Ecclesiastes 12:11 Please Read and Heed!!!

[squarecracker]

Ezekialasties......LOL.....Eve­rything we do is vanity, is the chasing of the wind, chi, steam coming off rice. There is joy and hurt, both are vanities.

The truth of God is the only thing. Your life is still meaningless. Just do what it you do!

[bedminster2]

really enjoyed your eloquence - bravo!

[MrMZaccone]

Oh wait! I forgot, we did get one thing from an illiterate theist ... The koran.

[MrMZaccone]

Spiderman hat guy can't even pronounce "easy colasteez". What do you expect from an illiterate theist.

[ThePrideandGlory]

and not filling yourself up with pride nor doing so believeing you did it for a reason because you did not.

[ThePrideandGlory]

Until he comes for his church and (ecclesaistes 12:14) God will bring EVERY deed into judgment, he will evaluate whether or not you did your deed meaninglessly or with intent to satisfy him knowing it was meaning less. The diffrence is Simple. Doing meaninless deeds is donating to charity for a sense of sympathy towards others, Doing His deed knowning that they are meaning less means That you obey the doctrine jesus christ left behind and do so giving all glory to God

[ThePrideandGlory]

"everything is meaningless" Everything we as humans do is imperfect there is no human ither than jesus christ who was ever perfect. "Everything is Meaningless" The "good" Deeds we do, the "righteous" deeds we do, The things we do in genral are meaningless in Gods eye, WE simply have to try our best to please God Knowing thay We have no reason to because that is what God wants, He wants us To believe without seeing and act upon our faith while never being satisfied and wanting to do more for him

[djbro16]

An artist creation.. if one could create with no inspiration but his own being and creativity would be meaningless. the strokes and contrast and colors can be beautiful and each bit having it's purpose.. but all together meaningless.

[robtherub]

so the teacher in the tale is a bit of an alan watts, clearmind zen, dispute only with your idea that this is "the truth", the idea of "THE truth" is fraught with danger and the main problem we have with the Dawkins disciples, the atheist evangelists (who think THEY have THE truth, and the truth is "science"). i doubt the teacher would have made such a claim, if he was of the clear mind style as i suspect, for such a claim is too much like the pompous moralist the clearminder is trying to prod

[randyhelzerman]

The people I was talking about who were adding to ecclesiastes are the ones who say that meaning was found in worship of God. But ecclesiastes never says that.

[TheMariborchan]

This is a really good video, you hit the spot.

[randyhelzerman]

thx dude

[YBPhotoeditor06]

GOD is our solution. It's quite right. You know all Holy Scriptures test our eyes, ears & mind. The original GOD in Hebrew here=ELOHIM=THE ANGELS. It must be YHWH ELOHIM=THE LORD OF THE ANGELS, WHO wrote THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, not THE ANGELS! 10=1-0=1,234,567,890=smallest YOD Hebrew alphabet, which Jesus said=X Roman unknown. GOD is Alpha-Omega=an entire language. HIS TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE ENTIRELY THE ALTERNATIVE OF THE PARADISE, WHICH WE LOST! That's all about that ECCLESIASTES wants US to KNOW.

[elijahsfire]

I like the book myself and there is nothing hard about it. He just illustrates the vanity of men trusting in meaningless things like riches and material possesions. The unsaved do not understand God's word without the Holy Spirit - 1Cor - 2:14

[Antisyncretism]

well not suspect that but: be certain of that 'everything' is used in such a sense as an exaggeration or 'nearly all' statement as in some other Jewish wisdom literature

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Antisyncretism, I 100% agree we should try to interpret a book as being non-contradictory if we at all can. And sure, in talking we often say "everything" when we don't mean absolutely everything. But still, I don't think that the author of Ecc saw meaning in everything; here's why. He never says that anything gives meaning. He does god gives us duties (to be consistent, we should interpret them as meaningless duties) and He does give us joys (presumably meaningless joys) but (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Antisyncretism) I don't see anywhere in Ecc. where the author says "this gives your live meaning". That's why I think that when he says "everything" he means "everything". so here's my challenge to you: if you can find anyplace in ecc. where it says "this gives your life meaning" I'll change my mind :-)

[Antisyncretism]

I note that the only thing the Teacher does not attack is service to God, we shouldnt need to look for the word 'meaning' specifically to understand what he is saying just as we need not find Jesus saying "I am God" to understand that he was claiming to be God.

A specific word is not necessary but if the meaning of the text is communicated it is communicated.

"the whole of man" seems to be a conclusion that appears contrary to meaningless: because it is.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Antisync, service to God isn't the only thing which the teacher does not attack. See ecc. 5:17, where he specifically endorses the enjoyment of food, drink, wealth, etc. The teacher isn't saying these things are bad. I agree that in general, we shouldn't get hung up on whether a specific word is used or not used, but dude, Ecc says "vanity" over and over again. Its his key word. If he thought anything wasn't vanity, surely he would have explicitly said "but X isn't vanity.."

[Antisyncretism]

...i hope this does not seem to repetitive but i stress that the Teacher at the conclusion of the matter tells the reader to do something, something with a purpose.

Besides as I said the apparent habit of sapiential Jewish wisdom literature to when saying 'everything' at least sometimes assume that the reader understands that this means 'everything except'.

It seems our disagreement is deadlocked though..perhaps another time..

[randyhelzerman]

ha, sorry to be a prossy old fart, but the teacher's last words are not to give us anything to do. The teachers last words are at Ec 12:8, and his last words are that everything is meaningless. The rest of the book was not written by the teacher--how do we know? Because the next verse, verse 9, talks about the teacher in the past tense. Its kind of like we know that all of Deut wasn't written by Moses, because the last verses talk about his death :-)

[Antisyncretism]

You cannot claim that because the writer of the final verses appears departed from the text that therefore he is not the same writer as of the previous verses, indeed Ecc 1:12 also is in the past tense "I, the Teacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem". That the writer speaks of himself in the third person does not eliminate him (the one written of in the third person) as the writer.

[Antisyncretism]

Though you dont believe the Torah to be written by Moses not im sure you would agree that someone saying that Moses is written of in the third person and in the past tense is not a good argument against Mosaic authorship, likewise this isnt a good point against a one-authorship work of Ecclesiastes

[randyhelzerman]

Why not? I mean, if the teacher consistently used the 3rd person, I would be less sure. But in the verse you cited, Ecc 1:12, the teacher speaks of himself in the first person. How many people do you know who talk about themselves in the third person, or switches back and forth between first and third person, even in writing? These sorts of changes in first-person to third person are excellent indicators of change of authorship.

[Antisyncretism]

"These sorts of changes in first-person to third person are excellent indicators of change of authorship."

Absolutely not, let me give you two parallels (and their Biblical too).

The Torah claims to be written by Moses, now i know that you dont believe it is but it CLAIMS to be, and yet there is no issue of Moses writing himself in third person and occasionally recording himself as having being told to write.

In Acts we find Luke switching persons a few times too, though it claims one author

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Antisync, can you give me chapter and verse where the Torah claims to be written by moses? And actually, acts is a perfect example of where the changes in person indicate changes in authorship. We know from Luke's intro to his gospel that Luke used many different sources when compiling his gospel. One of those sources has fortunately survived--the gospel of Mark. Comparing the gospel of mark with luke, we find that luke was very respectful of mark, copying it mostly verbatim (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Antisync) Luke wrote acts in the same way: he collected various stories about the apostles from various sources, and combined those sources to form acts. Since we know that he was very respectful of his sources, and tended to copy them verbatim, we can know that when a change in style happens in acts, that probably indicates a different source. So the "we" portions came from a different author than the other portions.

[Antisyncretism]

I am aware of the "we" phenomena in Acts and dont see why this cannot be seen simply as indeed refering to himself and others with him...though i have not studied Acts much...

[Antisyncretism]

Example of the Torah claiming Moses as writing content that is found in the Torah.

Deut 31:9:"So Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who carried the ark of the covenant of YHWH, and to all the elders of Israel."

Numbers 33:2:"At YHWH's command Moses recorded the stages in their journey. This is their journey by stages:"

[randyhelzerman]

Right, those look to me like citations. A scribe is saying that he is making a book, and he is incorporating into that book some laws made by moses (in the case of deut) and a travellog made by moses (in the case of numbers). There's nothing about Moses writing genesis or exodus, leviticus. The scribe is talking about moses in the third person. Deut has plenty of places where Moses is talking in the first person.

[Antisyncretism]

...I dont know how you can read those verses and believe that Mosaic authorship is not being claimed

"Moses recorded" "So Moses wrote this".

Leviticus has colophons that indicate Moses as the author.

Exodus 34:27 tells Moses to write some of the content of that which is found in Exodus as well:"Then YHWH said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

As to Genesis this book has always been held as part of the Torah

[Antisyncretism]

And as part of one work can be thought as with the same author indeed even those who dont believe in mosaic authorship see Genesis as closely related to the other four.

To make an argument based on person is totally irrelevant, you simply have not understood the characteristics of such texts.

If you believe the documentary hypothesis i assure you it is slowly losing ground as the repeated archelogical finds of literacy at such times contradictions the theories foundations

[randyhelzerman]

Hi, the point I'm making has nothing to do with the docmentary hypothesis. I do think that mosaic authorship is indeed being claimed for parts of the books. Deut, for example, purports to quote a (very long) speech of moses. But its obvious that somebody else added the description of moses's death at the end of the book. And I think places like these indicate that somebody is explicitly saying "moses wrote this, i.e. I didn't write this, i.e. I wrote some of the other stuff that's in here"

[randyhelzerman]

I mean, come on, if you found a letter which, at the beginning of it said "Fred told his secretary Gloria to write these words: dear joe, your shipment of widges will come in on thursday, as promised, signed, Fred. But before joe's secretary could mail the letter, she died." You would obviously think that even if Gloria wrote the letter, that somebody else wrote the first part and the last part. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Antisync) But that's exaclty what Deut sounds like. It starts off "Here's a speech moses gave before they entered the promised land" then it gives the speech then it says that moses died before he could get to the promised land. Obviously, moses didn't write the whole thing. As far as Genesis being part of the torah, does the word "torah" ever get defined in the bible? The whole concept of a torah itself was (again, obviously) concieved after each of the 5 books in it was written

[Antisyncretism]

It seems maybe weve been talking over each other as your view on authorship might be the same as mine afterall, i believe that the Torah was written by Moses with minor interpolations into the text at later dates, which i dont see as illegitimate handling of the text as i think the ancients thought minor interpolations too were not 'tampering' with the text but perfectly acceptable handlings of such documents.

[Antisyncretism]

I think we can hold Genesis as related to the other four as ill just trust the scholars of both camps (mosaic authorship and documentary hypothesis) that the texts have some literary and stylistic relationship...

My own note...Exodus and Genesis may not have been separate books, i quote the commentator Alan Cole in his commentary on Exodus (1:1) "The initial 'and' found in the Hebrew makes clear that Exodus is not a new book, but simply a continuation of the Genesis story"

[Antisyncretism]

I write what I write in trust of Ben Witherington III's socio-rhetorical commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude.

Specifically in his discussion on James (which itself shows familiarity with wisdom and sapiential literature) he briefly touches on this...and well I trust him on his knowledge of such things and since "everything" and then the conclusion of the book would otherwise appear a contradiction (and in ANY work you should firstly assume it does not contradict) i would suspect that [cont]

[Antisyncretism]

The book of Ecclesiastes is an argument against meaning without God, hence why the writer goes through everything and 'debunks' each of the goals of man without God and then presents serving God as the goal.

When the teacher says everything is meaningless this does not necessarily mean everything is meaningless, BUT before you say 'everything means everything how can you say it means anything else' i note that sapiential and wisdom literature often when it says everything can mean'nearly all'

[UnitedIntifada]

I was as equally surprised it made it in as well :S

Very very insightful video bro - keep it up

-Roqayah

[Proverbs8]

2 Peter 2:17-19

17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

[Proverbs8]

20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

[Bonkero1]

In addition, I can recommend you watch the response by GodSoulSpirtHope.

Peace

[Bonkero1]

Hi. Isn't the Teacher talking about "under the sun"? That "under the sun", everything is meaningless. He uses the expression "under the sun" 27 times in the book. What's "over the sun" (God) is not meaningless. A conclusion would be that when what is "over the sun" (God) is added to our lives, it is not meaningless.

Sorry, but I have to say: Please don't _remove_ anything from the book of Ecclesiastes.

Btw, I have been called a "fundie" and I read and happen to love Ecclesiastes. =)

[Bonkero1]

If you wonder where it says that, when what is "over the sun" (God) is added to our lives, it is not meaningless, then read the most of the rest of the Bible.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Bonkero1, sure, the teacher says that everything under the sun is meaningless. But, of course, the teacher doesn't think we're going above the sun. He thinks we're going to die, and than when we die, there will be no further reward (Ecc 9:5) and we know anything or be able to do anything (Ecc 9:10). There may be meaning somewhere, but ecc doesn't hold out any hope for human beings, who start out as dust under the sun and return to dust under the sun (Ecc 3:19)

[Bonkero1]

It's all a matter of perspective. If you only have the perspective of a naturalistic world view, that there is nothing else but "under the sun", then everything is meaningless. But if you have the perspective that there is something "over the sun" (God), then everything is not.

When the teacher states like in 3:19, and other places alike, he simply writes from a naturalistic point of view. Then he sometimes switches to a theistic point of view.

[Bonkero1]

I believe he does that on purpose, to show the difference.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Bonkero1, I think the teacher meant exactly what he said. I'd point to Ecc 12:9 "The teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true". If the teacher were switching perspectives, then what he wrote wouldn't be upright and true, it would be true sometimes and false other times. I think 12:9 very clearly indicates that the words which the teacher spoke were meant to be taken at face value.

[Bonkero1]

No, it would not be true sometimes and false other times. He clearly says that "under the sun" everything is meaningless. When he says that, it is also clear that he says it from a "only-under-the-sun" persp, and if he did that, then it is true. From a naturalistic perspective, what he says is true. So when he looks at it from that persp, then it is true for him.

I also believe that when he says that in 12:9, he means that this is real events. This actually happened. He did all that is written.

[Bonkero1]

How can we else understand the fact that he sometimes talks about God and that, in 12:7, the spirit will return to God. There he clearly says that we are going above the sun, where God is. Where things are meaningful, not meaningless.

[randyhelzerman]

Interesting. Most people of faith I know wouldn't think that sentences are true for me or true for you, or true from one perspective but not true for another. I believe sentences are not true from one perspective and false from another, I believe sentences are either true or false. Sure 12:9 says these are real events, but it says more than that---it says the teacher choose his words carefully, and those words are true. I understand that this may be an unsettling truth for you.

[Bonkero1]

Hmm, you might have misunderstood. I didn't mean that somethings are true for some people. But I mean that if you have that persp, then it would _appear_ to be true for you. I would say that is false, of course. I hope you did not try to twist what I said on purpose.

What truth is unsettling? Ecc is unsettling for people that have a naturalistic persp. Of course it is also unsettling to my flesh, but my spirit rejoices when I hear that there is something "above the sun", that is not meaningless

[randyhelzerman]

You are saying its false, but 12:9 is saying its true. I don't understand. I don't know what how much more clearly the book of Ecc could be in telling you that you should take it as being true. (p.s. I never twist people's words. I always argue in good faith, and only with people of goodwill. Life is too short to waste it with posers).

[Bonkero1]

12:9 says that he did all that is written in the book. Also in the swe transl it says the teacher sought to find good words, things that could be correctly written, and things that could be said in truth. It doesn't say he did that in this book, but that he sought to do it. It could've just been his way of seeing life (watch response vid), but I don't know which is correct, though.

Otherwise, I have nothing to add for now. Maybe I answer again tomorrow, gotta sleep now...

Peace

[RowanFortuneWood]

As always you have made a well thought and polite video.

[GodSoulSpirtHope]

hello

[legodesi]

Randy, I think we are taking that passage out of context of the narrative. He's not making generalizations; when he talks about all the works his hands have done, he is specifically talking about trying to satisfy himself on riches. "I searched in my heart how to gratify my flesh with wine, while guiding my heart with wisdom, and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all the days of their lives."

[legodesi]

God-given labor is a different sort of labor, and appears later in the text. The labor the writer is in in Chp. 2 is not the labor that God provides in chp 3. There is a difference between the two, and it is on this difference that the writer makes his dichotomy.

[legodesi]

Well, this was an insightful talk, even though we disagree.

[GodSoulSpirtHope]

thank you,

[legodesi]

further reason for my interpreting that verse that way, as I'm looking at it now, is that God gives joy to the man who is right in his sight. But how could God-given joy be vanity and grapsing for the wind? I think there's a clear dichotomy set up here, as throughout this work.

[randyhelzerman]

Finally legodesl, a perceptive comment. The question is whether the meaninglessness which is mentioned in vs 26 applies just to what happens in vs 25 (the sinner losing all his stuff) or whether it also applies to what happens in vs 24 (somebody else gets the sinner's stuff), right? I agree, you just took vs. 24-26 all by themselves, your interpretation would by far be the most plausible. How could God-given pleasure be meaningless, indeed? (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to legodesl) the reason I don't interpret it that was is also because of context. If you look at the entire context of the book, the teacher makes two things very clear: (1) everything that happens to us is god given, whether it is god given joy or god given pain, and (2) everything is meaningless :-) (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to legodesl) Another reason I think 26 applies to 25 and 24 is that vs 25 and 24 really are talking about the same event. Think about it this way: suppose I give you $100. The event of me giving you $100 is the same as the event of you getting $100. Similarly, the sinner losing his stuff to the wise is the same thing as the wise getting the sinners stuff. So if one is meaningless, they both are, because they are the same thing.

[legodesi]

The events we're talking about are the ones occuring to the righteous person and the sinner. It refers to the righteous in verse 24, but really only makes a juxtaposition in verse 26. verse 25 doesn't mention an event or a person, it is only a reflection. verse 26encapsulates both the reward of the wise and the reward of the sinner. "This is also vanity" follows right on the heels of his saying that God gives to the sinner one reward that he does not give the righteous.

[legodesi]

As I'm reading it closely now, I don't think that any interpretation of the book in general can bear weight on these verses, because one can interpret either way. It seems to be equivocative, and so not a great sample to start with.

[randyhelzerman]

Perhaps you can suggest another example then? I can't find a single thing in Ecc which the teacher unambiguously says gives life meaning. In face, his first words (Ecc 1:2) and his last words (Ecc 12:8) emphatically say that everything is meaningless.

[legodesi]

He says that all is futile, and in a technical sense, he is meaning that everything passes away. Everything is temporal. Gaining satisfaction, to the view of this writer, is impossible because of the state of flux the universe is in. He wouldn't say, in the sense we take it to mean, that life is meaningless in the sense that there is no purpose to it; he says clearly that we have a purpose, and that life is meant to be lived for God and to enjoy the fruit of the labor he appoints for us.

[legodesi]

I think Solomon is using hyperbole when he says all is vanity. That's consistent with Solomon in the Proverbs, because he exaggerations and generalizes much. Not everything is futile, because solomon himself points to a profit the worker of God has. If a worker of God has made a profit, then what he does is not futile. Eccl. 3: 9-15. What makes his work profitable is that he is doing the will of God who has an eternal (un-voidable) plan. That elevates his work.

[legodesi]

Eccl. 3: 9-15 shows to me that Solomon is using hyperbole when he says "all is vanity". His use of hyperbole isn't tasteful to modern readers, but it's common in ancient wisdom literature. It makes better sense of the text as a whole, because Solomon is searching for a satisfaction based on something that is not futile. the fruit of doing God's work gives one a satisfaction that cannot be done away with.

[legodesi]

because he exaggerates*

[legodesi]

if we don't interpret the text this way, then we hace to accept that Solomon contradicts himself knowingly, which isn't more probable than his statement of the vanity of life as hyperbole. I'll go with my interpretation. It's not forceful, of course, but I think it's within reason for me to believe it.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi legodesl, I would be more than happy to accept that "everything is futile which passes away" as the interpretation except for one thing: the teacher never says this. That is an addition to the text. He does say that we should enjoy life as much as we can, but explicitly says that these enjoyments give no meaning (Ec 2:10,11). (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to legodesl) I think we should, especially in a book which EXPLICITLY asks us not to add anything to it, base our interpretations on what is in the book. Is the teacher exagerating when he says that everything is meaningless? Again, I would be more than happy to accept that, if I could find even one thing in the book which the teacher says is not just vanity and chasing the wind. I can't think of a single thing, can you?

[legodesi]

The word "futile" is an english interpretation of what he says. It's what my commentators tell me the that the word "vain" implies. Vanity is the noun form of vain, which bears a close meaning to futile. I haven't seen the word "meaningless" in my versions of the text, nor in my commentaries.

When he speaks of the work in God's labor in chp. 3, he doesn't say that it is futile, meaningless, or in vain. In fact, it's the only time where he refers to a genuine profit of a worker.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi legodesl, I only see god giving fruits for labors in chp 3, which the teacher has already said do not give meaning. As far as "meaning" vs "futility" vs "vanity" or what that words "really" means, well, I can't understand hebrew, so I have to defer judgement to the translators.

[legodesi]

"the teacher has already said do not give meaning"

I'm not sure where this is. If this is in reference to the previously cited verse, that depends on how you've interpreted that, and since it seems to equivocate, I don't see how God-given fruits are vain. My interpretation would make much logical sense of what the writer is saying, that temporal fruits of seeking popularity and wealth are vain. He doesn't say in chapter 3 that God-given fruit is void; he actually instructs us to seek it.

[legodesi]

That it's the only thing that he has told us to seek suggests strongly to me that I cannot assert that Solomon is saying that God-given labor is just as meaningless as the others. If it were, then Solomon would not have said "this is man's all." The unique treatment Solomon gives to divine labor forces me away from that sort of generalization.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi legodesl, Ecc 2:10-11 says that all of the teachers things which he toiled hard to achieve, that they were meaningless and chasing the wind. The teacher takes it as a given that it is God who helps us do this (after all, God helps us do anything).

[legodesi]

"If you look at the entire context of the book,"

Well, that's a generalization that I don't think has been established. If we look at it inductively and verse by verse, I think we can see a clear dichotomy of what is right and what is vain. More accurate to the writer's intent (I think) is not what is meaningless but what is vain, fruitless. doing that which gives no joy or produces no fruit, I think, is what the writer is describing as vanity.

[legodesi]

I think chapter 2 verse 26 is taken out of context. "This is also... grasping for the wind" doesn't make sense if it's referring to a person laboring for God. It only makes sense when it is a reference to the latter part of the verse, to the man who is given work of gathering and collecting, who is not good in the sight of God.

[legodesi]

That's how I see it. at least.

[randyhelzerman]

Hodgkins-Huxley, ha, I wanted to work that whole series up into a book, but never had the time, this has been a whirlwind of a year... glad to know that somebody even remember it a year later...

[earthypig]

omg, the guy in blue hat is a dangerous idiot who really distorts "ecclesiastes" - one of the few parts of the Bible worth reading with some actual philosophical value and truth. i always wondered how christians dealt with the atheistic profundity of ecclesiastes, and now i know :(  omg

Subscribed!! :)

[randyhelzerman]

lol, thanks, yeah, I think denial is the second most important force in history, right behind wishful thinking....

[earthypig]

and religion is loaded with both! :p

[Bucketses]

Apologetics = ???? in my opinion

How can apologetics even begin to defend if it has yet to define and prove a complete and consistent linguistic frame work with which to interpret the Bible? Translation: Finish the Deconstructing Dembski series please Randy :(

[heyalun]

Bucketses - "Translation: Finish the Deconstructing Dembski series please Randy"

The people have spoken!

I thought I was the only one.

[schr4nz]

How do I shot web?

[sorienor]

Apologetics = Making stuff up.

[djbro16]

@sorienor = doosh

[ladyboyloadsdotcom]

I like lamp

[touchingstoves]

Perhaps my conception of Christianity is distorted... but I tend to think of God as an intervening alien force, which shouldn't make any sense. This would be contra to Buddhism, which would suggest there be some balance between my internal state, and the external environment. For me, the Christian view is one of radical imbalance... things happen out there independent of me, and interfere, totally disrupting the coherence of my reality.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi touchingstoves, yeah, Christianity I think as it was practiced until about 300-400 ad I think was explicitly supposed to make no sense (paul says, for example, that Christ is foolishness to the Greeks). But, at least since Augustine, the whole project of Christian philosophy seems to be trying to fuze together Platonism and Judaism. And since around 800ad or so, it seems the whole project has been trying to fuze Greek Philosophy and Hebraism better than Islamic philosophers did...

[touchingstoves]

It's a pretty interesting topic. I find the lines between religion and secular pretty blurred these days.

[urbanelf]

The repetition is delightful.

[CognitiveNiche]

Good video. As an atheist, my favorite books are Ecclesiastes and Genesis (for the mythology and allegory).

[GyrinidaeRex]

Question: If everything is meaningless...is God meaningless?

You've inspired me to skim Ecclesiastes...philosophy is generally neglected by fundamentalists, which would explain why I've never heard anything from Ecclesiastes before, but I think I'll check it out now :)

[randyhelzerman]

Hi GyrinidaeRex, perhaps. Meaning might be a human thing.  And yeah, you'll never hear from the fundies about Ecc :-)

[MarshalltheArtist]

I'm a Christian and Fundies REALLY bother me. You have alluded to one of my reasons for that.

[rabbitpirate]

ha ha, I was laughing by the end of this video. Very well argued and a point that I will keep in mind when Christians ask me what the meaning of my life is.

[randyhelzerman]

;-) thanks rabbitpirate.

[FlowCell]

Strange how this conclusion of Ecclesiastes mirrors the "find your own meaning" message of many atheists.

It's almost a sort of self-destructing nihilism.

[randyhelzerman]

"self-destructing nihilism" I like that.

[Danmill23]

Dam. Randy. Wow. That was so cool on a number of levels. (I found meaning on a number of levels)

That's a keeper.

It gave me new respect for that dusty old book to.

Thanks.

[randyhelzerman]

Wow, thanks Danmill23. I'm still amazed that this book ever got into the bible.

[mrKuba07]

great vid

[mikecampochiaro]

Read a RSV:CE

[randyhelzerman]

Hi 6inches2theleft, actually, I'm glad you wrote that, because I was just about to reply to plindy that I didn't know anybody whose favorite book was Ecclesiastes :) Its not my favorite normally, but it is my favorite to read if I'm feeling particularly down.

[falcon02012]

the point of is to state that all is futile under the sun. One should therefore ignore physical pleasures and put all one's efforts towards that which is above the Sun. This is summed up in the second to last verse: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone."

[randyhelzerman]

Hi falcon02012, you say "One should therefore ignore physical pleasures and put all one's efforts towards that which is above the Sun" I just don't see anywhere in Ecc where it says that. In fact, Ecc 7:16 seems to say exactly the opposite: "Do not be excessively righteous....Why should you ruin yourself?" Take another look again at the title to this video---Ecc requests that we do not add things to the book, and I think we should respect that request.

[falcon02012]

Hi randyhelzerman let me say this right from the start im not Christian and im not a jew. I am not adding or taking out. It was an attempt to make an interpretation of a text. Semitic language is built around symbolism so things do get lost in translation and this is the biggest problem our brothers the christian and jews face. As for what I believe, I believe there should be a balance as a rule the middle ground is the best

[randyhelzerman]

Hi falcon02012, I know you were arguing in good faith. Sure, there's all kinds of trouble in translating ancient semitic texts. Personally, I don't feel very confident into wading into lexicons, etc and trying to translate for myself those texts.  I mean, there are people who spend their whole lives on this; I defer to the experts here like I do when I go to the doctor or the car mechanic. A man's gotta know his limitations :-) If I'm unsure of the "original meaning" of a text, (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to falcon02012) what makes me the most comfortable is to compare and contrast a lot of different English translations. Perhaps people who know more about these semitic languages will feel more comfortable wading in.

[Kierketaard]

fo012: "One should therefore ignore physical pleasures and put all one's efforts towards that which is above the Sun."

If this were the case why would Ecclesiastes be followed by the Song Of Solomon, the most sexually charged book of the Bible?

The implication is that meaninglessness is best defeated by a lot of f*cking.

[BENY0HAMA]

Good video.

[plindy101]

I'm a christian, but I am totally with you on the book of Ecclesiastes. the conspicious last 2 verses were obviously added afterword. The entire book preaches that life is meaningless. I remeber when I first became a christian that I found out Solomon was wise and I decided to read Ecclesiastes, and it took a lot of effort because the message was so depressing. Ecclesiastes definatly does not fit the neat theology that christians infringe on it. It is shocking and one of my least favorite books.

[randyhelzerman]

Thank-you for that plindy101. I think that it is totally possible to have a very robust faith in christianity and still acknowledge the ultimate meaningless of existence.

[ph4rcyd3r]

nice video!

[mwest1234]

I will never truly understand why people need meaning for themselves.

[Boucrate]

As we said in the sixties: It's all but Illusions... And still is! The ping-pong replying at the end was quite entertaining also lol! Cool!

[randyhelzerman]

LOL thanks Boucrate. Your art is meaningful to me though!

[myp410up]

I suggest two solutions to this dilemma:

1.) Maybe the author of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) was wrong

2.) Maybe the idea of God is what is truly meaningless

[randyhelzerman]

Ha, myp410up, sure, the teacher may have been wrong, but I don't know many sola scriptura types who would like to think that there was a book in the bible which was erroneous from beginning to end! :-) Personally, I like #2. God does not owe us meaning.

[ProfMTH]

One of your best, Randy. Excellent!

[randyhelzerman]

yay!!! Thanks Prof!

[pseudonous]

Excellent video Randy. I always enjoy your bible videos.

After watching your video I immediately expected the responce godsoulspirthope gave but you gave a very good counter argument. Is this your personel interpretation or is there a group of judeo-christains that subscribe to this interpretation?

[randyhelzerman]

Thanks pseudonous, I think that most Christians of the Pascal/Kierkegaard tradition would agree with what I've said here. Perhaps one of them can chime in an agree/disagree.

[thinkmorepink]

Fantastic rebuttal and explanation, Randy. You never cease to amaze me :)

[randyhelzerman]

Shan!!! You haven't forgotten us little people!!! :-)

[thinkmorepink]

Oh Randy :) You aren't 'little' :P Hope you are well.