quicksand Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 FG's put down some pretty standard apologetics. Blah. I am not going to even waste my time with this junior. His canard's are nothing but shoddy and thin emotional appeals or tu quque thrown in for good measure or two. I've seen his type before. Not impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 FG's put down some pretty standard apologetics. Blah. I am not going to even waste my time with this junior. His canard's are nothing but shoddy and thin emotional appeals or tu quque thrown in for good measure or two. I've seen his type before. Not impressed. I've seen his type before too. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 FG's put down some pretty standard apologetics. Blah. I am not going to even waste my time with this junior. His canard's are nothing but shoddy and thin emotional appeals or tu quque thrown in for good measure or two. I've seen his type before. Not impressed. I've seen his type before too. So? Just gets old. I wish Xians would at least wage an argument that was a bit novel once in awhile. Venting... ...perhaps he'll turn it around and give me something to chew on. (Prey with me brother. PREY.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Based on thirty years of paddling around the subject, I think your opinion is ill informed at best. Grandpa Harley, would you care to site a specific example? Are you sure that your thirty years of paddling around the subject has gleaned the ultimate Truth of the whole situation... or do we leave this as just YOUR OPINION? Maybe instead of paddling around it, you might try paddling through it? However, if you can site a specific example to which you are making your claim of me being ill informed, I may be inclined to change my opinion... that is, if the discussion can be based on solid premises instead of just your assertions of you being superior to me. The concordances and lexicons go back to the Greek if you're lucky, the Latin Vulgate if you're not, not the oral tradition in Aramaic. Half of the 'core' ideas couldn't be communicated in Aramaic, so you've got one Greek view of one oral tradition followed by a lot of work to plaster over the cracks and interpolations that made things make sense to whoever was writing it later, the ideas becoming more and more remote from what could be said by a first century Jew. The lexicons do go back to their prime root meaning, most times, depending if we know or not. Many times it goes all the way back to the Hebrew. Considering Cunieform was the first written text, about 3,000 BC and initially just for inventory purposes, and Hebrew is part of the infancy stages of the history of writing... many prime root meanings are from Hebrew so it may be more informative than you're inclined to admit.... even to yourself? Also, by cross referencing written material from one translation to another, as in the Rosetta Stone, we have a fairly significant understanding of the meaning of their words. I agree their articulation was not nearly as specific as ours today, and that is where the context in which it is written and comparing it to other text gives us an ability to surmise a more concise word giving a more detailed meaning to the message. An example of this is that peace was sometimes used to refer to complacency. But hey, if your opinion helps you sleep nights, that's fine. Hey my friend, I doubt it is my opinion that helps me sleep at night. I often find my opinions about somethings don't facilitate sleep. However, sometimes messages gleaned from different teachings and philosopies do. So if you are truly concerned about my calibur of slumber, and you have one of those philosophies that help in those regards... please share them by all means, I'm all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 These two statements strike me as misguided and perhaps hypocritical. Where I have pointed to direct acts of God, you have pointed attrocities commited by people who claim to be doing God's bidding and then blame God for their actions. Scripture speaks of these people: For many will come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they will lead many astray. - Matthew 24:5 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. - 1 John 4:1-2 So, you believe that heinous crimes and terrible acts are frequently commited by mankind throughout history. But you also claim that sin is a fake and we don't need a cure? Bluntly, I disagree. Fine be blunt, I don't really mind, as I'm pretty blunt as well. you are welcome to disagree, but you can't seem to provide any evidence beyond the bible for your ideas, and the bible is a pile of....well I just leave that unfinished so as to not offend you. You say, you point to things god actually DID while I was point at human action...but my point is that "God" didn't DO anything...if he saved the Jews from slavery in Egypt then why not the Hitler? The problem is that there is no historical evidence that the Jews were even slaves in Egypt in the first place so your story has no power behind it. However when it comes to things that aren't just mythology...that we actually know happened. Well...God is strangely absent from those events. Interesting is it not? The "They weren't real Christians" argument has been used for the last 2,000 years, but has no bearing on what I was saying, so its just a dodge of the real question...and one that is logically fallacious at that. No, I'm not saying we don't need a cure...I'm saying yours isn't working...and you have misdiagnosed the illness to begin with. I'm not saying people don't do bad things...but that isn't the same as sin. The idea of Sin is that because someone 6,000 years ago ate some fruit we are all cursed by god and need some sort of redemption to "get right with him" In short sin has to do with offending "god" not hurting humans.... There is no god...therefore there is no sin QED The "cure" for human atrocities, if one is to ever be found, will not be found in gods, superstitions and magic, history has shown those things only make it worse. Try again Agent Smith...you haven't convinced me to rejoin the matrix yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 FG's put down some pretty standard apologetics. Blah. I am not going to even waste my time with this junior. His canard's are nothing but shoddy and thin emotional appeals or tu quque thrown in for good measure or two. I've seen his type before. Not impressed. I've seen his type before too. So? Just gets old. I wish Xians would at least wage an argument that was a bit novel once in awhile. Venting... ...perhaps he'll turn it around and give me something to chew on. (Prey with me brother. PREY.) It's comfortingly familiar... like prices rising or politicians lying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Based on thirty years of paddling around the subject, I think your opinion is ill informed at best. Grandpa Harley, would you care to site a specific example? Are you sure that your thirty years of paddling around the subject has gleaned the ultimate Truth of the whole situation... or do we leave this as just YOUR OPINION? Maybe instead of paddling around it, you might try paddling through it? However, if you can site a specific example to which you are making your claim of me being ill informed, I may be inclined to change my opinion... that is, if the discussion can be based on solid premises instead of just your assertions of you being superior to me. The concordances and lexicons go back to the Greek if you're lucky, the Latin Vulgate if you're not, not the oral tradition in Aramaic. Half of the 'core' ideas couldn't be communicated in Aramaic, so you've got one Greek view of one oral tradition followed by a lot of work to plaster over the cracks and interpolations that made things make sense to whoever was writing it later, the ideas becoming more and more remote from what could be said by a first century Jew. The lexicons do go back to their prime root meaning, most times, depending if we know or not. Many times it goes all the way back to the Hebrew. Considering Cunieform was the first written text, about 3,000 BC and initially just for inventory purposes, and Hebrew is part of the infancy stages of the history of writing... many prime root meanings are from Hebrew so it may be more informative than you're inclined to admit.... even to yourself? Also, by cross referencing written material from one translation to another, as in the Rosetta Stone, we have a fairly significant understanding of the meaning of their words. I agree their articulation was not nearly as specific as ours today, and that is where the context in which it is written and comparing it to other text gives us an ability to surmise a more concise word giving a more detailed meaning to the message. An example of this is that peace was sometimes used to refer to complacency. But hey, if your opinion helps you sleep nights, that's fine. Hey my friend, I doubt it is my opinion that helps me sleep at night. I often find my opinions about somethings don't facilitate sleep. However, sometimes messages gleaned from different teachings and philosopies do. So if you are truly concerned about my calibur of slumber, and you have one of those philosophies that help in those regards... please share them by all means, I'm all ears. You really don't want to know what I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 These two statements strike me as misguided and perhaps hypocritical. Where I have pointed to direct acts of God, you have pointed attrocities commited by people who claim to be doing God's bidding and then blame God for their actions. Scripture speaks of these people: Scripture also speaks of your god committing atrocities, or otherwise encouraging others to committ them. Recall the stories about the global flood? How many babies, born or unborn, died in that deluge, for example? There is no way they could've had any sort of "sin" or wickedness on their heads, yet your god killed them. An act of murder, without excuse. Or Sodom and Gomorrah? They were incinerated for being "wicked" - but what is "wicked"? Acts that are evil because they cause harm to innocent people, or acts that simple offend the one who makes up the definition of the word "sin"? Clearly, it is the latter, since no explanation is given in the Babble about why Sodom and Gomorrah's "sins" were so wicked in and of themselves, save that your god didn't like them. Again, more acts of unwarranted murder, also inexcusable. Or the killing of the Egyptian firstborn sons? What wrong could've people, wholly unaffiliated with the capture or detainment of the Israelites by the Pharoah, done to warrant death? Mothers and fathers, wive and children, all waking up to find the men in their lives dead, all so Pharaoah can change his mind (despite the fact your god is said to have made him so stubborn in the first place, magnifying the guilt of your god in this crime) - nothing more than murder on top of murder, all done at the whim of your god. There they are - three iron-clad examples of why your god is evil, and why we should not be surprised that his most fervent followers should also committ atrocities in his name. After all, he set all the precedents. The Babble itself is loaded with references to murder, theft, and oppression, all done by your god or commanded by him. Behold: Examples of Murder being Condoned in the Babble Examples of Rape being Condoned in the Babble Examples of Human Sacrifice being Condoned in the Babble Examples of Slavery being Condoned in the Babble Assorted Examples of Babblical Cruelty Assorted Examples of Babblical Injustice Again, it's a good thing your god doesn't exist, because if he did, humanity would be fucked for sure. There can be no way to please such a monster and rest assured that you've indeed gotten on his good side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 The concept is more in line with the role of Messiah, rather than what Christians said about him. In many resepcts, Jesus would be clearing the way for the 'real' messiah, if the 'sacrificial lamb' idea was being played out (although there is minimal evidence that the Messiah would be defeated that way... hence the Resurrection deal.) Well, I'm not entirely convinced this is true. The problem lies in nailing down what a "christian" was and despite considerable effort this definition still evades me. I'm beginning to see that there was no standard definition (I've felt this for a while and said nearly as much) but in discussions it is awkward to say the least. Christians didn't come to exist for some time and so it's hard to describe what we're dealing with at this point. Anyhow, the concept I'm describing really comes more from the Qumran/Essenes group as I recall (I think the argument now being whether they were really Essenes or not...no matter). It had to do with following the Torah fairly strictly and, adding the bit about the Golden Rule to it, to create an "army" of little "messiahs" that could then "take over the world" (so to speak). Then, this army, would usher in a new kingdom that would all follow their ways (basically the Jewish Laws). Now, what I'm describing isn't a pure description of their beliefs but the gospels are a hodge-podge of beliefs of the time and I think for good reason. As people joined (were absorbed) they grafted on their local "christian" traditions. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 The concept is more in line with the role of Messiah, rather than what Christians said about him. In many resepcts, Jesus would be clearing the way for the 'real' messiah, if the 'sacrificial lamb' idea was being played out (although there is minimal evidence that the Messiah would be defeated that way... hence the Resurrection deal.) Well, I'm not entirely convinced this is true. The problem lies in nailing down what a "christian" was and despite considerable effort this definition still evades me. I'm beginning to see that there was no standard definition (I've felt this for a while and said nearly as much) but in discussions it is awkward to say the least. Christians didn't come to exist for some time and so it's hard to describe what we're dealing with at this point. Anyhow, the concept I'm describing really comes more from the Qumran/Essenes group as I recall (I think the argument now being whether they were really Essenes or not...no matter). It had to do with following the Torah fairly strictly and, adding the bit about the Golden Rule to it, to create an "army" of little "messiahs" that could then "take over the world" (so to speak). Then, this army, would usher in a new kingdom that would all follow their ways (basically the Jewish Laws). Now, what I'm describing isn't a pure description of their beliefs but the gospels are a hodge-podge of beliefs of the time and I think for good reason. As people joined (were absorbed) they grafted on their local "christian" traditions. mwc Sounds reasonable. And matches my reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts