gold would be translucent. Regular gold owes its characteristic opaque color to trace impurities.
I have not heard of any case inwhich gold is toxic. But I have not researched the subject.
One of the disadvantages of silver is that it is almost always found contaminated with lead, and the lead has to be purified out. Any purification process is less than 100% effective.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
gold when pounded flat can be translucent. On a related note, that was actually a pretty informative Wikipedia article.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So I CAN eat gold, it just might now be nutritious.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
no, it would be completely inert in your system before being expelled.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You guys are way to logical.
In a post-apocalyptic world there will still be a demand for gold.
Every would be war-lord, petty-king, and would be tyrant will want gold.
Yes, they will want to bedeck their harem with it. They will want to appease their wives or husbands. They will want to look good.
But mostly they will want it to show that they can afford it.
Wealth is not only a path to luxury. It is a deterrent. If King Bling can afford a Gold crown, then he must have enough money to buy the best weapons for his soldiers. He must be a great leader, well able to defend himself, if he can stroll around with that gold all over.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth, just how bad an apocalypse are we talking about in this "post-apocalyptic world"?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Darth, just how bad an apocalypse are we talking about in this "post-apocalyptic world"?
Probably about a 7.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I suspect that even the people who are very wealthy would be more likely to seek some of the luxuries we've all come to view as necessities long before they'd be looking for gold.
Good point. I suspect that working batteries would be an extremely valuable luxury item after a few years.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i meant "not" as it its just wont be nuitrisious.
Well we can assume Fallout 3 as a 9 with 28 Days later as a 10. With WWII but with Nukes as per Harry Turtledove books as a 1, with the number depending on how many nukes get detonated in populated areas.
Actually lets put Jericho as a 1 and WWII with Nukes as a 5.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We have some US savings bonds that have been sitting around collecting interest. I'm thinking seriously of redeeming them and going to http://www.apmex.com/ or somewhere like that to get some gold and silver. I have a feeling that even if the depression doesn't get any worse than it is right now, gold and silver will still hold their value a lot better than anything issued by the US treasury.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Gold is also very useful for electron microscopy and a wide range of interfacial technologies. I can think of dozens of things I've used gold for in the lab.
Of course, by "electron microscopy and a wide range of interfacial technologies", The Rabbit actually means "sitting on and laying my eggs in", and by "lab" she actually means "lair".
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:I have heard that truly 100% gold would be translucent. Regular gold owes its characteristic opaque color to trace impurities.
As far as I understand it (and I'll admit my understanding is shaky), elemental metals are capable of absorbing a very wide range of energies (I think that's due to the fact that the electrons don't stick with one atom, but float around in a sea of electrons and therefore have a wider range of energy states available). It's not physically possible for a brick of gold to be transparent, although as sarcasticmuppet pointed out, you can hammer it so thin that some of the light does make it through without being absorbed. I think that's because gold is more malleable than other metals, though, not because of any unique optical properties.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We have some US savings bonds that have been sitting around collecting interest. I'm thinking seriously of redeeming them and going to http://www.apmex.com/ or somewhere like that to get some gold and silver. I have a feeling that even if the depression doesn't get any worse than it is right now, gold and silver will still hold their value a lot better than anything issued by the US treasury.
There's a much easier way to do that. I know about silver because that's where I invested, but it's basically the same for gold. You can either buy into an ETF like SLV that is basically just a whole mess of silver that you buy a piece of or you can buy stock in a silver company. I bought Silver Wheaton (SLW).
Buying silver or gold would be a good investment if we get the inflation it looks like we are.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm not feeling a lot of faith in companies just now. I'd rather have the metal in hand.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The current environment looks pretty strongly deflationary, rather than inflationary.
That will change when growth resumes, of course, but that obviates the motivation for gold and silver, anyways. And under a deflationary regime, something that pays actual interest (such as a savings bond) is a great thing.
Only get out of US savings bonds to the extent think the government is going to effectively disappear. The gov't would default on loans and entitlements before it would renege on savings bonds.
I mean, gold and silver's past prices show higher volatility and lower returns than other long run investments (in the long run), and they don't perform particularly well compared to guaranteed instruments like savings bonds in recessions, either. Absent the gov't disappearing, the evidence suggests they are a bad investment at the moment (and in general). Especially if you might need to cash out at short notice, given the extreme volatility.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Even with the commercial paper market crash (the Perfect Storm a bunch of the 'invest in gold' types were pointing to), gold has been a rather poor long-term investment. Commodities also regularly fail to escape economic crises and you never want to have your investments hedged on just one category, including precious metals, bullion, whatever.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The current environment looks pretty strongly deflationary, rather than inflationary.
It's February 3, 2009. If we're still around next year, I'm going to bump this and see what you think about that statement in retrospect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Go right ahead
edit: I should note that inflation, even measured by the very flawed CPI, has dropped precipitously in the past several months. Using better measures of housing prices (a bad measure of housing prices is one of the many problems CPI has) shows an even greater drop.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: "If the economy ever really collapses, gold will be largely useless in barter."
I really don't believe this at all unless you are talking about an apocalypse of Biblical proportions. Otherwise, gold is malleable for jewelry and fine products. There are other metals that can be said the same thing about them.
I think the reason gold is a favorite among some is because they think (at least I do to a small degree) that an economic collapse will actually be a dollar collapse. The world and life will go on. There will be no Mad Max scenario, but there could be a painful currency transition.
Out of the collapse of the dollar will spring a new currency. It might be a new global standard for a different currancy like the Euro or Yuan, a new currancy like an Amero, or a global restructuring of major currencies so that there is more then one dollar center of gravity.
Gold would maintain it's purchasing power so you could easily convert your wealth to the new defacto currency.
Having gold is not about bartering, it is about not loosing wealth in a currency transfer or dollar collapse. It is insurance.
Edit: Wanted to note that I agree completely with...
quote: Commodities also regularly fail to escape economic crises and you never want to have your investments hedged on just one category, including precious metals, bullion, whatever.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
to elaborate just a bit further, silver is actually a better conductor than gold. As mph indicates, gold does not oxidize readily, so it makes for better contact points, which is why gold plated audio cables are popular and why gold is often used for high quality electronics. The best wiring would be gold-plated silver.
I always found it interesting (and it is not a coincidence) that the three best conductors (gold, silver and copper) are all in the same group on the periodic table. What Shigosei says about the free electrons bouncing around in the middle is what helps them be such good conductors of electricity (low electronegativity helps, too, I believe)
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote: always found it interesting (and it is not a coincidence) that the three best conductors (gold, silver and copper) are all in the same group on the periodic table.
They are also generally come out of the same hole in the ground. They occur naturally in a mixed ore.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, I am sure you know that affluent European Jewry survived nearly 2,000 years of persecution and periodic pogroms by keeping as much of their wealth as possible in the form of precious metals and gems--which could be picked up and carried away with them with little or no notice. That should provide a profound demonstration of the utility of doing what you suggest. Safekeeping the core of your wealth in gold or other precious metals and gems (though less so now with gems) is a strategy that has withstood the test of the ages. Here is how a people found a kind of recurring apocalypse to be survivable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I am sure you know that affluent European Jewry survived nearly 2,000 years of persecution and periodic pogroms by keeping as much of their wealth as possible in the form of precious metals and gems--which could be picked up and carried away with them with little or no notice. That should provide a profound demonstration of the utility of doing what you suggest. Safekeeping the core of your wealth in gold or other precious metals and gems (though less so now with gems) is a strategy that has withstood the test of the ages. Here is how a people found a kind of recurring apocalypse to be survivable.
Bhwa, thats not what I remember.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Gold is also very useful for electron microscopy and a wide range of interfacial technologies. I can think of dozens of things I've used gold for in the lab.
Of course, by "electron microscopy and a wide range of interfacial technologies", The Rabbit actually means "sitting on and laying my eggs in", and by "lab" she actually means "lair".
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I am sure you know that affluent European Jewry survived nearly 2,000 years of persecution and periodic pogroms by keeping as much of their wealth as possible in the form of precious metals and gems--which could be picked up and carried away with them with little or no notice. That should provide a profound demonstration of the utility of doing what you suggest. Safekeeping the core of your wealth in gold or other precious metals and gems (though less so now with gems) is a strategy that has withstood the test of the ages. Here is how a people found a kind of recurring apocalypse to be survivable.
Yeah, because Jews were the ONLY ones who ever owned gold, and nobody else EVER had a history of conspicuously wearing their wealth on their person or keeping it in their home. :eyeroll:
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Gold also is very reflective; ergo, they use it in the space suit helmets.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I am sure you know that affluent European Jewry survived nearly 2,000 years of persecution and periodic pogroms by keeping as much of their wealth as possible in the form of precious metals and gems--which could be picked up and carried away with them with little or no notice. That should provide a profound demonstration of the utility of doing what you suggest. Safekeeping the core of your wealth in gold or other precious metals and gems (though less so now with gems) is a strategy that has withstood the test of the ages. Here is how a people found a kind of recurring apocalypse to be survivable.
I'm... wow. I'm speechless. And I think people here know how rare that is.
You live in a fantasy world, Ron.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I am sure you know that affluent European Jewry survived nearly 2,000 years of persecution and periodic pogroms by keeping as much of their wealth as possible in the form of precious metals and gems--which could be picked up and carried away with them with little or no notice.
Where to begin? European Jewry in general was anything but affluent. (A few European Jews, yes. They were exceptions.) And Jewry survived not through canny survival techniques, but by spreading out thinly enough so that when some communities got stomped out, a few others were always left elsewhere.
But I suppose once you eliminate those bits, I can't quibble with what remains. (What remains is "Lisa.")
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If I admit that I agree with both Blayne and Lisa, will the universe implode or explode?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If you agree with Blayne, it implodes; if you agree with Lisa, it explodes. That way the disasters cancel and nothing happens.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I have heard that truly 100% gold would be translucent. Regular gold owes its characteristic opaque color to trace impurities.
I have not heard of any case inwhich gold is toxic. But I have not researched the subject.
One of the disadvantages of silver is that it is almost always found contaminated with lead, and the lead has to be purified out. Any purification process is less than 100% effective.
No. Pure gold would still be gold colored. Think how delocalized the electrons are in a good metallic conductor, like gold.
As pointed out earlier, gold is a heavy metal, try hard enough and you could make it toxic. That being said, you might have to try pretty hard.
I see no reason to believe that we cannot purify silver to any required level. The problem here is that increasing purity levels may become rather expensive. And I'm not seeing what the problem is, what are we using silver for that requires more than a 9 or two?
edit: i'm really slow.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: If you agree with Blayne, it implodes; if you agree with Lisa, it explodes. That way the disasters cancel and nothing happens.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If I admit that I agree with both Blayne and Lisa, will the universe implode or explode?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If I admit that I agree with both Blayne and Lisa, will the universe implode or explode?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
No.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
and clichés are right once in a blue moon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I am sure you know that affluent European Jewry survived nearly 2,000 years of persecution and periodic pogroms by keeping as much of their wealth as possible in the form of precious metals and gems--which could be picked up and carried away with them with little or no notice. That should provide a profound demonstration of the utility of doing what you suggest. Safekeeping the core of your wealth in gold or other precious metals and gems (though less so now with gems) is a strategy that has withstood the test of the ages. Here is how a people found a kind of recurring apocalypse to be survivable.
You're the guy behind timecube, aren't you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If I admit that I agree with both Blayne and Lisa, will the universe implode or explode?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
*pat pat*
Try not to be so hard on yourself.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Not if it's digital.
(But really, you're probably not as wrong even as often as a broken analog clock. Although I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole Mao thing.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The European history that I learned included the fact that it was Jewish lenders who kept lending to the European aristocracy that kept the latter financially afloat, until the debt became too huge, at which point the aristocracy would arrange for a pogrom. But the Jewish lenders knew their history, and kept at least some of their wealth in readily portable gems and precious metals. This kind of thing went on over and over again, all through 2,000 years of European history. It is shameful for European aristocracy, but I have always admired the cleverness of the affluent Jewish lenders. They did what they had to do to survive.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus: and clichés are right once in a blue moon.
Thanks for saying that Pegasus. Someone had too.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The European history that I learned included the fact that it was Jewish lenders who kept lending to the European aristocracy that kept the latter financially afloat, until the debt became too huge, at which point the aristocracy would arrange for a pogrom. But the Jewish lenders knew their history, and kept at least some of their wealth in readily portable gems and precious metals. This kind of thing went on over and over again, all through 2,000 years of European history. It is shameful for European aristocracy, but I have always admired the cleverness of the affluent Jewish lenders. They did what they had to do to survive.
You're a bit nutty on this, Ron. Among the people who lent money were Jews, because there were laws preventing us from engaging in other occupations. But there were very few such people. Most Jews were impoverished.
The explusions were generally led by the clergy, for religious reasons. I can understand why someone of your religious background might want to exonerate your co-religionists by making it into an economic thing, but it simply isn't the reality.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You're a bit nutty on this, Ron.
Ron did say that it was the history he was taught, not some theory he came up with. And while it may be inaccurate, that sounds a lot like the history I was taught in high school. History seems to be one of those topics were inaccurate portrayals are extremely common.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I remember when in grade 7 when we were being told the maritime tradign states my teacher said "Italy" I corrected her that Italy wasn't unified until 1870(ish) and that during that time period italy was divided into a number of city states with Genoa and Venice as the primary traders.
She shushed me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You know what's in wieners? Well, there's cow's eyes, and dog's heads, and old phone books, and, of course, wiener flavor.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:I hope one day I can find someone to marry me who doesn't want a diamond ring, as buying one would seriously compromise my ethics.
If you end up with someone who does want a diamond, you can get a Polar Diamond from Canada. Still artificially expensive for something pretty and worthless, of course, but no slave labor worries. Alternately, you can take a trip to Arkansas together and dig up your own diamond in the diamond field national park there. Much more romantic and meaningful.
Thanks for the helpful advice Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
String, thanks, but you're not my type.
Aww man, and I though I was everybody's type. Oh well, looks like I'll have to fly the folks back home Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, from time to time, over the course of nearly a thousand years, the official church clergy called upon secular leaders to send armies up into the Piedmont mountain valleys to try to kill all the Waldenses--Christians who maintained the original Christianity of the Scriptures, and did not recognize the authority of the Pope. The clergy tried to foment distrust and hatred of the Waldenses by telling everyone that their children were born with one eye in the middle of their forehead, and other such nonsense.
The point is, Jews were not the only ones attacked by the official clergy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
so?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think he was basically saying, "Suck it up, Lisa. Christians attempted genocide on more than just you."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, my, this thread makes me laugh and wince at the same time.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The explusions were generally led by the clergy, for religious reasons. I can understand why someone of your religious background might want to exonerate your co-religionists by making it into an economic thing, but it simply isn't the reality.
I don't understand how "making it an economic thing" is any better. You can't pay your debts so you eliminate your creditors? How is that morally any better than not liking their religion?
Not saying it's true, just saying that it doesn't really seem like a good way to exonerate anyone.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, I would never say to you to "suck it up." Nobody should be treated the way the Jews have been treated. What I was trying to convey was the fact that your people have not been alone in suffering; the same evil has been directed at others, though not for as long or on such a large scale at times.
This is just my own theory, but I suspect that the Jews have come in for so much hatred and persecution because through them the Ten Commandments were communicated, through whom all humanity will be judged (despite what your rabbis say about the Ten Commandments being only for the Jews). Also I believe it is because God originally chose your people to stand for Him and be His witnesses in the world, through whom the promised blessing made to Abraham has come to all the faithful. That reflects a theology that may be confusing to you, but it means a lot to me.
Some of us who take seriously the prophecies of Revelation 13 believe that the Holocaust was only a dress rehearsal for what will come during the final conflict between good and evil, when all living on earth will be judged in God's final bachan proving/testing. Then perhaps as much as one-third of the earth's population will suffer the same kind of Holocaust as did six million Jews in Nazi Germany.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So I CAN eat gold, it just might now be nutritious.
Um....Ron? Am I misreading you, or are you saying that God will inflict suffering equivalent to the Holocaust on a third of the population?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Some of us who take seriously the prophecies of Revelation 13 believe that the Holocaust was only a dress rehearsal for what will come during the final conflict between good and evil, when all living on earth will be judged in God's final bachan proving/testing.
So god wanted to make sure he got it right when he started killing everybody, so he practiced on the jews first.
i find your ideas compelling and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some of us who take seriously the prophecies of Revelation 13 believe that the Holocaust was only a dress rehearsal for what will come during the final conflict between good and evil, when all living on earth will be judged in God's final bachan proving/testing. Then perhaps as much as one-third of the earth's population will suffer the same kind of Holocaust as did six million Jews in Nazi Germany.
And those of us who believe in real prophets know that it's actually 2/3 of the world's population that's going to get blown away. And not by other people, as was the case in the Holocaust. Actually, it's a matter of dispute as to whether it's 2/3 or 8/9 of the world's population, but then, who's counting?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's also a matter of dispute whether those numbers are literal. But hey, let's not nitpick.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rashi seemed to think they were.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Rashi seemed to think they were.
"In dispute" does imply that there are authorities on at least two sides. Rashi is not the only one out there.
(I'd say the dominant Orthodox Jewish opinion is "we don't understand the predictions of the future and it's best not to dwell upon them," actually.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: (I'd say the dominant Orthodox Jewish opinion is "we don't understand the predictions of the future and it's best not to dwell upon them," actually.)
Ding!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Rashi seemed to think they were.
"In dispute" does imply that there are authorities on at least two sides. Rashi is not the only one out there.
(I'd say the dominant Orthodox Jewish opinion is "we don't understand the predictions of the future and it's best not to dwell upon them," actually.)
Well, the "in dispute" was basically over whether it's 2/3 or 8/9.
But who's dwelling? I was just mentioning it in contrast to what Ron said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa, I don't see that you necessarily score any points racing Ron's God to the bottom of the Evil Pile. There are no prizes in the Pinewood Derby of Jerkwad Gods.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, Tom, you are misreading me. I did not say God would inflict the Holocaust on one third of humanity. I said He let us know in advance in the prophecies of Revelation that it would happen as part of the final effort of Evil to force everyone to abandon their faithfulness to God and venerate the creature in the apostate system of false religion. See Revelation 9:15, 20, 21; 11:7; 13:15, 17. God will use these events to "try" all humanity, because the people themselves will give the final demonstration of how they ultimately choose between good and evil, when the issues have finally been made clear to all.
One-third is most likely an approximate figure. And it may not mean that one-third of the human race will be true to God; some of them may be "collateral damage" as the wicked try to wipe out all the faithful who will not submit to their self-serving religious system.
While God will not prevent the faithful from suffering Holocaust, He will resurrect them and glorify them in front of their enemies just a short time later. See Revelation 11:11, 12.
While a massive number of people will be killed, the Bible also indicates that some will be specially protected, and will live to see Jesus come, though they too will suffer great persecution, being imprisoned or pursued as they flee. Texts that indicate this include: 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17; 5:51; Psalms 91:1-17.
[ February 09, 2009, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Rashi seemed to think they were.
"In dispute" does imply that there are authorities on at least two sides. Rashi is not the only one out there.
(I'd say the dominant Orthodox Jewish opinion is "we don't understand the predictions of the future and it's best not to dwell upon them," actually.)
If Orhodox Jews actually understood scripture they wouldn't be Jewish anymore.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That strikes me as the most racist thing I have ever read.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That strikes me as the most racist thing I have ever read.
I think you have lead a sheltered life.
I agree: that post could only have been made with the intention of provoking a fight.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That strikes me as the most racist thing I have ever read.
you sure?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: (I'd say the dominant Orthodox Jewish opinion is "we don't understand the predictions of the future and it's best not to dwell upon them," actually.)
Ding!
Good advice for Christians as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: If Orhodox Jews actually understood scripture they wouldn't be Jewish anymore.
I assume that would be scripture in the original, King-James-approved, English? Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If it was good enough for Jesus...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If I could go back in time and shoot jesus in the back of the head I think I would just so we could stop having these conversations.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It would certainly change everything if someone were to kill Jesus.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
That seems like a lot of work to effect a halt to conversation.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Are you sure you'd want to make a martyr out of him? That sort of thing could start a religion...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That strikes me as the most racist thing I have ever read.
Nah, it isn't racist. Dobbie is just an ignoramus.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Are you sure you'd want to make a martyr out of him? That sort of thing could start a religion...
Acrually if I really wanted to kill Christianity via timetravel, go back and convince the Governor to have jesus exiled somewhere far away and kept imprisoned.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Acrually if I really wanted to kill Christianity via timetravel, go back and convince the Governor to have jesus exiled somewhere far away and kept imprisoned.
That's still too much work. Just tell Herod where he was really hiding.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Jesus still would have given up His life anyway. Note what He said:
quote:"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NASB)
It is speculated that if the leaders of the Jewish nation had accepted Him, Jesus would have voluntarily entered the sanctuary at the time of the Passover, lain down on the Altar of Sacrifice of His own accord, and without anyone touching Him, would have voluntarily given up His life, passing into the soul-sleep of death. All the other things done to Him--the scourgings, the beatings, the derision, the crucifixion--were gratuitous, inspired by Satan in control of wicked men, to try to discourage Christ and turn Him aside from His purpose to Redeem the human race.
This is also the point when the last shred of sympathy for the fallen Lucifer was severed among the angels of God, for in the things Satan stirred up men to do, he revealed his own true spirit and character, that he desired to kill God.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dude no one cares about your fictional superman.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Who, for goodness sake, speculates that?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus still would have given up His life anyway. Note what He said:
quote:"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NASB)
It is speculated that if the leaders of the Jewish nation had accepted Him, Jesus would have voluntarily entered the sanctuary at the time of the Passover, lain down on the Altar of Sacrifice of His own accord, and without anyone touching Him, would have voluntarily given up His life, passing into the soul-sleep of death. All the other things done to Him--the scourgings, the beatings, the derision, the crucifixion--were gratuitous, inspired by Satan in control of wicked men, to try to discourage Christ and turn Him aside from His purpose to Redeem the human race.
A dead body on the altar would have defiled it.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
So it would be like killing two birds with one stone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dobbie, be nice to Lisa, please.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus still would have given up His life anyway. Note what He said:
quote:"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17, 18; NASB)
It is speculated that if the leaders of the Jewish nation had accepted Him, Jesus would have voluntarily entered the sanctuary at the time of the Passover, lain down on the Altar of Sacrifice of His own accord, and without anyone touching Him, would have voluntarily given up His life, passing into the soul-sleep of death. All the other things done to Him--the scourgings, the beatings, the derision, the crucifixion--were gratuitous, inspired by Satan in control of wicked men, to try to discourage Christ and turn Him aside from His purpose to Redeem the human race.
A dead body on the altar would have defiled it.
Yes but a resurrected being who was God himself would also sanctify it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, but no.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Since all the animals that were ever slain on the Altar in accord with the direction of God were types, representing Messiah, the Savior, then the body of Jesus Christ on the Altar would have provided the Antitype that fulfilled all those types and given them their true meaning. It would have been the ultimate fulfillment of the Jewish religion, not its negation or defilement. But even so, the body of Jesus Christ on the Cross served the same purpose. And at the moment of His death, "...the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." (Mark 15:38; NASB) Note it was torn in two from top to bottom, as by unseen hands reaching down from above. Also, the veil was several inches thick. Thus at the moment of Christ's death on the Cross, the earthly sanctuary ceased to be relevant, because its types were fulfilled.
Christ now serves as the High Priest for all humanity in the sanctuary or temple of God in heaven, after which the earthly sanctuary was patterned. (See Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5)
[ February 10, 2009, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, if you're going to edit out that comment, I withdraw my reaction.
Further edit: Actually, I see that you didn't. Silly me.
[ February 10, 2009, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Tea, anyone?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If you can serve it in golden chalices, Shmuel, that would be nice. (Just trying to segue back into the original thread topic.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Tea, anyone?
Any barley tea? I take mine with sugar.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Dobbie, be nice to Lisa, please.
That would offend me. Dobbie is such an odious creature that I rather savor his inane comments.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: A dead body on the altar would have defiled it.
Yes but a resurrected being who was God himself would also sanctify it.
No. Maybe in some other religion than the one that God gave, but according to God, a dead body is a dead body, and God isn't a corpse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Since all the animals that were ever slain on the Altar in accord with the direction of God were types, representing Messiah, the Savior
Gross. No, that's not the case. The animals did not represent the Messiah, and the Messiah is not a Savior. Only God is a Savior; the Messiah is just a man.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
These conversations are amusing.
In a way, the sides don't even agree to enter the same universe. Instead, we have someone arguing in a universe where the Jewish God exists and someone else arguing in a different universe over here where the Christian God exists. And allllllllll the way over here there's this person who's arguing in a universe where Jesus is just, "this guy, you know."
But somehow the objections to one proposal in one universe, say going back in time to kill Jesus are rebutted by someone working with a completely different universe and a different set of rules.
Its not entirely different from Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates when the conversation degenerates and people start pulling out stuff like whether Darth Vader could force crush everyone on the Enterprise or whether Q could snap his fingers and vanish the entire Imperial navy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's like that, except where Star Wars is a lame spin-off of Star Trek.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
So you're a Trekkie, Lisa?
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I always choose pirates, myself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: A dead body on the altar would have defiled it.
Yes but a resurrected being who was God himself would also sanctify it.
No. Maybe in some other religion than the one that God gave, but according to God, a dead body is a dead body, and God isn't a corpse.
Let me get this straight, let's say the God of Israel, (ignoring anything to do with Jesus) shows up above the alter, and lets say makes the dead body disappear and then stands upon the alter.
Would God then be ritually unclean? How about if he said, "I now pronounce this alter sanctified and clean."?
Seems to me, and of course I could be wrong, that God can never be unclean, since he is God, the very definition of clean and pure.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Pffft. Corran Horn would totally blow pirates AND everyone else away. And look sexy doing it. Humbly. And with a witty line. But without levitating.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BB, you're assuming a physical body. You're also assuming God changes His mind, or can change the way the universe works.
Both these assumptions make your hypothetical meaningless to us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. Maybe in some other religion than the one that God gave, but according to God, a dead body is a dead body, and God isn't a corpse.
Let me get this straight, let's say the God of Israel, (ignoring anything to do with Jesus) shows up above the alter, and lets say makes the dead body disappear and then stands upon the alter.
What do you mean "shows up"? God is above the altar. And everywhere else. How do you get God "showing up"?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would God then be ritually unclean?
What does that mean? God isn't an object.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How about if he said, "I now pronounce this alter sanctified and clean."?
We'd say, "Sorry, but God gave us His Torah and told us that if anyone comes to add or subtract from it claiming that the instruction was from Him, we're supposed to kill him as a false prophet. He also said that even if the person in question does signs and wonders, it's just God testing us. So no, the altar (and btw, God wouldn't misspell 'altar') is defiled."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seems to me, and of course I could be wrong, that God can never be unclean, since he is God, the very definition of clean and pure.
True. Also, God can never be killed, since He is God, the very definition of life and immortality. A dead body isn't God. It's a dead body. And it defiles not only anything it touches, but any person or open vessel in the same building it's in.
[Edit: Check out Deuteronomy 13 and 18. You still have those in your Bible, yes?]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
rivka: yes I was assuming you believed God has some sort of body or is capable of having one. My mistake.
Lisa: See my mistaken assumption in my post to Rivka.
quote:What does that mean? God isn't an object.
Out of curiosity, how do you interpret Exodus 33:20-23?
quote:We'd say, "Sorry, but God gave us His Torah and told us that if anyone comes to add or subtract from it claiming that the instruction was from Him, we're supposed to kill him as a false prophet. He also said that even if the person in question does signs and wonders, it's just God testing us. So no, the altar (and btw, God wouldn't misspell 'altar') is defiled."
The caveat being that the prophet tells you to go after other Gods. God changing his instructions is not the same thing as a messenger telling you that God has changed his instructions. You are most certainly right God would not misspell altar, but if he spelled it "alter" I should think that that spelling would then become correct.
quote:True. Also, God can never be killed, since He is God, the very definition of life and immortality. A dead body isn't God. It's a dead body. And it defiles not only anything it touches, but any person or open vessel in the same building it's in.
Did you not notice where I said, (ignoring anything to do with Jesus.) I was not saying that there was any relation to the dead body and God himself. I was just asking that if God came down, made a dead body disappear from off the altar and pronounced it clean, would said altar then become clean.
I made a mistake forgetting you don't believe God has any sort of physical form. Apparently he could not appear to anyone in any recognizable form. edit: Or would not rather than cannot?
[ February 11, 2009, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, just out of curiosity, what do you regard the purpose of those animals that were sacrified to have been, if not to confess one's sins AND confess faith in God's provision for our salvation in the coming Sinbearer who would really bear our sins and pay for them? Do you believe that the blood of bulls, goats, and lambs had redemptive power in itself? Do you think that if you sin against God, then kill a lamb, that puts you at peace with God, in and of itself? Confession, even accompanied by repentance, does not constitute atonement.
Or do you think it does? I seem to recall you saying something some time ago that sounded like you were saying repentance is all the atonement we need. I have to question whether that could bring us back into full fellowship and approval with God. If Adolph Hitler were to be resurrected, and he said, "I'm sorry," would that be sufficient for you? If that were all God required, would He be Just?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: See my mistaken assumption in my post to Rivka.
Fair enough.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What does that mean? God isn't an object.
Out of curiosity, how do you interpret Exodus 33:20-23?
Metaphor. Just like "God is a man of war". Just like "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm".
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:We'd say, "Sorry, but God gave us His Torah and told us that if anyone comes to add or subtract from it claiming that the instruction was from Him, we're supposed to kill him as a false prophet. He also said that even if the person in question does signs and wonders, it's just God testing us. So no, the altar (and btw, God wouldn't misspell 'altar') is defiled."
The caveat being that the prophet tells you to go after other Gods.
That's just an example. God told us it refers to any changes in the Torah. Ordinarily, adding or subtracting from the Torah is a prohibition, but if you say that God said to do it, it's false prophecy.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: God changing his instructions is not the same thing as a messenger telling you that God has changed his instructions.
I get that you think this is the case. But God is timeless. The very concept of God changing His mind is a non-starter. And even if you were to say, "Okay, it's not that He's changing His mind; it's just that He wanted X up to this point and Y from this point on," it still doesn't work with the Torah, because God put conditions in it that make it impossible for anyone, including God, to change it.
Is that a limitation on God? By no means. If God wants to change something, He can go and change the original source. Like I said, He isn't timebound. But He made sure that no one could misrepresent Him by making it impossible for us to accept any such changes.
When God said that a command was "an eternal statute for your generations", that means forever. And ever.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You are most certainly right God would not misspell altar, but if he spelled it "alter" I should think that that spelling would then become correct.
Heh. Nice.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:True. Also, God can never be killed, since He is God, the very definition of life and immortality. A dead body isn't God. It's a dead body. And it defiles not only anything it touches, but any person or open vessel in the same building it's in.
Did you not notice where I said, (ignoring anything to do with Jesus.) I was not saying that there was any relation to the dead body and God himself. I was just asking that if God came down, made a dead body disappear from off the altar and pronounced it clean, would said altar then become clean.
Nope. God gave us instructions as to how defiled things can be purified. He can't say, "Well, you don't have to bother in this case." If He wants to make an exception, He has to make it ab initio.
According to the Sages, there were certain things that God created during the 7 days of creation, prior to sundown on the sixth day:
quote:"Ten things were created on the Sabbath eve at twilight. They are: the mouth of the earth [which swallowed Korach and his co-conspirators] (Numbers 16:32), the mouth of the well [which accompanied Israel in the desert], the mouth of the donkey [which rebuked Balaam] (ibid., 22:28), the rainbow, the Manna, the staff [of Moses], the shamir worm, the script [of the Torah], the inscription [on the Tablets of the Ten Commandments], and the Tablets.
What this means is that God plays by the rules He set up. For the donkey to speak to Balaam, the potential for that one donkey to do had to be a part of creation from the beginning, however hidden, or it couldn't have happened. Same with everything else on the list. God created the ability for those things to happen like a pool player lines up a trick shot, so to speak.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I made a mistake forgetting you don't believe God has any sort of physical form. Apparently he could not appear to anyone in any recognizable form. edit: Or would not rather than cannot?
Well, that's a sticky question. There are two major views in Judaism. They're both the same, really; the only difference is sort of philosophical. One is that God has no physicality whatsoever. That God when God interacts with the world physically, He does so through angels. And by angels, I don't mean folks with wings and halos and harps, and I don't mean Della Reese or Nick Cage. I mean messengers of any kind.
The other one is sometimes referred to as panentheism. That's the one I think is more correct. It means that God has no specific physicality. God is everywhere and everything, and all of creation is simply an expression of God. God is all of existence. You and I are expressions and extensions of God, as is the chair I'm sitting on and the keyboard I'm typing on and the air I'm breathing. Nothing exists other than God. So any specific physicality God might choose to manifest would no more be God than my cellphone is. No less, either.
Any manifestation of God we ever perceive is sort of a projection. Even when we talk about an attribute of God, that attribute is a created thing. A vessel, so to speak, through which we can perceive God in a certain light. When we speak of God's attribute of Mercy, for example, it only means that we perceive God's influence in a way that translates to what we ordinarily perceive as mercy.
God is simultaneously completely immanent and completely transcendent.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Out of curiosity, how do you interpret Exodus 33:20-23?
Strictly metaphorically. Moses wanted a deeper understanding of God and His ways than mortals are capable of.
quote:I made a mistake forgetting you don't believe God has any sort of physical form.
Correct. It's part of our definition of the term.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, just out of curiosity, what do you regard the purpose of those animals that were sacrified to have been,
First of all, as is the case with all of God's commandments, we can only theorize as to their purpose. And even then, we can only (if we are being honest) theorize that X is one of the purposes, because even if it is one, it needn't be the only one.
But clearly, the message is, "Here's this living thing. You don't really have any right to live in God's world if you won't follow His rules. Place your hands on the head of this animal and watch as it dies. That's what God would be entitled to do you for your transgression. This is what it means to break something of value."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: if not to confess one's sins AND confess faith in God's provision for our salvation in the coming Sinbearer who would really bear our sins and pay for them?
<snicker> Honestly, Ron. "Sinbearer"? Sounds like something out of the Thomas Covenant books. Saltheart Foamfollower, Loric Vilesilencer, and Savior Sinbearer.
Here's the thing. If I understand correct, you believe in a thing called Original Sin. It's one of the most morally bankrupt concepts I can possibly imagine; the idea that the deeds of an ancestor can result in the descendents being born "in sin".
In fact, we don't even recognize such a concept as being "in sin". Sin isn't a condition, Ron. It's an action. Or inaction. Because you believe God is a malign thug (as Mark Twain put it) who punishes babies for something that happened thousands of years ago, you have to believe that He created a remedy for the illness He created. Thus: Savior Sinbearer.
But God isn't like that. In fact, Ezekiel (he was a prophet, btw) tells us that God says explicitly that a person will die for his own sins. Not for those of an ancestor. We aren't born "in sin", and we have no need for anyone to "bear our sins". When we transgress, we repent. God so loved the world that He gave us a mechanism by which we can return to Him. It's called repentance, and it's pretty amazing.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Do you believe that the blood of bulls, goats, and lambs had redemptive power in itself?
Not at all. Obeying God's instructions about how to repent, on the other hand, does. Repentance is made up of five parts, two of which are situational. (1) You have to stop doing the transgression. (2) You have to confess verbally what you did wrong (not to anyone in particular; you can close the door and say it if you want). (3) You have to commit to not doing it in the future.
The situational steps are (4) If the transgression was against another person, you must do what you can to appease them (within obvious limits) and (5) If there are required sacrifices for the transgression and the means to bring them exists, you have to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Do you think that if you sin against God, then kill a lamb, that puts you at peace with God, in and of itself? Confession, even accompanied by repentance, does not constitute atonement.
What a shame, Ron. Here's God, holding out the most precious gift imaginable. The means to come close to Him. To return to Him. And you deny it and insist that we can't do it.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Or do you think it does? I seem to recall you saying something some time ago that sounded like you were saying repentance is all the atonement we need. I have to question whether that could bring us back into full fellowship and approval with God.
You know... I really think I'll go with God, here, Ron. Your questioning is your business.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If Adolph Hitler were to be resurrected, and he said, "I'm sorry," would that be sufficient for you? If that were all God required, would He be Just?
See above. I'm not quite sure how Hitler would manage step 4, but if he did, then yes, it would. No one is all good and no one is all bad. Your odious violation of Godwin's Law to the contrary.
Also... are you telling me that your religion doesn't claim that Hitler can be "saved"?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My religions says he could be. I doubt the truth of that, myself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa:
quote:According to the Sages, there were certain things that God created during the 7 days of creation, prior to sundown on the sixth day:
Where is this exactly stated? It's obviously not in the scriptures.
quote:Metaphor. Just like "God is a man of war". Just like "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm".
How do you know those statements are not true in that God does have arms to stretch forth and he is in fact a man capable of engaging in war? Maybe God actually placed his hand in front of Moses face, but permitted him to see his back.
Where does the concept that God is formless come from? I have trouble seeing it anywhere.
quote:Nope. God gave us instructions as to how defiled things can be purified. He can't say, "Well, you don't have to bother in this case." If He wants to make an exception, He has to make it ab initio.
Ah I see.
While I certainly disagree that God placed a sort of God proof seal on the Law of Moses, I can see where you are coming from. Agree to disagree I suppose.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: These conversations are amusing.
In a way, the sides don't even agree to enter the same universe. Instead, we have someone arguing in a universe where the Jewish God exists and someone else arguing in a different universe over here where the Christian God exists. And allllllllll the way over here there's this person who's arguing in a universe where Jesus is just, "this guy, you know."
But somehow the objections to one proposal in one universe, say going back in time to kill Jesus are rebutted by someone working with a completely different universe and a different set of rules.
Its not entirely different from Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates when the conversation degenerates and people start pulling out stuff like whether Darth Vader could force crush everyone on the Enterprise or whether Q could snap his fingers and vanish the entire Imperial navy.
Well put.
But seriously. I am curious to know how many points I get for taking out the opposing player's rook when playing Scrabble.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Pffft. Corran Horn would totally blow pirates AND everyone else away. And look sexy doing it. Humbly. And with a witty line. But without levitating.
True, but he'll make them think he levitated.
I'm not sure if Mirax would appreciate talk of him blowing pirates though. Not after what happened with Tavira.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: These conversations are amusing.
In a way, the sides don't even agree to enter the same universe. Instead, we have someone arguing in a universe where the Jewish God exists and someone else arguing in a different universe over here where the Christian God exists. And allllllllll the way over here there's this person who's arguing in a universe where Jesus is just, "this guy, you know."
But somehow the objections to one proposal in one universe, say going back in time to kill Jesus are rebutted by someone working with a completely different universe and a different set of rules.
Its not entirely different from Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates when the conversation degenerates and people start pulling out stuff like whether Darth Vader could force crush everyone on the Enterprise or whether Q could snap his fingers and vanish the entire Imperial navy.
Well put.
But seriously. I am curious to know how many points I get for taking out the opposing player's rook when playing Scrabble.
(to both posts)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:According to the Sages, there were certain things that God created during the 7 days of creation, prior to sundown on the sixth day:
Where is this exactly stated? It's obviously not in the scriptures.
Lot of things aren't in the scriptures. This happens to be in a tractate of the Mishnah (compiled around 230 CE) called Avot, or Basic Principles. It's in Chapter 5. Here's a link. It's Mishnah H, according to their listing.
The primary corpus of law and lore that God gave Israel at Sinai was not given in written form.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Metaphor. Just like "God is a man of war". Just like "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm".
How do you know those statements are not true in that God does have arms to stretch forth and he is in fact a man capable of engaging in war? Maybe God actually placed his hand in front of Moses face, but permitted him to see his back.
God told us so. If you want something scriptural, try Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where does the concept that God is formless come from? I have trouble seeing it anywhere.
If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is. But the Torah says that He created the world, so that wouldn't make any sense. Here's a good discussion of the issues involved.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Nope. God gave us instructions as to how defiled things can be purified. He can't say, "Well, you don't have to bother in this case." If He wants to make an exception, He has to make it ab initio.
Ah I see.
While I certainly disagree that God placed a sort of God proof seal on the Law of Moses, I can see where you are coming from. Agree to disagree I suppose.
I guess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I build a house and live in it, does that mean the house is better than I am?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Pffft. Corran Horn would totally blow pirates AND everyone else away. And look sexy doing it. Humbly. And with a witty line. But without levitating.
True, but he'll make them think he levitated.
I'm not sure if Mirax would appreciate talk of him blowing pirates though. Not after what happened with Tavira.
Yeah, I thought of mentioning Mirax's reaction to all this but, um... Thought maybe I had gone far enough. Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I build a house and live in it, does that mean the house is better than I am?
He said "greater", not "better".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, creation ex nihilo is rather different than building something from something else.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I build a house and live in it, does that mean the house is better than I am?
No, but it does mean that the house is greater than me in any number of ways. Weight. Size. Nothing is greater than God in any way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is. But the Torah says that He created the world, so that wouldn't make any sense.
I created my children; I exist independently outside their existence. I have form; I am "greater" than them in most ways.
The link you posted regarding this issue starts out from the premise that if God had a physical form, man could eventually somehow escape from him. I'm not sure why that particular terminology is used; but it's not entirely logical (despite the article's strident protestations to the contrary).
quote:If one believes that God is physical, he will feel capable of escaping Him. One need not intellectually follow this logical reasoning to reach this conclusion: a human being will naturally act out the logical consequences of the concepts he believes. A man does not have to be a philosopher in order to realize these logical consequences. Without considering, he instinctively reacts from the position of his beliefs. If he takes the position that God is corporeal, that He occupies space, then he will intuitively conclude that he can hide from Him.
I'm curious how such a philosophy deals with Adam and Eve's reactions to being in the buff, with God ringing the doorbell for dinner...
With my own puny, human mind, I can think of ways that a corporeal God still has the whole world within His reach. There's nothing that says that his corporeal form needs to be constrained to space and time, any more than His mind/spirit/will/whatever does; this is GOD we're talking about, after all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But aren't we more evil than God? More fallible? More embodied?
I mean, I have more of a body than God does. Therefore I'm greater than He is in that way, right?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I think getting hung up on semantics is kind of silly. I mean, saying that no one is ever greater than God in any way - and then saying that "more evil = greater" is ridiculous. You can add "-er" to anything and then say that makes it greater than God. Like, my house is greater than yours because it's smaller, so it's greater in smallness?
A greater capacity to sin, greater capacity to do evil, yes. (And of course "more embodied" is a point of debate; maybe some of us have more body hair than God or something ... I don't know.) That doesn't make us greater than God in the sense that we know better than He or can do more good. But I think some of us are so afraid of saying that men could have more of anything than God - even "more laziness" - that we get into this silly debate over semantics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is. But the Torah says that He created the world, so that wouldn't make any sense.
I created my children; I exist independently outside their existence. I have form; I am "greater" than them in most ways.
God isn't greater than us like you're greater than your children. Once you created your children, they became independent of you. Whereas God didn't just create the world at the beginning. His creation is an ongoing thing.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The link you posted regarding this issue starts out from the premise that if God had a physical form, man could eventually somehow escape from him. I'm not sure why that particular terminology is used; but it's not entirely logical (despite the article's strident protestations to the contrary).
Yeah... I probably wouldn't have put it the way he did in that article. He makes some good points, but the article isn't perfect.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If one believes that God is physical, he will feel capable of escaping Him. One need not intellectually follow this logical reasoning to reach this conclusion: a human being will naturally act out the logical consequences of the concepts he believes. A man does not have to be a philosopher in order to realize these logical consequences. Without considering, he instinctively reacts from the position of his beliefs. If he takes the position that God is corporeal, that He occupies space, then he will intuitively conclude that he can hide from Him.
I'm curious how such a philosophy deals with Adam and Eve's reactions to being in the buff, with God ringing the doorbell for dinner...
Elaborate?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: With my own puny, human mind, I can think of ways that a corporeal God still has the whole world within His reach.
Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's nothing that says that his corporeal form needs to be constrained to space and time, any more than His mind/spirit/will/whatever does; this is GOD we're talking about, after all.
I see the words, but they don't gel into anything concrete. They lack meaning. Corporeality is limited by definition.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But aren't we more evil than God? More fallible? More embodied?
It's a semantic artifice. Evil, as such, doesn't exist. It's defined as qualitative difference from God. If you think of a line stretching from ultimate good to ultimate evil, God is at the ultimate good end, because He's the definition of good. Evil doesn't exist any more than darkness does. Darkness is simply absence of light. Evil is simply absence of good.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I mean, I have more of a body than God does. Therefore I'm greater than He is in that way, right?
No, because your body is simply part of God. While it's misleading to say so, you can think of all of existence as "God's body". It's true, but it means the same thing as God not having a body.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Once you created your children, they became independent of you. Whereas God didn't just create the world at the beginning. His creation is an ongoing thing.
I can't see how this point helps your argument.
quote: Scott said:
I'm curious how such a philosophy deals with Adam and Eve's reactions to being in the buff, with God ringing the doorbell for dinner... [Smile]
Lisa asked:
Elaborate?
Well, when Adam and Eve found out that they were nekkid, and God came banging around the garden, they went into hiding. From the article you linked, this would imply that Adam and Eve thought they could hide from God; implying that perhaps Adam and Eve thought God had a body. (Or at least they didn't understand metaphysics)
Assuming a literal reading of Genesis, anyway.
quote:Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Corporeality isn't necessarily limitation. It's definition; meaning that corporeality lends dimensions. God's arm is thus long, for example; but His command of the universe is complete, so there's no shelf tall enough for him to not be able to reach the cookies at the top. (Maybe he's got stretchy arms, or maybe he creates a wormhole between his hand and the cookie jar-- either way, the end is a delicious snack for the Master of Universe.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Corporeality is, by definition, limitation.
Why? If indeed everything that has a body is part of God, why couldn't God manifest a body that He perceived as His own, while still remaining infinite?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Is God limited by what is logically possible?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Corporeality is, by definition, limitation.
Why? If indeed everything that has a body is part of God, why couldn't God manifest a body that He perceived as His own, while still remaining infinite?
"that He perceived as His own". Null symbols, Tom. Everything is "His own". Psalms 24:1.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Is God limited by what is logically possible?
Since God created the rules by which things work in all of existence, and since God isn't timebound (meaning that if He wanted the rules to be other than they are, He could change them ab initio), then functionally speaking, to all intents and purposes, the result is the same as if God was limited by what is logically possible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Is God limited by what is logically possible?
God certainly isn't limited by our understanding of what is logically possible.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Everything is "His own".
In your understanding of God, does He also own the free will of the beings He's created?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
But anything that's logically possible can be understood to be such by us, at least in principle.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Everything is "His own".
In your understanding of God, does He also own the free will of the beings He's created?
Define "own" in this context, please?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But anything that's logically possible can be understood to be such by us, at least in principle.
I disagree. Lu yedativ, yehuyiv. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thank you for taking time to answer all these things Lisa. I'll probably post later, but I'm finding what Tom and Scott are asking to be just as interesting as anything I could come up with.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Everything is "His own".
In your understanding of God, does He also own the free will of the beings He's created?
Define "own" in this context, please?
"Own" meaning, can He rewrite our character without our permission?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Then no. Hakol b'yidei shamayim, chutz mi'yira'as shomayim. Everything is in the hands of God (lit. heaven), except for fear of God (lit. heaven).
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But anything that's logically possible can be understood to be such by us, at least in principle.
I disagree. Lu yedativ, yehuyiv.
What does that mean?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If our will is outside the hands of God, is it as great as Him?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mystic, it doesn't translate well. Closest I can get: If we truly knew Him (i.e., His thoughts), we would be Him.
Scott, it is not outside Him. It is a gift from Him.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Scott, God granted human beings free will. What you're asking is a lot like "Can God make a rock so big that He Himself can't lift it?" It's a question that can only exist as a semantic trick. Can God interfere with the free will He's given us? Practically speaking, yes. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example. But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
Rivka, you have a point. I think. So... anything that's possible -- in our scope -- can be understood to be such by us, at least in principle.
Our perception of existence is necessarily limited, precisely by the principle that Rivka stated. God is One. God is everything. All of existence. So how can we have separate existences from Him? Only by means of God obscuring full perception of Himself from us.
I think I mentioned in previous posts that this is what prophecy is. It's perceiving past one level of obscured vision to a clearer perception of God.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Can God interfere with the free will He's given us? Practically speaking, yes. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example. But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
I've always preferred the opinion that says that it was actually BY hardening his heart that God ensured that Paroah had free will, despite the external influences.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
How did you come to this conclusion? Does it mention somewhere in Exodus that despite God hardening his heart, Pharaoh really, ultimately was responsible for his own choices?
Or are you using sources outside the Bible to justify this point of view?
I'm willing to give them a look-- I think this is fascinating. I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic, rivka, Lisa; if I am, I'll dial it back a bit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Or are you using sources outside the Bible to justify this point of view?
Not by our definitions. There is a fairly lengthy discussion in the Midrash Rabbah, and every one of the major biblical commentaries discusses the question. In fact, I think one of the smaller presses released a book (most likely in Hebrew) on the subject a while back.
It's interesting to note the differences between Jewish belief and Mormon belief. Like Judaism (apparently), Mormonism states that free will was a gift from God.
Unlike Judaism, Mormonism claims that free will does put boundaries on what God is capable of. He cannot, for example, harden someone's heart; the Joseph Smith translation of Exodus revises those passages to make it clear that it was Pharaoh who was responsible for his impenitence. (From a certain perspective, he's responsible in Judaism's version of the story, too; but the first article vacillates on the point rather than confronting it directly, IMO)
Both articles point out the idea that Pharaoh was completely outmatched by God; that any sane person would have conceded after the first or second trial. BUT-- why would Pharaoh think he was outmatched? His own sorcerers were duplicating Aaron and Moses, miracle for miracle. The second article then makes this fairly ridiculous claim:
quote:Confronted by such mind-boggling firepower, Pharaoh was a mere puppet without any real choice. By hardening his heart, God gave Pharaoh the strength to counteract the force of the open miracles, and returned to Pharaoh the ability to decide according to his desires, independent of the external consequences.
I don't see this as a logical conclusion at all, and certainly not based on what I know of the story. This is apologetics not...I dunno, serious critical examination of the issue.
quote:The very same revelation that brings man toward God at the same time limits individual free will, making the actions of the individual, post-revelation, meaningless. God reestablished the equilibrium in His relationship with man by imbedding in his nature the desire to rebel against the word of God. This is the key to the Golden Calf debacle.
In general, throughout the era of prophecy, the same dilemma existed. When people heard direct communication with God, their freedom was effectively curtailed. Therefore, throughout the age of prophecy there existed a powerful urge to worship idols. Only in the Second Temple period, when prophecy became a thing of the past, did the urge for idolatry disappear.
Elijah's servant saw the Host; Miriam and Aaron both saw miracles. I'm inclined to believe that their later misdeeds were not due to personality-hijacking tampering from God, but to personal weakness.
Seeing angels does not make one inherently angelic.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Scott, God granted human beings free will. What you're asking is a lot like "Can God make a rock so big that He Himself can't lift it?" It's a question that can only exist as a semantic trick. Can God interfere with the free will He's given us? Practically speaking, yes. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example. But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
Let's say Pharaoh, prior to God's intervention, had a 10% chance of acting as he did, but after the intervention the chance went to 90%. Is this consistent with your view of intervention while maintaining free will?
I don't particularly like this because, to me, the basis for positing free will is to make moral actors of us. If God makes Pharaoh predisposed to a given course of action, then surely (morally) Pharaoh should be judged less harshly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Like Rivka said, God had Moses and Aaron do major miracles before Pharaoh. That was divine intervention right there. God influenced Pharaoh by strengthening him against that influence. That can be seen as interference in Pharaoh's free will, but then, any overt action of God in the world is interference with our free will. If God makes a bird poop on me, it's going to change my actions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: BUT-- why would Pharaoh think he was outmatched? His own sorcerers were duplicating Aaron and Moses, miracle for miracle.
Not after the first two. Lice stumped them; it was too small. (And at least according to some Jewish sources, even with the first two, their attempts were pale copies -- red water for blood, frogs that neither moved nor croaked.)
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like Rivka said, God had Moses and Aaron do major miracles before Pharaoh. That was divine intervention right there. God influenced Pharaoh by strengthening him against that influence. That can be seen as interference in Pharaoh's free will, but then, any overt action of God in the world is interference with our free will. If God makes a bird poop on me, it's going to change my actions.
You don't think there's a difference between God providing some external stimulus and letting our brains work to reach our own conclusion versus actually influencing how we reach that conclusion?
This seems a relevant distinction, but, clearly, an argument can be made that they are equivalent.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Let's say Pharaoh, prior to God's intervention, had a 10% chance of acting as he did, but after the intervention the chance went to 90%. Is this consistent with your view of intervention while maintaining free will?
I think according to that view, it would be more like "Pharaoh normally would have freely chosen one course of action. Because of blatant miracles making it obvious that resistance was futile, he would have seen no choice but to do something else. God gave him a superhuman ability to rationalize away the miracles in order to make the decision he really wanted to."
quote:I don't particularly like this because, to me, the basis for positing free will is to make moral actors of us. If God makes Pharaoh predisposed to a given course of action, then surely (morally) Pharaoh should be judged less harshly.
Supposing that's the case -- and there IS a school of thought that Pharaoh did get locked into his later decisions -- what would be the matter with Pharaoh being judged less harshly for his post-plague actions? (Especially considering that most of what he's judged for took place before the plagues started.)
quote:This is apologetics not...I dunno, serious critical examination of the issue.
That makes sense only if you see these as explanations concocted after the fact to make sense of the text, rather than traditions passed down from the start. It once again becomes relevant to note that from the Jewish perspective, the written portion of the Bible was never meant to be understood without the oral tradition.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, you seem to believe in salvation by the work of repentance. That makes it all based on something humans do.
In your appraisal of the significance of the animal sacrifices, you see a mystery there. But does not the text say over and over that everything having to do with the animal sacrifices was "making an atonement"?
As for original sin, that was Adam's. By inheritance, all his children are fallen from God's fellowship, because Adam was. The son of a human is a human. BUT the Son of God agreed to be humanity's Surety--like a Co-signer. Because the Son of God took humanity into Himself when He took human nature upon Himself, and as the New Adam prevailed in all the areas where Adam failed, as well as paying the penalty for rebellion against God--which is ultimate severing from God, the Source of life--and yet lived, because as God He had life in Himself; Christ gave the entire human race a new default condition of saved. This is the good news of the gospel, that all humanity is already saved in Christ. Every infant is born saved, not lost. When we reach the age of accountability, we must choose for ourselves whether to side with Good and with God, or only consult the desires of self, because God will not force even peace with God on those who do not want it.
Your question about Hitler is complicated by the tenses you used. Since Hitler is now dead, that means his probation has closed, and we assume he did not repent and seek the forgiveness of God before he died. Though we cannot know for sure what his last thoughts were. He is not anywhere conscious, right now. He is in the suspended animation of death. Soul-sleep. So whatever was the case in the moment when he died, that was it, for Adolph.
I cannot think of anyone I would be more surprised to see in Heaven. But I am not Hitler's judge, though I will get to review the divine judgment. Actually, Hitler will not be lost because of anything he did, any of his crimes. If he is lost and eternally cut off from the Source of Life, it will be because he refused the salvation he had already been given by Christ.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think according to that view, it would be more like "Pharaoh normally would have freely chosen one course of action. Because of blatant miracles making it obvious that resistance was futile, he would have seen no choice but to do something else. God gave him a superhuman ability to rationalize away the miracles in order to make the decision he really wanted to."
But if that were the case, why do the miracles at all? (Of course, once you assume an omnipotent God, that particular question becomes even harder. The whole plagues episode looks pretty ridiculous if you assume a God of even moderate power and intelligence.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But if that were the case, why do the miracles at all?
For the rest of the world. He was Making A Very Prominent Example.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you seem to believe in salvation by the work of repentance. That makes it all based on something humans do.
Nope. God didn't have to give us the mechanism of repentance. Had He not, nothing we do would have made a difference.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In your appraisal of the significance of the animal sacrifices, you see a mystery there. But does not the text say over and over that everything having to do with the animal sacrifices was "making an atonement"?
Leaving aside the mistake you're making -- again -- of focusing on the text, which is not the primary source of the laws regarding sacrifices, there are different terms for different elements of and types of repentance. Selicha (forgiveness), mechila (pardon) and kappara (atonement) are all different things. Those translations I used are approximations, btw. God forgives and pardons. We atone with God's help.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for original sin, that was Adam's. By inheritance, all his children are fallen from God's fellowship, because Adam was.
Yeah, I get that you think this. Do you get that from a Jewish perspective, that idea isn't just wrong, but obscene?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The son of a human is a human. BUT the Son of God agreed to be humanity's Surety--like a Co-signer.
Oh, stop. We're all God's sons and daughters. And no person can take upon himself the sins of another.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Because the Son of God took humanity into Himself when He took human nature upon Himself, and as the New Adam prevailed in all the areas where Adam failed, as well as paying the penalty for rebellion against God--which is ultimate<snip>
"New Adam". "Took human nature upon himself". These are basically pagan ideas that were given a thin coat of Jewish concepts. They were never anything that existed in the Torah; never anything that existed until Christianity came into being.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your question about Hitler is complicated by the tenses you used. Since Hitler is now dead, that means his probation has closed, and we assume he did not repent and seek the forgiveness of God before he died.
Do you assume that? Interesting. Oh, it's probably the case, but it's really not relevant. The question was, could he have repented while he was still alive? And the answer is that technically, he could have. God's mercy is limitless. But in practice, I can't see how he would have managed to make recompense for the harm he caused his victims.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Though we cannot know for sure what his last thoughts were. He is not anywhere conscious, right now. He is in the suspended animation of death. Soul-sleep. So whatever was the case in the moment when he died, that was it, for Adolph.
"Suspended animation"? Honestly?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I cannot think of anyone I would be more surprised to see in Heaven. But I am not Hitler's judge, though I will get to review the divine judgment.
No kiddin', really? You must be important.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually, Hitler will not be lost because of anything he did, any of his crimes. If he is lost and eternally cut off from the Source of Life, it will be because he refused the salvation he had already been given by Christ.
Blah, blah, blah. God doesn't work that way.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The whole plagues episode looks pretty ridiculous if you assume a God of even moderate power and intelligence.)
Why is that?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Oh, stop. We're all God's sons and daughters. And no person can take upon himself the sins of another."
Well there's always ClaudTheresa. The poor girl breaks my heart sometimes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because there is no purpose served by the plagues that could not be accomplished more directly with something else.
Okay, says God, let's free the Israelites. Let's not just teleport them away; let's use this opportunity to demonstrate my power to non-Israelites as well, and humiliate their false "gods." So let's afflict the citizens of this country with all sorts of plagues. And then, just in case these plagues would represent a sufficient demonstration of my power, magically mess with their leader's brain to prevent him from recognizing my clear superiority until I've had the opportunity to slaughter thousands of children. And then I'll bypass any opportunity to inconvenience or slow down the pursuing army, instead waiting for an opportunity to drown them in a flood. And then I'll make the people I just rescued march around for a while until they start starving and wondering why I ever bothered to rescue them, and doubting my power again, just so I can kill more of them.
Exodus is the story of a profoundly stupid and unpleasant deity whose only imagination appears focused on the variety of nasty plagues He possesses the power to invoke.
-------
quote:For the rest of the world. He was Making A Very Prominent Example.
That completely failed to make it into the histories of any other people on Earth. If God's intent was to make an example for anyone but the Hebrews, this can only be judged a miserable failure.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Okay, says God, let's free the Israelites. Let's not just teleport them away; let's use this opportunity to demonstrate my power to non-Israelites as well, and humiliate their false "gods." So let's afflict the citizens of this country with all sorts of plagues. And then, just in case these plagues would represent a sufficient demonstration of my power, magically mess with their leader's brain to prevent him from recognizing my clear superiority until I've had the opportunity to slaughter thousands of children. And then I'll bypass any opportunity to inconvenience or slow down the pursuing army, instead waiting for an opportunity to drown them in a flood.
Aside from the tone and some of the adjectives, I'm not seeing any problem with any of this.
quote: And then I'll make the people I just rescued march around for a while until they start starving and wondering why I ever bothered to rescue them, and doubting my power again, just so I can kill more of them.
Well, that's a whole different story, and the "just so I can kill more of them" bit misses the entire point.
quote:Exodus is the story of a profoundly stupid and unpleasant deity whose only imagination appears focused on the variety of nasty plagues He possesses the power to invoke.
Is not. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for original sin, that was Adam's. By inheritance, all his children are fallen from God's fellowship, because Adam was.
Yeah, I get that you think this. Do you get that from a Jewish perspective, that idea isn't just wrong, but obscene?
I remember you mentioning this before and being in agreement. But I don't recall if you elaborated or put a specifically Jewish reasoning to the issue. Out of curiosity, why is it specifically obscene from a Jewish perspective?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Aside from the tone and some of the adjectives, I'm not seeing any problem with any of this.
Seriously? Then you deserve the god you get, I guess.
Me, I would like my gods to be at least as clever as I am.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
dis thread
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:That completely failed to make it into the histories of any other people on Earth.
Granted, nobody but the Jews has noticed the Bible. Good point.
That said, I might note the lack of a solid competing historical record from 3,300 years ago. I might also mention the Ipuwer Papyrus, which certainly seems to have a striking resemblance to the Exodus account.
But mostly I would note that for its contemporaries the Exodus account is way too big a lie to have been entirely fabricated. This isn't an account of an individual revelation, or a resurrection witnessed by a handful of people. This is the account of the world's mightiest nation being decimated, leading an enslaved nation—the people this was being told to, and their children—out of slavery. For this to have been seriously claimed if there were no truth to it at all would have required the world's largest conspiracy theory.
(I will grant that it could plausibly have been exaggerated, though I do not personally believe it was. But I do not think it could have been invented out of whole cloth.)
quote:Me, I would like my gods to be at least as clever as I am.
Far more. He just doesn't share your value system or goals. Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I think according to that view, it would be more like "Pharaoh normally would have freely chosen one course of action. Because of blatant miracles making it obvious that resistance was futile, he would have seen no choice but to do something else. God gave him a superhuman ability to rationalize away the miracles in order to make the decision he really wanted to."
Under this interpretation, I would say God definitely contravened Pharaoh's free will (I'm not providing an argument, because I'm not sure that you're claiming the contrary. Let me know.)
quote:Supposing that's the case -- and there IS a school of thought that Pharaoh did get locked into his later decisions -- what would be the matter with Pharaoh being judged less harshly for his post-plague actions? (Especially considering that most of what he's judged for took place before the plagues started.)
My concern was for Pharaoh-type scenarios, rather than specifically for Pharaoh, i.e., the notion of holding a person responsible for that person's actions is lost if, on God's whim, that person were not responsible.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Cool. I don't need to post in this thread any more. I can just let Shmuel do it. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Oh no you don't, Rivka! This is a tag-team effort! Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Because of blatant miracles making it obvious that resistance was futile, he would have seen no choice but to do something else. God gave him a superhuman ability to rationalize away the miracles in order to make the decision he really wanted to."
Okay. You can believe this, but, IMO, it's not really a conclusion that can be reached either from what's written in the account in Exodus, or from the other material I've read.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But mostly I would note that for its contemporaries the Exodus account is way too big a lie to have been entirely fabricated....For this to have been seriously claimed if there were no truth to it at all would have required the world's largest conspiracy theory.
You know, you'd be amazed how just a couple generations put enough space between the credulous and their purported sources. Nor do we see any indication that the other civilizations of the Earth at that time gave the Israelites any extra space or respect because their God had just decimated the Egyptians. It's pretty clearly a foundational myth told from the perspective of people generations downwind from the "historical" event.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, honestly, it makes me sad when you say things like: "Leaving aside the mistake you're making -- again -- of focusing on the text, which is not the primary source of the laws regarding sacrifices...."
The text of the Bible is the Supreme authority for knowing God's will in every particular, because that is where He chose to reveal it to be preserved for all future ages. You seem to want to give comparable or even superior authority to the mere traditions of your ethnic group, and the opinions of selected rabbis. That is not good enough for me.
Let me revisit again the idea of the Atonement, in regard to Christ. You deride the idea of anyone being the Sin-bearer for humanity. But Isaiah prophesied:
quote:"He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." (Isaiah 53:3-6; NASB)
No doubt you will say I am just giving to much credence to the Bible text again.
Now, you do have a point, when you decry the pop-religious view of the Christian gospel, that Christ just was punished in our place. That is an over-simplification.
As Ezekiel 8:20 says: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (NASB)
Here is where we see the theological necessity for the Incarnation of Christ as a human being, where He assumed the place of a new Adam as the Head of our race.
Of ourselves, we as a species should have been without hope, because once we have broken with the Father, nothing can undo that. He is the Source of our life; therefore we as a species should not exist. Adam and Eve should have died when they sinned, and had no offspring. Why did God allow them to go on living, and to have children, who led to us?
It is because at the very moment the human race fell and ceased to be in harmony with God, a Seed was promised, who would crush the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15). This is the first Messianic promise in the Bible.
When we have studied all that the Bible teaches about atonement and salvation, we conclude (from the text) that it works as the Apostle Paul said it does: "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21, 22; NASB)
What this implies is that Christ saved us by the same means that the first Adam made us a race of sinners. We had no part in Adam's sin; yet we are his offspring, and share in the consequences of that sin--separation from fellowship with God. But likewise we had no part in the Atonement of Christ, but may share in its consequences if we do not refuse it. Adam was the entire human race when He fell. So also by the same means Christ was all humanity when He Atoned for us on the Cross, and rose from the tomb glorified. In Him we are glorified, because we are in Him. Humanity sits on the right hand of the Father. Humanity is credited with having the very righteousness of God Himself--because this was the only way God could save us and restore us to fellowship with Himself.
We need only to become whole-hearted in our acceptance of the salvation God has already accomplished for us.
About reviewing the divine judgment concerning Hitler: Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:3: "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" (See also Revelation 20:4.)
This does not contradict the fact that God is the Judge, and all judgment has been given to His Son, who has become human. It is in another sense that the saints judge. In simple terms, they review the Judgments that divinity has rendered--for all humans, and even for the angels who fell. This will be one of the things that the Redeemed will do in Heaven for a thousand years, before their return to earth with the New Jerusalem.
God desires for every intelligent creature in His universe to be fully persuaded of His justice. This is why He did not wipe out Lucifer the instant he invented sin. Thus God submits Himself to judgment by His creatures, so the final refutation will be given to all the accusations that Satan made against Him. This is how God will guarantee that sin will never arise again in the universe. This is the ultimate fulfillment of the promise God made in Nahum 1:9: "What do you conspire against the Lord? He will make an utter end of it. Affliction will not rise up a second time." (NKJV)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The text of the Bible is the Supreme authority for knowing God's will in every particular, because that is where He chose to reveal it to be preserved for all future ages. You seem to want to give comparable or even superior authority to the mere traditions of your ethnic group, and the opinions of selected rabbis. That is not good enough for me.
"Jean-luc, I find your lack of faith in the Force ... disturbing"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, honestly, it makes me sad when you say things like: "Leaving aside the mistake you're making -- again -- of focusing on the text, which is not the primary source of the laws regarding sacrifices...."
The text of the Bible is the Supreme authority for knowing God's will in every particular, because that is where He chose to reveal it to be preserved for all future ages. You seem to want to give comparable or even superior authority to the mere traditions of your ethnic group, and the opinions of selected rabbis. That is not good enough for me.
You're mistaken, Ron. The people who received the Torah at Sinai know very well what we received. You'd like to think that the Pentateuch was all it was, because you have full access to those books. But that's not the case. The Oral Torah is not just "traditions of an ethnic group". It's the word of God, given on Mount Sinai to the Children of Israel. It's the fundamental corpus of law and lore that God gave to the world.
You can pretend it wasn't, but you can't expect me to take your refusal to accept God's word seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Let me revisit again the idea of the Atonement, in regard to Christ. You deride the idea of anyone being the Sin-bearer for humanity. But Isaiah prophesied:
quote:"He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." (Isaiah 53:3-6; NASB)
No doubt you will say I am just giving to much credence to the Bible text again.
Actually, no. That's referring to the Jews. We don't carry the sins of the world, but we're held responsible, to a certain extent, because we're the world's teachers.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As Ezekiel 8:20 says: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (NASB)
Here is where we see the theological necessity for the Incarnation of Christ as a human being, where He assumed the place of a new Adam as the Head of our race.
Ick. Ick, ick and ick. That's honestly... Ron, don't you see how creepy that is?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Of ourselves, we as a species should have been without hope, because once we have broken with the Father, nothing can undo that.
And there we go. The idea that we're hopeless and estranged from God, and that God didn't provide us a means of atoning on our own.
But we aren't, Ron. We're not hopeless at all. Nor are we estranged from God. He loves us, and wouldn't treat us as though we were estranged from Him because of the actions of our ancestors. God is just. The god you describe is not.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: He is the Source of our life; therefore we as a species should not exist. Adam and Eve should have died when they sinned, and had no offspring. Why did God allow them to go on living, and to have children, who led to us?
"and had no offspring"? Why do you say that? Do you think they should have dropped dead on the spot? Had they not sinned, they would have lived forever.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is because at the very moment the human race fell and ceased to be in harmony with God,
No, no, no. We're in harmony with God, Ron. Perhaps you don't feel that you are. I find that sad, but I'm not your shrink. But we are. And when we fall out of harmony with Him, as we all do, from time to time, He's given us a way to fix it.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: a Seed was promised, who would crush the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15). This is the first Messianic promise in the Bible.
Do you know what the word "zera" means? Seed is just "descendents". It's not an individual. God said to Abraham, "Your seed will be strangers in a land not theirs." It's a group noun. Serpents bite people. People stomp on serpents. This has nothing to do with the Messiah.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What this implies is that Christ saved us by the same means that the first Adam made us a race of sinners.
We are not a race of sinners. It's offensive that you say we are.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We had no part in Adam's sin; yet we are his offspring, and share in the consequences of that sin--separation from fellowship with God.
Nope. God gave us His Torah. We aren't estranged from Him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Oh no you don't, Rivka! This is a tag-team effort!
Darn.
Um . . . it's a time-bound effort, so I'm exempt?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, if we are not a race of sinners, then why do we die? Your position that "We are not a race of sinners" is impossible to maintain. Do you age? Do you get sick? Are you still subject to death? Are you living in Heaven in face-to-face communion with God? Even Moses had to be sheltered in a cleft in a rock, and could only see God's back as He walked past. Are you better?
If questioning the goodness of God and actively rebelling against His authority, as Adam and Eve did, does not sever us from connection with the Source of all Life, then why did God warn Adam in Genesis 2:17: "...in the day that you eat from it [the forbidden tree] you shall surely die."
Love and mercy cannot overthrow justice. God must always be Just, or He is no longer righteous and good. God had to find a way to reconcile both justice and mercy, love with judgment. He did. He gave us the Messiah--"Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14) which means "God with us." (Thayer's Bible Dictionary.)
Lisa, regardless of what "Oral Tradition" you claimed your people received at Sinai (I bet you don't even know where Mt. Sinai is), what justifies you in disregarding the Bible text? Do you claim it is not the Word of God? Do you claim that what was written down at God's express direction is less reliable than what may have been passed on as oral tradition?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
She knows it's not the Word of God because he didn't Sinai his name.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Funny. But Doron Witzum, Elihu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg might disagree with you, Leonide.
But I think the "Equidistant Letter Sequencing" supposed evidences that God did sign His name in the Torah is a mathematical fraud, so I will not make a serious issue of it. Even if some codes really were embedded, it would have to have been the work of the Masoretic Scribes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Oh no you don't, Rivka! This is a tag-team effort!
Darn.
Um . . . it's a time-bound effort, so I'm exempt?
Tiyuvta d'Shmuel, tiyuvta.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, if we are not a race of sinners, then why do we die?
Because this world is only a staging ground for the next.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your position that "We are not a race of sinners" is impossible to maintain. Do you age? Do you get sick? Are you still subject to death? Are you living in Heaven in face-to-face communion with God?
What makes you think that Adam and Eve lived "in Heaven in face-to-face communion with God" prior to eating that fruit? There's no indication of that whatsoever. Were it the case, Eve never would have been able to eat that fruit. She could have looked right at God after the serpent tempted her and said, "Well, Dad, how about it?"
Furthermore, God said that we couldn't eat from the tree. Eve, when speaking with the serpent, said that God prohibited us from so much as touching the tree. Had she been in "face-to-face communion with God", she hardly would have made that kind of a mistake.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Even Moses had to be sheltered in a cleft in a rock, and could only see God's back as He walked past. Are you better?
You seem to see a lack of complete closeness with God as being the same as "being in sin". We have to be separate from God to some degree, or we would have no free will. Or... are you equating free will to "being in sin"? I wouldn't put it past you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If questioning the goodness of God and actively rebelling against His authority, as Adam and Eve did, does not sever us from connection with the Source of all Life, then why did God warn Adam in Genesis 2:17: "...in the day that you eat from it [the forbidden tree] you shall surely die."
And they did. Well, they didn't "question the goodness of God". I'm not sure where you get that from. But "one thousand years in Your eyes is like a day that passes". Adam lived to be 930 years old, so yes, on the day that he ate from the tree, he died.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Love and mercy cannot overthrow justice. God must always be Just, or He is no longer righteous and good. God had to find a way to reconcile both justice and mercy, love with judgment. He did. He gave us the Messiah--"Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14) which means "God with us." (Thayer's Bible Dictionary.)
No. Immanuel was born at the time of Isaiah. It was a sign given to a king that the king had to actually see in order for it to have any meaning. And while it does mean "God is with us", it's equally true that Elijah means "God is the Lord." Lots of people had theophoric names in biblical times. They do today. My last name, Liel, can mean "God is mine" (not the meaning I had in mind when I chose it, but it is one meaning).
And God did all that long before some guy from Galilee died. He gave us His Torah, so that we might know Him. He gave us the means of repenting from sins so that sin would not be some ultimate blot. And so that reconciling with God would require work on our part. An unearned gift is an unvalued gift. You want to believe that God forgives people without them having to exert that sort of effort. You turn irresponsibility into a virtue.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, regardless of what "Oral Tradition" you claimed your people received at Sinai (I bet you don't even know where Mt. Sinai is),
I bet I do. At least I bet I have a better idea than you do. And we don't "claim it"; it's simple fact. If you can't trust us on that, you can't trust that we preserved the written Torah as God gave it, let alone the words of His prophets. For all you know, the Muslims are right, and what we originally received was the Qur'an. And we just distorted it into the Bible you know. Of course, that's idiotic, but so is the idea that we could preserve the written text faithfully without knowing exactly what it was that God gave us.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: what justifies you in disregarding the Bible text?
Who's disregarding it? I mean, when God says that the Sabbath is "A sign between Me and the Children of Israel forever", and "And the Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath," you ignore the Bible text and use convoluted rationalizations to claim that the Sabbath was given to everyone.
We don't disregard the text. We give it the importance it deserves, and we keep the laws that God gave us, most of which aren't written in that text.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Do you claim it is not the Word of God? Do you claim that what was written down at God's express direction is less reliable than what may have been passed on as oral tradition?
Not less. And not more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But I think the "Equidistant Letter Sequencing" . . . is a mathematical fraud
Good. I agree with you on ONE thing then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Tiyuvta d'Shmuel, tiyuvta.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Darn.
Um . . . it's a time-bound effort, so I'm exempt?
Tiyuvta d'Shmuel, tiyuvta.
Hee. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka, glad there is at least one thing.
Lisa, would you concur that the real Mt. Sinai was most likely Jabal al Lawz, in Saudi Arabia? That is the conclusion I think the best evidence supports.
The textual proofs I cited about the Sabbath being for everyone are hardly convoluted. The Sabbath was made on the seventh day of Creation week, thousands of years before any Jews existed (Genesis 2:2, 3), and the Sabbath Commandment explicitly calls that the Sabbath, if anyone would try to question it (Exodus 20:11). Creation Week is also cited in that commandment as the reason why the Sabbath is the Sabbath. All you have to do is read what these texts plainly say.
Just as a matter of interest, there are over a hundred languages--some of them ancient--in which the word for the seventh day of the week means "rest," or "non-work day" or some obvious variation on Sabbath (such as Sabbados in Spanish). Many of the languages have no evident cultural ties to Judaism or Christianity.
I was interested to learn that your initials are LL. Are you by any chance from Smallville? Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, would you concur that the real Mt. Sinai was most likely Jabal al Lawz, in Saudi Arabia? That is the conclusion I think the best evidence supports.
Absolutely not. The evidence best supports Mount Karkom in the Negev. You might be interested inthis article on that site as well.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The textual proofs I cited about the Sabbath being for everyone are hardly convoluted. The Sabbath was made on the seventh day of Creation week, thousands of years before any Jews existed (Genesis 2:2, 3), and the Sabbath Commandment explicitly calls that the Sabbath, if anyone would try to question it (Exodus 20:11). Creation Week is also cited in that commandment as the reason why the Sabbath is the Sabbath. All you have to do is read what these texts plainly say.
Wrong. There was no "Sabbath" as a special day for people to observe prior to God commanding the Children of Israel to observe it.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Just as a matter of interest, there are over a hundred languages--some of them ancient--in which the word for the seventh day of the week means "rest," or "non-work day" or some obvious variation on Sabbath (such as Sabbados in Spanish).
Loan word. Spanish has a ton of loan words, particularly from Arabic, which has both loan words and cognates from Hebrew.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many of the languages have no evident cultural ties to Judaism or Christianity.
And Spanish is what you use as an example of something with no evidenial cultural ties to Judaism or Christianity? Ron, I'm sure you can do better than that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I was interested to learn that your initials are LL. Are you by any chance from Smallville?
Sure. And the Liel family is distantly related to the Jor-El family of Krypton.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many of the languages have no evident cultural ties to Judaism or Christianity.
And Spanish is what you use as an example of something with no evidenial cultural ties to Judaism or Christianity? Ron, I'm sure you can do better than that.
I'm curious in a list anyways.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, Ron? Inquiring minds want to know. Can we get a list of languages that call Saturday a cognate of Sabbath?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And the Liel family is distantly related to the Jor-El family of Krypton.
*snort*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey, sometimes the only way I can get people to pronounce it correctly is to tell them it's pronounced the Kryptonian way. Works with geeks; normal people, not so much. But it beats Leel and Lile.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just as a public service announcement to anyone reading this thread, Ron's ideas about religion, scripture, salvation, and so forth are not representative of most mainstream Christianity. As a matter of fact, they are pretty far out there.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is a partial list of ancient languages, not including those from Hebrew-derived languages or predominately Christian countries. This listing includes the names of all the days of the week, which can be interesting when they all relate to the Sabbath. The last name in each list is a translation of the previous name. Notice especially the Babylonian listing, which is said to date from 3800 B.C.--which would be about 1800 years before the birth of Abraham, the father of the Jews.
quote:Ancient Syriac *Each day proceeds on, and belongs to the Sabbath One into Sabbath Two into Sabbath Three into Sabbath Four into Sabbath Five into Sabbath Eve (of Sabbath) Shab-ba-tho Sabbath
Chaldee Syriac Kurdistan and Urdmia, Persia One into Sabbath Two into Sabbath Three into Sabbath Four into Sabbath Five into Sabbath Eve (of Sabbath) Shap-ta Sabbath
Babylonian Euphrates & Tigris Valleys Mesopotamia (Written lang. 3800 B.C.) First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Sa-ba-tu Sabbath
Assyrian Euphrates and Tigris Valleys, Mesopotamia First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth sa-ba-tu Sabbath
Arabic (Very old names) Business Day Light Moon War Chief Turning Day or Midweek Familiar or Society Day Eve (of Sabbath) Shi-yar Chief or Rejoicing Day
Arabic (Ancient and Modern) Westn. Asia, E,W & N. Africa The One The Two The Three The Four The Fifth Assembly (day, Muham) as-sabt The Sabbath
Maltese, Malta One (day) Two (and day) The 3 (3rd d.) The 4 (4th d.) Fifth (day) Assembly Is-sibt. The Sabbath
Abyssinia (Ge-ez signifies "original") One (day) Second Third Fourth Fifth Eve (of Sabbath) san-bat Sabbath
Tigre Abyssinia (Closely related to Ge-ez) One (First day) Second Third Fourth Fifth Eve (of Sabbath) san-bat Sabbath
Amharic, Abyssinia (Nearly related to Ge-ez) One Second Third Fourth Fifth Eve (of Sabbath) san-bat Sabbath
Tamashek or Towarek. (From ancient Lybian or Numidian). Atlas Mountains, Africa. First day Second day Third day Fourth day Fifth day Assembly Day a-hal es-sabt. The Sabbath Day
Kabyle or Berber. (Ancient Numidian) North Africa Day the One (First) Day the Two (2nd) Day the Three (3rd) Day the Four (4th) Day the Fifth The Assembly Day ghas or wars assebt The Sabbath Day
Hausa (Central Africa) The One (1st) The Two (2nd) The Three (3rd) The Four (4th) The Fifth The Assembly assebatu The Sabbath
Urdu or Hindustani (Muhammadan and Hindu, India) (Two names for the days) One to Sabbath. Sunday 2nd to Sabbath. Moon-day 3rd to Sabbath. Mars 4th to Sabbath. Mercury 5th to Sabbath. (Eve of Juma) Assembly (day) sanichar - Saturn shamba - Sabbath
Pashto or Afghan Afghanistan One to the Sabbath Two to Sabbath Three to Sabbath Four to Sabbath Five to Sabbath Assembly (day) khali - Unemployed-day, Shamba - Sabbath
Coptic (Egypt; a dead language for 300 years) Pi Sabbaton or The Sabbath
Orma or Galla (south of Abyssinia) Zambada or Sabbath
Tamashek or Towarek (ancient Libyan or Numidian) Ahal Essabt or The Sabbath Day
Kabyle or Berber (Ancient Numidian; N Africa) Ghas or Sabbath Day
Hausa (Central Africa) Aseebatu or The Sabbath . . . .
African
Swahili (East Africa) Assabu or The Sabbath
Congo (West Africa) Satade or Saturday; AND Kiaosabulu or Sabbado: Sabbath
Isolated Languages
Wolof (Sengambia, W Africa) Alere-asser or Last Day - Sabbath
Fulah (W Africa) Essibt or The Sabbath
Mandingo (South of Senegal, W Africa) Sibiti or Sabbath
Teda (Central Africa) Essebdu or The Sabbath
Bornu or Kanuri (Central Africa) Sibda or Sabbath
Fulfulde (Central Africa) Assebdu or Sabbath
Sonyal (Central Africa) Assebdu or Sabbath
Logone (Central Africa) Se-sibde or Sabbath
Wandals (Central Africa) Sidba or Sabbath
Bagrimma (Central Africa) Sibbedi or Sabbath
Maba (Central Africa) Sab. or Sabbath
. . . .
Polynesian
Malayan (Sumatra) hari Sabtu or Day Sabbath
Javanese (Java) Saptoe (saptu) or Sabbath
Sunda (West Java) Saptu or Sabbath
Dayak (Borneo) Sabtu or Sabbath
Makssar (Southern Celebes and Salayer Islands) Sattu or Sabbath
Bugis (Celebes) Sattu or Sabbath
Malagassay (Madagascar) Alsabotsy or The Sabbath
Nuforian (NW New Guinea) Ras Fiek or Day Seven
. . . .
Tartaric
Turkish (Osmanlian; Turkey) Yomessabt or Day the Sabbath
Lazen (Pashelik of Trebisond) Ssabatun or Sabbath
[ February 16, 2009, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The current environment looks pretty strongly deflationary, rather than inflationary.
It's February 3, 2009. If we're still around next year, I'm going to bump this and see what you think about that statement in retrospect.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Did you set a calendar reminder to do this, or did you just remember it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, look! We are still around!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was actually thinking of that, too.
The CPI graph (which drastically underestimates the deflation due to housing prices, just as it drastically underestimated inflation during the housing bubble).
So, inflation at the moment is at worst no higher than was typical for long periods before, and was deflationary during nearly the entire year in question (from February), meaning prices right now are lower than they were when we talked about whether there would be inflation or deflation (even using upwardly biased official numbers).
Turns out my prediction was right Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I think I figured out why I keep reading these posts.
A few days ago, a college kid was thinking about starting a coin collection.
Now somehow we have the sides being picked for a religious war.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I know this is a year old, but what exactly is the point of the big list of languages with words for the Sabbath? If it's supposed to prove that the Sabbath is a worldwide concept, then it fails pretty resoundingly. All those languages are from one language family or have historically been in contact with or borrowed from that family.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: A few days ago, a college kid was thinking about starting a coin collection.
About a year ago actually.
Out of curiosity, if Blayne had dropped his money in gold about a year ago (prices from this http://www.lbma.org.uk/stats/goldfixg ), adjusting for the rise in the Canadian dollar and ignoring commission, he would be up about 2%.*
For comparison, a government guaranteed 1-year GIC would have given him about 2.5%.
Ignoring dividends, investing in the Canadian stock market would have gained about 26%, American about 12%, developed world (minus US) about 14%, China about 21%, and the developing world about 44%.
Over a full year ending in November, if he could buy into the Case-Shiller index of house prices from 20 cities in the US, he would have lost 17%. However, he would have gained 2.6%* in the Canadian house market (across six cities).
* ignoring inflation at 1.3%
(YMMV obviously, not to be taken as advice)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Gold is pretty, and other than the slight potential for electronic wiring, its value comes entirely from the fact that it's pretty.
An important part of why it's valuable is also because of its relative scarcity.
This is truth. Salt was more valuable than gold by weight for most of the history of the world because we lacked the ability to get salt from the ground. Until the advent of modern mining, we didn't realize how common salt was, and it's value was based on the limited amount available at salt licks and surface mines.
The salt we commonly have in our houses today would have made us fairly well off for most of the history of our world.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Gold is also a fun sounding word with a fun element code, Au.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:We have some US savings bonds that have been sitting around collecting interest. I'm thinking seriously of redeeming them and going to http://www.apmex.com/ or somewhere like that to get some gold and silver. I have a feeling that even if the depression doesn't get any worse than it is right now, gold and silver will still hold their value a lot better than anything issued by the US treasury.
There's a much easier way to do that. I know about silver because that's where I invested, but it's basically the same for gold. You can either buy into an ETF like SLV that is basically just a whole mess of silver that you buy a piece of or you can buy stock in a silver company. I bought Silver Wheaton (SLW).
Buying silver or gold would be a good investment if we get the inflation it looks like we are.
So, just wanted to point out, the price for this stock on Feb 3, 2009 was around $6.30. It's now selling for around $33.50. It's been a good ride.
You can believe whatever stupid thing you want, but there are costs.
edit: I'm not talking about inflation. I expect inflation to come along with the economic recovery, not before. Short term, I thought it was pretty obvious that fugu was right about it being a low inflation or even deflationary period. I was honestly quite surprised by the large increases in precious metal prices (I expected some, but not what did happen), although I'm not fighting it.
[ November 10, 2010, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, turns out we were actually in the middle of a brief spike in inflation (well, if a bit over 2% can be a spike) when this thread was last bumped. Since then, even CPI measured inflation (which, as noted, drastically overstates inflation at the current time, due to the improper method of measuring housing inflation) has dropped back down to around 1%. So, my record continues strongly.
As for metal prices, I'm surprised at their strength, too. I was definitely wrong at the time about them being a good buy. I'm quite sure they're unmaintainable in the long run, but it certainly is an enjoyable ride for the people who got in low. I suspect they've become a bad buy, now -- they might go up some, but I bet there'll be a precipitous drop at some point, and anticipating that is probably difficult.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I expected precious metals to rise both short term and medium term, but nowhere near as much they have in the short term. I've got no idea what is going to happen when we get the recovery inflation, but I'd agree that the current prices seem really unsustainable. I'm hopefully buying a house soon, so I'm cashing out on most of my investments, and definitely this one.
I expected a move from equities to commodities to happen, and it did. I'm wondering if the rise can be somewhat attributed to the devaluation of the US dollar against other currencies - but I honestly haven't had the time to do the research I used to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Right now I rank precious metals as about as good an investment as commodity ETFs.
Which is to say: don't invest in them.
also
quote:dis thread
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Antibiotics and lots and lots of bullets, to defend what you have. Owning gold has been made illegal before, if enough people start hoarding it in place of dollars, it'll be made illegal again.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal, in an actual apocalypse, gold will be completely worthless.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We'll never have an actual apocalypse of complete anarchy. Only a nutjob would believe in that. The Weimar Republic is more likely for us. Perhaps Greece. It's only fair to print dollars, balances us out with the rest of the world by devaluing the dollar. The dollar's value needs to be dropped in order to live in a just world.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You can believe whatever stupid thing you want, but there are costs.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Forget gold. Wha'cha really need are humane zombie traps. Just catch, then release... ...at the home perimeter of your nearest survivalist. Eventually he'll be overrun, or run outta ammo. Then after the zombies are finished with the "BRAINS...", ya just walk right in and claim the gold and survival supplies. Ain't like he'll be needing them anymore. And it sure ain't as if ya'd wanna have some sick puppy who was looking forward to the Apocalypse as a neighbor after one had occurred.
[ November 13, 2010, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: If you want to stock up for the end of the world, stock up on food, blankets, fabric, seeds, or fuel. Learn to sew, or blacksmith, or build engines, or grow crops.
. . .and be eaten by the zombies, since you left "bullets" off your shopping list.
Well, I guess you could pour fuel on them and light them on fire.
Zombies don't exist. The Weimar republic and Greece 2010, are historical facts....still funny, wit.
I like John Stewart too, and I'm a right wing extremist. Colbert in the bunker made me laugh. I'm just about as right wing as you can find. I'm not building a bunker, although I'll admit, I have a lot of bullets. It's a funny stereotype and right wingers have the ability to laugh at themselves. Do you?
[ November 14, 2010, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*will not
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
I want to get on a Silver Standard instead of a gold standard..... overall Silver is signficantly more usefull than gold for many reasons - 1. It's antibacterial, even though no one knows exactly way; something to do with simalarities to heavy metals but whatever.
2. It's the best metal at conducting electricity.
3. It's shiny and somewhat rare in nature
4. It's easy to remove tarnish (aluminum foil; baking soda; and hot water)
ignore the spelling mistakes, because I don't care anymore >;o
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: What does this have to do with illegal gold!
I want to get on a Silver Standard instead of a gold standard..... overall Silver is signficantly more usefull than gold for many reasons - 1. It's antibacterial, even though no one knows exactly way; something to do with simalarities to heavy metals but whatever.
2. It's the best metal at conducting electricity.
3. It's shiny and somewhat rare in nature
4. It's easy to remove tarnish (aluminum foil; baking soda; and hot water)
ignore the spelling mistakes, because I don't care anymore >;o
Silver is more useful, and if the dollar crashes, so will gold. Silver will remain strong, and we may see it climb to a higher price than gold.
In a failed economy, gold won't really have a use. The only reason gold is valuable is because people are willing to trade for it. The dollar is just paper, but someone is willing to trade a good or service for it. Gold really has no use except it looks nice and it gets placed on overpriced cables. A failed economy doesn't return to the gold standard.
If the economy collapsed or if society as we know it ended abruptly, gold won't do you any good. Bottles of water, clothes, food, and oil are going to be worth more than gold.
Personally I am saving all of my bottlecaps. Once the nuclear holocaust ends I am going to be filthy rich.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)