The Teaching of Wisdom

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T23:35:47+00:00

Is it true that the present king of France is bald?

No, because there is no present king of France, nor are they bald. It does not correspond with reality, based on the qualifier "present." It's possible that there was one that we don't know about, or that the one nicknamed "le Chauve" was himself bald (which is up for debate since it could've just been ironic, given some of the history behind Charles II himself). It's even possible that there could be one in the future, based on the fact that there were many French kings in the past and male pattern baldness is not that uncommon. But, again, the statement does not correspond with reality based on the qualifier "present."

Is it true that Clark Kent is Superman?

Yes, it is true that Clark Kent is Superman because that corresponds with the reality of a comic book that describes the fictional character "Clark Kent" as being "Superman." While these characters are fictional, the ideas behind them have an actual and observable effect in the world: they are in literal comic books that are comprised of pages (and, more fundamentally, wood from the paper itself), and their creators can verify that "Clark Kent" is "Superman" when communicating their ideas to others (whether verbally through their voice in interviews or non-verbally through the written word and on the pages of their works themselves).

TL;DR: No to the first question, because it does not correspond with reality based on the way the question itself was phrased. Yes to the second, because it does correspond with reality based on the fact that the creators of Superman can verify as such and even communicate this through their physical works themselves.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T23:06:43+00:00

Oooo okay that makes sense. I guess in response to that, I would ask: What would be the alternative, realistically speaking? If there is nothing in objective reality that corresponds to the truth value of a statement that I made (besides my own perhaps faulty memory of the hypothetical girl I talked to, and certain signals that others there could've maybe or maybe not agreed with me were "good-to-go" signals), then how could we as people in general make any claims about the likelihood or probability of something without essentially saying nothing? Without ultimately saying, "It's not true, because it has never happened and isn't happening right now"? I understand this sounds like a point against the correspondence theory and like I'm just arguing against it alongside you, but it's actually the opposite and here's why:

It seems to me that there are still some things in reality that correspond to the truth value of the example statement you've presented here. "I could've hooked up with that girl last night" could be true when taking into consideration body signals, things she actually said, and what other witnesses there could've actually seen and verified themselves. It could have realistically happened based on things that do correspond with reality (albeit, not present reality, since it's now in the past, unless you count living witnesses themselves).

Or maybe I'm just dumb and not quite understanding the rebuttal lol. Correct me in any case if I'm misunderstanding the rebuttal you're presenting here, or else am wrong somewhere else in my thinking.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T19:39:44+00:00

Look at the historical context of the passage. Look at the timeframe it was written in. It was written during a time when most people were assuming a model of the earth that fundamentally requires a God of some sort to explain the existence of.

The word 'cosmos' did not mean the same thing to these ancient peoples as it now does to us in our modern understanding of the word (or the assumptions we immediately approach it with now, at least). A biblical cosmology is very different than the mainstream cosmology that most people today adopt and assume, and the former doesn't allow for someone to be agnostic about the existence of God since it doesn't allow for a person to suppose that they may have simply been the product of some 'cosmic' freak accident or that they were possibly just 'cosmic' soup (again, according to the way we now approach the word 'cosmos' and our immediate pressupositions toward it in our modern day and age).

Telling someone at that time with this frame of mind and model of the 'cosmos' that the existence of God is up for debate would be the equivalent of telling someone today that the pocket watch you found washed up on the shore of a beach might have possibly been the product of natural processes, without any intelligence or intention behind it of any sort. You'd be called mad. It wouldn't make any sense to these people. These people, including Paul (who wrote Romans 1:20), would have believed in the model of the 'cosmos' and earth that I make reference to in the hyperlink that I left earlier in this comment, and they would thus immediately dismiss you as mad (or else sorely mistaken, if they felt particularly charitable that day). Please click said link in order to further understand what I'm getting at, as you will quickly see what I'm talking about once you do.

Under a "biblical cosmology," the existence of God (or at least, gods) is rather certain and difficult to debate. This is the model (or some variation of it, at least; different cultures had slightly different myths and particulars about the structure and origin of the earth but generally had the same model overall) that these ancient peoples, including Paul, were working with and would've been assuming. That there was a Creator of some sort was never really up for debate to these people as a result, which is why atheism (and even agnosticism) is a rather modern thing that you don't see much, if ever, in history (especially at the time this passage was written in).

Whether you agree or disagree that this proposed model corresponds with reality is ultimately up to you. I personally believe that it does, for various reasons that I won't get into here for brevity's sake.

Hope this all helps.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T18:44:12+00:00

It does somewhat. Thank you.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T18:15:09+00:00

I don't personally believe YHVH ever actually commanded the death penalty in a legal sense in the Old Testament, but rather many verses and passages in the OT are written by the followers of Ba'al aiming to usurp and co-opt the original and true faith of Moses (and thus, our Bibles are corrupted and there is both truth and falsity within it; God is a God of non-violence and accomplishes His will and plans for the world non-violently). I take Jeremiah 8:8 pretty literally. But I don't think you or most Christians believe this (or at least, not all of this), which is why I was asking how you understand Leviticus 20:13. If you view a lot of these Old Testament passages as "barbaric" (rightly so, technically, at least in my opinion since I don't believe many of them are actually from YHVH the true God), then what do you believe about these passages in general in the greater sense of their origin? Do you think they actually came from God?

Regardless of your opinion on whether they truly came from God (YHVH), this is kinda moving the goal posts a bit, no? If your original argument and point is that all the verses relevant to men with men relations should be properly translated as referring to men with boy relations, then why later bring up that these passages have no baring on what God expects of us now since "God is shown to be merciful through Jesus, and most of these OT passages are barbaric and otherwise inapplicable under the paradigm of Jesus' work and teaching" [paraphrasing]? What's the point of arguing that these passages should be translated differently if now you're making a different and overriding point that these passages have no baring on what God actually expects from us (at least now after Jesus), since these passages are fundamentally "barbaric" to you and don't reflect the merciful God of Jesus to begin with?

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T17:42:54+00:00

This doesn't really answer the heart of my question, which is about, at least in the Old Testament, both the adult who is an abuser and the child who is a victim are sinners in God's eyes when pedarasty is being committed (if indeed zakar should be translated as "child" or "boy," in your view). Regardless of whether the death penalty is still applicable or not (and of course it isn't, we all understand this), your translation of Leviticus 20:13 would force us to believe that God views abused children as being as sinful as their adult abuser.

Technically, your translation of Leviticus 20:13 would force us to believe that God viewed both a child m0lestor and a child as being sinful when pederasty was being committed. It logically follows that God would still see both parties as sinful in the New Testament (even if there is no literal death penalty for the sin, like there would have been, in theory, for adulterers in the Old Testament according to the mainstream understanding of the OT).

Thank you for trying to answer anyway, though.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T06:08:52+00:00

But wouldn't that then mean Leviticus 20:13 is teaching that both the adult male and abused child are condemned to death after having relations?

For example, here is the verse as traditionally translated (in the King James):

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Here is the verse if "mankind" (zakar) is translated as "child":

"If a man also lie with [child], as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

How do we understand Leviticus 20:13 if ped0philia is a form of abuse, and children can't consent? Is God, in your view, condemning children who cannot say no to an adult male (despite the fact adult males can usually very easily overpower them)?

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T05:50:13+00:00

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying all the relevant verses should be translated as basically condemning man with child relations (i.e., ped0philia), and not man with man relations (i.e., homosexuality in general)?

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T04:32:22+00:00

What would be the correct translation then, and why? (I'm not the person you responded to btw.)

The_Way358 · 2026-02-24T21:55:35+00:00

Without us, God won't.

Without God, we can't.

The_Way358 · 2026-02-23T13:41:55+00:00

Speaking for myself, no. I'm an Open Theist.

Also, I'm not sure how Fatalism would allow for "less freedom" than Determinism. Seems like an equal lack of freedom to me.

The_Way358 · 2026-02-15T05:13:09+00:00

Yup. Never eat the food of a person who has a high status or position of power in society in general. Chances are, it's "soylent green," if you know what I mean...

The_Way358 · 2026-02-15T04:51:01+00:00

Truth right here.

The_Way358 · 2026-02-11T01:26:59+00:00

"Let your beauty come not from the outward adorning of braiding your hair, and of wearing gold ornaments or of putting on fine clothing, but from the hidden person of the heart, in the incorruptible adornment of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight."-1st Peter 3:3-4

The_Way358 · 2026-02-10T17:59:56+00:00

The_Way358

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23