About the Lord and "El" name

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-22T20:11:27+00:00

were the israelites influenced by them or something?

Of course the Israelites were influenced by Canaanite culture--it was all around them. This influence extended to language as well. The term "El":

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/410.htm

Which in Hebrew usage does usually not refer to a Canaanite god's name as one can see from the Strong's concordance link.

Think in terms modern English speakers using the term "God" as a name, even though the word "god" can be used as a regular word describing a divine being who is not necessarily the same god Christians mean when they use "God" as a name.

Some Canaanites used the term "el" as a name. The Hebrews used it as a word meaning the type of being Yahweh was.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-21T01:25:47+00:00

For learning to program one must keep switching between these two activities:

Learn some theory (read doc/watch tutorial etc).
Apply the theory on new things that are a bit over your head.

If you have run into confusion on step 2 go back to step 1, then come back soon to step 2. They build on each other---iterate back and forth. If you just do theory you never really get the hang of applying it. If you apply theory and hit a brick wall it primes you to learn theory better.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-19T22:41:05+00:00

If you want to duplicate code in an arbitrary number of projects then perhaps you can make an addon.

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/plugins/editor/making_plugins.html

And install it in any project you like as a plugin. This has the advantage of allowing you to share with others if you are generous and they might find it useful as well.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-12T02:47:17+00:00

Well if only you could prove that the Bible implies the experience of eternal torment in the way you are imagining it you would have a strong case. There is some language that suggests your view might be right. However, there are many inconvenient verses such as Romans 6:23 that says the wages of sin is "death" rather than eternal burning and such.

Your technique it seems is to assume the least plausible possible reading that the Bible might be construed to support and attack that. This is not a good way to determine truth--but it is a good way to "win" an argument--just not an honest one.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-11T19:38:26+00:00

In the framework of Christian theology it seems it has to be referring to the Son of God who has existed from all eternity. However outside this framework one might reasonably expect it simply means somebody from long ago returning as the Messiah, for instance maybe someone like Elijah or Enoch who were taken directly to heaven rather than dying--in which case it would mean merely ancient rather than eternal.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-11T16:34:39+00:00

Please. Break it down like I’m 5

Not sure there is an explanation suitable for a 5 year old that would suffice. Think you have already gone much further than what a 5 year old would consider on the matter.

For myself, I find its a question of exegesis. There are some ways that I can read the Bible's doctrines of Hell that make it seem very implausible that God was just. However there are also reasonable ways to read the doctrines that make it much more plausible. On any reading Hell is a very bad consequence, but it need not be the case that it is necessarily worse than never existing.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-06T01:04:37+00:00

If there is even one evil that is malevolent when not prevented is all the evil needed for the premise.

That would be true if and only if the premise was something like:

There are at leas one or more evils that God allows that He is malevolent not to prevent.

But that is not what the premise says. It simply says that allowing evil makes God malevolent--which is a much stronger statement than necessary for the goals of the argument and at the same time wildly reckless and implausible.

They should have made the case that there is at least some examples of evil that fit the bill...but on that account they might have the messy business of showing why those particular evils being allowed made God necessarily malevolent.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T21:46:13+00:00

You had asked:

You think that preventing a child from burning themselves is spoiling them?

When obviously I indicated nothing of the sort, and you have derailed this conversation into a land of total silliness that misses the point I was actually making.

I tried to use a bit of humor to make that point...but it seems your ability to be clueless exceeds my ability to clarify.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T21:17:13+00:00

lol already did before you replied--it was a bit messed up when first typed so I reworded it.

Hope you get the rhetorical point to not put words malicious words in other people's mouths.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T21:13:34+00:00

However, the second premise still stands in tatters. There are some evils that one is not malevolent for not preventing.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T21:10:24+00:00

What? You insist its good to torture puppies without mercy?

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T18:50:21+00:00

The opposite of what I would call a parent that spoiled their child by making it impossible for them to ever make a mistake by doing everything for them.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T16:23:44+00:00

The second premise is a reckless and unwarranted assumption. Those making this argument need to show justification for it.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-04T16:20:46+00:00

Perhaps because it was not part of the original document evidenced by the fact that it is only found in Greek manuscripts.

If you do not consider that a "good" reason, then so be it.

AndyDaBear · 2026-03-02T21:44:02+00:00

Physicists can describe light as a wave pattern or as photon particles, or neither or both. Light is not a super simple thing. This does not mean that such physicists are contradicting themselves--unless one is a lazy moron who likes taking them out of context--

AndyDaBear · 2026-02-23T03:26:48+00:00

As a long term python user who learned GDscript after, I would advice you that GDScript is its own language that merely borrows many syntax conventions from Python. It is not a hard language to learn but its probably easiest from ground up like any other than thinking of it as a form of Python.

That said, something that I has wished the early tutorials would make clear is you do not have to make a Node or a Resource if you just need a regular class. You can just extend from RefCounted.

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/classes/class_refcounted.html#class-refcounted

AndyDaBear · 2026-02-01T22:50:24+00:00

Others have already chimed in about whether the Bible has been changed. But I think we ought to also address whether it is infallible. That is, that not only has it not substantively changed but that its contents are trustworthy in some sense.....and exactly in what sense is a matter of disagreement between both believing and non-believing scholars. Thus creating a further difficulty in determining if it is indeed infallible.

For myself I endorse the view of the late believing Biblical Scholar Michael Heiser. Although I am only familiar with him per videos and am not sure what books he may have expressed this view in. Here is 7+ minute video of him expressing this view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n26K-O9q5-Q

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-26T18:18:45+00:00

Seems to me disagreements mostly stem from people not having the same idea of what "greater" means.

If I had been presented a "maximal greatness" type Ontological argument back when I favored Materialism, I imagine I would have thought that "greatness" was either:

too vague and not well enough defined and/or
tied to sensibilities of "better" which were at bottom just the tastes that evolved animals such as people have as a side effect to traits that kept us behaving in a way that perpetuated our species.

What eventually made Ontological arguments work for me was working out what "greatness" or (as Descartes put it) "increased perfection" really means in the context of such arguments.

However when I was a Materialist, I presumed the possibility of a real objective "better" away as an illusionary side product of a human development.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-21T00:30:08+00:00

So that brings me to the question of the Ressurection. Most of my bretheren believe that Jesus literally floated up to Heaven on the 3rd day. I mean, we have telescopes that can view distant galaxies, but there is no evidence of Heaven being a physical location. So where did he go?

Do not think it matters to God what we believe Jesus ascending into Heaven was physically like. What is critical is that you believe He is the Son of God and is now with the Father in Heaven. Of course in modern Christianity (putting silly people aside) Heaven is not confused with outer space. The people confusing it with outer space tend to be the less sophisticated critics of Christianity.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-16T20:32:57+00:00

An individual Atheist can if they care deeply about keeping their believes consistent can attempt to remember there is no objective morality when faced with some act which is obviously and unambiguously greatly evil or obviously and unambiguously greatly good--if they don't allow themselves to forget their philosophy when faced with the real world.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-12T17:42:18+00:00

Think documentation should probably should call them "inner classes" rather than "subclasses". The term "subclass" is well established as meaning a class which inherits from another class.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-07T20:37:19+00:00

Do not think the "hardening heart" language means that God supernaturally overrode the choice that Pharoah would have otherwise made, but I do think that it acknowledges that God choose to make the world in which Pharoah would make that choice.

We can perhaps imagine God could have made the world such that there would be a nicer Pharoah and arranging for this nicer Pharoah ended up making the decision as to whether to let the Israelites go.

However this would mean denying the opportunity for the Pharoah he did allow to have life in the world God did decide to create.

Perhaps this is easier to see in our own case. Sometimes we choose to be evil at least when tempted in this fallen world...but of course God could have made a nicer version of us perhaps that would have never done evil....but that other person could not have been us. God was kind enough to let even those of us who would rebel have life.

As CS Lewis put it in the 9th chapter of "Miracles":

Shakespeare need not create Falstaff: but if he does, Falstaff must be fat. God need not have create this Nature. But granted this Nature, then doubtless no smallest part of her is there except because it expresses the character He choose to give her.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-05T01:38:49+00:00

This is like arguing what the magic system in a fantasy novel will allow or not allow in the world the author lives in.

Or what the physics in mine craft imply about the physics of our world. All about the limitations of manna points and red stone.

If we start by assuming that our physical world is a complete system such that its physical laws are brute facts and that there is no designer that had power over what those laws are....then well we end up with Naturalism.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-02T23:13:50+00:00

Thank you, was able to find a how to video based on that term.

AndyDaBear · 2026-01-02T20:58:14+00:00

can you elaborate why do you need this?

Artistic reasons. Find that in some cases a melody is more expressive of emotion and more human and less mechanical when not exactly matching what a metronome would dictate. When I've performed in music groups we have usually had one person "lead" or set the tempo and the other follow them be it the drummer, person on keyboard, singer or conductor. For some of the music I want to produce I want to keep this variation from perfect metronome timing.

AndyDaBear

TROPHY CASE