Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
Sunbeam
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

cinepro wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:04 pm
Interestingly, it looks like he's taken to "retranslating" scriptural passages...

https://www.thymindoman.com/an-introduc ... ation-bht/
I’m sure it can’t be worse than the MPT (Mopologist Translation) of the Book of Mormon. Without the MPT, I wouldn’t have learned that North actually means South, East actually means West, horses mean tapirs, iron means wood, if horses existed they were only used for their meat, chariots actually mean sleds, a literal global flood means a small localized flood, a literal Tower of Babel that the Brother of Jared witnessed was actually just a misunderstanding, metal coins mean something else, etc, etc.

Good Lord, I need to take some aspirin and lie down.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
Philo Sofee
First Presidency
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Philo Sofee »

cinepro wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:04 pm
Interestingly, it looks like he's taken to "retranslating" scriptural passages...

https://www.thymindoman.com/an-introduc ... ation-bht/
I wish him well in this endeavor. I just finished reading the 2nd volume (of 4) of Joseph Dan's (Gershom Scholem Professor at Hebrew University in Israel) "Jewish Mysticism," and in it he described the Jewish rabbis concepts of why all translations are inferior to the original Hebrew, because translations cannot, they literally CANNOT capture the full meaning of the Hebrew nuances, including the shapes of the letters, the numerical meaning (not a weak and later added onto mere mystical aspect of working with the Hebrew, (Dan's analysis) but a fundamental ground reality concerning Hebrew as both letters and numbers - they did not have the separate Arabic number system anciently). Any translation is going to miss not just some... and Dan emphasizes this incredibly powerful - but the majority of what the Hebrew gives us, because, there never has been, and there never will be a one to one meaning, because Hebrew is not possible to give that.

There are multiple meanings automatically based on the structure of Hebrew itself. It is why Protestantism is the absolute furthest removed away from meaning, (other kinds of Christianity only somewhat less so - Catholicism, The Joseph Smith Translation, the King James, etc.) and why Jews never resort to scripture as the last proof. It simply cannot do that. It is not its nature. The Jews know this, the Christians continually miss it, and thus in their translations they can never arrive at the "true" meaning, because there is no such thing as a singular "true" meaning, as opposed to "false" meanings or even the myopic view of an "incorrect" meaning.

So new translations can help give a new impression, and perhaps a new way of thinking, but every single translation misses far more than they even can by logical process, arrive at anything near the only or the real or the true meaning. Hebrew won't do that.
Physics Guy
Valiant A
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Physics Guy »

I guess it's true that some believers in God are anxious about God judging them but I don't think I've ever actually known anyone with that kind of anxiety. All the believers I've known have seemed instead to find their belief comforting and reassuring.

And I guess in some sense believing in God means having another big piece on the table, potentially making the game that much more complicated. It's really not clear to me that this is a disadvantage, though. Adding a new piece to a game or a new axiom to a logical system often makes things more interesting. It can even make things easier. When kids are having a hard time choosing between eating spinach and eating broccoli, being able to choose ice cream instead makes things simpler, not harder.

For a lot of religious people, I think, that's not an irrelevant parable. Merely deciding what I myself want is not as easy as it sounds, I find. I have conflicting wants. Things I want to do, I don't even consistently try to do. Among my wishes are meta-wishes: I wish I had better wishes and I wish I were better at pursuing them.

This sense of conflict within oneself is a major theme in several religions. I like the Bhagavad Gita's parable for it, of a war within an extended family in which there is kin on both sides. Believing in God means having a powerful ally in the struggle with oneself. That makes the conflict seem easier, not harder.
Lem
Prophet
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Lem »

Adding a new piece to a game or a new axiom to a logical system often makes things more interesting. It can even make things easier. When kids are having a hard time choosing between eating spinach and eating broccoli, being able to choose ice cream instead makes things simpler, not harder.
:lol: There is so much going on in so many parts of that final example that I can only assume /s.
And I guess in some sense believing in God means having another big piece on the table, potentially....

For a lot of religious people, I think, that's not an irrelevant parable. Merely deciding what I myself want is not as easy as it sounds, I find. I have conflicting wants. Things I want to do, I don't even consistently try to do. Among my wishes are meta-wishes: I wish I had better wishes and I wish I were better at pursuing them.

This sense of conflict within oneself is a major theme in several religions....
And in many non-religious thought systems as well. Having that big piece on the table is not unique to religion, although even as an atheist I don't rule out learning from both religious and non-religious sources. Your parable from the Bhagavad Gita is a great example.
"choosing to work the job she loved and elevated to the end." -honorentheos
Lem
Prophet
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Lem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:56 pm
cinepro wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:04 pm
Interestingly, it looks like he's taken to "retranslating" scriptural passages...

https://www.thymindoman.com/an-introduc ... ation-bht/
I wish him well in this endeavor. I just finished reading the 2nd volume (of 4) of Joseph Dan's (Gershom Scholem Professor at Hebrew University in Israel) "Jewish Mysticism," and in it he described the Jewish rabbis concepts of why all translations are inferior to the original Hebrew, because translations cannot, they literally CANNOT capture the full meaning of the Hebrew nuances, including the shapes of the letters, the numerical meaning (not a weak and later added onto mere mystical aspect of working with the Hebrew, (Dan's analysis) but a fundamental ground reality concerning Hebrew as both letters and numbers - they did not have the separate Arabic number system anciently). Any translation is going to miss not just some... and Dan emphasizes this incredibly powerful - but the majority of what the Hebrew gives us, because, there never has been, and there never will be a one to one meaning, because Hebrew is not possible to give that.

There are multiple meanings automatically based on the structure of Hebrew itself. It is why Protestantism is the absolute furthest removed away from meaning, (other kinds of Christianity only somewhat less so - Catholicism, The Joseph Smith Translation, the King James, etc.) and why Jews never resort to scripture as the last proof. It simply cannot do that. It is not its nature. The Jews know this, the Christians continually miss it, and thus in their translations they can never arrive at the "true" meaning, because there is no such thing as a singular "true" meaning, as opposed to "false" meanings or even the myopic view of an "incorrect" meaning.

So new translations can help give a new impression, and perhaps a new way of thinking, but every single translation misses far more than they even can by logical process, arrive at anything near the only or the real or the true meaning. Hebrew won't do that.
Thanks for writing about this Philo, I don't study this area as much as I probably should, so I always enjoy peeking in on your studies when you post. Your comment about Protestantism and meaning in scripture is fascinating food for thought. It also puts the near-constant mopologetic search for new and more parallelisms in an interesting light.
"choosing to work the job she loved and elevated to the end." -honorentheos
Themis
Star A
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:20 pm
I think where I part with you on this is your use of the words thought and think. To the infinite mind of God, according to classical theism, those words could only be used in a metaphorical sense. Human beings could not possibly know the thoughts of a being like that, and so one wonders what the point would be of worrying about them.
When I used the word concern, it was meant as interest, not anxious or worry, although that does come into play with many. Classical theism still does go into that territory of what God thinks even if is believed they cannot know more then a fraction. Many sacred scripture is all about this ultimate being interacting and communicating what it wants of us, which is why most theists are interested in it.
Furthermore, I am not really interested in pursuing an ad populum fallacy, in that what most people think is not a concern for me. Most people are idiots (in the narrow sense of not really having a concern for or a handle on larger issues). One of the things I find interesting about our current religio-philosophical discussions, as far as they go--and that is not very far, it that they sound a lot like consumer conversations about products. Most people buy this, this is why they prefer this, and they don't select this . . . vel sim.
Perhaps they are idiots, but most are part of that classical theism, and maybe they just think issues you consider large as trivial. I certainly see people in my own life have different ideas of what are important issues, and I don't think I am better because they don't spend time deeply thinking about the same things I do.
Why should it matter to any of us that most people think one thing or another? Why does this even figure into this discussion? In my view, it doesn't, and I don't care about it. What matters for practical purposes for the majority of people is of no concern to me.
Then why get into a discussion about what most people think?
It's also not uncommon for people in general to engage in sexual activity, including illicit sexual activity, for all kinds of reasons. Whether they choose to involve their God ideas in it or not, it looks like people are going to engage in sex. Take for example, the village atheist hero Richard Carrier. He declared himself to be polyamorous and decided to harass young women at Skeptics events. I note that he denies these allegations. Still, I think you will find that there are many people who do this kind of thing, regardless of their religious views or lack of such.
Of course people have many reasons to engage in sex or not. It's just that an atheist is not interested in reasons regarding God. My example was just one of many, and an extreme example that does happen.
Themis
Star A
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:29 pm
I guess it's true that some believers in God are anxious about God judging them but I don't think I've ever actually known anyone with that kind of anxiety. All the believers I've known have seemed instead to find their belief comforting and reassuring.
My use of the word concern was meant only as interest, not worry or anxious.
And I guess in some sense believing in God means having another big piece on the table, potentially making the game that much more complicated. It's really not clear to me that this is a disadvantage, though. Adding a new piece to a game or a new axiom to a logical system often makes things more interesting. It can even make things easier. When kids are having a hard time choosing between eating spinach and eating broccoli, being able to choose ice cream instead makes things simpler, not harder.
I didn't mean advantage as better or more accurate, though I can see how one might see it that way. I do agree that bringing in another choice may make it easier if it is a much more desired choice that the other ones.
For a lot of religious people, I think, that's not an irrelevant parable. Merely deciding what I myself want is not as easy as it sounds, I find. I have conflicting wants. Things I want to do, I don't even consistently try to do. Among my wishes are meta-wishes: I wish I had better wishes and I wish I were better at pursuing them.

This sense of conflict within oneself is a major theme in several religions. I like the Bhagavad Gita's parable for it, of a war within an extended family in which there is kin on both sides. Believing in God means having a powerful ally in the struggle with oneself. That makes the conflict seem easier, not harder.
Sure there are many wants we have to look at, some of which are in conflict with each other. I want to do right by God not wanting me to have sex, but I also want to have sex. I don't think believing in God necessarily means having a powerful ally in these struggles with oneself. It's a bit more complicated. In the example of having sex. Belief in God and what God wants is what creates the conflict. It can then provide harmful guilt later on if one goes with the desire to have sex.
Themis
Star A
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:29 pm
When kids are having a hard time choosing between eating spinach and eating broccoli, being able to choose ice cream instead makes things simpler, not harder.
In thinking about this example, can we think of how this might work with belief in God and what Gods wants of us? If what I want conflicts with what I believe God wants we have a conflict, but if what I want is the same as what I believe God wants, no conflict.
User avatar
Kishkumen
High Councilman
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:34 pm
When I used the word concern, it was meant as interest, not anxious or worry, although that does come into play with many. Classical theism still does go into that territory of what God thinks even if is believed they cannot know more then a fraction. Many sacred scripture is all about this ultimate being interacting and communicating what it wants of us, which is why most theists are interested in it.
Yeah, knowing the mind of God or being able to figure out the truth hidden in Holy Writ, all of those things are tricking enterprises. If we were able to get down into the philosophical minutiae of it, I don't think it would bear much of a resemblance to knowing what God thinks beyond the realm of handy metaphor. You seem to read these metaphors as being a lot more literal and active than I do. I have a much more Platonic take on the whole thing. We are probably doomed to talk past each other on this one.
Perhaps they are idiots, but most are part of that classical theism, and maybe they just think issues you consider large as trivial. I certainly see people in my own life have different ideas of what are important issues, and I don't think I am better because they don't spend time deeply thinking about the same things I do.
Most Christians belong to organizations that rest on creeds that are succinct distillations of classical theism. What they really understand about that is something else entirely. A few people really get into the mysteries of the Trinity and so forth. Those few are probably closer to the core of the religion.

I am not sure what thinking one is better has to do with anything we are talking about.
Then why get into a discussion about what most people think?
Good question!
Of course people have many reasons to engage in sex or not. It's just that an atheist is not interested in reasons regarding God. My example was just one of many, and an extreme example that does happen.
Sure. If that is something you view to be a benefit of atheism, then that would be an inducement for you to be an atheist. I still say that it is possible not to imagine God as being some kind of obsessively punitive voyeur who is preoccupied with monitoring your little factory usage.
Esse et facere quam videri
Lem
Prophet
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Lem »

Themis wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:05 pm
Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:29 pm
When kids are having a hard time choosing between eating spinach and eating broccoli, being able to choose ice cream instead makes things simpler, not harder.
In thinking about this example, can we think of how this might work with belief in God and what Gods wants of us? If what I want conflicts with what I believe God wants we have a conflict, but if what I want is the same as what I believe God wants, no conflict.
You illustrate how disconcerting this example was to me. Overall, if you are feeding a kid, the spinach and broccoli rank way higher in 'goodness.' Adding a less good thing that in the short run is far preferred but in the long run is less 'good' is a weird way to introduce god into a discussion. So god is ice cream, a quickie solution that in the long run ultimately doesn't satisfy, but one that is easier to choose in favor of rejecting what would be better for you? exhausted parents may let this happen on occasion, because parents aren't gods, but overall I can't imagine any responsible parent going for this as a long term solution.

Clearly I am reading too much into this.
"choosing to work the job she loved and elevated to the end." -honorentheos
Post Reply