Find out here (http://www.biblemap.org) :)

Very interesting!!!

Kewl dude, It's kind of like you have an online bible now, eh?

Thanks, Dude. The site just went into my favorites folder.

:)

Ever wondered where the stuff mentioned in the bible is??

I'm still wondering where all the unicorns, dragons and satyrs (that the Bible claims are real) are.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dude, great site, I love it.

I'm still wondering where all the unicorns, dragons and satyrs (that the Bible claims are real) are.

Freethinker, that's a pretty good question, but before we can answer I have to ask you; what did a forth century B.C. Hebrew define as a unicorn, dragon, or satyr? When they said "unicorn" did they think of a one horned magical deer leaping about the enchanted forests of Nottingham or did they think of another creature that was not magic, and may have done very little leaping about? A creature that they called, as the King James translated, "unicorn."
Then there is the dragon. In the New Testament the references to dragons are speaking of Lucifer, or Satan, in the Old Testament they speak of a large creature that apparently lives in or near water. I wonder what the Old Testament authors were envisioning when they wrote down the word that the King James translates dragon. Was the picture in their mind a great, flying, fire breathing, magical, monster, who spoke suspiciously like Sean Connery, or was it some large, non-flying, creature who only sounded like Rodger Moore?
And satyrs. One verse, (Isaiah 13:21) speaks of a satyr, as far as I could find. I wonder if Isaiah, the prophet, when he wrote the word (that the King James translated) satyrs back around 700 B.C. thought of a slightly drunk, half goat, half man, wood deity, with a jug of wine in one hand and a wood nymph in the other? I wonder if he had Dionysus the Greek god and companion of the satyr on his mind also? Or was he thinking of some other animal?
Free, if you could define those creatures from an Old Testament writers perspective it would help us in finding an answer for you.

I'm still wondering where all the unicorns, dragons and satyrs (that the Bible claims are real) are.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
hanging out where the giant squid and gorillas were hiding..oh wait, the giant squid and great apes weren't analogies, just mythological up until early in the last century.:slap:

When they said "unicorn" did they think of a one horned magical deer leaping about the enchanted forests of Nottingham or did they think of another creature that was not magic, and may have done very little leaping about?...............when they wrote down the word that the King James translates dragon. Was the picture in their mind a great, flying, fire breathing, magical, monster, who spoke suspiciously like Sean Connery, or was it some large, non-flying, creature...............Free, if you could define those creatures from an Old Testament writers perspective it would help us in finding an answer for you.

stark, if I was the high-n-mighty omnipotent *Master of the Universe* who was the (supposed) author of a "perfect and innerrant Book", inspring people to write down the words that I put into their minds (and let's not even talk about how psychotic and disturbed a human has to be to hear voices in their head telling them to write) then I would simply have them write down exactly what that creature was, instead of using INCORRECT and confusing terms for them.

hanging out where the giant squid and gorillas were hiding..oh wait, the giant squid and great apes weren't analogies, just mythological up until early in the last century.:slap:

The "dragons" and "unicorns" and so on are the translations of the KJV. They are not the things the original Bible authors intended but come from Middle Ages mythology that the translators mistakenly thought was meant.

Ah, I see someone else made the same point. I fear people try too hard to find problems in the Bible. It is counterproductive to find "problems" that aren't really there, since the Bible believer will know or at least have access to sources that explain the apparent problem. This leads to reconfirmation of the Bible-believer's faith, rather than having them question it.

stark, if I was the high-n-mighty omnipotent *Master of the Universe* who was the (supposed) author of a "perfect and innerrant Book", inspring people to write down the words that I put into their minds (and let's not even talk about how psychotic and disturbed a human has to be to hear voices in their head telling them to write) then I would simply have them write down exactly what that creature was, instead of using INCORRECT and confusing terms for them.

I never heard about unicorns in the bible.. i must have missed that chapter...

a dragon is talked about in revelation, but that's not the literally "dragon", but a symble...

I think the point, not that i expect you to understand, is for it to NOT be so easy to be a christian. If anyone could do it, then how would you know if someone were "worthy" to go to heaven? Christians are supposed to be from this world, not of this world. They are SUPPOSED to "stand out"..

and you want to rip on the people who wrote the bible? Well Ft, what voices are YOU Listening to when you wrote that last post? You must be one f'd up individual!

geez, i sure hope you rip all religions as much as you rip christianity... somehow i doubt you do. I'm guessing you enjoy and more often rip christianity becuase it happens to be an american trait... and we all know that you love to bad-mouth the place that feeds you.

Freethinker, that's a pretty good question, but before we can answer I have to ask you; what did a forth century B.C. Hebrew define as a unicorn, dragon, or satyr? When they said "unicorn" did they think of a one horned magical deer leaping about the enchanted forests of Nottingham or did they think of another creature that was not magic, and may have done very little leaping about? A creature that they called, as the King James translated, "unicorn."
Then there is the dragon. In the New Testament the references to dragons are speaking of Lucifer, or Satan, in the Old Testament they speak of a large creature that apparently lives in or near water. I wonder what the Old Testament authors were envisioning when they wrote down the word that the King James translates dragon. Was the picture in their mind a great, flying, fire breathing, magical, monster, who spoke suspiciously like Sean Connery, or was it some large, non-flying, creature who only sounded like Rodger Moore?
And satyrs. One verse, (Isaiah 13:21) speaks of a satyr, as far as I could find. I wonder if Isaiah, the prophet, when he wrote the word (that the King James translated) satyrs back around 700 B.C. thought of a slightly drunk, half goat, half man, wood deity, with a jug of wine in one hand and a wood nymph in the other? I wonder if he had Dionysus the Greek god and companion of the satyr on his mind also? Or was he thinking of some other animal?
Free, if you could define those creatures from an Old Testament writers perspective it would help us in finding an answer for you.
Ah, I see someone else made the same point. I fear people try too hard to find problems in the Bible. It is counterproductive to find "problems" that aren't really there, since the Bible believer will know or at least have access to sources that explain the apparent problem. This leads to reconfirmation of the Bible-believer's faith, rather than having them question it.

Nice link, The Dude.

Welcome to AllForums, thislin!

FT doesn't read read the bible like everyone else does so I doubt he really understands what he is talking about. By that I mean just that-he reads it with a view totally different from a regular reader's, which is of course, to learn about God's Word. I'm not assuming this. His posts pretty much tell us if he ever DOES read it, it's to find loopholes in it.

stark, if I was the high-n-mighty omnipotent *Master of the Universe* who was the (supposed) author of a "perfect and innerrant Book", inspring people to write down the words that I put into their minds (and let's not even talk about how psychotic and disturbed a human has to be to hear voices in their head telling them to write) then I would simply have them write down exactly what that creature was, instead of using INCORRECT and confusing terms for them.

Incorrect and confusing? I'm not confused, and what is the correct term?

By the way how do you know what you would do if you were the high-n-mighty omnipotent *Master of the Universe* who was the (supposed) author of a "perfect and innerrant Book you operate from the perspective of a finite being, God operates from the perspective of an infinite being. Can the finite grasp the infinite?

(and let's not even talk about how psychotic and disturbed a human has to be to hear voices in their head telling them to write)

It's only psychotic if you hear God speaking to you when in fact He is not speaking.

It's only psychotic if you hear God speaking to you when in fact He is not speaking.

How would you know the difference in someone else?

FT doesn't read read the bible like everyone else does so I doubt he really understands what he is talking about. By that I mean just that-he reads it with a view totally different from a regular reader's, which is of course, to learn about God's Word. I'm not assuming this. His posts pretty much tell us if he ever DOES read it, it's to find loopholes in it.
I don't think that you can "learn" God's word by reading the Bible. It is a collection of ancient writings by "God-inspired" men, but still by men. As with all writings that people have come to think of as "scripture," (such as the Q'uran, the Analects, the Tao Te Chin, the Dhammaputra, the Bhavagad Gita, and many others), it is to be read with respect and reverence, but not slavish credulity.

What is the passage"--All scripture is useful for teaching and remonstrating and learning--the operative word is "useful," not "determinative."

I don't think that you can "learn" God's word by reading the Bible. It is a collection of ancient writings by "God-inspired" men, but still by men. As with all writings that people have come to think of as "scripture," (such as the Q'uran, the Analects, the Tao Te Chin, the Dhammaputra, the Bhavagad Gita, and many others), it is to be read with respect and reverence, but not slavish credulity.

What is the passage"--All scripture is useful for teaching and remonstrating and learning--the operative word is "useful," not "determinative."

wow, if this were a court of law, seems like I would lose my case on technicality. Before proceeding any further then, may I ask in what context should we then use the term "learn"? I have a very distinct feeling we're not on the same page here. Either you put too much meaning into my usage of the term or I entirely misused it.

I never heard about unicorns in the bible.. i must have missed that chapter...

Undoubtedly.

I think the point, not that i expect you to understand, is for it to NOT be so easy to be a christian.

ROTFL.

I'm curious as to the source of that particular claim.


and you want to rip on the people who wrote the bible?

Yes, i do.

They were superstitious ignoramuses.

Well Ft, what voices are YOU Listening to when you wrote that last post?

No "voice" from outside myself....and certainly not some invisible, all-powerful "Father in the Sky" speaking to me psychically.


geez, i sure hope you rip all religions as much as you rip christianity... somehow i doubt you do. I'm guessing you enjoy and more often rip christianity becuase it happens to be an american trait...

Good point.....although I do view all religions as being equally absurd and illogical.

_____________________________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their fantastic claims (i.e., that 2000 years ago there existed some man-god named "Jesus" who was born of a virgin) and strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and -all too often- what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of ostensibly sane men and women base their lives on the preposterous myths contained in a tome written by superstitious nomads living during the Bronze Age.

wow, if this were a court of law, seems like I would lose my case on technicality. Before proceeding any further then, may I ask in what context should we then use the term "learn"? I have a very distinct feeling we're not on the same page here. Either you put too much meaning into my usage of the term or I entirely misused it.
The point I was trying to make was that I think people err when they think the Bible is some sort of inerrant guide to living or history or science or anything else.

First, it is not a single writing, although we tend to think of it as such, but a compilation of writings that over time came to be seen as set aside in some special way.

Second, there are many other such writings in the world.

Third, whenever we read something, we inevitably and (usually) unknowingly bring ourselves and everything we are and have been taught into the reading--a lot of stuff the original authors never dreamed of.

The word used to describe such writings is "scripture." I think having scriptures in one's life can be a good, positive thing--better by far than not having them. Still, it is up to us to use good sense and compassion and wisdom in selecting what is to be our scripture and how we are to approach them. Material that condemns others or that encourages division and hate should not be considered.

Reading what I just posted, I realize I didn't address your question. I will try to do better now.

What is it to "learn?"

If we are reading material we trust, we can learn from it. I think this is obvious enough. Of the cuff, I would say that "learning" comes in two general forms--what we learn can become belief or it can become opinion. Everything we think we "know" is really a belief/opinion of greater or lesser strength in our mind.

Here I would distinguish our beliefs (opinions that we don't see as "opinion" but just take as truth) and our more usual opinions (that we recognize as being "only" opinions).

What gets us into trouble sometimes is that we don't realize something is a belief--it is so much a part of the furniture that we sit on it without paying it any attention.

Then when someone questions such a belief, and we find ourselves sitting on something someone else is questioning, we cannot see it from their viewpoint. We react not with discussion but with either sarcasm or with anger (or both).

The assumption that the Bible is authoritative is such a belief that would do well to be converted into opinion and looked at, not as furniture, but only as an idea that needs skeptical testing (not cynical testing, though).

Muslims do this with the Q'uran, and some Christians do this with the Bible. Bhuddists do not do this with their Sutras. A Sutra can be helpful. It can clarify, deepen appreciation, even point out error, but it cannot determine. No good Buddhists quotes Buddhist scripture to prove dogmatic points.

Well, I went off on a tangent, but I think in the middle there somewhere I did address your question.

FT doesn't read read the bible like everyone else does so I doubt he really understands what he is talking about. By that I mean just that-he reads it with a view totally different from a regular reader's, which is of course, to learn about God's Word. I'm not assuming this. His posts pretty much tell us if he ever DOES read it, it's to find loopholes in it.Alternatively perhaps FT applies critical thinking fairly to all that he reads and finds that the bible just doesn't stand up.

Perhaps it is others who should stop giving the bible a free pass.

Can the finite grasp the infinite?Isn't that just an admission that you monotheists do not know what you are talking about?

I can never understand how the unknowability of this or that god can possibly be leveled as an argument against those who don't believe in it. It's the other way round, surely.

The only way a finite being could know of an infinite being is if it revealed itself--and then the finite being could still never be sure the infinite being was telling the truth (there would be no way to independently verify it).

God is a speculation, much like the multi-universe hypothessis is a specultion. The God idea has a great appeal to us and even some evidence in its favor, but we cannot know for sure even if the angels in the sky were proclaiming it every fortnight, and the reality is God seems rather obscure in the ways he choses to reveal himself, if that is what he is doing.

There is also the bit about an infinite being building rocks so big he cannot move them. When you talk about infinity, you run into all sorts of self-referential contradictions.

Therefore I think it is perfectly valid for someone to say they don't think God exists, even though I am not prepared to go that far. We need to tend our gardens.

How would you know the difference in someone else?

I would observe the rest of their writing. I would ask, do they sound crazy, in the historical, and archaeological aspect of their writings? Are there any claims to unbelievable feats outside of the God controlled miraculous? Or simply: is it magic or is it miraculous?
I understand that many in the world do not believe in God, or the supernatural. They say flat out "there is no God. I've heard a man healed on the radio...not his explanation of healing, but the moment of his healing, I heard him break down in tears as he realized that he had been healed, but to the faithful Atheist it must be a trick, because there is not God.
There are reports out of the Middle East of Muslims having visions of Jesus Christ, and angelic visitations, they have converted to Christianity because of them, but to the Atheist the visions and visitations have to be mental problems because there is no God.
The predictions in the Bible that came true, have to be after the fact because there is no God.
Jesus, the accounts of his miracles, and his resurrection have to be made up because there is no God.
And one of my favorites is that Christianity was made up to control the people, because there is no God. This fails to take into account that for the first three hundred plus years of Christianity the government and religious leaders who would have sought to control the people were torturing and killing those who claimed Jesus as their Lord. But that whole Christian persecution thing is probably made up to convince the people that Christianity is true, to control the people, because their is no God, so Christianity has to be wrong.

the finite cannot grasp the infinite

Isn't that just an admission that you monotheists do not know what you are talking about?

I can never understand how the unknowability of this or that god can possibly be leveled as an argument against those who don't believe in it. It's the other way round, surely.

Would it have been better understood if I had written; "the finite cannot completely grasp the infinite"?

God can inform us what He wants us to know, and everything else is beyond us. An earthquake kills...why did God allow it to happen? I don't know. I don't know the future and I cannot understand every possible out come of every possible event.

Would it have been better understood if I had written; "the finite cannot completely grasp the infinite"?

No.

You have zero proof of "the infinite", as it relates to some purported omnipotent, omniscient Sky Father.

No person who has ever lived has provided the slightest scintilla of proof of "the infinite", as it relates to some purported omnipotent, omniscient Sky Father.

_________________________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their fantastic claims (i.e., that 2000 years ago there existed some man-god named "Jesus" who was born of a virgin) and strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and -all too often- what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of ostensibly sane men and women base their lives on the preposterous myths contained in a tome written by superstitious nomads living during the Bronze Age.

No.

You have zero proof of "the infinite", as it relates to some purported omnipotent, omniscient Sky Father.

No person who has ever lived has provided the slightest scintilla of proof of "the infinite", as it relates to some purported omnipotent, omniscient Sky Father.

Free I know you believe that, and let me add you have gasped on to your faith with incredible loyalty, even to the point of coming in here to protect its teachings from the heretics who question it. I've always thought that every belief system has its fundamentalist believers, I just wonder why Christianity takes the heat for it.

Would it have been better understood if I had written; "the finite cannot completely grasp the infinite"?

I have to diagree with that. The finite cannot grasp the infinite at all. Presented with an infinite being, we cannot know in any way that it really is infinite. All we see is something much more than we are.

God can inform us what He wants us to know, and everything else is beyond us. An earthquake kills...why did God allow it to happen? I don't know. I don't know the future and I cannot understand every possible out come of every possible event.

It would be helpful if God's revelations were more believable: as it is you have to accept the hearsay accounts of generally unknown authors who are obviously not objective observers. .

Free I know you believe that, and let me add you have gasped on to your faith with incredible loyalty........

Wrong.

There is nothing in this world on which my viewpoint or position is what it is because of "faith".

"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt". ------ Mike Huben

It would be helpful if God's revelations were more believable:

I'm curious, what is an example of one of God's unbelievable revelations?

as it is you have to accept the hearsay accounts of generally unknown authors

Hearsay is any evidence not based upon the personal knowledge of the witness but known to him only through other persons. So says the dictionary.

Much of the Bible is first hand accounts, as mentioned in I John 1:1-3 Which says:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."


...who are obviously not objective observers. .

The disciples are not trustworthy because they are not objective? Is that your standard for all information?

What do you suspect the goal of the disciples was in claiming Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead?

Wrong.

There is nothing in this world on which my viewpoint or position is what it is because of "faith".

That makes you an incredibly knowledgeable person...if it were true.

"Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt". ------ Mike Huben

I wonder if Mike Huben absolutely knows that his statement is true, or is he going on faith that it's true...I guess, if he was truly virtuous he would doubt it.

I would observe the rest of their writing. I would ask, do they sound crazy, in the historical, and archaeological aspect of their writings?

I'm sorry, you mentioned someone who heard "voices". You mentioned nothing about any writings.


Are there any claims to unbelievable feats outside of the God controlled miraculous? Or simply: is it magic or is it miraculous?

Again, how would you know the difference?

1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."


I understand that many in the world do not believe in God, or the supernatural. They say flat out "there is no God. I've heard a man healed on the radio...not his explanation of healing, but the moment of his healing, I heard him break down in tears as he realized that he had been healed, but to the faithful Atheist it must be a trick, because there is not God.
There are reports out of the Middle East of Muslims having visions of Jesus Christ, and angelic visitations, they have converted to Christianity because of them, but to the Atheist the visions and visitations have to be mental problems because there is no God.
The predictions in the Bible that came true, have to be after the fact because there is no God.
Jesus, the accounts of his miracles, and his resurrection have to be made up because there is no God.
And one of my favorites is that Christianity was made up to control the people, because there is no God. This fails to take into account that for the first three hundred plus years of Christianity the government and religious leaders who would have sought to control the people were torturing and killing those who claimed Jesus as their Lord. But that whole Christian persecution thing is probably made up to convince the people that Christianity is true, to control the people, because their is no God, so Christianity has to be wrong.

Why do you feel it neccessary to pretend you know what's in an unknown atheists mind?

The point I was trying to make was that I think people err when they think the Bible is some sort of inerrant guide to living or history or science or anything else.

First, it is not a single writing, although we tend to think of it as such, but a compilation of writings that over time came to be seen as set aside in some special way.

Second, there are many other such writings in the world.

Third, whenever we read something, we inevitably and (usually) unknowingly bring ourselves and everything we are and have been taught into the reading--a lot of stuff the original authors never dreamed of.

The word used to describe such writings is "scripture." I think having scriptures in one's life can be a good, positive thing--better by far than not having them. Still, it is up to us to use good sense and compassion and wisdom in selecting what is to be our scripture and how we are to approach them. Material that condemns others or that encourages division and hate should not be considered.

I can't remember ever reading a finer post in the three years I've been here. It deserved being quoted again in its entirety. My compliments on your insight, and your eloquence.

There are two types of people in the world, the stupid and the intelligent, when making discussion. Intelligent is defined to the people who are contributing to the discussion, and all of the people that those contributing think highly of. Stupid consists of most everyone else. There might be other intelligent people out there, but they don't really exist for the purposes of discussion. Similarly, stupid people might exist amongst the participants, but in general it's best not to explore those lines of thought, if one cares to keep a topic on track. I would prefer not to converse with stupid people, and would rather treat them as stupid people than actually try to hack a pointless discussion out of them.

These things are much better taken for granted because to question them invites immediate censure. I would know, because I spent some time here on AllForums exploring that very sequence of events. It can break down a discussion incredibly quickly and reduce it to mud-flinging, particularly when religion is involved.

I think having scriptures in one's life can be a good, positive thing--better by far than not having them.
It is my contention that an intelligent person should not need scriptures to lead his life. I do not think that poring over the philosophical writings of ancient dead people does present-day people any good. The ancient dead people are no more likely to be smarter or more enlightened than you were, and, to the contrary, are likelier to be more ignorant than you are concerning modern lines of philosophical thought, better ways of thinking about things, and the relaxed perspective that comes from not having to eat dirt to stay alive.

I contend that a better way is to write your own scripture, and then try to live by it. You will fail, of course, but that's all a part of life, and it's a much better, more fulfilling way to live than looking to someone else for something to care about.

For intelligent people, (keep in mind the definition given above) this should result in a more worldly, robust guide, one far more likely to be useful and other intelligent people are more likely to want to read it and steal your ideas. As for stupid people, someone else's scripture might well be enough. After all, who cares about them?

I'm curious, what is an example of one of God's unbelievable revelations?



Hearsay is any evidence not based upon the personal knowledge of the witness but known to him only through other persons. So says the dictionary.

Much of the Bible is first hand accounts, as mentioned in I John 1:1-3 Which says:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."




The disciples are not trustworthy because they are not objective? Is that your standard for all information?

What do you suspect the goal of the disciples was in claiming Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead?
You tell me that the writings are first-hand accounts, but when I read them objectively, I know better. Are you at all aware of the scholarship on the subject?

There are two types of people in the world, the stupid and the intelligent, when making discussion. Intelligent is defined to the people who are contributing to the discussion, and all of the people that those contributing think highly of. Stupid consists of most everyone else. There might be other intelligent people out there, but they don't really exist for the purposes of discussion. Similarly, stupid people might exist amongst the participants, but in general it's best not to explore those lines of thought, if one cares to keep a topic on track. I would prefer not to converse with stupid people, and would rather treat them as stupid people than actually try to hack a pointless discussion out of them.

These things are much better taken for granted because to question them invites immediate censure. I would know, because I spent some time here on AllForums exploring that very sequence of events. It can break down a discussion incredibly quickly and reduce it to mud-flinging, particularly when religion is involved.


It is my contention that an intelligent person should not need scriptures to lead his life. I do not think that poring over the philosophical writings of ancient dead people does present-day people any good. The ancient dead people are no more likely to be smarter or more enlightened than you were, and, to the contrary, are likelier to be more ignorant than you are concerning modern lines of philosophical thought, better ways of thinking about things, and the relaxed perspective that comes from not having to eat dirt to stay alive.

I contend that a better way is to write your own scripture, and then try to live by it. You will fail, of course, but that's all a part of life, and it's a much better, more fulfilling way to live than looking to someone else for something to care about.

For intelligent people, (keep in mind the definition given above) this should result in a more worldly, robust guide, one far more likely to be useful and other intelligent people are more likely to want to read it and steal your ideas. As for stupid people, someone else's scripture might well be enough. After all, who cares about them?
I don't argue with you that we make our own scripture, it is just my personal method that I have found works for me to take writings of others as a template, and I find that things that have been selected in history as valuable do tend to be valuable.

I would observe the rest of their writing. I would ask, do they sound crazy, in the historical, and archaeological aspect of their writings?


I'm sorry, you mentioned someone who heard "voices". You mentioned nothing about any writings.

The hearing voices thing is in reference to Free's post about the writers of the Bible...interesting, you didn't know that. Here is his quote:

stark, if I was the high-n-mighty omnipotent *Master of the Universe* who was the (supposed) author of a "perfect and innerrant Book", inspring people to write down the words that I put into their minds (and let's not even talk about how psychotic and disturbed a human has to be to hear voices in their head telling them to write) then I would simply have them write down exactly what that creature was, instead of using INCORRECT and confusing terms for them.

Again, how would you know the difference?

By the description of the event, and who is is attributed to, and the type of person who saw the event.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

I agree, what do you accept as proof?

Why do you feel it neccessary to pretend you know what's in an unknown atheists mind?

Why did you use the words "necessary" and "pretend" in reference to my post?

The hearing voices thing is in reference to Free's post about the writers of the Bible...interesting, you didn't know that. Here is his quote:

I was quite aware of where and why you mentioned the voices. It doesn't change my question.


By the description of the event, and who is is attributed to, and the type of person who saw the event.

You state the obvious. What criteria would you use to determine the veracity of someone claiming divine guidance or inspiration?


I agree, what do you accept as proof?

I'm not the one claiming miracles happen. The question is what do you accept as proof of a miracle, and what differentiates a "miracle" from "magic"?


Why did you use the words "necessary" and "pretend" in reference to my post?

Because they were the most concise ones I could choose to ask my question. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to try and dodge the question?

all this stuff can be used in a debate about mother goose too :)

all this stuff can be used in a debate about mother goose too :)
I don't understand your point, but it sounds fascinating.

I don't argue with you that we make our own scripture, it is just my personal method that I have found works for me to take writings of others as a template, and I find that things that have been selected in history as valuable do tend to be valuable.
What could lead you to think that what a person you know nothing about, who was probably just transcribing old myths, who were themselves handed down for centuries by spoken word, have any value whatsoever when it comes to a personal philosophy?

Originally Posted by Napsterbater
"There are two types of people in the world, the stupid and the intelligent, when making discussion. Intelligent is defined to the people who are contributing to the discussion, and all of the people that those contributing think highly of. Stupid consists of most everyone else. There might be other intelligent people out there, but they don't really exist for the purposes of discussion. Similarly, stupid people might exist amongst the participants, but in general it's best not to explore those lines of thought, if one cares to keep a topic on track. I would prefer not to converse with stupid people, and would rather treat them as stupid people than actually try to hack a pointless discussion out of them."

Nappy, when the world needs a 23-year old to judge who's STUPID and who's INTELLIGENT and who's got something valuable to add to a discussion and who doesn't, we'll call you.

In the meantime, why don't you learn to say, "I DISAGREE" and state your case instead of attacking people and maybe Allforums would have some deep discussions where a few of those multitudes of people who lurk around here would actually be brave enough to post their thoughts and bring in some new perspective? As it is, the same ole people restate their same ole views over and over and over, with an occasional strong poster like Thislin popping in and some of you already circling the wagons figuring out how to run him off. After all, not many people want to join in and state their opinions when it's obvious you (and those who follow you with pandering statements like "Good post, Nap) will soon attack the person with accusations of being a STUPID COW or DELUSIONAL or deviating from the 'all-important' topic they're replying to, etc.

You and several others around here need to LIGHTEN UP a little and open your minds to the fact that there may just be somebody out there lurking who might say something that would otherwise never cross your mind. You're not only missing out on their input, you're making the rest of miss out as well.

Just MY opinion on the state of affairs here. I'll be the first to admit that the older I get, the more I realize how much I don't know. It's time you grew up a little and admit the same thing, in spite of those big words you so love to throw around which mean absolutely NOTHING more than you know how to use an online Thesaurus.

SMW

P.S. I'll take you off IGNORE long enough to see if you can formulate a non-insulting reply to me... otherwise, back you go.

What could lead you to think that what a person you know nothing about, who was probably just transcribing old myths, who were themselves handed down for centuries by spoken word, have any value whatsoever when it comes to a personal philosophy?
Such as perhaps Plato or Cicero or Confucius or Lao Tzu or Emerson or Erasmus?

Well, well, well, look who decided to join our little party. I'm not sure if such expressions of contempt fit your description of non-insulting, but, as you have totally failed to provide me with any entertainment so far, it matters little to me whether you ignore me or not. At any rate, let me attempt to answer you.

Nappy, when the world needs a 23-year old to judge who's STUPID and who's INTELLIGENT and who's got something valuable to add to a discussion and who doesn't, we'll call you.
But you would listen to a fifty year old saying the same thing? You, and Vile, are both making the mistake that you think you have to make me earn your respect, if for no other reason than the fact that you two are older than me. I'm sorry, but that kind of BS just doesn't truck with me. No, instead, I make you earn mine, for making that foolish mistake. You notice how many people don't catch mouth from me. When they make posts, they do not get me calling them a stupid cow, and whatnot. It's because they do not make themselves out to be smarter, wiser, better than me. You challenge me, and you are just asking to get burned.

If you want to joke around, lob insults, and join in the great spirit of fun and amusement that everyone else except you two seem to understand that I'm trying to cultivate, we-hell Delilah! Join right in!

If you want to ignore it, that's fine too! Just don't try to pass yourself off as wiser, more informed, or more capable than I, because that is a battle you will not win. Have the discussions you want, keep me on ignore if you have to, and when you feel left out of all the fun everyone else is having, well at least you'll know why.

As it is, the same ole people restate their same ole views over and over and over, with an occasional strong poster like Thislin popping in and some of you already circling the wagons figuring out how to run him off.
Thislin will not catch my mouth. Believe it or not, there is a method to my madness. Just because I do it to you, doesn't mean I do it to everyone. You pass yourself off as a "smartmouthwoman" who can handle such things. If you can't, maybe you should stop living in that glass house.

I pass myself off as "Totally rocking mega-poster" because I can deal with all the shit it brings me. I am comfortable in my knowledge of human behavior and what we kids find as funny, that typically I do not feel the need to moderate my own posts with ridiculous smilies.

Thislin seems to be an alright chap, at least everyone else seems to think so. Maybe I want to challenge him a little, prod him and see if his philosophy stands up. I'm pretty sure he can take a little ribbing, well, if he himself would even call it that. Well, isn't that what this forum is for? Holy shit, we can't discuss religion in a religion forum?

After all, not many people want to join in and state their opinions when it's obvious you (and those who follow you with pandering statements like "Good post, Nap) will soon attack the person with accusations of being a STUPID COW or DELUSIONAL or deviating from the 'all-important' topic they're replying to, etc.
This kind of back-handed insult you just handed to a couple of the finest posters on AllForums, Brooks and Prae, really illustrates how delusional you come off as. Both of those two have been here a hell of a lot longer than me, and their statements are anything but pandering.

But if you are in such a state of mind that you would need to craft such an angry post, and then put at the end, "you need to LIGHTEN UP," well, it's utterly transparent who really needs to do so. I cannot make my posts considering everyone out there who might want to post here, but who cannot bring themselves to. If you want to worry about those people, be my guest. Don't expect everyone to though.

It's time you grew up a little and admit the same thing, in spite of those big words you so love to throw around which mean absolutely NOTHING more than you know how to use an online Thesaurus.
This is the sort of thing that would ordinarily provoke something far worse than "stupid cow," but I'm going to abstain for the moment. I doubt your petty ego could handle it.

Such as perhaps Plato or Cicero or Confucius or Lao Tzu or Emerson or Erasmus?
Certainly. As ideas go, these guys were far ahead of their time. But they aren't far ahead of our times.

Except Lao Tsu. Emerson is modern enough, but still, can't you think up your own templates?

Just as I expected... a childish response. I never once said nor implied that I am either smarter than you or more deserving of respect. However, I am considerably older than you and nothing you can say will diminish the fact that I've had more life experience than you have. Whether or not you consider that experience valuable to understanding life is immaterial and something you can't possibly know until you reach my age.

Continue right on with your BAD BOY routine, Nappy, if that's what floats your boat. My only motivation in trying to get you to ease up a little on the insults was to invite the 59 guests who are currently viewing 15 posters a chance to speak their mind. Maybe you'd just rather listen to yourself rattle. Just know that not all of us share that admiration for your cocky self.

SMW

Believe it or not, SMW, I would bet that at least 55 of those "guests" are actually search spider bots.

But whatever, I'm sure they have all kinds of poignant stuff to say.

You know, it's idiots like you who make me really wonder why I find women your age attractive. Whatever, that particular fetish is dying faster than the brain cells I'm losing by having actually taken you seriously this time.

Could be, Nappy. Then again, might be 55 Rhodes Scholars who are just itching to add to the discussion but won't because they don't care to be insulted.
***********
Geesh, in the time it took me to go away and make sure I was spelling Rhodes right... you went and posted again calling me an idiot.

Rest assured, young man -- by missing out on getting to know 'this' older woman, you are indeed missing out on something special. No sweat off my brow... it's your loss.

SMW

:rolleyes: I have the "special" feeling, that I'm not missing much. Besides, what makes you think I already haven't gotten to know you? How a person deals with conflict is probably the single most telling aspect of their personality, and you have utterly failed that test. Why in the world would I want someone not comfortable with conflict in my life? All they're going to do is whine and bitch when things aren't going their way, as you seem so hell bent on doing right now.

Certainly. As ideas go, these guys were far ahead of their time. But they aren't far ahead of our times.

Except Lao Tsu. Emerson is modern enough, but still, can't you think up your own templates?
I think maybe they were ahead of our times. Don't fall into the error of thinking people in the past were stupid. It may be that you don't understand them as well as more modern individuals, because they lived in different times and different cultures, but that is your shortcoming, not theirs.

Modern thinking has, to my mind (except for the physical sciences, which is where the real geniuses go nowadays) become largely sterile and mostly about what the earlier authors meant with this comma or that semi-colon. (These issues are valid and important, but are not the stuff of scripture but only of scholarship).

I think it would be unacceptably arrogant for me to try to make my own templates--write my own scripture. What is scripture to us is something we have to decide for ourselves, but we are well advised to select from what has been filtered through history.

An example I cannot prevent myself from pointing out are the Buddhist scriptures called Sutras. There are hundreds if not thousands of them, but only a few have come down to us as important and as capturing the Buddhist message. This is the filtering I speak of, and these contain surpassing wisdom.

I read them and I gain insight. If I don't understand them, I ask questions. The great religious traditons of the world all have such an accumulated literature, as well as secular philosophy (which I see as a sort of religion--philosophy and religion are hard to distinguish). This is a great treasure. I suppose we could get on without it, but why try when they are there for us.

I think there are great strides to be made by interpreting anthropology, cognitive science, evolutionary biology and the whole slew of new, more impressive means for describing why human beings do the things they do. I think they can have a hell of an impact on modern thought, and eliminate this "sterileness" you speak of.

I think it is excellent to try without such tools. These are the things of existence, and as such, one could be able to do one's own thought experiments and see if one's own personal outlook bears the wisdom of the ages out. I notice in my own case, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, but it never takes the form of what the masses think.

Life is far greater, than even these scriptures.

Believe it or not, SMW, I would bet that at least 55 of those "guests" are actually search spider bots.

But whatever, I'm sure they have all kinds of poignant stuff to say.
I don't know if that fits the statistics. The "views" are concentrated in the political areas, and not evenly distributed. This speaks for real people and not bots.

Where did I say, or even imply, that we cannot learn from the social sciences? Please, all I am saying is that I find inspiration in things I have identified as scripture, derived from my respect for the idea of the Holy when it comes to certain writings. I am not saying that this means we abandon modern science.

One of my tests for scripture, however, is consistency with modern cosmology, biology, psychology and so on. This is part of why I was attracted to Buddhism--it has no pretentions of being scientific, but, compared to Western religion, it is remakably consistent with what we now know.

When Europe thought the universe was seven thousand years old, Indian philosophers were tallking of billions of years; when the West thought mental illness was caused by demon possession, Asian thinkers identified it as distorted desire and delusional thinking; when the West adamantly denied our animal nature and saw mankind as a special creation, Asian thinkers were perceiving sentience in animals.

I'm still wondering where all the unicorns, dragons and satyrs (that the Bible claims are real) are.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't know what your reading but my Bible program says unicorns and satyrs aren't mentioned..
dragons are but they are just dinos don't you know, they did walk the earth with humans.

I don't know if that fits the statistics. The "views" are concentrated in the political areas, and not evenly distributed. This speaks for real people and not bots.
The bots probably spider the political sections more so than the other ones, that would make sense, after all, considering how spider bots work.

From Wikipedia:
There are two important characteristics of the Web that generate a scenario in which Web crawling is very difficult: its large volume and its rate of change, as there are a huge number of pages being added, changed and removed every day. Also, network speed has improved less than current processing speeds and storage capacities.

The large volume implies that the crawler can only download a fraction of the Web pages within a given time, so it needs to prioritize its downloads. The high rate of change implies that by the time the crawler is downloading the last pages from a site, it is very likely that new pages have been added to the site, or that pages have already been updated or even deleted.

:rolleyes: I have the "special" feeling, that I'm not missing much. Besides, what makes you think I already haven't gotten to know you? How a person deals with conflict is probably the single most telling aspect of their personality, and you have utterly failed that test. Why in the world would I want someone not comfortable with conflict in my life? All they're going to do is whine and bitch when things aren't going their way, as you seem so hell bent on doing right now.

But the only ME you've gotten to know is the one who resents being called a STUPID COW and an IDIOT. I think you'll find that true of most women you come in contact with, not to mention alot of men - who'd more than likely kick your little smartass if you weren't hiding behind a monitor, playing the tough guy.

Carry on, young man. I'm done with you (again).

:slap:
SMW

Smartmouthwoman, meet uselessness. *hands her a mirror*

Where did I say, or even imply, that we cannot learn from the social sciences?
I did not, nor did I say that you said we needed to "abandon" modern science. I was just impressing upon you, the dismissor of modern thought as "stale," what is currently being offered as a new, more useful, filter for seeing the world. That you would use them as a filter for who you would listen to in the ancient times, gives me pause. Why not just use the science, if you hold it in such high esteem that you would see if your ancient thought holds up in it's presence.

There are lots of things people like Plato could never understand about modern life. Not that they were stupid, or needlessly ignorant. Emerson could never have understood the value of the Internet, or what it could be used for. Buddhism is still playing catch-up to the modern world, despite the lofty ancient significance you seem to place on it.

dragons are but they are just dinos don't you know, they did walk the earth with humans.

Well, no, the true dinosaurs have been extinct about 140 million years.
Mankind has been on the planet--how long?...something like 4-5 million years.

Smartmouthwoman, meet uselessness. *hands her a mirror*
Nappy, this is for you.

*sticks thumbs in ears and waves fingers*

Pfbttttttttttttt.

(and who sez we can't communicate on an equal level)

Next time, try to be funny. Its not as easy as I make it look.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Wrong.

There is nothing in this world on which my viewpoint or position is what it is because of "faith".


That makes you an incredibly knowledgeable person...if it were true.

?!?!?!

No special or extraordinary *knowledge* is implied.

It's just that I do not use "faith" as the foundation for my ideas or my opinions or my beliefs about any area of life.

"Faith" is one of the worst afflictions to plague the human mind.

Still, it is up to us to use good sense and compassion and wisdom in selecting what is to be our scripture and how we are to approach them. Material that condemns others or that encourages division and hate should not be considered.

Welp........in that case there goes about 2/3 of the Old Testament.

(terrific idea, though. good riddance)

____________________________________________

More than half the American populace --being devoted Bible believers-- are convinced that the entire cosmos was created around 6,000 years ago. This represents a point in human history about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue.

I don't know what your reading but my Bible program says unicorns and satyrs aren't mentioned.

LOLOL.

No doubt your "Bible program" is embarrassed by the preposterous claims of unicorns, and is desperately trying (in typical religious fashion) to find some way to wriggle out of it or to discount it having been written.

Unicorns are refered to 9 times in the Bible.

Numbers 23:22
Numbers 24:8
Deuteronomy 33:17
Job 39:9
Job 39:10
Psalms 22:21
Psalms 29:6
Psalms 92:10
Isaiah 34:7

"Satyrs" are also clearly written about in the Bible.

Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.



The "satyr" of course does not exist, but in the Bible it nevertheless walks around, together with "unicorns", "dragons" and other odd, mythical creatures, all happily unaware that none of them actually exist in the real world.

Now. Feel free to rev up your shiny, chrome-plated Apologistics Excusinator 2000 bullshit machine to give me some arcane explanation (read: excuse) about the exact translation of the word, or something equally specious.

Now. Feel free to rev up your shiny, chrome-plated Apologistics Excusinator 2000 bullshit machine to give me some arcane explanation (read: excuse) about the exact translation of the word, or something equally specious.
See? Even FT can be funny!

You, and Vile, are both making the mistake that you think you have to make me earn your respect, if for no other reason than the fact that you two are older than me.

And you are making a mistake in thinking you have to earn my respect because you're younger than I am. You have to earn my respect because you have done nothing sice joining allforums to indicate you deserve any.


I'm sorry, but that kind of BS just doesn't truck with me. No, instead, I make you earn mine, for making that foolish mistake.

Believe me when I say I'm completely indifferent to whether you respect me as a person. When you disrespect me as a moderator, there will be consequences.


You notice how many people don't catch mouth from me. When they make posts, they do not get me calling them a stupid cow, and whatnot. It's because they do not make themselves out to be smarter, wiser, better than me. You challenge me, and you are just asking to get burned.

There is no logic to your choice of targets for your insults, as you stated clearly in the past, you are an "instigator" and you do it for kicks.


If you want to joke around, lob insults, and join in the great spirit of fun and amusement that everyone else except you two seem to understand that I'm trying to cultivate, we-hell Delilah! Join right in!

Only you could convince themselves that calling someone a "stupid cow" is an attempt to cultivate a spirit of fun and amusement.


Thislin will not catch my mouth.

That's good. One idea you don't want me to get is that you are causing other people to think twice about coming here.


Believe it or not, there is a method to my madness.

No, I don't believe it. I think you just like being the center of attention, and will behave in any manner neccessary to get that attention.


This kind of back-handed insult you just handed to a couple of the finest posters on AllForums, Brooks and Prae, really illustrates how delusional you come off as.

You'd have to be delusional to think she was insulting anyone but you.

How about you two just ignore each other to save bandwidth?

The "satyr" of course does not exist, but in the Bible it nevertheless walks around, together with "unicorns", "dragons" and other odd, mythical creatures, all happily unaware that none of them actually exist in the real world.

Free, now what were the ancient Hebrews picturing in their mind when they wrote the words, that we translated, satyr dragon and unicorn?

How about you two just ignore each other to save bandwidth?
Good idea. I never see anything Vile posts that's worth reading anyway.

Good idea. I never see anything Vile posts that's worth reading anyway.

Then stop talking about me.

I was quite aware of where and why you mentioned the voices. It doesn't change my question.
Your question:
How would you know the difference in someone else?
My answer:
I would observe the rest of their writing. I would ask, do they sound crazy, in the historical, and archaeological aspect of their writings? Are there any claims to unbelievable feats outside of the God controlled miraculous? Or simply: is it magic or is it miraculous?
Why are we going in circles? I'm more then willing to accept the fact that I don't get your question...want to help me out?


You state the obvious. What criteria would you use to determine the veracity of someone claiming divine guidance or inspiration?
See above answer.

I'm not the one claiming miracles happen. The question is what do you accept as proof of a miracle, and what differentiates a "miracle" from "magic"?
A Miracle is that event which is outside of the natural laws, and it's source is God. Magic is a mystical force that someone claims to control for what ever reason they are saying. I don't believe in "magic". This excludes the magic trick, which is the slight of hand type thing.

Why did you use the words "necessary" and "pretend" in reference to my post?

Because they were the most concise ones I could choose to ask my question. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to try and dodge the question?
Dodge? I'm just economizing my time.
Now here is what you asked:
Why do you feel it neccessary to pretend you know what's in an unknown atheists mind?
Just putting two and two together. Atheist say God does not exist, so anything attributed as being from God can not be from God because God does not exist. Isn't that a logical conclusion?

Then stop talking about me.
Fair enough.

You tell me that the writings are first-hand accounts, but when I read them objectively, I know better.
What is it in the New Testament that suggests to you that they are not first-hand accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Are you at all aware of the scholarship on the subject?
A bit. Are you speaking of the scholarship from the believers or from the non-believers such as the Jesus Seminar?

I'm still curious as to what you consider an example of one of God's unbelievable revelations.
And your view on what the goal of the disciples were in claiming that they saw Jesus perform miracles and saw him resurrected from the grave.

A Miracle is that event which is outside of the natural laws, and it's source is God.

Is it possible than an event that is perceived to be "outside of the natural laws" is merely following natural laws that we don't understand?

If so, how to you deduce which events are just following natural laws we don't understand, and which ones come from God?


Magic is a mystical force that someone claims to control for what ever reason they are saying. I don't believe in "magic". This excludes the magic trick, which is the slight of hand type thing.

Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic". Magic is just another word for describing an event we don't understand. It may have different connotations for different people. Some people would consider miracles to be magic.


Just putting two and two together. Atheist say God does not exist, so anything attributed as being from God can not be from God because God does not exist. Isn't that a logical conclusion?

Just making a general statement that it's not a good idea to tell someone else how they think. All atheists don't agree just like all Christians don't agree on the proper way to worship God.

I did not, nor did I say that you said we needed to "abandon" modern science. I was just impressing upon you, the dismissor of modern thought as "stale," what is currently being offered as a new, more useful, filter for seeing the world. That you would use them as a filter for who you would listen to in the ancient times, gives me pause. Why not just use the science, if you hold it in such high esteem that you would see if your ancient thought holds up in it's presence.

There are lots of things people like Plato could never understand about modern life. Not that they were stupid, or needlessly ignorant. Emerson could never have understood the value of the Internet, or what it could be used for. Buddhism is still playing catch-up to the modern world, despite the lofty ancient significance you seem to place on it.
You assert that you don't think ancient people were stupid and yet you describe them as though they were. I think you suffer from a certain bias here, one that is not uncommon, of thinking of modern people as superior to those who came before. The thought is like many biases or prejudices--you don't think so intellectually but you do think so intuitively.

It has been said that all of the history of Western philosophy is but a commentary on Plato. There is remarkable insight in that--the glitter of modern technology is superficial when it comes to humanity and insight about reality.

There are two things about "writing your own scripture" that bother me, in addition to the arrogance of the idea. The first is that you will miss insights; the second is that you will be guided by your wishes and prejudices.

What is it in the New Testament that suggests to you that they are not first-hand accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?


A bit. Are you speaking of the scholarship from the believers or from the non-believers such as the Jesus Seminar?

I'm still curious as to what you consider an example of one of God's unbelievable revelations.
And your view on what the goal of the disciples were in claiming that they saw Jesus perform miracles and saw him resurrected from the grave.
I have no desire to get into a detailed discussion of the myths that have come to be the foundation story of Christianity. Any objective reader of the material can tell at a glance that it is myth, and you cling to your belief in spite of a century of scholarship, of which you seem to have avoided any sincere effort to learn about.

one that is not uncommon, of thinking of modern people as superior to those who came before.
Whoa now, it seems we're switching horses here. I was talking about the relevance of the philosophies of the ancient masters to life today. Now it seems you want to discuss cultural anthropology. Well, as far as that's concerned, rest your mind on that, I'm reasonably sure that ancient people's were in fact more intelligent than the peoples living today.

You see, intelligence and stuff just doesn't buy you a whole lot in life, despite all the significance we as modern people seem to place on the idea. If you're never aware of an idea, you can never integrate that idea into your thought-inventions. The ancient masters were guilty of nothing more than necessary ignorance, but it makes their contributions to modern thought like using an old flint-lock, when we have modern rifles available. Thinkers since have built upon every single aspect of the master's ideologies.

Bertrand Russell has even acknowledged this, when he found that a student of his, who, though he had never met Russell, had nonetheless read every single one of Russell's writings before meeting him, and was, as Russell himself put it, "smarter than I am." Was he really smarter? Of course not! But he was able to advance Russell's work even though he wasn't necessarily as talented as Russell was, because he didn't have to reinvent all the things his mentor did.

I think you are guilty of the opposite bias, placing more significance on these writings than they really merit. Yes, they represent great strides in the art of philosophy. But to continue to use them, when thinkers since have built upon those ideas already, well, it seems needlessly romantic.

The first is that you will miss insights; the second is that you will be guided by your wishes and prejudices.

I had no idea that my wishes and prejudices were so evil! Can I not be human? Is it not allowed? Must my desires be co-opted to chase someone else's ideal? If I wanted to chase wine and women, and oriented my scriptures around that, what is the harm? It's not like nobody's ever done that before...

As for missing insights, well, really I can't see how, when I'm focusing my mind on reading and understanding today's problems, while you are focusing on the problems of antiquity. Plato is as much a product of his times as anybody else, and he was not immune to the cultural biases of his period. It is true, the underlying human issues don't really change, so it could be easy to see all of the rest of modern thought in the shadow of one great man, but I think you are vastly overstating the greatness of these people. One could find insights in, say, a song by Rush, that you could never find reading Plato.

The greatness of Plato was this: While everyone else of Plato's time was scratching sticks together, Plato invented matches, of which only he and a few afterward had. We use stoves. And everyone has a stove!

I have no desire to get into a detailed discussion of the myths that have come to be the foundation story of Christianity. Any objective reader of the material can tell at a glance that it is myth, and you cling to your belief in spite of a century of scholarship, of which you seem to have avoided any sincere effort to learn about.
Discussion, detailed or not, is up to you...

but tell me, do you believe the Bible is the word of God?

A comment about Russel first: I think he is one of the most overrated people to ever have gotten famous. When he did his major work, it was already understood that one cannot deduce all of mathematics, let alone the rest of the world, from fundamental principles, and he tried anyway--and failed. He is talked about in mathematics as an example of a waste of time. His politics and his religion were both simplistic and sophomoric. In short referring to him will carry no water with me.

I will say this--you seem to have softened your rhetoric, so that now you are only trying to say I don't put enough emphasis on modern achievement. I will only note that the great ideas were all thought of long ago, and that the modern world has contributed nothing to morals or religion or even to metaphysics. If nothing, it has taken away with the incessant cynicism of some. People are better off than they were, but this is because of technology, not modern intellectuals.

The problem of relying on oneself for guidance in things like morality is that we are all adept at rationalizing what we want to do. Most people follow their "conscience" most of the time, but this is culturally acquired and hence not optimal, and can be broken anyway. It is better to find a great ethical tradition and try to adhere to that. This is what I meant by "scripture," and, frankly, I follow the Buddhist tradition because I think it works and has from the beginning had its ethical system in order. Still, a fundamental premise of Buddhism is to respect other religions and other viewpoints, so I try to be inclusive.

Discussion, detailed or not, is up to you...

but tell me, do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
Who wrote the Bible? Men wrote it. Therefore it seems silly to say that God wrote it.

What we have been talking about is "scripture," which may or may not include the Bible. Every great religious tradition, probably from the Judaeo-Christian model, thinks it has to find writings in its past that it canonizes as "scripture."

I like the idea of scripture, so long as it is not taken too seriously. The idea of something infallible, as I already talked about, is an absurdity--nothing written in fallible human language can possibly be infallible. That aside, the idea that the process of human history filtering out the great writings of the past for us (instead of our arrogantly taking on the task to do it for ourselves) is very appealing.

If the spirit of history is God, then scripture is the word of God.

I will only note that the great ideas were all thought of long ago, and that the modern world has contributed nothing to morals or religion or even to metaphysics.
Great ideas, here, to what do you refer?

As for morals, religion, and metaphysics, I think you are in great error here, and that you are just not looking hard enough. The ideas exist, they just exist amongst so much noise, that you have to really search to find them.

I do not care for such pursuits, so I am not up-to-date on the latest thinking. But new ideas do spring up from time to time, and if you don't like any of the ideas currently proffered, you only have but to create your own! You seem a sensible enough fellow. I simply hate to see you disdain so the fruits of everything going on now for stone adzes and sinew bows.

As for softening up my rhetoric, I think you were misrepresenting my earlier arguments. If you want to go back and again argue against some of the things I said, feel free.

The problem of relying on oneself for guidance in things like morality is that we are all adept at rationalizing what we want to do.

Again, where is the harm? I do first, rationalize later. And make no mistake, it is just as easy to rationalize your own actions with someone else's philosophy as it is your own. The human ego is not so easily co-opted. If you are an ethical person, you will act ethically, no matter whose philosophy you adhere to. If you aren't, you can corrupt even Buddhism.

You seem to think that Buddhism and other such systems of ancient wisdom has the monopoly on ethics, and there's nothing compelling about anything being done today. But what can Buddhism do to solve our pressing modern problems? What can Buddhism do, that hasn't already been done? You say that the only good modern times has done for us has to do with technology, I can say that the only good religions do, including Buddhism, is through their bringing of similar-minded groups of people together, to be ruled so by group dynamics and ego struggles. I hope you don't think that Buddhist churches are immune to that sort of thing.

As a system of ethics is concerned, Christianity is just as good of one as Buddhism is. I think people seem to think that just because it's from the East, its somehow better than the stuff that comes from the West. Christianity preaches tolerance and acceptance, love thy neighbor and all that stuff. Just because Buddhism's has been "in order since the beginning," that doesn't really mean anything.

Who wrote the Bible? Men wrote it. Therefore it seems silly to say that God wrote it.

What we have been talking about is "scripture," which may or may not include the Bible. Every great religious tradition, probably from the Judaeo-Christian model, thinks it has to find writings in its past that it canonizes as "scripture."

I like the idea of scripture, so long as it is not taken too seriously. The idea of something infallible, as I already talked about, is an absurdity--nothing written in fallible human language can possibly be infallible. That aside, the idea that the process of human history filtering out the great writings of the past for us (instead of our arrogantly taking on the task to do it for ourselves) is very appealing.

If the spirit of history is God, then scripture is the word of God.

You had said earlier:

Any objective reader of the material can tell at a glance that it is myth, and you cling to your belief in spite of a century of scholarship,

It appears, by your response that you are not an objective reader of the material called the Bible. But, very few would be objective.

Free, now what were the ancient Hebrews picturing in their mind when they wrote the words, that we translated, satyr dragon and unicorn?

Who knows?

But the words we have been given by the Bible are satyrs, dragons and unicorns.

IF the people writing the Bible had in fact been talking about something else, --such as a bull, or an oryx, or a rhino, or a mountain ox, or a pterodactyl-- then the supposed all-knowing Master of the Universe (who was supposeldy psychically directing their writing) should have had them to write down the correct name for the animal, if such creatures actually existed.

I have read apologists try to make the case that --"Well, when the Bible spoke of unicorns, it was actually talking about dinosaurs!".

Here is a bit of their malarkey;

The "unicorn," mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible, is the Hebrew word "Re-em." The Septuagint translated it "Monokeros" (one-horn) which was used in Bibles until the 19th century when Akkadian and Ugaritic records were found that mentioned the "Re-em" being hunted like a wild ox. Although most commentators and modern versions translate it as a bull or rhino, some have theorized that "Re-em" might be a Monoclonious (single horned dinosaur like Triceratops).

They use similar hilarious excuses in trying to explain what the "holy" Bible was speaking of when it mentions dragons.

The slight problem those people manning the Apologistics Excusinator 2000 machine have is that the dinosaurs were all extinct millions of years prior to the writing of the fairy tales in question.

Is it possible than an event that is perceived to be "outside of the natural laws" is merely following natural laws that we don't understand?
Okay, sure, then the creation of the universe would be attributed to this "natural law," because it is an event that is perceived to be outside of natural laws since natural laws wouldn't have existed until the universe existed.
I think this "natural law" would also be an answer to the question that I've always had which is; how could simple, non-living, mindless, matter create itself into living, complex organisms with the capability of contemplating itself...with emotion and objective morality.
The disciples of Jesus claim to have seen Jesus Christ raise the dead, heal the sick, cause the blind to see, and the deaf to hear. The Jewish Talmud doesn't deny that Jesus did miracles but, attributes those miracles to sorcery and called him a deceiver and heretic. Would it be reasonable to say that these miracles were this unknown natural law? Of course there is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the disciples claim they saw him, they talked with him, ate with him, and touched him, they traveled around, living in poverty, being beaten, stoned and eventually murdered, yet still hanging on to their story. Would what they saw be the natural law in action?

If so, how to you deduce which events are just following natural laws we don't understand, and which ones come from God?
If this unknown natural law is responsible for miracles, then you could never know if God was involved or not. Come to think of it, everything would be in question: A woman carefully straps her young children into their car seats and pushes the car into the water, they drown, but can we accuse her of wrong doing? Is it possible that an event that is perceived to be wrong is merely following natural laws that we don't understand? If that "natural law" can explain miracles as only matter following a particular unknown natural law, couldn't that same matter that makes up the woman be affected by the same unknown natural law? Couldn't that be applied to any crime?

Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic". Magic is just another word for describing an event we don't understand. It may have different connotations for different people. Some people would consider miracles to be magic.
I would have to ask Mr. Clarke: does it follow that since some miracles are only misunderstood technology, all miracles are misunderstood technology?

Just making a general statement that it's not a good idea to tell someone else how they think. All atheists don't agree just like all Christians don't agree on the proper way to worship God.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that all atheist would agree that you can't worship God because He doesn't exist?
Having said that, let me say that I understand your point, if one atheist believes X, don't assume all atheists believe X. Or I could apply it to Christians, just because some Christians use their religion to gain wealth or power doesn't mean all Christians use their religion to gain wealth or power.

If this unknown natural law is responsible for miracles, then you could never know if God was involved or not. Come to think of it, everything would be in question: A woman carefully straps her young children into their car seats and pushes the car into the water, they drown, but can we accuse her of wrong doing? Is it possible that an event that is perceived to be wrong is merely following natural laws that we don't understand? If that "natural law" can explain miracles as only matter following a particular unknown natural law, couldn't that same matter that makes up the woman be affected by the same unknown natural law? Couldn't that be applied to any crime?

I don't even understand how that comparison could be made....

Not to butt into the discussion or anything, but that's a bit nonsensical. Sorry.

Free, now what were the ancient Hebrews picturing in their mind when they wrote the words, that we translated, satyr dragon and unicorn?

Who knows?
If you don't know, why do you assume the Hebrews were thinking of magical mythical creatures?

But the words we have been given by the Bible are satyrs, dragons and unicorns.
Oh? I've checked the Hebrew interlinear and I find no such words as satyrs, unicorns and dragons.

IF the people writing the Bible had in fact been talking about something else, --such as a bull, or an oryx, or a rhino, or a mountain ox, or a pterodactyl-- then the supposed all-knowing Master of the Universe (who was supposeldy psychically directing their writing) should have had them to write down the correct name for the animal, if such creatures actually existed.
Well, first, He did inspire them to write those words, but He didn't inspire them to write them in English. Second, he inspired the original writers not the King James translators.

I have read apologists try to make the case that --"Well, when the Bible spoke of unicorns, it was actually talking about dinosaurs!".
Let me get your view: the Bible speaks of a massive creature, that can withstand the raging Jordan river without difficulty and has tail that hangs like a cedar. What do you suppose that creature is? Do you know if there are any other cultures that describe dinosaur type creatures. Could it be that some dinos were on earth thousands of years ago?

Here is a bit of their malarkey;

The "unicorn," mentioned nine times in the KJV Bible, is the Hebrew word "Re-em." The Septuagint translated it "Monokeros" (one-horn) which was used in Bibles until the 19th century when Akkadian and Ugaritic records were found that mentioned the "Re-em" being hunted like a wild ox. Although most commentators and modern versions translate it as a bull or rhino, some have theorized that "Re-em" might be a Monoclonious (single horned dinosaur like Triceratops).
Explain please. Malarkey? Are you saying that "unicorn" in the Septuagint is not translated "Monokeros" (one-horn) or, are you saying that in the 19th century there were no Akkadian and Ugaritic records found that mentioned the "Re-em" as being hunted like a wild ox?

The slight problem those people manning the Apologistics Excusinator 2000 machine have is that the dinosaurs were all extinct millions of years prior to the writing of the fairy tales in question.
How do you know that all dinosaurs were all extinct millions of years prior to the writing of the Bible? Could it be that there is an unknown "natural law" that only make people think that all dinosaurs were all extinct millions of years before the writing of the Bible?

Let me get your view: the Bible speaks of a massive creature, that can withstand the raging Jordan river without difficulty and has tail that hangs like a cedar. What do you suppose that creature is? Do you know if there are any other cultures that describe dinosaur type creatures. Could it be that some dinos were on earth thousands of years ago?

Maybe the ancient peoples knew of dinosaurs, even though they weren't around then. I never hear anyone consider that possibility.

I don't even understand how that comparison could be made....

Not to butt into the discussion or anything, but that's a bit nonsensical. Sorry.
Hi Dark, first, your never butting in. Second I'm not dead certain what comparison is nonsensical, would you explain further?

Now, if it's what I think you are saying; let me clarify. If there is an unknown natural law that is really the reason for unexplained events, then what is thought to be a miracle is really that "natural law" acting on matter in such a way as to create said event. My point: if that "natural law" works on matter in what we assume to be a miraculous event couldn't that "natural law" be at work in any event that involves matter, i.e. mother killing children? What is the mind, is it merely chemicals at work in the brain? What is morality, what is evil what is good? If these are simply chemical processes, (matter working on matter), to make us think something is good or evil then couldn't some unknown natural law effect that matter?

Maybe the ancient peoples knew of dinosaurs, even though they weren't around then. I never hear anyone consider that possibility.

I find it interesting that so many cultures have some dragon story. Where does those stories come from?

Cultures all over the world have all independently invented stories featuring large reptilian creatures with magical properties?

STOP THE PRESSES!! Somebody call CNN! Get Bill O'Reilly on the phone!

The apes first appeared about 20 million years ago, with homonids about six million years ago and genus homo maybe 2-3 million years ago.

Homo sapiens is only maybe 200,000 years old.

Now the dinosaurs went extinct more than 60 million years ago.

How would ancient cultures have had an incling? Or maybe too much Alley Oop?

The disciples of Jesus claim to have seen Jesus Christ raise the dead, heal the sick, cause the blind to see, and the deaf to hear. The Jewish Talmud doesn't deny that Jesus did miracles but, attributes those miracles to sorcery and called him a deceiver and heretic. Would it be reasonable to say that these miracles were this unknown natural law? Of course there is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the disciples claim they saw him, they talked with him, ate with him, and touched him, they traveled around, living in poverty, being beaten, stoned and eventually murdered, yet still hanging on to their story. Would what they saw be the natural law in action?

It's one possibility. Another is that these tales are myths, or that the writers of these stories misinterpreted what they saw based on their own limits of perception and intellect.


If this unknown natural law is responsible for miracles, then you could never know if God was involved or not.

At least not until we have a better understanding of the process.


Come to think of it, everything would be in question:

I wouldn't go quite that far.


A woman carefully straps her young children into their car seats and pushes the car into the water, they drown, but can we accuse her of wrong doing?

Of course we can She didn't violate any natural laws, only the laws of man.


Is it possible that an event that is perceived to be wrong is merely following natural laws that we don't understand? If that "natural law" can explain miracles as only matter following a particular unknown natural law, couldn't that same matter that makes up the woman be affected by the same unknown natural law? Couldn't that be applied to any crime?

No. Commiting crimes violates no natural law.


I would have to ask Mr. Clarke: does it follow that since some miracles are only misunderstood technology, all miracles are misunderstood technology?

Of course not. The point is, that once you understand why something happens, it's no longer considered "miraculous".


Wouldn't it be safe to say that all atheist would agree that you can't worship God because He doesn't exist?

No. I know of no atheists who say you can't worship God.


Having said that, let me say that I understand your point, if one atheist believes X, don't assume all atheists believe X. Or I could apply it to Christians, just because some Christians use their religion to gain wealth or power doesn't mean all Christians use their religion to gain wealth or power.

Fair statement.

Cultures all over the world have all independently invented stories featuring large reptilian creatures with magical properties?

STOP THE PRESSES!! Somebody call CNN! Get Bill O'Reilly on the phone!

All the cultures version of dragons have magical properties? Are you certain?

Napster, what do you make of all these dragon stories in all those different cultures, could it be all those different cultures decided to invent a story of a huge reptilian creature or could it be based on something?

All the cultures version of dragons have magical properties? Are you certain?

Napster, what do you make of all these dragon stories in all those different cultures, could it be all those different cultures decided to invent a story of a huge reptilian creature or could it be based on something?

I'm still convinced that many ancient cultures knew that dinosaurs had existed. Perhaps they discovered some bones. Shifting desert sands could allow bones and fossils to appear on the ground or very close to the surface. It's my hypothesis that all these cultures developed those stories after they developed agriculture--that is, after they had started digging in the ground. Also, how do we know that all these tales were developed independently in each culture? I think that we have underestimated the amount of trade between early civilizations. The discovery of giant bones (which could have been interpreted as any number of large creatures, also possibly explaining myths about giants and cyclops) would obviously be important enough news to share with the other cultures with which a society came in contact.

I hope that post made sense. No time to proofread, I only have an hour break and I'm trying to do some homework that was actually due on Friday. :)

Who cares if they knew dinosaurs existed or not, at least for the purposes of this discussion? I mean, think about it, large reptilian creatures, with or without magical powers. What is so weird about that to think that it would be a strange act of synchronicity to think that cultures might think about these things independently? Honestly people, if people in three parts of the world made up stories of talking grass, the god believers would use it as evidence that Jesus died and was reborn, all for our sins.

It's one possibility. Another is that these tales are myths, or that the writers of these stories misinterpreted what they saw based on their own limits of perception and intellect.
So some of the possibilities for say the resurrection of Christ are; an unknown law, an outright myth, or a misunderstanding of what happened, in this case it would be that all the disciples thought they saw Jesus die, and thought they saw him risen bodily from the grave. Let me try one other possibility on you: is it possible that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that he did die, and then rise from the dead?

If this unknown natural law is responsible for miracles, then you could never know if God was involved or not.

At least not until we have a better understanding of the process.
How could you trust any understanding as being better, because there may be another natural law that you don't know about that is throwing your understanding off?

Come to think of it, everything would be in question:

I wouldn't go quite that far.
Maybe not but we don't know the limitations of this unknown natural law so we can't say what it affects, or how far we should go.

A woman carefully straps her young children into their car seats and pushes the car into the water, they drown, but can we accuse her of wrong doing?

Of course we can She didn't violate any natural laws, only the laws of man.
Is there any law higher then the laws of men? World war II Germany, the laws of men commanded the destruction of not just Jews but many who were deemed "different." Is there a law above that law that made it wrong?

...couldn't that same matter that makes up the woman be affected by the same unknown natural law? Couldn't that be applied to any crime?

No. Commiting crimes violates no natural law.
I've always wondered why more atheists don't take that position. If there is no God then there is no moral right or wrong, and it is no more wrong for someone to kill an old lady in a park and take her money to buy something to eat, then it would be to kill a chicken and take its flesh for something to eat. Men's laws would only be an inconvenience and something to skirt around. In light of the evolutionary process, preying on the weak would be more moral then protecting the weak.
By the way, I am in no way suggesting that you operate in this manner.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that all atheist would agree that you can't worship God because He doesn't exist?

No. I know of no atheists who say you can't worship God.
I didn't mean that atheists are saying that you "may" not worship God, I'm saying that from an atheists point of view you can not worship God, because He is not in existence.

Let me try one other possibility on you: is it possible that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that he did die, and then rise from the dead?How about you first, Stark? Is it possible you are wrong about it?

I'm forever seeing Christians give others a lesson on the pitfalls of certainty and the importance of considering that you may be mistaken. It's rather like getting a lesson in tolerance from a Klansman.