Puzzle Description Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

#1: Web Paint-By-Number Robot (webpbn) on Aug 28, 2009

Found to have a unique solution by Gator.

Found to be logically solvable by Gator.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view hints

Tricky at the end. Nice work!

Very fun to solve, and nice image too.

Nice!

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view hints and spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view hints

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

LOL, Jan! Sounds like something from my website, which is about science and religion—not a puzzle site!

If the Bible made sense ...
Not to offend anyone but ...

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Interesting site, Robyn.

I don't really understand Gator's comment, because I don't remember what the original title was.

I don't think my comments are particularly troubling to anyone from a religious point of view.

The small minority of Christians who believe that the old testament is literally true have much larger questions to resolve than where the dove got the olive branch. Generally they actually delight in discovering new miracles, so my pointing out that God's intervention may be required to get that dove back to Noah with an olive branch is really just more good news to them.

The whole thing is actually probably an interesting commentary on the relationship between between God and man. If I remember the story correctly, before the flood God actually talks to Noah. After the flood God shows Noah the way to dry land by a less direct method, the miracle of the dove. Does this represent a change in God's policy toward man in the post-diluvian world? Dunno, but you can probably find some religious insight in there somewhere, if that's your cup of tea.

I also found your site very interesting Robyn and don't remember the original title.
I hope people understand that my comment # 11 was a joke, may be in bad taste but a joke.

Well, I'll just make one comment: I hope it can never be said that I do not have a sense of humor about these things! =)

That's correct!

This has got me wondering. In Genesis, if I recall correctly, God just talks to people (Adam, Noah, etc). In Job God speaks from a whirlwind. Then when he talks to Moses, he talks through a burning bush. Then in the new testament, he mostly sends angels to carry messages instead of talking directly at all. Is there an actual progression toward a more indirect relationship between God and man here, or is the apparent pattern just an artifact of my limited biblical scholarship.

Nice puzzle.Interesting comments.

I'm amazed by how difficult you manage to make a small puzzle like this one, Gator!! Wonderful!!!

#14 - I just did not intend for this to turn into a discussion about religion. I really don't care one way or another what is or is not in the bible as I don't particularly believe in this concept of a god. So when this started turning into a discussion about something in the bible, it caught me by surprise as I'm used to the discussions of my puzzles focusing more on the logic of the puzzle than the content of the puzzle.

Thanks all for the comments.

Oh, Jan, that's quite an interesting question, and I think it would be fun to give my ideas of an answer. But. It would be really, really long and off-topic. Hmm. I don't want to go there in this forum...

Gator, I'm kind of surprised it went this way too! =) Maybe Jan should make a separate forum just for random off-topic conversations that start in the puzzle comments. This isn't the first one in just the few months I've been visiting this site.

There is a limit how much you can say about a puzzle.

I like this kind of discussion because you learn a heck of a lot more about other puzzlers than you do from pure puzzle discussions. People who seemed just part of an indistinguishable jumble of login names suddenly become three dimensional people, often very interesting and surprising people, who, believe it or not, have much more in their lives and heads than PBN puzzles.

I think having the discussions form freely off the puzzles is great too. First, it's the natural way that discussions form in real life. You start talking about something, and there is no telling where the conversation will be ten minutes later. That's fun IRL and it's fun here too.

Second, it makes a nice reward for solving a puzzle. Seeing the finished pictures is nice. A computer saying "Yahoo" at you is OK. I've seen some sites where the puzzle image does a little happy dance when it is done. But finding a neat discussion is a really good payoff for solving a puzzle. In fact, I sometimes sort puzzles by number of comments and solve the ones with lots of comments first.

I think having a special place for "off topic" discussions on a site like this is really kind of strange and unnatural. If anyone is really looking for a religious discussion, there are lots of places on the web where you can have one. Robyn's site might be one (I didn't look long at the forums, but they didn't seem to have entirely taken off yet). But if you go to such places you end up with a lot of people who like having religious discussions. Experts and pseudo-experts. A high percentage of fanatics of various flavors. That can be interesting, but not in the same way that having the same discussion with a random bunch of people with other interests is. On topics like religion, you often get a lot more sanity and good sense by talking to such folks than you'll ever find on a religious discussion board.

So I often post tangential comments on puzzles. Sometimes they lead somewhere, and sometimes they don't. Or sometimes they just spawn some meta-discussion. You never know. That's part of the fun.

I totally agree with Jan and sometimes look for puzzles with a lot of comments searching for some extra depth in the "webpbn" world. I found Jan's question in #18 very interesting and even after being born and raised catholic I have no explanation to offer, of course if I had been more mature when I was growing up, perhaps I would have asked this and many more questions.

I just generally try to avoid religious discussions on WPBN because of what happened on puzzle #3408. Anyway, I'll put the title/description back to the way it was before. Sorry for the overreaction.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

OK, you convinced me to participate this time...

I grew up Catholic myself. I remember distinctly when I had a "revelation" about the doubts of my faith at the time.

When growing up, we were taught that you had to believe in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and be forgiven of all of your sins in order to gain entrance into heaven. Growing up, I felt that you had a choice on whether you followed this or not.

I remember being in Anthropology class at my university, and we were studying the Yanomamo, which are a large population of native people in South America. I then came to the realization that if what I was taught was true, then God could not be fair or just. I realized that all people in the world would not have had the opportunity to believe in God. So I specifically started dismissing the religious teaching of the Catholic faith. God could not BOTH love all of us, AND require that we believe in him in order to gain entrance to heaven. It doesn't make sense (to me).

After I started analyzing other religions, I remember thinking that it could not be logical for all religions to have it correct on who God was. How could I know if any of them had anything correct about God?

This pushed me further in the direction of relying on what can be proven to be true instead of what I was taught to be "true".

Anyway, these are my own personal view points, and please do not take this as me attacking anyones beliefs.

Thanks so much Robyn for taking the time, for being brave to answer and for your insight. Chapeau!

Jota, you're welcome... Once you get me started...

Gator, sounds like you ran up against the doctrine that "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." This is considered a "required" belief, and historically, it was interpreted in the most obvious sense: you had to be a baptized Christian or you would go to hell when you died.

Over the years, theologians have noticed that this does not fit well with the idea of a merciful God. (Duh.) They started loosening up on how they interpreted the doctrine. First were the ideas of "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire." In the first, a person who dies for the faith, or even unknowingly as a result of persecution of believers (as in the babies killed by Herod at the beginning of Luke's Gospel), you get a de facto baptism and can go to heaven. In the second, if you *want* to be baptized but die before you get the chance, you get a free pass, too.

That's still unsatisfactory. It certainly leaves out the Yanomamo. How can you die for the Christian faith, or desire to be baptized into it, if you have never even heard of any Western religions?

A popular current interpretation, and the one I favor (because it is the only thing I can see that is compatible with a God who is in love with every person), is that while all salvation is through the Catholic Church, formal membership is not necessarily required. A corollary is that while we humans are bound (required) to be baptized, God is not bound by the same rule. It's a one-way rule. He can choose in his mercy to save someone who has not fulfilled the "official" requirements.

There are two very good reasons why this does *not* mean that it does not matter if we practice religion, and/or that the Church is irrelevant. First, there is no certainty. Catholics believe that we have God's promise that baptism will always do what he says it will do—without baptism, you are basically presuming on God. And if you *know* about baptism's effects and still refuse it, that's essentially a rejection of God.

Second, the Church and sacraments make it much easier to grow close to God, to gain fortitude and wisdom and right judgment, to resist the things that tempt us away from him. If you don't or can't partake in them, you will have a harder time of it. And meanwhile you will miss out on a great relationship.

Another reason I believe this? Hell is not thought of as a nasty place that God created for people he doesn't like or who refuse to flatter him, or who break one of the complicated, difficult rules he made. It's actually just the state of rejecting God. If you die rejecting God, after being given chances to return ala the Prodigal Son, that state you *chose* is frozen. In other words, Hell is better described as a choice rather than a punishment. (Why would someone choose Hell? Same reason people make all kinds of bad choices.)

If you have never heard of Christianity, how can you choose Hell? How can you reject a God you have never been formally introduced to? I think God judges people in these circumstances based on how they responded to what they *did* know about God. The Church (now) recognizes that while she has the "fullness of truth," other natural religions and philosophies contain partial truths.

Also, I don't take anything here as an attack on anyone's beliefs. I think it's a bunch of curious people sharing ideas and that's all.

Robyn, by the way, why are you ignoring my 3 Q interview?

Total lovely.

I like Robyn's first explanation about the advantages of a non-obvious God. It makes sense.

I'm always fascinated by elaborate theological systems, just because I love logic puzzles of all kinds. I once had a long on-line discussion with an Objectavist, a real live disciple of Ayn Rand. One of the central tenants of that philosophy is that the only moral action is action taken out of pure self-interest. This is superficially a pretty reprehensible idea. But this was a nice guy. He acted no more selfish than anyone else. But he claimed that he was doing nice things for other people because that was the best thing for him. He had complicated reasons for how this worked.

But I never really got it. Ayn Rand came up with a dramatic and radical moral statement, and then this follower had invented all sorts of complicated machinery around it so that it ended up as a command to act just like everyone else acts. Selfishness turns out, in practice, to be indistinguishable from altruism. That's way too complicated for me, and I don't see the added value in it.

To say that "salvation is only through the Church" and then wrap it up with all sorts of reasons why that doesn't mean what it appears to mean on the surface is confusing to me in the same way. I respect the impulse immensely. You are following the impulses of your heart and your trust in God to reject the superficial meaning of that statement. You know God wouldn't act that way. So while I totally agree with your sentiment, I don't really understand why you don't just reject the original statement.

I don't know the origin of the particular rule. Maybe some pope or another once declared that it is official doctrine that salvation is only through the Church. I think if you brought your explanation to this guy, he would reject your interpretation out of hand. I suspect that he, like Ayn Rand, meant what he said. So you aren't really sticking with the doctrine. You are keeping the words of the doctrine, but throwing out just about everything they meant to the people who originally stated them. What is the value of keeping the words of a doctrine, but rejecting the original meaning?

At my Catholic School, the nuns had "Yanomami Indians" to help with the gardens, etc. I wish I would have asked this questions then. Darn!

Jota, I forgot and then couldn't find the thread! I'll look again.

Jan, I knew I left too much out after I made that explanation. (Yeah, there's more.) And I may be bumping against the limits of my own competence at explaining complex ideas I internalized long ago. So here's more information from someone more competent: http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

Let me try to put it another way.... The doctrine is probably better stated, "All salvation is through the Catholic Church." That's what was once interpreted in the narrowest sense. It was taken as an *instruction.* But it can't be right because it's not internally consistent. We now see in a different sense, as a *description." God saves; he surely saves both Christians and non-Christians; but when he saves non-Christians, it is still through Jesus Christ and his Church, even if the person is not aware of it.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you wanted to go to the moon. You may believe that you can get there by magic dragon, or maybe just by wishing. And then one day you really do get to the moon, but—though you did not know it even existed—you actually got there by spaceship.

If you know about spaceships but refuse to get on, you can never get to the moon. And it's a lot easier to find that spaceship if you are involved with the "spaceship community." So Church membership, if available, is still important; the belief that it does not really matter is considered a heresy called indifferentism.

That's such a horribly stretched metaphor, I feel a little guilty for inflicting it on you. =) If the Church were not important to salvation, God would not have established it (Catholics believe Jesus personally established the Church). There is a lot of sacramental thinking behind it, too. Sacramental thinking is the idea of outward signs being representative of, and connected to, inward grace; sort of a union of natural with supernatural. I am really having a hard time with words right now... but what I mean (I think) is that salvation goes *through* Jesus, by going *through* his Church, in all cases. Even if there is not formal membership or awareness of it all.

The idea is a core doctrine of the faith and goes back to the earliest beliefs of the Church. I could not reject it and still claim to have a fully Catholic faith. The Church's core doctrines form an intricate, many-dimensional, internally consistent tapestry, each teaching supporting the others, with a seemingly unending series of layers—so that, no matter how much you learn in an area, there is always more to explore. This is how I sort of "intuit" the whole gestalt thing.

I love logic puzzles too... which might be why my approach to spirituality is so intellectual. I've heard the altruism-is-selfishness idea before, but because of my background, it's most often in the context of evolution. No trait can evolve via natural selection if it does not somehow benefit an individual's success at passing on its genes. But that's another huge thread. Somebody, quick, make a puzzle that gets us talking about evolution. ;-)

Jan did the Darwin fish a while back.

Very interesting, Robyn. I've always been fascinated by these complex intellectual structures that have built up around various religious doctrines. They are clearly works of deep intelligence and are rich with wisdom. Orthodox Judaism has one that seems to be the equal of the Catholic one in depth and complexity. I don't doubt that study of such systems can be a path to wisdom. I tend to regard them as beautiful buildings that were started in antiquity and have been added onto by generation after generation of brilliant architects, each with subtly different goals. A great place to visit, one of the wonders of the intellectual world, but nobody could possibly live there unless they have the conviction that there really is a grand plan.

But it's not really my cup of tea. I'm impressed by complexity, but I love simplicity. That's probably why I'm an engineer. Computer programmers spend their lives in a losing battle against complexity. So my own approach to faith is essentially about throwing overboard everything I don't need. A few years ago I wrote a couple essays on the subject at http://greatgreenroom.org/cgi-bin/bt/backtalk/wasabi/begin?item=16 and http://greatgreenroom.org/cgi-bin/bt/backtalk/wasabi/begin?item=18 . Just reread them (and fixed the typos that I always survive no matter how many times I proof read anything), and I still seem to agree with myself. Amazing.

Wow. I apparently got to this puzzle too late! I love the discussion going on as well.

I actually grew up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons or LDS) and we believe that everyone will get a chance to choose whether they want to follow Christ or not regardless of whether they learn about him in this life, or the next. Judgement will not take place until everyone has had a chance to choose. We also don't believe in the same concept of Heaven and hell as others. We believe heaven is basically broken up into 3 separate kingdoms, the highest of which is where God dwells. Like Robyn said, we don't believe it's a punishment God inflicts on others. It's when we are brought into his presence, we have such a knowlege of our own guilt that it would be torture to stay in his presence knowing how badly we screwed up unless we repent of our sins and believe in Christ and do all we can to be better people. The traditional idea of hell still has a place, however it's reserved for those who knew beyond doubt (therefore no longer faith, but knowledge) that God was God, and rejected him anyway. Like Cain. Very few people will even have the ability to reject God that way.

This is the main reason we send missionaries everywhere and do baptisms in the name of those who have passed on. If they have had a chance to hear about Christ in the next life and accept him, they will accept this proxy baptism. If they have rejected him than the baptism won't do any good. This may have been way too ... random to really belong here, especially almost a month after everyone else's comments, but I enjoy hearing about other beliefs and traditions and thoughts so I figured I would put mine out there.

It's never too late ... I think I like your god Shae, sounds like he's not vindictive.

Shae, you said you "grew up" in the Mormon or LDS church, instead of saying you "are" a member of it now. If that's the case, why did you leave?

Ditto #39, by the way.

Welcome, Shae! This is a pretty good group here.

I have questions about LDS teachings that I have not heard good answers for yet. But they go pretty deep. I know about the terrestrial, telestial, and celestial kingdoms, the interesting events from the book of Mormon, the nature of God, etc. in LDS theology. I just tend to be quite philosophical by nature, I guess.

I also admire and identify with LDS members, though. Both of our faiths are widely misunderstood, both have been persecuted, both hold fast to teachings that are unpopular. And both are often confused by outsiders with breakaway and excommunicated groups—LDSers with fundamentalist, plural-marriage Mormons, Catholics with various heretics through history all the way to the present day.

Adam, I grew up Mormon, and I still am, I am just struggling with my own questions and direction in life I guess. I still go to church most Sundays and my family is very active in the church, I'm just trying to decide where I fit in. My main problems are usually with people rather than doctrine. In the mormon church our leaders are not put through school to preach. They are normal every day people who are called on to be a leader for a few years and are given very little training. Since they are human, they are bound to make mistakes. Since they are in a position of leadership it's sometimes hard to decide what was them being a leader, and what is their own opinion.

I personally think God is not vindictive or angry. When he sends prophets to warn people to repent, he always says you will be destroyed UNLESS you repent. He's trying to give them a way out. He's not saying they've screwed up and now they're going to pay for it, he wants them to get better. But he also can't suffer them to lead away those who ARE doing what they're supposed to. I'm really sleepy so if this isn't making sense it's my own shortcomings.

What are you questions Robyn? I'm not an expert for sure but I have heard a lot of random questions about my religion.

Can you give me your email address, Shae?

Oh dear... well, here's one: Why is there no archaeological evidence of the ancient Americans described in the Book of Mormon? And another: Where did Joseph Smith's golden plates come from, why did disappear mysteriously (while many ancient copies of Bible texts still exist), and what language were they written in?

I told you they were kinda deep. Don't feel like you have to answer. I couldn't answer equivalent type questions about my faith when I was still living with my parents. (In fact, I tried and made a bit of a fool of myself. But that's me.)

Interesting questions, for sure.

Adam, my email address is shaekin@gmail.com

As for Robyn's questions, the archaeological evidence is difficult. The people that the Book of Mormon focuses on broke off into two different groups shortly after arriving on this continent. The smaller group followed the teachings of their prophets, while a larger group felt they had been wronged (they were the offspring of the older brothers and felt they should have been the leaders) and became a warlike people. The group that followed the prophets were killed off I think around 300 AD. The group that survived wiped them out entirely and were thought to have wanted to destroy any of their records if they found them. People can change a lot in 1700 years so as to how they evolved after that, I don't pretend to know. I know they have found some artifacts that match with things written in the Book of Mormon, such as a tablet that appears to depict the "Tree of Life" vision that the Prophet Lehi had, and others I can go into if you want, but I think the main problem will come in as the civilization changed mightily with the change in beliefs.

The question about the plates I know a little bit more about. The language was what the people call "Reformed Egyptian". There are probably some pictures online of some characters copied from the book during translation. Where the book came from could be a long story. If you're looking for where the book came from in modern days and not where it came from originally, I'll give that answer. Joseph Smith was living in Palmyra New York (Near Rochester) on his parents farm when he had his first visions. In them he was visited many times by an angel named Moroni (the last person to write in the book). He led Joseph to where he had hidden the plates in the Hill cumorah and instructed him to keep them safe while he translated the book. After the book was translated, the plates were then taken back by the angel Moroni which is why they "disappeared". Part the book was sealed, meaning Joseph wasn't allowed to open and interpret part of it and we believe that in time this part will be translated as well. There are some other interesting things about the Book of Mormon, such as it is mostly an abridgement of other records. I hope that at least kind of answered those questions. If not, let me know and I'll try to do better. :)

Thank you.

I feel like I'm the only one, but sometimes a puzzle is TOO hard.

this was a hard puzzle, but I get a star sticker on my forehead because I finished it! YEAH!
I enjoyed all points of view in the discussion, lots of interesting questions.

A really interesting conversation... much to think about!
And great puzzle, Gator, thanks :)

Thanks!

Small insight for all of you
Hebrew text does not say brunch.it says olive leaf.
The word brunch is a faulty translation.

how did I miss this gem ... :)

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view hints

Gator SAID it's from Wikipedia, so it HAS to be true.
Why the long discussion?

Very, very nice image. Fun solve. No guessing.

For those interested in the questions posed here, particularly Jan's observations about how God's "voice" is heard in different parts of the bible, I highly recommend reading "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It is truly fascinating and was, for me, life changing in a profoundly positive way.

I just re-solved it. A nice bit of logic, that.

To add to the conversation, I have attended many churches (Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Lutheran) and sung in their choirs. I became a member of a Lutheran church (ELCA) while I lived in Michigan, and got myself and my son baptized "just in case."

I never really bought into the whole religion game, and now consider myself a godless heathen. ^_^

Show: Hints | Spoilers | Both

Goto next topic

You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.