mooeypoo

That's an unreasonable request, seeing as the 'old' testament had no concept of the 'father' vs. the 'son'. However, I do agree that the Ark of the Covenant was not something that was 'prayed to'. It was, however, a symbol of God. It had "Skhina" (שכינה) which is something like the "spirit" or "breath" of God. Those who touched it died immediately, and the custom was to carry it indirectly. So there are a lot of worship customs to the ark of the covenant, even though it's not explicitly stated that it is TO be worshiped.

Agreed, all religions have inconsistencies. Jews are no exception, not at all.

Read the other posts, jryan. Idol is the english translation. The aramaic/hebrew is clear in saying no picture, symbol, statue or relief image of *anything*. Regardless of praying, you are not to have them. *THEN* it continues to say that you can't pray to them either. Quite clear. What about the Sabbath, jryan?

Oh come on, Cap'n. Scenario: I create a lump of plastic. Does it have meaning? Not unless I give it meaning. If I say it's a symbol of my undying love to unrecyclable materials, then no one would even think to make a connection with religion, the rules of god, or the ten commandments. If I say this lump of plastic is a representation of my undying love to God, then it's a symbol. The ten commandments forbit *BOTH CASES*. The go further than just forbidding something that's obviously a representation of god (like my second-case lump of plastic, or like a picture of angels, or statues of jesus, or a cross) they forbid *ALL*, so that you don't even get confused or tricked or *accidentally* do something that leads you to worship - even unintentionally -- or LOOK like you worship -- even accidentally -- a graven image, a statue or a symbol. The heaven above and the Earth below, in biblical times, means *EVERYTHING*. There is, according to the biblical depiction of the universe, nothing other than the heaven above and the earth below. There's no hell under the Earth. The rule is very clear, unless people insist on butchering the living hell out of it for the sake of (maybe) coming up with ways to have graven images while pretending to follow the 10 rules of God. Another point here - The "old" testament has more than 613 rules. Most Christian sects claim that Jesus renewed the old laws (or most of them) which is why they have no problems eating pork, among other things, or wearing cloths with linen and cotton mixed ("שעתנז"), seeing as they're both rules that are explained in the bible in depth. If Christians want so desperately to have a list of laws that 'stayed' from the "old" testament, they have 613 laws to pick from that I bet they can actually find to ACTUALLY follow 10 of them. Somewhere. Pick 'em. There are a few main reasons why translating the old testament is very difficult without pre-interpreting it: First, the ancient language is using words that have double and sometimes triple meanings; the way to understand those meanings is subtle by the context they appear in and by the context they appear in other chapters. Second, the bible in general is written in a symbolic manner - things depend on context and stories depend on very broad descriptions and subtle distinctions. Translations are - USUALLY - pre-interpreted. I am so used to being able to read it that I've never really gave much thought to how to try and approach it from a point of view of someone who can't understand the original. I guess what I would recommend is cross-referencing as many translations as possible, trying to bring from as varying 'groups' as possible. I can say that the site I bring from (Mechon Mamre) is not too shabby in translating the words (I always go over both the english and hebrew when I quote there), but even there it's not perfect. Any translation is hard (even modern ones) but ancient ones - specially a symbolic one like the bible - is double-hard. Yes, but at *LEAST* saying that is semi consistent. At least they say that these rules were 'turned off' when Jesus died on the cross (and I don't know much about what jesus said or didn't say.. seeing what ydoaPs is saying, that doesn't seem to be the case either). At least, though, the claim that the rules have been 'updated' is consistent; you don't have to follow the 613 rules of the old testament because they're the "old" rules. If you CLAIM to follow the 613 and don't follow them (like many a-religious jews, who claim to do all 613 and neglect to remember there are some ridiculous laws they aren't doing in modern times) you are inconsistent. If you don't claim to follow all of them, there's no problem of consistency. If you CLAIM to follow the 10 commandments and don't follow them, you're inconsistent. Yeah that's not the case with all the laws, btw. Most laws come through prophets, and while they're important, the reason why the 10 commandments are considered *THE MOST* important in the bible is because they were *given* to Moses by god, directly. But yeah I'd like to see what they say. I can ask religious jews, but their answer will (obviously) be VERY different than any Christianity-leaning theologians. ~moo

Including God. The hebrew words are "Pessel" which literally means "statue" and "graven images" (IE, 'relief artwork' counts too) and the word "Tmuna" which literally means 'Picture' or drawing. I think that pretty much covers it, don't you? You know quite well that I don't follow the bible, or that I think it's "right". What I am saying is that if someone claims to follow a text, then they need to *follow it*. Christians claim it's one of the most important orders from god - the TEN COMMANDMENTS (music, please!) and yet, they *disregard* two. Knowingly. They might make excuses for this, which is fine theologically, but then why claim they follow the ten commandments? Just admit that the ten commandments are - as Christians seem to claim about other books in the "old" testament - outdated. That they were replaced. Tweaked. Whatever. But then, don't claim to follow them. Don't insist that they are the pillar of your belief. Obviously, they are not, if they aren't following them. (you in a general sense, not you- you). By the way. We're discussing the commandment about the graven images and God, but you're also forgetting the commandment about the Sabbath, which Christians neglect to follow as well. The sabbath isn't just a 'directive' from God like Kosher food is. It's *IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS*. It's considered even *MORE* important. Christians don't follow it. I don't care what people follow. I care that they at least not pretend to be consistent when they're not. Either they follow the 10 commandments, or they are not. ~moo

So far we seem to agree.... Cap'n, the rule states that you should ahve no picture (and on the other version they add 'of anything in the heaven above OR THE EARTH BELOW), and no symbol of God. Jesus, be him the man jesus (on the cross) or the symbolic son of god jesus (with the halo, whatever) is still an image. It's against that rule, whether jesus ascended or not. (I'll go over the rest later, gotta run to class)

The commandment doesn't talk about worship or about praying, it talks about having. You shall not have any image, or representation of God. HAVE. If you want to look on places where the commandments are repeated or further explained, the entire book of Leviticus does just that. Quite in detail. But let's look at the original: Exodus 20:3-4 3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; Deutronomy 5:7-8 7 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, even any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 8 Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate Me, (Wikipedia includes Exodus 34 [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0234.htm] as one of the sources for the ten commandments. In this case, though, it speaks of what not to do with other gods, and not what to do/not do about representation for god himself). Notice: First you shouldn't make or have ANYTHING that either represents or has a resemblence to me(God). *Then*, the commandment continues to say you shall not bow down or serve them. No. Read the entire section. "Don't make symbols of me... and don't bow to them." Indeed. You're not allowed to do any sort of statue, graven image or picture according to this law. Religious jews (and the Amish, too, for example) follow it; they don't have a poster of their favorite actors or dolls that look human. Either you choose to read the bible literally, or you don't. If you don't, it's a free-for-all; it's symbolic anyways. If you do, then read the original version, where the literal meaning is clearest. The bible, for once, is clear. It's also repeating the commandments over and over, with different examples. ~moo

In the ten commandments, the text is clear. You are to avoid even having a picture of anyone, related or unrelated to god, as a source of - or conduit to - worship. On top of that come the graven image and the symbol to represent God. You aren't supposed to even have a SYMBOLIC representation of God. Relgious jews don't have posters of their favorite actors, for instance. The might have posters of scenery, or nature, but not of people. The commandment, once read without pre-interpreted-translation, is quite clear.

If I translate what you wrote into the equation: [math] |s m> = \sum_{m1+m2=m} C_{m_{1}m_{2}m}^{s_{1}s_{2}s} |s_{1} m_{1} > | s_{2} m_{2}> [/math] It will become: [math] |\frac{1}{2} , -\frac{1}{2} > = A |\frac{3}{2}, \frac{3}{2}>|1, -1> + B |\frac{3}{2}, \frac{1}{2}>|1, 0> + C |\frac{3}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}>|1, 1> [/math] Where A,B and C are the constants from the table we can find in your link and my book. -- right? My confusion is -- how do you know that m1=3/2 (the part for "A") goes with m2=-1, and that m1=1/2 (part "B") goes with m2=0 ? Why not m1=3/2 to go with m2=0? I'm sorry if the questions might seem repetitive or silly, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I get the broad subject - spin as angular momentum [math]I\omega[/math]. To be honest, I think it's a combination of making mathematical sense of spin/magnetic sublevels as well as understanding the bra/ket notation. Thanks!! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Okay, I think the coin just dropped. m1=3/2 and m2 must equal -1, to make m=m1+m2=1/2 when m1=-1, m2=1/2 to again make m=1/2 Which is the condition in the left-hand side 'bra/ket'. Chuh-ching. Don't you love it when that happens?

What???

So, wait, m isn't the combination of m1 and m2 as combining the sets.. it sounds to me like m1 is int jumps between (+/-)s1, m2 is between (+/-) of s2 and m is between the (+/-) of the total spin s. So to get m, I don't need to even think of m1 and m2, I just need to get s (by doing s1+s2 = 5/2). And then the m of the bound state is between (-/+)s =(-/+)5/2 in integer jumps. So, m = -5/2, -3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 Is that right? Err, confusion grows. s isn't just 5/2. [math]s= (s1+s2) , (s1+s2-1) ... |s1-s2|[/math] My combined s, then, is [math]s= 5/2, 3/2, 1/2[/math] Do I have an m *per* value of S then?

MMm.. I don't know why I 'm so confused. I'll keep going and see if I can maybe frame my confusion better.

Yeah I have the coefficients in my book. So I'm going to have a huge list of possible eigenstates and eigenvalues? Not that I might doing the work, I just thought it looked.. weird. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Wait, this just sunk in -- my book defines m=m1+m2. Wouldn't that make m=-3/2, -1, -1/2, 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2 ? I'm so confuuuuused.

Hey guys, Homework question: Two exotic particles of spins 1 and 3/2 form a bound state. a) What are the possible values of the total spin of the bound state? -- So, I know that: [math]s_{1}=3/2[/math] [math]s_{2}=1[/math] [math]S = (s_{1}+s_{2}) , (s_{1}+s_{2}-1) ... |s_{1}-s_{2}| = 5/2, 3/2, 1/2 [/math] Also, 'm', is defined according to what I've read as: m=-s, -s+1,... +s So in this case, m would be: [math]m_{1} = -3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2[/math] [math]m_{2} = -1, 0, 1[/math] Which is where I am getting stuck. My m1 and m2 have different number of components. When I compose the possible states, how does this work out?? [math] |s m> = \sum_{m1+m2=m} C_{m_{1}m_{2}m}^{s_{1}s_{2}s} |s_{1} m_{1} > | s_{2} m_{2}>[/math] So I'm not sure how to proceed. I checked examples in the book, and there's one about two particles of spins 1 and 3/2, where they go at it from "the other way" (if you already know your m1 and m2). Here is what they say: [math]|\frac{3}{2} \frac{1}{2}| 1 0> = \sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}|\frac{5}{2} \frac{1}{2}> + \sqrt{\frac{1}{15}}|\frac{3}{2} \frac{1}{2}> + \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}|\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2}>[/math] If you put particles of spin 3/2 and 1 in the box, and you know that the first has m1=1/2 and the second has m2=0 (so m is necessarily 1/2) and you measure the total spin, s, you could get 5/2 (wit probability 3/5), or 3/2 (with probability 1/15), or 1/2 (with probability 1/3). Again, the sum of the probabilities is 1. In this example, though, they seem to be picking the values they want to use of m1 and m2. My question asks for all values in general. How do I pair up m1 and m2 that don't have the same number of components?? I'm stuck. Help! ~moo

The spring in the scale is used to measure the force. If there's no spring, there's no measurement. It's true that the spring of the scale will slow the ball down (otherwise the ball would crush the scale) but that's exactly how the scale itself measures the force. If I take my bathroom scale (which operates on the 'spring' concept) and press it, I apply force on it. The spring is compressed in a certain way that states how much force I put on it. This is then displayed on the screen - either with a rotating disk or conversion to digital display. If you want to know what the spring itself (of the measurement device) did to the movement, then you need another measurement-- like, for instance, under your scale, put another scale. So you have the measurement of the force applied on the ground, rather than on the scale. Does this make sense?

Seeing as the bible is self contradictory right from the creation stories, I am not sure there's any way not to pick and choose what parts of the bible to believe.

Guys, this is a religion forum, and we will discuss religion, but we are still following the rules of conduct. Drop the attitude, everyone. Please. Everyone can make their points in a civil manner.

Just to make a point here, I didn't cherry pick, Moontanman, I took the offered site and linked the first three pictures I saw. I didn't even skip... it's the first three.

Ah, sigh, paraedolia and psychological biases are fun. We can reinterpret weird images however we want when we look and don't know their context. For example, I looked at a few of the images from the site you gave, purposefully not reading the descriptions (so I don't get 'biased' into what THEY see), and wrote down what came to my mind first. Then, I read their descriptions after I already looked. Needless to say, our opinions differ. Not just that, but if you go at those pictures unbiased (not *intending* to find UFOs, but intending to find artistic depictions of events in life/society/religion) then the myths the site is promoting sound... uhm.. well quite incredibly silly, honestly. Here are a few examples: My immediate thought: A bunch of people carrying a large rock or pile of dirt. Seems quite reasonable that they do that for construction. (original link: http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_start.php?p=ufoartwork_bc ) If you look at the zoom-out picture, the animals aren't all standing in a single line (they're not all horizontal). This can VERY well be a dead animal, it looks like some large cat/hyena that was killed by arrows. Tilt your head and it doesn't look weird anymore. Also, the "saucer objects" are *not* unique. Look at the other part of the picture, specifically the top right corner (OMG! More saucers!) and the top left corner (It's a round saucer! run!). They seem to be objects either decorating or describing the events and can mean a whole bunch of things other than flying saucers. No reason to jump to insanely unlikely conclusions. Then, there are things like this: Which are admittedly REPRODUCTIONS of relief artwork. I find that extremely unlikely, and would like to see the original. It seems quite odd to me that while they have tons of 'originals' they will have no original picture of one of the most OBVIOUS ufo picture. (the description for this is the second page in the slideshow here http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_start.php?p=ufoartwork_bc ) If nothing else, these do a GREAT job getting our brain even more biased when we look at the other pictures which, quite very likely, have nothing to do with UFO, space, or aliens at all. Another point I always get a kick out of -- even if aliens do come to Earth, the odds that they use a saucer-shaped craft are ridiculously low. There's no reason to use that in space travel and it has absolutely no advantage when traveling great distances in space or when landing on a planet with atmosphere. It's what we saw as humans in the 1940s, it's not very likely that aliens would follow our rather weird engineering concepts. ~moo

Seeing as you're quoting the new testament as well as the old, I'll take it your "The" is "The Christian". It's not quite "The" God of every other religion.

It's more than just the order or combination, though, in some cases it actual different (or broader, and hence possibly different) meaning or interpretation to the text. You gave *your* interpretation, but surely you can see that not only are there other interpretations that equal yours, but if you alreayd choose to bring forth a text as an example, you should use its *original* version. If I can bring a different interpretation (which I can) and find you 10 different interpretations (Which I can), that are all making sense according to this text, and all have different 'sense' than yours, then I am not sure I understand the POINT you're making. We can argue about the literal/non-literal/symbolic/personal meaning of the text forever and ever (and it could be interesting, indeed) but how does that help us in the current topic of defining what is a GOD? I didn't say "people" I said christians. It always fascinated me how many christians fight and cry and yell for the ten commandments to be displayed in courts, or for our society to follow the ten commandments when Christianity -- almost by definition -- disobeys two of those laws. Preserving the Sabbath is *VERY* clear. It's not "the seventh day" (allowing anyone to decide that sunday is 7 because we start counting from monday), it's *SABBATH*, and not only is it CLARIFIED in the text, the text goes into *detail* of what yo're allowed and not allowed to do. Christianity disobeys this law. And the second is the image/symbol, which is also not just clear, but CLARIFIED. HAving either a cross or even the *idea* of a cross is illegal by this law, quite obviously, literally, from the text. Christianity disobeys this law. So.. christianity, in general (and sure, yeah, there might be exceptions, but this is the general statement), disobeys two of the 10 laws clearly, by definition, before we even start counting the disobedience out of 'sin' that individuals do. Example to what, though? The interpretation is clearly subjective, or you wouldn't have so many factions and religions claiming to follow it, each interpreting it differently. ~moo

No means to be offensive here, jryan, but which 10 commandments? The original 10 commandments were in hebrew. And they weren't precisely what you said here. Here is a decent translation (parallel to the hebrew original): http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; ... thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; NOW comes the part about the idols (which, btw, is problematic as it is, seeing as according to the above law, having a cross *in general* (as a pendant or a symbol at all) is not allowed. Your interpretation is personal, jryan. The context makes it clear to me that this is about a jealous god demanding his subjects be loyal. It's about power. That's an interpretation, and one that is personal. If you go by the literal translation, you're wrong, it's about the seventh day of creation. If you go by any other interpretation, then others are worth just as much as yours does. The original, btw, *CONtINUES*. God explains, see: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. This is about worship. It's about remembering how God is almighty and created everything and took a day off. He's quite explicit in explaining this 'rest on the sabbath' law, even though Christians seemed to ignore this one too. Yeah, okay, I'll give you that.. again, I am not sure what you mean here with your very personal viewpoint (I can totally interpret this differently, but.. fine). The original, just for consistency: Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 5) You shall not murder: Self explanatory. 6) You shall not commit adultery: This is a longer discussion that I want to get into here, but as you can see in the "Sex" thread, I find wisdom here that I didn't see in my youth. 7) You shall not steal: Also fairly self explanatory. But I think at it's root is the understanding that societies that condone thievery are weak societies. In this commandment lies the respect of personal property that is the underpinning of all healthy societies. 8) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor: Another fairly self explanatory law. This law establishes the need for truth in public discourse. Like respect for personal property, healthy societies are built of truths. I don't think many people would argue that our legal system works better when ruling on what actually happened, for instance. 12 Thou shalt not murder. {S} Thou shalt not commit adultery. {S} Thou shalt not steal. {S} Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. {S} Yeah those are the 'duh' laws. Still, they're later explained in much much depth in Deutronomy. Yeah, no. The full sentence (in hebrew/aramaic) is this: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; {S} thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. {P} This is about not covetting anything that doesn't belong to you. Since women were pretty much property, they are grouped together with the neighbor's house, servants, ox and asses. Honestly, I am not sure this is very good example for moral standing in the bible, considering the placement of women in it. But again, sure, why not, interpret it as you wish... just don't claim your interpretation is "the example" or "the norm". It's not. That's part of the commandment above, not separate from it. The only reason I ended up with 9 and not 10, is because the first commandment ("I am your god... do not have any others") is actually two commandments (one saying 'do not have any other gods' and another 'idols'). I would recommend you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Division_of_the_commandments_as_listed_in_Exodus_20 (sometimes wikipedia actually rules) at the divisions of the laws. Also, go over the *ORIGINAL* text of the bible -- if you're already intended on inserting it into the discussion as an example, then at least use the original text, which is not like the translated (and pre-interpreted) text. Not at all. ~moo

Cap'n, according to the best book in the world, there's no more use to continue. Voters: 42.

Not to this attitude. This attitude is not acceptable in this forum. ~moo

jryan, we gave you EVIDENCE that Hitler spoke of a divine creator, God, and "Him". The fact YOU don't find his god meaninful doesn't make Hitler an atheist. "Mein Kampf" is Hitler's own thoughts and feelings and agenda, spilled onto paper. On one hand you bring quotes from his speech to show he's not a believer, and on the other hand you claim that his quotes that do support his belief in a god (which god is irrelevant for this discussion) are putting too much weight on his statements. C'mon now, jryan. You're moving the goal post and beating the bush. Either his statements are relevant, or they're not. You can't make them relevant and irrelevant arbitrarily when you feel like it. That said, you didn't answer my point about the relevancy of Hitler's supposed atheism to this thread. Even if Hitler was an atheist (and the common conception among historians is that he was *not*), what relevancy is this to what atheism offers? To this thread?