text:
Talk:Existence of God/Archive 1

The Concept of God in Other Cultures
[copy-and-pasted by crazyeddie 03:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

...the current article focuses a lot on Christian and Western theology and philosophy. A lot of these may be irrelevant for Eastern gods: The ontological argument, for instance, that God is perfect, is irrelevant in Hinduism, since Hinduistic gods are not all perfect. Also, those same Hindus perceive time as being circular - which might again have implications on whether gods can or cannot be proved to exist (the current discussion focuses too much on linear time and causality). I think this is something we should keep in mind in case we merge the articles, if we want to have an article that has validity beyond the judeo-christian sphere. Luis rib 21:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not true.

Hindus all believe in One God. The two primary differences in Hinduism is those who conceive of God as Shiva and those who conceive of God as Vishnu. God is considered perfect, and sinless.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all say they believe in the same God but differ in their conceptions of Him.

In the two largest branches of Hinduism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism, it is believed that God, whether in the form of Shiva or Vishnu has six attributes. However, the actual number of auspicious qualities of God, are countless, with the following six qualities being the most important.
 * The number six is invariably given, but the individual attributes listed vary.
 * One set of attributes (and their common interpretations) are
 * Jnana (Omniscience), defined as the power to know about all beings simultaneously;
 * Aishvarya (Sovereignty), which consists in unchallenged rule over all;
 * Shakti (Energy), or power, which is the capacity to make the impossible possible;
 * Bala (Strength), which is the capacity to support everything by will and without any fatigue;
 * Virya (Vigour), or valour which indicates the power to retain immateriality as the supreme being in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations; and
 * Tejas (Splendour), which expresses his self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by his spiritual effulgence.; cited from Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapasyananda.
 * A second set of six characteristics are
 * Jnana (Omniscience),
 * Vairagya (Detachment),
 * Yasas (Fame),
 * Aisvarya (Sovereignty),
 * Sri (Glory) and
 * Dharma (Righteousness).

 * Other important qualities attributed to God are Gambhirya (grandeur), Audarya (generosity), and Karunya (compassion).

Raj2004 14:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the Article
[copy-and-pasted by crazyeddie 03:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

...I think "Arguments about the existence of god" is perhaps a better title, because the focus is about the arguments (or controversy)... Zashaw 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zashaw that the current name of the combined article is sub-optimal. crazyeddie 08:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the title should be "Arguments regarding the existence of God" or possibly "Arguments for or against the existence of God." Using a lowercase "g" would not make any sense, for all the reasons I give in the section above. ... Johnstone 01:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Arguments regarding the existence of God

 * Arguments for or against the existence of God

 * Existence of God

I strongly prefer Existence of God, our goal needs to be making the title something a reader might concievably type in to the search bar. Think of the readers, and what title will best assist them. Anyways, I tried to list the proposed titles above. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * With any of the proposed titles for the combined article, a reader who types "Existence of God" into the search bar will find it, since that is a phrase contained in all proposed titles. Having said that, I do agree that brevity is preferred, I just think that "Existence of God" is slightly misleading, where "Arguments about the existence of God" is not.  Overall not a big deal for me, though.  Zashaw 01:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[end of copy-and-paste]

What is "God" infused into the structure
The problem with this article lies in its structure. Just referring to “God” through the whole article, making sporadic mentions of what that entails for a particular argument is, in my opinion, not necessarily the best way to go about it. Arguments against the existence of god/s tend to be stronger the more detailed the definition of those gods is and arguments for god/s existence stronger the vaguer the definition is. Argument using specific attributes cannot be used when they are missing from the required definition but often those attributes are stackable, e.g. the attribute that god created all implies the weaker attribute that he had a part of the creation which implies that he intervenes etc. Even when an attribute doesn’t by necessity follow another they most often do since that’s the way they are found in religions. The structure of the article could reflect that by ordering the argument according to attributes and clustering them when appropriate (since arguments most often utilize several attributes at once). E.g.:

II less detailed description of god (e.g. omnipotent, intervening and omnipresent): a. arguments for the existence of god/s b. arguments against the existence of god/s

III detailed description of god (e.g. omnipotent, intervening and omnipresent): (does the attribute of being omnipresent change anything, what new argument are there) a. arguments for the existence of god/s b. arguments against the existence of god/s

A lot of work would be required but I think it would be very neat. It would also be easier to find argumentations that you deem worthy of consideration since you would be likely to dismiss all argument that falls of one side once you found one you disagree with. What do you think?

/TheBigD

 * I agree. Good thinking.  Tom Haws July 3, 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Last Call
Any objections to making Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God redirects to Existence of God? crazyeddie 5 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Clarification: Last I checked, there was a pretty clear consensus in favor of the merger. So I'm not actually asking "Is this a good idea?", but "Should we do this now or wait a bit?" crazyeddie 6 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

go for it!

(One revert later...) Okey dokey, I'll ask it again. Is there anything that still has to be done (aside from removing the links back to the original unmerged articles, which need to stay up until the merger is complete) before we make Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God redirects to Existence of God? crazyeddie 08:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the diffs
I'm looking over the edits made to the two parent articles for edits that have been made since I cut-and-pasted the original verison of this daughter article. Here's what I've found:

This one would go somewhere in the "against" section, not sure which one. I'm actually against adding it. Is anybody in favor? crazyeddie 17:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The conception anthropocentric of gods, which would influence the daily life and give arbitrary answers to various issues as death, justice, and the more global issue that is the meaning of life, is invalidate by the fact that humans have no particular importance in the universe, as complexity of cosmos and Evolution of species demonstrate.

This is for a section that I decided not to include in the merged draft:

 * On the other hand, some Christians hold a contrary position. These believers note that the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, [...]

 * On the other hand, some Christians hold a contrary position. These believers claim the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God, [...]

External links added:

 * Morris R. Cohen, "The Dark Side of Religion," Religion Today, a Challenging Enigma, ed. Arthur L. Swift, Jr. (1933). Revised version in Morris Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal (1946).

 * C. D. Broad, "Arguments for the Existence of God," Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939): 16-30; 156-67.

Any objections to adding these links? crazyeddie 17:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

External links removed:

 * Talks with God - Revelation by Vladimir Antonov

This removal appears to be justified, it doesn't look like it has much to do with proving whether or not God exists. crazyeddie 17:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

CrazyEddie, I reverted the redirects a few days ago because of a few things that made me question (lack faith in) the merge. For example: the existence of the for and against articles in the see also section. For example: references (sources?) in the parent two lacking in the daughter artice. YOU wanted this merge. Do it right! (Please? Pretty please?) Please review the preredirect versions, not just the diffs. Things can get lost in the shuffle. Thanks. 4.250.33.49 08:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, missed the links in the see also section, I think I got the ones in the sections, but I'll check. I think the two references you are talking about are listed above. Anything else? I think I got everything, but it doesn't hurt to doublecheck. crazyeddie 08:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, removed the links back to the parent articles. Added the two external links. Incidentally, any reason why that last section is called "Sources" and not "External links"? crazyeddie 08:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very big problem with content that can be trusted, because too much data is unverifyable because there are too few references and sources tied to the data. One thing to do is add the verify tag where no sources at all are listed. When there are external links such that some are sources, saying some are sources in that subheading is one step in the direction of providing verifyablility. Seperating sources from nonsource external links is better. And actually tying the data to the source with a referencing mechanism (several are available and used on wikipedia) is best. WAS 4.250 16:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, a List?
Is this a "complete" (as in, attempting to record all or most of the important/popular arguments) list of arguments for and against he existence of God; or is there another list in another article that is perhaps more complete, or a list that is similar in terms of subject? Is there another article with a set of arguments for and against something related to creationism & evolution / atheist & non atheist controversy? Basically, I am looking for all the lists of arguments for and against the existence of god, evolution, creationism, religion, theology, theism, etc., etc. I had a very hard time even looking for this article; and finally found it --- there needs to be some directory of articles for the type of people (agnostic or skeptical) who wouild like to view both sides of views; a directory full of articles with lists of in depth arguments, like this article, all dealing with related subjects. -unsigned

Feel free to read this article and its sources and contribute to the article if you find it lacking. Citing references is a good thing, even if this article is lacking in tying data to the sources. WAS 4.250 16:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Existence of God
I can not understand how God can exist. The whole concept of God is full of holes, clearly it can be realised that God is a man made idea. If it is a man made idea, then it must be fault as all truth asserts itself. - AyoyoAyoyo

God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky; a government lie to get people to fight to the death; an anthropomoriphication of nature (the sun is trying to make me hot), and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thats absurd, God is a synonym for existence, the foundation of being, the breath of life, the absolute infinite. See monism, pantheism, brahman, etc... Why did you feel a need to say this here tho? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever are you talking about ? God is invisible, unlimited, non-material, uncaused, unknowable, subjective, unscientific, transcendent... just like non-existence. Franc28 18:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Typical atheist strawman, as soon as we let you define God, he ceases to exist... funny that ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What do you mean, "let you define God" ? I didn't define "God", I'm not the one making the claim. I use the commonly used Christian definitions of "God". What are you, a "personal relationship" Christian ? Also, your sig is retarded. Franc28 20:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to be a less than scintillating debate partner. Perhaps you'd like to edit an encyclopedia instead of pestering the religious w logical fallacies? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey Sammy, how about you name one logical fallacy I've committed ? Franc28 02:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * As opposed to pestering the irreligious with logical fallacies? FeloniousMonk 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Get behind me, deceiver. Tasks you can do 23:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User: Sam Spade

 * LOL. FeloniousMonk 00:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree with Franc regarding Sam's sig. --goethean ॐ 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK then, now can we discuss the article? Tasks you can do 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade

I get the strange feeling Sam and Franc are saying exactly the same thing. As a Weak Atheist, I say let them fight it out - it's kinda like watching two wrongs make a right :-p :-) crazyeddie 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You think atheism and theism are both wrong ? Apparently you don't understand a little something called the law of excluded middle. Franc28 08:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually he's right, see strawman. I reject your caricature of my God just like you do. Tasks you can do 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User: Sam Spade

 * "caricature" ? So you believe what ? That God is visible ? Limited ? Caused ? Material ? Scientifically studied ? How is it a "caricature" when these attributes are given to us by Christians ? Franc28 18:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * God is in the machine! No, wait!  God is dead!  No, wait...  Exploding Boy 16:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a fine line between caricature and a description that struggles with depicting the ineffable. We need to be careful with our characterizations. One man's "strawman" can be another man's dogma. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have heard about a little thing called the law of excluded middle. But I also think logic is overrated. It has its uses, don't get me wrong, but it has it limitations too. Over-reliance on labels is one of them. I'm a Weak Atheist, which means that I admit the possibility that there might be a God, but I think that the probability that God exists is so low that I'm justified in acting under the assumption that He doesn't exist. Franc has said in the past that he is a Strong Atheist, which means that he thinks that theism is provably wrong. Sam is a Theistic Rationalist, which means that he thinks theism is provably right. So, yes, I think they are both wrong. I'm here in the non-excluded middle, along with agnostics and faith-based theists. The entire reason I pushed for merging this article is because Strong Atheism and Theistic Rationalism are not the only possible stances on this topic. The non-excluded middle needs a voice too. They might also come in handy to work as peace-brokers. crazyeddie 04:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean if i someone comes up with a theory say there is a giant, horned, invisible, pink, spikey, homosexual, double-headed penguin which can not in anyway be detected and thus its existence can not be proved wrong. This penguin exists because it can not be proved not to. Simply, the fragment of the insanity that is the belief of an existence of clearly man-fabricated concept: god, is as stupid and irrational as the existence of said penguin. Seriouisly what has god's supposed existence done to humanity, not much. What has existence of rationality done to us, well, i wont be typing on a free encyclopedia had someone not decided to wave a coil around a magnet, something which would be inexorably deemed witch-like by an organisation bent on controlling the populace thru this illusion of god. Evidently ending by the inventor being combusted alive. I wont even typr god with a big g, why is he special. -AyoyoAyoyo

 * I would say that the existence of a giant, horned, spikey, homosexual, double-headed penguin (whose existence has not yet been detected, but, is, in prinicple, detectable) is highly improbable but within the real of the possible. Such a penguin that is both pink and invisible is within the realm of the impossible, because it is a logical contradiction. Some definitions of God are within the realm of the impossible because they contain logical contradicitions. Other definitions of God don't contain such logical contradicitions, so can't be ruled out a priori - that is to say "from first principles", by reason alone.

 * The existence of God might, in theory, be "proven" (science doesn't prove anything, actually, only logic and math prove things). Evidence might crop up that can only be explained by the existence of God (or rather, that the simplest explanation of the evidence is that God exists). I don't believe that has happened yet. Some people do. Some also think that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone. I think both classes of people are wrong.

 * Because science, to date, has been able to explain the universe without complicating things by invoking God, Occam's Razor suggest that it is unlikely that God exists. But "unlikely" is not the same as "impossible", although in this case, the difference is pretty close to academic.

 * Some theists are faith-based - they agree it isn't certain that God exists, and may even agree that it is improbable that God exists, but they believe anyway because they have faith. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

 * There is a distinct difference between a God and a god. A God is usually understood to refer to a being that is both omnipotent and omnipresent. A god, by contrast, is merely immortal (or at least long-lived) and arbitrarily powerful. A god is neither omnipotent or omnipresent, and is essentially just a turbo-charged human. crazyeddie 20:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am a weak atheist. Obviously, I'm not against atheists in general. I would say that I am against anti-Christian or anti-theist bigotry carried out in the name of atheism, just as many Christians are against any sort of bigotry carried out in the name of their religion. I'm also deeply interested in evolutionary theory. I understand that much of the anger shown on this talk page is ultimately directed against Creationists. But please remember that Creationists are a minority even among Christians. If you want to defend evolution, it isn't going to help your cause to alienate the mainstream Chrisitians. In case you haven't noticed, Christians are in the majority in the US. crazyeddie 20:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah! The American. The world starts and stops at their door step. -AyoyoAyoyo

 * Americans think they're "the free world". How insulting. And Christianity is one of the stupidest religions ever made, in my opinion. Franc28 20:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it does. Effectively anyway. If you think we're bad about that, wait until the Chinese take our place (which they look setup to do). At least us here in the American Empire have been known to feel the occasional twinge of guilt.

At any rate, America is probably the country that contributes to scientific research the most. If it isn't, then it is certainly in the position to. Any move that might cause America to slip that much closer to a new Dark Ages is a cause for concern for any scientist, even if they happen to be from Outer Elbonia.

Alienating mainstream Christians while engaged in the defense of evolution is just such a move.

If Creationism isn't your only bone to pick with the Godites, what is? Keep in mind the distinction between "some" and "all" - or even "most". Not keeping that distinction in mind leads to bigotry. crazyeddie 15:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting fact to point out. Christians are the majority in the world really. Yet, thousands of years ago when Romans were the majority of their "known" world and Christians are being fed to lions for the enjoyment of the "civilised", they did not give up their religion. That was a great example of standing up for your belief. They soon proved triumphant and it's ironic that I want to follow the path of the people I am against. -AyoyoAyoyo

 * I'll admit that you caught me out with the America==free world bit. My bad. But still. Franc, you say that Christanity is one of the stupidest religions ever made. Firstly, what does Christanity have to do with the existence of God? Other religions than Christianity have a belief in God, and one could imagine a God (or Goddess!) that is absolutely like nothing described by any religion. Secondly, I'm sure there are far stupider religions out there somewhere. Granted, Christian doctrine has some dooseys in places, but that's just the sort of thing that crops up in any dogmatic tradition, given time.

 * AyoyoAyoyo, what "interesting fact" are you talking about? Christians aren't a majority in absolute terms - worldwide, I think they're a minority. They're only a majority in sociological terms - they are a dominant force worldwide, because they are a majority in the most powerful countries.

 * And by following in the footsteps of the Christians, do you mean "having a misplaced martyr complex"? The Roman persecution of Christians is overrated. A few hundred people were killed. Thousands more were pressured to recant their beliefs. That was pretty much it. Most of the killings were done by commoners, usually in the wake of natural disasters, which they interpreted as the gods' wrath over the presence of infidels. Offical persecutions occasionally happened, true, but they were few, and not too efficiently carried out.

 * Christian persecution of pagans is fairly overrated too. The early Christians converted people through debate, not conquest. The first example of conversion by conquest was when Charlemagne went after the Balts. Or at least this is what my Early Modern Civ prof is teaching us.

 * So you want to emulate the early Christians? Stand by your beliefs in the face of persecution - check. (And, at least in my country, atheists do face some minor persecution - 52% of Americans say they wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate who is an atheist, no matter how well qualified they are. Can't say I remember when the last time an atheist was killed for their beliefs though.) Convert the unbelievers by debate... well, unless you call the moral equivalent of "stupid doodoo head" debate, I think you have a ways to go.

 * Remind me again, why do we atheists want converts? I mean, the Christians at least have a reason to convert people - if nothing else, to save them from hell! But, while it would be nice to do something about people who are bigots in the polling booths and push for their religious dogmas to be taught in science classes, why do we care about the non-bigotted Christians who pray silently in school cafeterias? Sure, they're nuts, by our standards, but at least they're quiet nuts. And in this world, I'd say that's about the best we can hope for. crazyeddie 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I doubt that there are stupider religions out there, but I'll trust you on that one. Either way, Christianity is the religion of America, and Christianity is one of the most evil and stupid religions there is. That's just how I see it. Islam does beat it in terms of sheer retardation - a holy book that clearly advocates the killing of infidels black on white just can't be beat in that respect. Franc28 04:45, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Atheists want converts to spread the truth. That's what conversion is about. However, unlike religious people, our version of the truth is actually logical. Infinity0 11:21:15, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

 * BTW Chrisitians are not the majority, Atheism is. Remember there are 1 billion atheists in China (estimate; Chinese total population is 1.3billion), and plenty more in other countries :D Infinity0 11:21:15, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

 * That's 1 billion offically. Unoffically, I'd say that the vast majority of Chinese are a mixture of Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist (usually the same person practicing all three), despite what the Chinese government would like us to think. I don't know if you can call them theists, but I'm also not sure if you can call them atheists.

 * Not many Chinese people are actually Buddhist - certainly 300million is a high enough estimate (I think) for all religious people in China. Also, Confucianism is not a religion, since it does not involve belief of the supernatural. Infinity0 09:59:29, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's worth trying to play that semantic game. First, while "religion" connotes some supernaturalism, colloquial use of the term has certainly broadened beyond that. Second (and I'm no expert here), while the Confucian Analects may be pretty thoroughly non-supernatural, the later philosophies grafted onto "Confucianism" certainly have their supernatural elements, even if they are phrased in "natural" terms. See Zhu Xi, for example. When you throw in the fact that Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have historically all mixed together to some extent in China, it seems even more meaningless to say that Confucianism is not a religion. "Philosphy" might go over better, but I don't think it's fundamentally more accurate. — HorsePunchKid → 龜  19:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever. Those are all small details. I have not studied Chinese religion and I don't claim to be an expert on it. I'm just giving you my word as a Chinese person (having been born there and having many contacts there) that at least 80-90% of all Han Chinese inside China don't seriously believe in a god. I could be slightly off, but atheism is definitely a majority of Chinese. Infinity0 21:36:36, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

 * Sure, spreading the truth is good. But I'm not sure saying that God is impossible is anymore logical than saying that He exists. It's highly likely that He doesn't, but I don't know about impossible. My point is this - if somebody believes with all their heart that the sky is pink, why should I go to extreme efforts to convince them otherwise? crazyeddie 06:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, belief itself is harmless. But how many people *only* believe, and not let their beliefs affect their actions? GWB thinks God is on his side, and that's partly why he went to war with Iraq. "God is impossible" depends on your definition. But most atheists say "Your God does not exist because...", which is hugely different. Infinity0 09:59:29, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, the Pythagoreans reportedly killed a member of their cult for revealing the existence of irrational numbers to outsiders. Remember this the next time you use the value of pi: many Bothan spies died to get us this information!

I'll say it again - what does Christanity have to do with God? Christanity doesn't equal theism, anymore than America equals the free world. crazyeddie 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I beg to differ that this is stupider. At least irrational numbers exist. Christians kill for things that don't exist. Secondly, I never said Christianity equaled theism, I just said it was one of the stupidest religions, and it's the religion of America. Draw your own conclusions. Franc28 07:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the reason they killed the guy is that the existence of irrational numbers went against their most basic doctrines - the Pythagoreans saw the world in terms of simple ratios. So it's kind of like if the Catholics killed someone because they had proof that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born. Or, to make the parallel more exact, because he stole this proof straight out of the Vatican archives.

So the Pythagoreans are killing each other over a concept which doesn't exist in the real world. Have you ever seen a free-range three roaming around? What color was it? How about imaginary numbers, do they exist? Might be a good idea to look over the foundations of mathematics article.

Back to the point: what makes the Christians stupid and evil? Is it a belief in God? Then are the Jews stupid and evil also? (Since we have apparently already established that Muslims are stupid and evil, might as well go for the trifecta.) How about Discordians, who believe in a Goddess? (Well, the old Grecco-Roman Eris was a god, but I could make a case for the Discordian version being a God.) If it were possible to make the Christians stop being stupid and evil, but we had to leave their belief in God intact, should we do it? Are all Christians stupid and evil? What is the difference between stupid and evil Christians and ones that are non-evil, possibly non-stupid, but still nuts?

And as long as you're dissing my beloved country (which is still pretty freakin' awesome, despite the best efforts of our current leadership to screw it up), how about telling me what yours is, so I can return the favor :-) I'm the first one to agree that Americans are idiots, but they're my idiots. crazyeddie 06:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you may have given an answer to my essential question: Christians are stupid and evil because they kill people over an imaginary concept. So how about Quakers, who are pacifistic Christians. Are they stupid and evil? Or Sufis, who are Muslim and pacifistic (I think). What if I killed someone because they believed in God, would this be stupid and evil? crazyeddie 06:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it depends on the specific reason. If you killed someone for being a Christian, that would be stupid and pointless, since being a Christian by itself does not harm anybody. However if you killed someone because they were trying to spread the faith, then in my eyes, in some cases that could be justified. Infinity0 09:52:04, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

I see from your userpage that you live in the UK. You might want to brush up on the local laws, it might prevent any .... misunderstandings that might result if a pair of Mormon missionaries come knocking on your door. At any rate, theists could use the same argument against people who are trying to spread atheism. After all, in the eyes of theists, theism is logical. What cases in particular do you have in mind? crazyeddie 04:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Things like the Crusades and Inquisition (technically not jihads because they are supposed to be defensive); also some missionaries who insist on converting a different culture to their own belief system. I'm reasonable, I'm not a psychopath! ¬.¬ My views are that nobody has the right to influence somebody else's opinions unless they can fully justify them. Something is either logical or not logical, and by attacking its logic further and further it's possible to determine if it's correct or not. If something is not logical but someone thinks it is, then quite simply they are wrong. I realise this is an idealistic way of putting things, but meh. Infinity0 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can discard the Crusades. Armed opposition to an invasion is justifible, regardless of the invasion's motives. The Inquisition was not intended to spread the faith - it was designed to root out heterodoxies among the faithful. You say that is alright to kill some missionaries who insist on converting a different culture to their own belief systems. Now we are getting somewhere!

First off, what exactly do you mean by "some"? Secondly, it could be said that Christians, especially Creationists, are members of a different culture than most atheists. This is true, even though many of them are my countrymen, and I am an atheist. By attempting to spread atheism, are we not trying to convert a different culture to our own belief system? As you say, the best way to defeat missionaries is through debate and logic. Do you have so little faith in your own ability to reason, and the ability of people in other cultures to reason, that you have to resort to force of arms? crazyeddie 15:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades were an unprovoked attack to "recapture" the "holy land". I have no idea what I mean by "some": I'd have to look at the specific situation. When your opponent cannot see reason because they are so blinded (eg fundamentalists), then death is the quickest option. There are better people to argue with than being bogged down by a fundamentalist. Infinity0 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution
So would evolution belong in any of the argument sections of this article; maybe against the existence of God? I think there are also arguments for the existence of God that have to do with the history of the bible and how accurate it is in describing it's surroundings in such a large lifespan. There is also an author, Lee Strobel, known for his strong arguments for the existence of god. I'm not sure if the arguments he has brung up in his books have all been listed here, but that would be a great place to look to find more arguments to include. Also, are there any other articles I could read, knowing that I am skeptical and choose no sides yet and that I like to read about arguments for and against the existence of god? I mean, articles like this one, or the evolution v.s. creationism article... What else is there that I could read? -unsigned

Try reading this or this or this. WAS 4.250 14:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Evolutionary theory, or science for that matter, takes no position on the existence of God. There are many theists who believe in both the existence of God and the validity of the theory of evolution, many Catholics for example. The previous Pope issued a Vatican position statement that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that God was acting through evolution (the new Pope likely has a very different opinion, based on recent statements).

 * Evangelical Protestants OTOH almost exclusively believe that the two are mutually exclusive, with some making the (artificial) distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution, the latter at least having the possibility of being fact in their view. Adding evolution as a contradistinction to arguments for the existence of God adds little value to the article but a lot of overhead IMO. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Some conceptions of God are consistent with evolution. WAS 4.250 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I read a recent Washington Times article about it, how most scientists believe that God and evolution are compatible, or at least not incompatible, I certainly believe they are compatible. Derktar 02:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

To the extent the concept of God is scientifically testable, God is not an hypothosis that adds any ability to predict to any current ability to predict. In short, God is not a useful scientific hypothosis. Many scientists find God to be a useful nonscientific belief/hypothosis. Especially in countries where atheism is illegal or discriminated against. Others find belief in God to provide emotional satisfaction, and science is doing what works - so why not "believe in God" if that makes you happier? People lie to themselves and others every day for numerous reasons. WAS 4.250 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolution and God are, in principle, compatible. According to current scientific theory, God is not the simplest theory that's consistent with known evidence (therefore sliced out by Occam's Razor), but He is within the realm of the possible. So current scientific theory is either weakly atheistic or agnostic, take your pick. Evolution itself doesn't belong on this page, but there are two related arguments that do: "Argument from Intelligent Design", which says that there are aspects of life which can only be explained by an "Intelligent Designer" (with the strong implication that this Designer is God). There is also "Argument from Poor Design", which states that there are many examples of very poor design in organisms, so that God would have to be an idiot to have designed them that way. These examples of poor design are easily explained by evolution, which can be limited by such things as historical constraint. I've noticed that a lot of the arguments for and against God are in equal and opposite pairs... crazyeddie 04:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Any argument for or against the existance of God or any school of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God (how do we know if he exists or not) that is by an expert worthy of being quoted by an encyclopedia and properly sourced so we can verify that fact, has a place in this encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I really can't think of anything evolutionary theory has to do with the existence of God, other than the two arguments I just mentioned. I suppose evolutionary theory might be invoked to explain why so many people believe in God (assuming that no evidence that God actually exists is out there)... But that sort of thing could get real messy real quick. crazyeddie 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My point is that "can't think of" or "can think of" is NOT RELEVANT to what goes in the article. What is relevant is what encyclopedic quality sources say ... messy or not. WAS 4.250 14:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I think we are in agreement. If you can show me any sources who say that evolution has some bearing on the existence of God other than by the two arguments I just mentioned, then, by all means, let's put them in the article. Or if they past an initial stink test, even, let's put them in on a probationary basis, until such time as source for them can be found. crazyeddie 21:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"God exists" is too poorly defined to be either true or false. WAS 4.250 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My personal definition of God: a person with complete and absolute control over all events that take place in this universe and complete and absolute knowledge of all events that take place in the universe. crazyeddie 04:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To be adequately defined so we can perform experiments to decide the question that definition would have to be further refined: What is a "person"? How can we tell if he has "absolute control"? How can we tell if he has "absolute knowledge?" If an entity simply had sufficient control (e.g. hypnotic control) of enough human minds he could make us BELIEVE he had control and knowledge over all the universe; so I conclude that WE CAN NOT KNOW EVEN IN PRINCIPLE if such a god exists because a finite local powerful nongod that can sufficiently influence our minds is indistinguishable from an entity with even more power. We can and DO KNOW that God is not a useful scientific hypothosis. WAS 4.250 17:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * God in this wide sense is certainly no scientific hypothesis. It is rather hypothesis of faith. Any intelligent theist would admit that. Of course no "person" can have "absolute control" over the Universe, as long as that person is part of the Universe, since this "persons" mechanism of exerting control would need be part of the Universe. Such a "person" would need to be outside the Universe, unaffected by it but able to affect it. On such a "person", any intelligence contained within the Universe will never be able to carry out measurements, and therefore, there can never be evidence for that "person"'s existence. Positing this sort of God is really a null statement. But this is not the only definition of God; God can also be imagined as part of the Universe (e.g., can be affected by prayer; therefore, a statistically significant beneficient effect of theologically correct prayer (as opposed to prayers to false idols) would need to be measurable. Say people who pray to Shiva are statistically significantly more successful than people who pray to Thor. This would prove the existence of Shiva, if the experiment can be repeated blindly (i.e. take random people off the street and ask them to pray to one or the other god). Needless to say, no such effect was ever observed. God can also be imagined as identical with the universe, in which case a proof is hardly necessary, since for all sensible definitions of "existence" the Universe does, in fact, exist. dab (ᛏ) 18:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

An excellent point, WAS, one I hadn't considered. However, I think if we had proof/evidence that somebody existed that had sufficent mojo to trick me into thinking that He had absolute power, I'd probably just throw in the towel and call Him (or Her, or It, or Whatever) God, my definition notwithstanding. Hell, if such a god had the ability and motivation to override my so-called Free Will, I wouldn't have much of a choice, would I?

 * P.S.: Let's say we have a person in the possession of an arbitrarily large amount of power. It is not currently known what the maximum limit of this power is. Which would be simpler to assume: that there is no effective limit to this power (other than the limits suggested by a priori reasoning, such as "Can God make a rock so large that He can't move it?"), or that there is some finite limit? crazyeddie 03:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dbachman, I stated my definition of God the way I did ("absolute power over this universe") because a truly "universal" God (or multiversal, omniversal, whatever) would also have omniscience over their own actions. This would cause determinism to set in, and create a limit on God's power. (Free Will (or at least the illusion of it) is, I believe, the result of ignorance of the future.) Therefore, my definition does imply that God exists outside of this universe, but is able to interact with it (since He has absolute power over events that take place in this universe). God would obviously be affected by events in our universe - How else could He observe them?

While we're on the subject, my personal definition of a "person" is that it is simply an entity that posses self-awareness.

Completely ruling out the possibility of such a God existing would be well-nigh impossible. God is not falsifible, but that doesn't matter, since God is not the simplest explanation that is in accordance with known evidence. However, the interactions of God with the universe might cause certain inconsistences that could only be explained by the existence of God. Presumably, in order for God to became the simplest explanation that is in accordance with known evidence, all simpler explanations would have to be falsified first.

However, I am not advancing God as a scientific theory. I'll leave that to the Theistic Rationalists. I'm proposing it as a philosophical possibility. Is it with in the realm of the possible that God exists? I'm fairly certain that "God exists" is either true or false. The question is if we can prove it one way or the other. (Or science's equivalent of "prove".)

You might compare this view of God with brane cosmology. AFAICT, if brane cosmology is right, then our universe is a brane. There might be other branes floating around out there, and we might be able to detect them because they would (in theory) interact with our home brane gravitationally. Substitute "God" - a person that exists outside of our universe, and is able to interact with our universe - for "brane" - an inanimate object that exists outside of our universe, and is able to interact with our universe (and might contain persons inside it!).

I see a possible objection coming: if our universe can interact with God, might we be able to interact with God in a way He doesn't like, and prevent Him from carrying out certain actions (thus denying Him omnipotence)? In my conception of God, God experiences time along an axis orthogonal to ours - He perceives our 4-D space-time as spatial dimenisions. If we attempted to take an action that would interact with Him unfavorably, He could take action to preempt any such attempt. I don't know that this conception of God follows necessarily from my definition of God, but I am aware of it as a possibility. crazyeddie 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Magical thinking
The most common argument among theists, even though it's not uttered openly, is that there is a god since they want it to be. It's an argument I think should be presented in the article even though it's often just implied. It can be seen in the kind of question they ask an atheist though. Often something like this:
 * Theist- "But if there is no god then there is no point!" (assuming that there must be a point,)
 * Atheist- "Right, there is no point of existence."
 * Theist- "Why don't you just kill yourself then?" (believeing he has won the argument, by drawing attention to you still being alive) - unsigned
 * what a strange conclusion that the non-existence of a god implies the non-existence of a "point". That sounds like a classical logical fallacy: If there is a god, I suppose we can safely assume there is a "point". From this does not follow logically that if there is no god, there also cannot be a "point", so your atheist is quite a weak example of his species to concede even that much. A nihilist, really. Many atheists do not think the concept of "God" is even semantically valid, so they certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions from the non-existence of an oxymoron. dab (ᛏ) 18:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

not to say that there are no atheists that think there could be a "point" but I'd say if something is deemed to have a point it is neccessary for a conscious mind to perceive it as such. Taking the "point of existence" an atheist would say there was no mind before existence (after enough iterations of course), hence there is no point to existence. Causality is the explanation, not purpose.

 * How does God lend life a point? Sure, God presumably had a plan for my life, but what if I disagree with that plan? Whose plan is more valid, mine or God's? Who's to say? It could be said that evolution lends life a point - to survive and have as many kiddies as possible (or more to the point, grandchildren...). Existence precedes essence - the point of life is what we say it is. crazyeddie 03:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, and I don't think this line of reasoning (while erroneous, IMO) could be classified as magical thinking. That means something else, something very specific. Although I could be wrong... crazyeddie 03:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree w God's plan, you are probably a satanist, or amalek, w/o a very optimistic future. Listen to deicide (band) some time. Sam Spade 01:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Most Christians already disagree with God's plan - they all think the hurricane is a disaster, even if they believe God did it. I can't decide if your disgusting post was a joke or not. If it's not... I'm sorry for you. Franc28 01:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is no polite way to respond which occurs to me. Sam Spade 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because a person disagrees with God doesn't necessarily make them a Satanist, or someone who doesn't like God. It could be that God, while all-powerful and all-knowing, isn't necessarily all-wise or all-good. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that God isn't basically wise or good - it just mean that He, too, can make mistakes. A Creationist friend of mine pointed out a passage where Abraham bargins with God, and works out a plan different than what God had originally intended. I'd give you chapter-and-verse, but, hey, I'm lazy.

Personally, I find Satanists to be just as objectionable as Creationists. I'm not sure, but I think that band of yours passed a Christian Rock band coming the other way :-) (Christian Rock played a small, but not negligible, role in my becoming an agnostic. Call it an "argument from crappy music" - if God existed, would He let bands use His name in such sucky songs?)

Franc does raise a good point, even if (s)he does it crudely. By my definition of God, if God exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that He caused Hurricane Katrina, but at the very least, He allowed it to happen. This general problem is known as the Problem of Evil. Is it possible, given that our universe was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing God (yeah, I know, it's a big if. get over it.), that this God is good? Not omnibenevolent, just good.

Franc, if it was my post that you can't decide whether it is a joke or not, then the answer is "yes". It is both a joke and not a joke. In addition to being an atheist, I'm also a Discordian - and Discordianism is a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion. Sam once said that, in the lack of proof that God exists, the default position should be a reverant agnosticism. I say that, even if God exists, perhaps it is best to worship Him through irreverance! crazyeddie 04:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You bring up some substantive issues regarding the nature of God. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-good, etc... Be aware that different denominations (and different people) define each of these things differently. I for one don't think God created anything "Ex nihilo", we've always been, and in fact we are him, or the "dust" of our inner light. As with all deep discussions, etymology is important. There is a fantastic amount of diversity in theology.

 * In the east, for example, the Problem of Evil is resolved by karma. Many agree that everything is fair. That hurricane made me angry...

 * Not at God, but at those disgusting, godless people who fired weapons at helicopters and rescuers, and who raped women already suffering from the floods. I read a story about a guy who fatally shot his sister in the head, arguing over a bag of ice.

 * Thats very different from me and mine, who look for ways to help. Sam Spade 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that you have moral principles and are revolted at what "God" made and permitted proves that you don't really believe in God. That's a very good and human thing. Franc28 23:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As before, I have some things to say to you, but they wouldn't be appropriate here. Sam Spade 00:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Nature is not well mannered
 * It watches creatures be born and die without comment
 * Nor is the taoist well mannered
 * People are born and they die, and that's as it should be

 * One man, hearing of the way, will strive to follow it
 * Another will practice it sometimes, and not others
 * A third will hear of it, and laugh at how useless it sounds
 * And that's as it should be. crazyeddie 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide
What about the "proof" that god does not exist from the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. It says something about god disproving himself, therefore he couldn't exist. Just a thought... :-) --Kmill 19:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * we could mention it as a notable parody of proofs of God. dab (ᛏ) 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Put it in a section about "Notable examples of the question of God's existence in human culture" called something shorter than that if you must. But consider all the stuff people will want in there. Eventually, of course, it will be broken off into it's own article. Wikipedia is self-healing like that. WAS 4.250 23:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including it, as long as it is clear that it's a parody - nobody should take it seriously, even for a second. crazyeddie 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Existence of God/Archive 1


text:
Cognitive complexity

Cognitive complexity describes cognition along a simplicity-complexity axis. It is the subject of academic study in fields including personal construct psychology, organisational theory and human–computer interaction.

History
First proposed by James Bieri in 1955 with Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior which was published that year in The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. In the article, he tests two hypotheses:

 * There should be a positive relationship between degree of cognitive complexity and predictive accuracy.
 * There should be a negative relationship between cognitive complexity and assimilative projection.

In artificial intelligence
In an attempt to explain how humans perceive relevance, cognitive complexity is defined as an extension of the notion of Kolmogorov complexity. It amounts to the length of the shortest description available to the observer. For example, individuating a particular Inuit woman among one hundred people is simpler in a village in Congo than it is in an Inuit village.

Cognitive complexity is related to probability (see Simplicity theory): situations are cognitively improbable if they are simpler to describe than to generate. Human individuals attach two complexity values to events:
 * description complexity (see above definition)
 * generation complexity: the size of the minimum set of parameter values that the 'world' (as imagined by the observer) needs to generate the event.

To 'generate' an event such as an encounter with an Inuit woman in Congo, one must add up the complexity of each event in the causal chain that brought her there. The significant gap between both complexities (hard to produce, easy to describe) makes the encounter improbable and thus narratable.

In computer science
In human–computer interaction, cognitive (or psychological) complexity distinguishes human factors (related to psychology and human cognition) from, for example, computational complexity.

In psychology
Cognitive complexity is a psychological characteristic or psychological variable that indicates how complex or simple is the frame and perceptual skill of a person.

A person who is measured high on cognitive complexity tends to perceive nuances and subtle differences while a person with a lower measure, indicating a less complex cognitive structure for the task or activity, does not.

It is used as part of one of the several variations of the viable non-empirical evaluation model GOMS (goals, operators, methods, and selection rules); in particular the GOMS/CCT methodology.

Cognitive complexity can have various meanings:

 * the number of mental structures we use, how abstract they are, and how elaborately they interact to shape our perceptions.
 * "an individual-difference variable associated with a broad range of communication skills and related abilities ... [which] indexes the degree of differentiation, articulation, and integration within a cognitive system".

Related terms
Related to cognitive complexity is the term behavioral complexity, used by some researchers in organizational studies, organizational culture and management.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cognitive complexity


text:
Hymnbooks of the Church of Scotland

Decisions concerning the conduct of public worship in the Church of Scotland are entirely at the discretion of the parish minister. As a result, a wide variety of musical resources are used. However, at various times in its history, the General Assembly has commissioned volumes of psalms and hymns for use by congregations.

Scottish Psalter (1564)

The 1564 edition went through many changes that culminated with the 1635 version. Edited by Edward Millar, the 1635 Scottish Psalter included the very best of the psalm settings for the Sternhold and Hopkins psalms. This included four-part homophonic settings of many of the psalms (those texts that did not have a proper melody were assigned a melody from another psalm), several more complicated or polyphonic psalm settings (also known as Psalms in Reports), and settings of many of the so-called Common Tunes that had come to be used in the seventeenth century.

Scots Metrical Psalter (1650)
The last edition of the 1564 psalter with music was issued in 1640. However, there had been many attempts to supplant the 1564 edition, including those by none other than James VI/I. Even so, Scots clung to their beloved psalter until the Westminster assembly promised a potential union between the English and Scottish psalters. A complete psalter by Francis Rous, an English member of Parliament, was revised by the Westminster Assembly but did not satisfy the Scots. Over a period of 2 years and 4 months it was revised by direction of the General Assembly, and it has been calculated that about 40% of the lines are original to the Scottish revisors with only 10% from Rous and 30% from the Westminster Version. Accuracy of translation was in the forefront. This psalter continues in use until the present day in parts of Scotland (especially the Highlands), and around the world in some of the smaller Presbyterian denominations.

W. P. Rorison carried out a detailed comparison of the 1650 version with ten earlier psalters to trace every line. He was able to trace 4,846 lines to these ten sources. In 1929, the music of the psalter was revised by the Church of Scotland to bring its harmonies into line with those in the revision of the hymnal. The psalter was usually printed at the front of the first two editions of the hymnal (1898, 1927), and throughout much of the 20th century there was a widespread tradition of beginning worship with a psalm before continuing in the hymn books. However, the most widely used version of the third edition did not have the psalter in the same volume, with the result that the full psalter has disappeared from the majority of Church of Scotland congregations.

The psalter contained all 150 psalms in their entirety, though obviously many of them were too long to be sung whole. In 1781 a selection of 67 paraphrases of Scripture was given permissive use for a year. Although never officially adopted, the paraphrases had significant use in succeeding years, mainly in the lowlands. Five hymns were inserted at this time without church authority. Reflecting a move from the simplicity and plainness of earlier Scottish worship in some later editions there was also a set of seven trinitarian doxologies ("To Father, Son and Holy Ghost..."), each for a different metrical pattern, which could be sung at the close of a psalm. These were printed together at the end of the psalms, and were intended to allow the Old Testament text to be sung in the light of the New.

All the psalms were present in common meter (CM), which meant that in principle any psalm could be sung to any psalm tune, though not every possible combination would have been regarded as good taste. Musical editions of the psalter were published with the pages sliced horizontally, the tunes in the top half and the texts in the bottom, allowing the two parts of the volume to be opened independently. The music section was arranged alphabetically by the traditional names of the melodies. Psalm 23, "The Lord's my shepherd", would typically be sung to tune 144 "Wiltshire" (tune "Crimond", written in 1872, becoming overwhelmingly popular from the 1930s), but could theoretically be sung to almost any other, the only restriction being the conventions of familiarity.

In addition, some psalms had alternative versions in other meters, including long meter (LM), short meter (SM), and irregular metrical patterns, and each of these had a unique tune. From the 19th century onwards, these often appeared at the end of music editions in whole rather than split pages. An example of a special setting is Psalm 24:7–10, "Ye gates lift up your heads", to the tune "St. George's Edinburgh", a rousing piece traditionally sung after Communion.

Church Hymnary (1898)
The introduction of hymns was part of a reform of worship in the second half of the 19th century which also saw the appearance of church organs and stained glass. This reform began in individual congregations such as Greyfriars Kirk, and it took several decades before the General Assembly was ready to produce a hymnal for the whole of the Church.

The Hymnary was intended to be used together with the psalter, and thus omitted such favourites as "The Lord's my shepherd". It contained 650 pieces.

Church Hymnary, revised edition (1927)
The second edition of the Hymnary, often abbreviated to RCH or, coincided with the preparations for the union of the Church of Scotland with the United Free Church of Scotland (1929). RCH contains 727 hymns and was edited by Welsh composer David Evans. Like its predecessor, it was printed together with the psalter in a single volume, and thus the hymnary itself does not include any of the metrical psalms.

A useful resource was the Handbook to the Church Hymnary by James Moffatt and Millar Patrick (published 1927, revised 1928). It gave lengthy biographical notes on the authors and composers, and commentaries on the hymns, as well as additional indexes. It was republished with a supplement in 1935.

Church Hymnary, third edition (1973)
Known as, the 1973 hymnary was more than a new edition, it was an entirely new compilation. It appeared in Oxford University Press, and contained 695 items. When it first appeared, it was widely criticised for omitting many favourite hymns ("By cool Siloam's shady rill" was a prominent example), but it introduced many modern hymns like "Tell out my soul" which soon became popular – albeit to the tune "Woodlands" rather than the prescribed tune "Mappersley" which is rarely, if ever, used.

included those metrical psalms (or sections of psalms) which were most frequently used, and thus effectively replaced the psalter in most congregations, though a version with the full psalter at the front was also printed. All the metrical psalms in the volume were expanded with a trinitarian doxology which the Psalter had printed separately; as a result, these suddenly came to be used far more frequently than ever before.

The volume is structured thematically under eight sections, each (except the last) with a number of subsections:
 * 1) Approach to God
 * 2) The Word of God: His mighty acts
 * 3) Response to the Word of God
 * 4) The sacraments
 * 5) Other ordinances
 * 6) Times and seasons
 * 7) Close of service
 * 8) Personal faith and devotion

The distinctive plain red cover set apart from the previous hymnbooks and psalters, which all had dark blue-black bindings.

Like RCH, also had a handbook: John Barkley, Handbook to the Church Hymnary Third Edition, OUP 1979. Its commentaries are less full and scholarly than those of Moffatt and Patrick, but more closely tailored to the needs of worship preparation.

Songs of God's People (1988)
Songs of God's People was conceived as a supplement to CH3, and in many congregations the two were used together. For this reason, it includes no material which is also in CH3, but it does revive a number of items from RCH which had been dropped in the 1973 revision. It also included music from a variety of sources which greatly increased the range of types of music available for worship. For the first time, a Church of Scotland hymnary had: While it is undoubtedly true that many congregations did not take advantage of the full range of this music, the volume contributed greatly to an openness to new ideas in worship.
 * evangelical choruses of the Mission Praise tradition.
 * items of the Wild Goose Resource Group of the Iona Community worship (21 of which were composed by John L. Bell, who chaired the supplement committee).
 * sung responses for use in prayers, which until this time much of the Church of Scotland had regarded with suspicion as being too "Catholic"; three of these were in Latin.
 * short choruses in Swahili, which must be seen in the context of liberation theology and the campaign against apartheid.
 * three of the rock-idiom psalm arrangements by Ian White.
 * a Russian Orthodox Kyrie eleison.

There are 120 songs in Songs of God's People. Unlike the hymnaries, but in common with most evangelical chorus books, the volume is not arranged thematically but in alphabetical order of the first lines.

Church Hymnary, fourth edition (2005)
In 1994 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appointed a committee to revise the hymnary; the convener was again John L. Bell. After consultation and protracted difficulties in obtaining copyright for some hymns, Church Hymnary, fourth edition appeared in May 2005. It is published by the Canterbury Press (Norwich) and contains 825 items. In the spirit of Songs of God's People it continues the quest for diversity. For the first time a hymn book which was not specifically produced for the Gaelic community contains a hymn in Gaelic, the Christmas carol "Leanabh an àigh", for which the original text now appears in parallel to the translation "Child in a manger". Many hymns have been modified to incorporate 'inclusive language'. For example, "He gave me eyes so I could see", has been rewritten as "God gave me eyes so I could see" (Hymn 164). The feminist theology of the Motherhood of God is represented in "Mothering God" (Hymn 117). However, the temptation to reword such as "thy" to "your" has been resisted for old favourites, so, for example, "Great is thy faithfulness" remains untouched.

In a deliberate echo of RCH, opens with a collection of psalms arranged in the order of their original Psalm numbers (Hymns 1–108). Many of these come from the Scottish Psalter, and appear here without the doxologies added in CH3. (These doxologies are included as Hymn 109, but their separation from the texts of the psalms presumably means they will be relatively seldom used.) But the section also includes psalms from other musical traditions, as well as prose psalms for responsive reading – still not common in the Church of Scotland. The volume then continues, as did, with a thematic arrangement of hymns, this time divided into three main sections each associated with one person of the Holy Trinity and subdivided into aspects of God and the Church's response. There then follows an international section of short songs, including evangelical choruses by writers such as Graham Kendrick and pieces from Taizé and the Iona Community. A final short section contains Amens and Doxologies.

In some ways this is the Church of Scotland's most ambitious hymnal to date, and certainly it is the longest. The immediate reaction of the Scottish press after publication was to report complaints of pensioners who found the volume too heavy to carry to Church, but its strength no doubt lies in the breadth of musical and theological traditions which it seeks to embrace. has a purple binding.

The hymnary is available in three editions: Full Music, Melody and Text. There is also a large print version. Music edition: ISBN 1-85311-613-0

A scripture index to is provided by George K. Barr, , no publisher, no ISBN, 2005.

In February 2008 Canterbury Press released a version of for the wider church, called Hymns of Glory, Songs of Praise, featuring the same content as  under a different cover. This has proved popular in some liberal Anglican churches and United Reformed Churches.

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the United Presbyterian Church were involved in the compilation of the Church Hymnary (1898) and several Presbyterian denominations in the Revised Church Hymnary (1928) and the Church Hymnary third edition (1973). The Presbyterian Church in Ireland declined to be involved in the fourth edition and published its own Irish Presbyterian Hymn Book in 2004.

16th century Protestant hymnals
Anabaptist
 * Ausbund

Anglican
 * Book of Common Prayer
 * Whole Book of Psalms

Lutheran
 * First Lutheran hymnal
 * Erfurt Enchiridion
 * Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn
 * Swenske songer eller wisor 1536
 * Thomissøn's hymnal

Presbyterian
 * Book of Common Order

Reformed
 * Souterliedekens
 * Genevan Psalter

title: Hymnbooks of the Church of Scotland


text:
George Alfred Barnard

George Alfred Barnard (23 September 1915 – 30 July 2002) was a British statistician known particularly for his work on the foundations of statistics and on quality control.

Early life and education
George Barnard was born in Walthamstow, London. His father was a cabinet maker and his mother had been a domestic servant. His sister Dorothy Wedderburn became a sociologist and eventually Principal of Royal Holloway, University of London. Barnard attended the local grammar school, the Monoux School, and from there he won a scholarship to St John's College, Cambridge, to read mathematics. In 1937 he went on to Princeton University to do graduate work on mathematical logic with Alonzo Church.

Career
Barnard was on holiday in Britain when the Second World War started and he never went back to Princeton to finish his PhD. The war made Barnard into a statistician as it did for many mathematicians of his generation. In 1940 he joined an engineering firm, Plessey, as a mathematical consultant. In 1942 he moved to the Ministry of Supply to apply quality control and sampling methods to the products for which they were responsible. It was there that Barnard began doing statistics. The group he was put in charge of included Peter Armitage, Dennis Lindley and Robin Plackett. Lindley recalls that they were like students working for a doctorate with Barnard as supervisor. Abraham Wald was in a similar group in the United States. Both groups developed sequential methods of sampling.

At the end of the war, Barnard went to Imperial College London, as a lecturer, becoming a reader in 1948 and professor of mathematical statistics in 1954. In 1961 he was elected as a Fellow of the American Statistical Association. In 1966 he moved to the newly created University of Essex, from which he retired in 1975. Barnard, however, kept on doing statistics until he died aged 86. Until 1981 he spent much of each year at the University of Waterloo, Canada, and after that he continued writing papers and corresponding with colleagues all over the world.

Barnard's best known contribution is probably his 1962 paper on likelihood inference but the paper he thought his best was the 1949 paper in which he first espoused the likelihood principle. He had originally described the principle in the context of optional stopping. A statement by Leonard Savage brings out how surprising the principle first seemed: I learned the stopping rule principle from Professor Barnard in ... 1952. Frankly, I then thought it a scandal that anyone in the profession could advance an idea so patently wrong, even as today I can scarcely believe that some people resist an idea so patently right.

Political activism
In an interview Barnard recalled, "my main interest above everything was politics from about 1933 until 1956. Well, that’s not true – until the end of the war it would be fair to say." At school he proposed the motion to the school debating society that "Socialism is preferable to Capitalism." He joined the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1933 and took part in anti-fascist marches in the east end of London. The historian Eric Hobsbawm, a fellow communist at Cambridge, recalled him as a "lean-and-hungry-looking mathematician from a working class family" who served as the "student Party's chief local commissar." At Plessey he was chairman of the shop stewards.

Awards
Barnard served terms as president of three societies: Operational Research Society in 1962–1964, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications in 1970–1971, and the Royal Statistical Society in 1971–1972. He was awarded the Guy Medal in Gold by the Royal Statistical Society in 1975.

In May 1986, Barnard was awarded an honorary degree by the Open University as Doctor of the university, and in 1994 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Essex.

Personal life
He married first, Helen J.B. Davis in 1942 and they had three sons. He married second, Mary M.L. Jones in 1949 and they had one son. He was a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

Barnard died at his home in Essex in August 2002. Dennis Lindley, writing in The Statistician, remarked that "We have lost a great statistician and a delightful human being."

Publications

 * – This contains a review of Barnard's work by Lindley. The volume was one of a series honouring Bayesian heroes. There is a bibliography (citing 109 articles) up to 1989.
 * – This contains a review of Barnard's work by Lindley. The volume was one of a series honouring Bayesian heroes. There is a bibliography (citing 109 articles) up to 1989.
 * – This contains a review of Barnard's work by Lindley. The volume was one of a series honouring Bayesian heroes. There is a bibliography (citing 109 articles) up to 1989.
 * – This contains a review of Barnard's work by Lindley. The volume was one of a series honouring Bayesian heroes. There is a bibliography (citing 109 articles) up to 1989.
 * – This contains a review of Barnard's work by Lindley. The volume was one of a series honouring Bayesian heroes. There is a bibliography (citing 109 articles) up to 1989.
 * – This contains a review of Barnard's work by Lindley. The volume was one of a series honouring Bayesian heroes. There is a bibliography (citing 109 articles) up to 1989.

In 1990 he made a book out of manuscripts left by his friend Egon Pearson:

After 1990 Barnard published little, although he kept up his letter writing. In 1996 however he produced a review of Barndorff-Nielsen and Cox after observing that, "A great virtue of the book is that it raises perhaps as many questions as it answers," Barnard went on to give his answer to one of those questions:

title: George Alfred Barnard


text:
Mark 2

Mark 2 is the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. In this chapter, the first arguments between Jesus and other Jewish religious teachers appear. Jesus heals a paralyzed man and forgives his sins, meets with the disreputable Levi and his friends, and argues over the need to fast, and whether or not one can harvest food on Sabbath.

Text
The original text was written in Koine Greek. This chapter is divided into 28 verses.

Textual witnesses
Some early manuscripts containing the complete text of this chapter are:
 * Codex Vaticanus (325-350)
 * Codex Sinaiticus (330-360)
 * Codex Bezae (~400)
 * Codex Alexandrinus (400-440)
 * Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (~450)

Critical scholarship
Several writers treat Mark 2:1-3:6 as a single unit for analytical purposes. Joseph Mali refers to these verses as containing the "Galilean Conflict Stories", whilst noting that there is no scholarly consensus in this field. He notes "Markan Public Debates" and "controversy dialogues" as other terms which have been used to cover these verses. The Jerusalem Bible refers to the "Five Disputes" set out in these verses. Vincent Taylor suggests that this passage may have existed "as a connected whole" before the gospel was compiled. Johannes Weiss sees its function as establishing "why Jesus' opponents hated [him] and pursued him to death".

Jesus heals a paralyzed man
Jesus returns to Capernaum after a period of absence in the open country. Four men carrying a paralyzed man come to see Jesus, but they cannot get past the crowd. Mark is the only canonical gospel to specify that there were four persons carrying him. It is not stated who the men are, but it is implied that some of them have faith in Jesus. Since Mark has so far listed four disciples, some writers speculate that Mark might be indicating it is them doing the carrying, but there is no general agreement on this.

They then create a hole in the roof of the house (, apestegasan tēn stegēn, "they uncovered the roof") and lower the man in to see Jesus. Kilgallen suggests that because they "dug" through the roof this indicates that it is a poor house, with the roof made of leaves, bark, and dirt. It might also have had wooden beams for more sturdy support. This was the ordinary type of house in Judea at the time. Longman, Strauss and Taylor's Expanded Bible states "they dug a hole in the roof" and notes that Judean "roofs were generally flat and made of thatch and dried mud" and The Living Bible refers to a "clay roof". Tom Wright suggests that this is Jesus' own house. Jesus is impressed by their effort, praising all the men's faith, and he tells the paralytic that his sins are forgiven. Wright suggests that the forgiveness is granted in part for creating a hole in the roof, but also that the forgiveness Jesus granted "went deeper" than this. Some writers, including Jerome and Ambrose, exclude the paralytic himself from the commended faith but John Chrysostom includes him. Jesus calls the man "Son", a term of affection.

Some of the teachers of the law present (belonging to the sect of the Pharisees) are disturbed by this. "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" . Mark observes that Jesus "...knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts..." .

He says to them "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven', or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins ..." He says to the man "...get up, take your mat and go home." (8-11).

According to Raymond E. Brown, it may have been easier to tell the man something than to demand he get up and walk. Jesus chooses to prove his ability to forgive sins, with a demonstration of the man's ability to walk. He forgives and heals by word alone, highlighting the power of his words. Mark says that "everyone" was amazed by this.

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, ho huios tou anthrōpou (literally son of the human being), which he does many times in Mark. This is taken in several ways in Mark, but is a term accepted by orthodox Christianity as referring to his Messiahship. The term is found in other Jewish sources, for example Daniel 7:31 and the Book of Enoch. In the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, this title represents the judge during the final judgement. He was often viewed as angelic or as a heavenly being who comes as a flesh and blood person. Only Jesus mentions this title in the Gospels, often using it to speak about himself in the third person. It has also been seen as symbolic of God's plan for all people.

In both Luke and John  Jesus rejects the notion that illness and misfortune are the result of sins.

The teachers say that only God can forgive one's sins; some see Exodus and Isaiah  and  as proof of this claim. Mark thus leaves it implied that Jesus is God and that faith in his power can lead to not just a cure of physical ills but to a forgiveness of a person's sins. Early Christians may have used this story to buttress their claims of Jesus' ability to forgive sins. Thus to the teachers Jesus' claim is blasphemy as they do not think Jesus is God, but to Mark's audience this confirms their belief in Jesus' divinity.

This is the first conflict between Jesus and other Jewish teachers in Mark. Mark might be starting his explanation of why these Jewish authorities later turned on Jesus.

This incident of the cure of a paralytic and his subsequent forgiveness of his sins is told in all the Synoptic Gospels, (Luke and Matthew 9:1–8). All the synoptics agree that the man was paralyzed and that the teachers of the law were incensed at Jesus because he said he could forgive the man's sins.

Calling of Levi

Jesus, while teaching a large crowd by the lake, finds Levi at the tax collector's booth and says "Follow me!" also calls him "Levi". Matthew's version of this story clearly lists him as "Matthew", the tax collector and apostle, in ,. Mark lists him as Levi the son of Alphaeus, although an Alphaeus is also listed as the name of the father of James. A few manuscripts refer to James and not Levi, but most think this is an attempt by a copyist at correction. J.E. Jacquier suggests that Levi was his name originally, and that it is probable that Mattija, "gift of Iaveh", was the name conferred upon the tax-gatherer by Jesus when He called him to the Apostolate. maybe a middle or nickname, and both fathers had the same name. Mark names Matthew but Levi as one of the Twelve Apostles in, so if one considers Mark alone it is not clear this Levi was an Apostle.

A tax collector could mean two things. He could have been an independent contractor with the Roman government, who paid a fee to Rome to obtain the right to extract taxes from the people in a certain area, with an added fee for the collector and his employees. He might have also been a toll collector for Herod Antipas, and Capernaum was an area with a high traffic of people and merchants. Either way, Levi would have been a very unpopular and even despised person.

Jesus and his disciples eat "at his house" (, en tē oikia autou) with Levi and his disreputable friends and the "teachers of the law who were Pharisees" ask his disciples why. Some ancient authorities put the question as "why does he eat and drink" with them. The house is generally understood to have been Levi's, but the text is not certain, and Nicoll refers to a suggestion that "Jesus, not Matthew, was the real host at the social gathering": the "call" to sinners can be read as an "invitation", just as a host might invite guests to a meal.

Teaching the law was a profession, and the Pharisees were a group of men who were considered pious. Whether they were at the dinner or were simply aware of it is unclear. The proper preparing and eating of food are very important in Judaism. It was even considered dangerous to eat with those who did not observe the same dining customs by some Jews like the Pharisees. See also the "Incident at Antioch".

Jesus replies the famous "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matthew has him say "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'" between the two sentences in Mark's version. Luke says "... but sinners to repentance". Jesus compares himself to a doctor to show that, as a doctor fights disease by working with the sick, so Jesus must go to sinners in order to help them overcome their sins. Jesus had earlier announced that his mission was a call to repentance in.

The Oxyrhynchus Gospels 1224 5:1-2 also record this episode of "dining with sinners".

Jesus thus ends the debate with a statement with no rebuttal by his opponents. Many see this as Mark's way of telling the story to set up Jesus for his memorable words, which Mark uses in the next two incidents and others as well. Scholars have labeled this method of narration an apophthegm, chreia or pronouncement story. All three synoptics have this occur after the healing of the paralyzed man.

Mark says many people followed Jesus. In contrast to the followers Jesus attracted, it is not clear how many actual disciples (students) he recruited, only calls it a "great crowd of ... disciples", and  says that many left.

Fasting and new wineskins
Some people asked why is it that the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees (often) fast, or were engaged in fasting just at that point in time, but the disciples of Jesus did not fast. People fasted for many reasons, such as mourning or penitence, but another reason was to prepare for the anticipated coming of the messiah and perhaps even to hasten the process. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann suggests that John's disciples might have been fasting "on account of the loss of their master", although Meyer considers this an unsupported interpretation.

Jesus answered their question, saying "Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?" He is referred to as a bridegroom in several places in the New Testament, such as in, 2 Corinthians , the Epistle to the Ephesians and Revelation  and. Jesus speaking of himself as the bridegroom carries messianic overtones. There is no purpose in fasting as the messiah, Jesus, is already here and his coming is like a wedding celebration, at which people do not fast.

Jesus then says the bridegroom will be "taken from them" and then his disciples will fast "on that day", or "on those days". All three synoptic gospels use the same phrase, ἀπάρθη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν (aparthē ap’ autōn), which does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament. The words are taken as an allusion to Jesus' death. For those who do not believe Jesus had foreknowledge of his death this is taken as an interpolation of the early Church.

Marks' account follows this with "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

What its exact meaning is in the original context is not totally clear to scholars today. It is easily interpreted to mean Jesus was proposing a new way of doing things. The new "unshrunk" patch for the cloth can not be melded to the old cloth as it will shrink and make the tear of the cloth worse. One can also not use "new" wine with "old" wineskins as the new wine will ferment and expand and break the old skins. Jesus thus seems to be concerned that the patch and the "new" wine as well as the "old" cloth and old wineskins be preserved. This might be Jesus trying to convey that one must shed those old things that are incompatible with his new way.

Ignatius of Antioch, among others, interpreted it as Jesus saying he was the start of a new religion separate from John the Baptist and Second Temple Judaism. Some Christians have used it to propose new ways of being Christian or even entirely new forms of Christianity. As early as the second century, Marcion used it to justify his doctrine, later called Marcionism and deemed heretical.

The interpretation favored by John Calvin does not suffer from the inconsistencies and the disconnectedness of the interpretations listed above. In his Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Calvin states that the old wineskins and the old garment represent Jesus' disciples, and the new wine and unshrunk cloth represent the practice of fasting twice a week. Fasting this way would be burdensome to the new disciples, and would be more than they could bear.

Plucking grain on Sabbath

One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees accused them of breaking Sabbath. The command to observe Sabbath is found in Exodus, a "perpetual covenant ... [for] the people of Israel" (NRSV). Some think this is not historical but is Mark's literary way of debating Sabbath observance issues. E. P. Sanders argues that these debates on Sabbath, handwashing, and food are artificial constructs of Mark as there were debates between Paul and other Christians about the issue after Jesus' ministry. The Jesus Seminar determined, , to be "pink" acts of Jesus, that is "a close approximation of what Jesus did" and call them "Sabbath observance."

Jesus points out to them a story about David found in 1 Samuel. David ate the special consecrated bread reserved for the priests, detailed in Leviticus. In Mark, Jesus says this was when Abiathar was high priest, while Samuel says the high priest was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father. Neither Luke and Matthew  name the high priest. Mark may have simply made an error or had an incomplete or inaccurate copy of the Books of Samuel. A few early Marcan manuscripts omit this phrase, but most scholars think the name of the priest was originally written by Mark, not a later copyist.

Jesus then says "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Thus human needs take precedence over strict observance of the law. Some see this as a radical departure from the Jewish understanding of the law (see also Christianity and Judaism). Neither Luke nor Matthew  have the first phrase putting people ahead of Sabbath. Since form critics believe the Q hypothesis and that Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, many argue they might have found this too radical and so chose not to include it. Jesus here claims he knows what Sabbath is for, and thus that he knows the mind of God, something only God could do, and equates himself with the "Lord of the Sabbath", God. The passage thus has a christological climax.

Most scholars agree that Sabbath and proper observance of Mosaic law in general were a point of contention between Jesus and other Jewish teachers. A minority position, held by scholars such as E. P. Sanders, is that these do not constitute proof of a rejection of the law, e.g., Sanders claims there was no significant conflict between the Pharisees as a group and Jesus and that the Church took some time to reach its position on Sabbath, which makes it difficult to believe Jesus specifically taught one position or the other. The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus argues the Halakah ("Jewish Law") was not in so definite a form at this period due to the disputes of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.

There were debates within Early Christianity, such as at the Council of Jerusalem between Paul and Jewish Christians, over just how much of the Law of Moses one should follow. This passage might have been used by the early Church in defense of their less than strict observance of Sabbath against Jews like the Pharisees who held a harder line on Sabbath observance. The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus notes: "...stricter rabbis allowed only the saving of life to excuse the slightest curtailment of the Sabbath rest (Shab. xxii. 6)."

These stories are almost entirely the same in Luke 5-6, and in Matthew except for the story of the Sabbath, which occurs in Matthew at Chapter 12. They do not occur in John except for perhaps the paralyzed man.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Misunderstood Passages: Misunderstanding of the term "be-ḥad le-shabba tinyana" (on the first of the second week after Passover), preserved only in Luke vi. 1, caused the confusion of the law concerning the new produce of the year (Lev. xxiii. 11-14) with Sabbath law (see Jew. Encyc. vii. 168, s.v. Jesus). In the one case Jesus, referring to David, defended his disciples, who in their hunger plucked the new corn in the field and ate it without waiting for the offering upon the altar; in the other case he himself disregarded Sabbath law in view of the "pikkuaḥ nefesh" (peril of life), a case in which the Rabbis admitted the suspension of the law, upon the principle, "The Sabbath is given over to you ["the son of man"], and not you to the Sabbath" (see Mek., Wayaḳhel, 1; Chwolson, "Das Letzte Passahmahl," 1892, pp. 59-67, 91-92).

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah notes the following reconciliation: R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.

title: Mark 2