Wisdom and Cheese (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 04, 2011, 20:40 (4738 days ago) @ dhw

Ok, so let's try to take this from the top and see if we can clear up misunderstandings.

From what I am reading, which is a mechanical translation of Genesis(http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ebook.html Free Download), the original text talks about functional and dysfunctional instead of good and bad. For example:

".. “YHWH [He exists]” of “Elohiym [Powers]” made all of the trees spring up from the ground being a craving to appearance and functional for nourishment and a tree of the life in the midst of the garden and a tree of the discernment of function and dysfunction,.."

This is normally translated into English as the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil(Bad). So, in the English translations, you have moral implications, while in the original Hebrew you have mechanistic implications.

DHW

You said earlier that Hebrew has no word for good or bad, so do you mean that the original biblical texts do NOT prescribe a moral code, but only talk in neutral terms of function/dysfunction?

As I said in my last post, there is one direct moral imperative in the bible, the Golden Rule, and there are certainly expansions on that rule. So no, I am not saying that there is no moral code in the Bible whatsoever. Instead, I am saying that much of what has been translated with moral implications did not carry those same implications in the original text. I.E. Stating that homosexuality is not functional in reproductive terms by no means says that it is morally wrong, only that you won't have kids that way. Now, given that it was expected that couples have children and increase the strength of the tribe, there may have been social reasons for which homosexuality was frowned on, but that is something else entirely.

My use of the so-called seven deadly sins was perhaps not the best example I could give, though in a way they do illustrate my point. If you consider a human in mechanistic terms, you know that there is a dichotomy between mind and body, even though they are synergistic. Gluttony, lust, wrath, envy, pride, greed, and sloth, are all dysfunctional in their own way. Again, I am not making that statement from a moral standpoint, but rather from a mechanistic perspective. I will follow this post up with a more detailed description and justification of that statement.

I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a perfect translation, but if you get rid of all the hyped up burn in hell sin and guilt that the church has used as a means of control for the last two thousand years or so, there is room to start bridging the gap in a way that encourages mutual acceptance and understanding. For example, taking away the moral implications from the book of Genesis, it reads much more like a science treatise than a religious text.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.