Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
**heavy sigh**Shannon,
You asked me if I thought someone being called a troll was offensive! What was I supposed to think you meant? Was I to assume it was rhetorical? Was I to think you were Just asking if, in some existential way the word troll offended me? Was I to have mentally catalogued all the insults over 10000 post and found none referring to you as a troll?
Come on. This is ridiculous. This is exactly why people find your posts frustrating. Say what you mean please.
What reason? You brought me into it... and I feel your comments in regard to me need addressing. Care to address them?
Shannon, if you want to take issue with my use of the word troll, take you own advice on honesty and say so, rather than hide behind obfuscation again. At this stage we have beaten this to death, you refuse to accept my lack of understanding of what you were getting at was honest and accuse me, in oblique and as has been pointed out a passive aggressive manner. Yes, it is tit-for-tat, if I am to be accused of dishonesty I see no reason to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt with their own intentions. Not only do you have a high horse, but that horse is standing on top of a pretty large soapbox. The issue of answering this particular question or not should be considered done now, you have indicated your unwillingness to accept my explanation, preferring to assume evil atheist tricks, so I see no value in continuing that part of the discussion. Having said that, I assume you will now accuse me of attempting to shut down the discussions I claim to support, so undoubtedly we shall continue......
Either of the world will be very easy to live in. But each world will evolve towards the other. None of the worlds will be constant. Hence we will reach the current state eventually.
Travis wrote: It is one book, so it is one source. ."
Had it been written by just one person you would have had a point.
Travis wrote:Yes, and Abe Lincoln was around at the same time as Paul Bunyan.Which, by your reasoning proves that giant blue oxen once roamed the Earth.
"
Paul Bunyan does not travel very well, I had to google him to find out who he was.
That apart, you know Paul Bunyan is not a real person, but you are only assuming that Jesus was not.
Mary wrote: "**heavy sigh**
Shannon,
You asked me if I thought someone being called a troll was offensive! What was I supposed to think you meant? Was I to assume it was rhetorical? Was I to think you were Jus..."
To be honest, I didn't ask if you thought it was offensive.
I mentioned name calling. You said no one here has ever called anyone a name.
I said, "Do you not consider calling someone a "troll" to be name calling? If so, that's cool. I do consider it name calling. We can disagree on that point."
The word had been discussed off and on over the last day. I thought you'd read those posts, as you read my posts, and knew of the day's discussion.
Shannon,
You asked me if I thought someone being called a troll was offensive! What was I supposed to think you meant? Was I to assume it was rhetorical? Was I to think you were Jus..."
To be honest, I didn't ask if you thought it was offensive.
I mentioned name calling. You said no one here has ever called anyone a name.
I said, "Do you not consider calling someone a "troll" to be name calling? If so, that's cool. I do consider it name calling. We can disagree on that point."
The word had been discussed off and on over the last day. I thought you'd read those posts, as you read my posts, and knew of the day's discussion.
cerebus wrote: "Having said that, I assume you will now accuse me of attempting to shut down the discussions I claim to support, so undoubtedly we shall continue...... "
Actually, I'm more than cool with my posts and your posts standing on their own, as is ... without continuing.
Actually, I'm more than cool with my posts and your posts standing on their own, as is ... without continuing.
Shanna wrote: "You brought me into it... and I feel your comments in regard to me need addressing. Care to address them? "
I already did.
I already did.
Shanna wrote: Seriously? You are making the claim the bible has no special qualities as it is an inanimate object? Seriously? No. But it is an inanimate object and circular reasoning can apply to anything published. Is the content of the bible accurate? You will have your reasons why you think it is not and someone else will reason why it is.
To assume that the bible is completely accurate or to say the none of it is accurate would be being pedantic. There is a degree of accuracy within the bible, but what and how much is open to debate and or belief.
cerebus wrote: let me elaborate....you are once again out to provoke people by deliberately cherry picking and crowing as if a point other than the one originally being made has been conceded.."NO. I did what you or Travis or any well paid political interviewer would have done. Noticed a slip and made light of it.
cerebus wrote: Let me make it clear. If you stating that because there may be evidence that there was a real Jesus and therefore GOD, then by that same logic you must also believe in the Muslim god.
If? Well I'm not stating that. And even if I was, it is not logical then to assume I must believe in a Muslim god. I am surprised that you would even conclude that.
I am stating that a prophet called Jesus did exist. Yes there were thousands of prophets at that time and Jesus was a common'ish name, but I mean the Jesus of the bible. And that's it.
Some think that he was a trickster or clever magician or even just another prophet, fair enough. Others believe he is who he said he is. It then follows that if he is who he said he is, there must be a god. And even if he was not who he claimed to be; that still does not rule out a creator.
cerebus wrote: In my original post which you cherry picked in order to suggest that I was now on your side when it comes to christian deities,
I made the most of your fraudulent slip, a Joke.
Or maybe it was not a slip. Maybe you do think Jesus existed but was not who he claimed to be. But I guess you would have said so. So it was a slip?
cerebus wrote: I will also restate the question I asked previously but which you avoided....based on your recent statements on the bible, and its multiple sources, do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god? If not, which bits do you accept as the inerrant word of god, and on what basis do you make the distinction between those parts, and the others?
When I do not reply to a question it is because I have avoided it. But when someone else does not reply, it is because they have maybe missed it.
Anyway, the inerrant word of god? For the most part no. The word of god yes; as well as the writers were able to remember, research and interpret it.
cerebus wrote: which bits do you accept as the inerrant word of god...
Who knows. Let me give an example, a light hearted one. Lets say that you were writing a book about John Lennon; if you had interviewed people that had spoken to John Lennon in the past then that part of the book could be interpreted as being more accurate than the bits you researched.
The bible has recorded what god said, for example to Moses; this then would be the nearest words that someone could accept as the inerrant word of god. But that’s just what I think, I am only speaking for myself…………
cHriS wrote: "When I do not reply to a question it is because I have avoided it. But when someone else does not reply, it is because they have maybe missed it. "
You know .... I always sat back and shook my head at avoidance. However, it came to me this morning. The more one answers ... the more fodder there will be. It actually might be wise.
You know .... I always sat back and shook my head at avoidance. However, it came to me this morning. The more one answers ... the more fodder there will be. It actually might be wise.
cHriS wrote: "NO. I did what you or Travis or any well paid political interviewer would have done. Noticed a slip and made light of it."I hate to burst your bubble (who am I kidding, no I don't), but it wasn't a slip...I know what I said, I meant what I said, and I'll say it again. That there was a person around at that time, called Jesus, is something I have no issue with. That the presence of this person can be interpreted to mean he was the son of god, that he walked on water, that he turned water into wine, that he was resurrected....all of those (and more) I do have an issue with, as there is no evidence for these.
cHriS wrote: "If? Well I'm not stating that. And even if I was, it is not logical then to assume I must believe in a Muslim god. I am surprised that you would even conclude that."
But if you interpret the historical existence of a person as being sufficient evidence for the claims made of that person, then it would seem to be a consistent position to hold for both Jesus and Mohamed.
cHriS wrote: "I am stating that a prophet called Jesus did exist. Yes there were thousands of prophets at that time and Jesus was a common'ish name, but I mean the Jesus of the bible. And that's it."
But what evidence do you have for him being an actual prophet, and for doing the supernatural things that are claimed of him? And in what way is any evidence that you have for this different from similar 'evidence' for the supernatural nature of Mohamed?
cHriS wrote: "Some think that he was a trickster or clever magician or even just another prophet, fair enough. Others believe he is who he said he is. It then follows that if he is who he said he is, there must be a god. And even if he was not who he claimed to be; that still does not rule out a creator."
But the same claims can again be made for Mohamed. Why would you accept that Jesus was who he said he was (or more accurately that he was who others said he was after the event) but not that Mohamed was who he said he was (or was similarly claimed for him)?
cHriS wrote: "Or maybe it was not a slip. Maybe you do think Jesus existed but was not who he claimed to be. But I guess you would have said so. So it was a slip?"
Nope, not a slip....whilst there may be evidence for the existence of someone of that name, at that time, it is not evidence of supernatural.
cHriS wrote: "When I do not reply to a question it is because I have avoided it. But when someone else does not reply, it is because they have maybe missed it. "
The difference being I was looking for clarification, not refusing to answer (despite Shannon's accusations). In the previous tete-a-tete we had the request for an answer was met with "I have answered, go find it", and responses of "we can't find it" were met with "not my problem".
cHriS wrote: "Anyway, the inerrant word of god? For the most part no. The word of god yes; as well as the writers were able to remember, research and interpret it."
Thank you for the answer, and I do mean that. I guess though it will come as no surprise that I will follow up with another question based on this, asking if the bible is god's word interpreted, how do you make a decision on which parts have been correctly interpreted (and therefore worth following, love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and all that) and which parts have been interpreted incorrectly and have had the interpreters' biases included (being gay is a sin, stone disobedient children, keeping slaves is ok)?
cHriS wrote: "The bible has recorded what god said, for example to Moses; this then would be the nearest words that someone could accept as the inerrant word of god. But that’s just what I think, I am only speaking for myself………… "
But recorded how? We only have Moses word that what was said to him was what god said....maybe god had another commandment that said "Thou shalt not wear odd socks on the sabbath" and Moses thought "that's daft, I'm not writing that one down"....if there is interpretation, any interpretation, then I am interested in what your criteria for accepting or rejecting different parts of the bible are.
And whilst Shannon has been assuming the basest motives on my part, I will state clearly here that I am not trying to trap you, to trick you into something. For me it is similar to a point I made before, that I have the same problem understanding how people who claim to accept the settled (as settled as it can be!) scientific evidence for something like evolution, but then reject the similarly settled science of AGW. When someone does that my question would be the same....on what basis do you accept one and reject the other?
cerebus wrote: "And whilst Shannon has been assuming the basest motives on my part"
Actually, as I stated and questioned, I wondered whether or not you were reading my words and hearing me, or seeing and hearing what you assumed. Which, it seems, ended up being true. I also wondered if you were even reading some of my posts at all, given the lack of an answer.
I don't think that's the basest motive.
The basest motive would be as you've said ... the idea that you were purposely setting forth to deceive and trap. I didn't think that.
I did question, in the end, if you were being honest about, for example, whether or not I'd plainly asked you. Despite turning you to a post that showed I plainly asked you, at least that once, instead of dealing with that, you continued to focus on the A/B post that I admitted to being confusing.
If you want to make assumptions as to what I think of your motives, despite what I've actually said, though ... that is your choice.
Actually, as I stated and questioned, I wondered whether or not you were reading my words and hearing me, or seeing and hearing what you assumed. Which, it seems, ended up being true. I also wondered if you were even reading some of my posts at all, given the lack of an answer.
I don't think that's the basest motive.
The basest motive would be as you've said ... the idea that you were purposely setting forth to deceive and trap. I didn't think that.
I did question, in the end, if you were being honest about, for example, whether or not I'd plainly asked you. Despite turning you to a post that showed I plainly asked you, at least that once, instead of dealing with that, you continued to focus on the A/B post that I admitted to being confusing.
If you want to make assumptions as to what I think of your motives, despite what I've actually said, though ... that is your choice.
Shannon I think at this point you do not trust my motives, nor I yours. I will leave it at that and in the spirit of fairness will not refer to this in my responses to others.
cerebus wrote: "I will leave it at that and in the spirit of fairness will not refer to this in my responses to others. "
That would be the fair thing.
That would be the fair thing.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: It is one book, so it is one source. ."
Had it been written by just one person you would have had a point."
So, the bible isn't a book?
Is the dictionary a book?
Is an anthology a book?
This is basic high school term paper stuff.
one book = one source.
So if you use the bible as a source, you have one source.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Seriously? You are making the claim the bible has no special qualities as it is an inanimate object? Seriously? No. But it is an inanimate object and circular reasoning can apply t..."
So, not only do you seem to only have one source to prove your point, but are admitting it's not accepted as a reliable source?
We need them both to find the balance in life.
Rachel wrote: "I think discussing a world with out either is ridiculous , people need both we need science because we are curious people and we need religion for a moral compass and who to cry to when something ..."I have my doubts about religion being the source of morals.
Though, if it is, I'd like to register a complaint, as you guys are really not doing that hot a job.
I think both came about as we are a curious people, but religion has become the theory that provides no evidence or answers, but people keep anyway.
It's gone from being a theory to a security blanket.
Travis wrote: So, not only do you seem to only have one source to prove your point, but are admitting it's not accepted as a reliable source? ..."
The bible for the most part is a collection of individual accounts. To suggest that it is only one source is like saying google is only one source.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, not only do you seem to only have one source to prove your point, but are admitting it's not accepted as a reliable source? ..."
The bible for the most part is a collection of i..."
If google was a book, you might have a case.
Google is more comparable to a library.
The bible might be comparable to wikipedia, but even in that case, you can only use wikipedia as a source if you have a second backing source.
So, we are back where we started.
You still have one, unreliable source.
Shannon wrote: You know .... I always sat back and shook my head at avoidance. However, it came to me this morning. The more one answers ... the more fodder there will be. It actually might be wise. ..."I sometimes find it hard to play catch-up here. When I checked this morning there was between thirty and forty new posts to read. I guess the time zone does not help.
Faith gets people through the hard times, comforts and explains the unexplainable. I am not a super religious person but I would not want to live in a world without "wonder".Science alone, without any kind of counterbalance, which is what I think religion or "faith" is, scares me very much. We, as humans, need a balance between the two. And just remember, just because you "can" does not mean you "should". Just some food for thought.
Karen wrote: "Faith gets people through the hard times, comforts and explains the unexplainable. I am not a super religious person but I would not want to live in a world without "wonder".Science alone, witho..."
Religion does not have the monopoly on wonder.
Would this question be a salient one to a non-Christain?
Geoffrey wrote: "Would this question be a salient one to a non-Christain?"Only if Christendom is the only religion in the world, but it's not, so the question is valid for pretty much anyone.
I've been reading these posts back and forth between Shannon, Shanna, Cerebus and Mary - and I hadn't planned to comment but couldn't hold back any more.Shannon - I doubt that you have mental health issues, as has been suggested, but my goodness, there is something going on here that is really odd. I'm sorry, in advance, because I know that will hurt your feelings, but it's getting more and more obvious with every post.
You start off with good, valid points backed up by excellent research, then it just seems to degenerate into a pity party. No one answers your questions to your satisfaction. Everyone calls you names. Everyone misunderstands your comments. On and on, ad nauseum.
You even accused me at one point of making fun of or berating you due to your Native American heritage, which is ridiculous, bordering on paranoid. I had no clue what your background was/is until YOU brought it up.
The past 5 or six pages of this thread are not about discussing the original topic, or any topic. They are mostly you demanding that people explain how or why they commented the way they did - not the content, just HOW they said it. Then they try to explain, or justify, and you don't like their explanations.
Can't we just discuss something in an adult manner, without worrying about the (nonexistent) ulterior motives of the person?
I'll second that emotion.
Maria wrote: "I've been reading these posts back and forth between Shannon, Shanna, Cerebus and Mary - and I hadn't planned to comment but couldn't hold back any more.Shannon - I doubt that you have mental hea..."
Yes, please!
Travis said, "This is basic high school term paper stuff.
one book = one source.
So if you use the bible as a source, you have one source."
Using your definition: If I take a collection of 66 books written by different people and bind them between two covers then where I used to have multiple sources I now have 1. Your definition defies logic.
How about it's a collection of essays. Still one "source" for a bibliography.
David wrote: "Travis said, "This is basic high school term paper stuff.
one book = one source.
So if you use the bible as a source, you have one source."
Using your definition: If I take a collection of 66 boo..."
0ne=one defies logic?
The bible is a book defies logic?
Let me put it another way. If Travis, Maria, and Mary each write books about their home town and I then take those books and put them into one book to make a Home Town Trilogy, how many sources do I have? One or three?
You have one source, the book, and a sub-source, an author of one of the stories within the book. Another example would be if you are citing an article within a magazine. Your source is Time Magazine, your sub-source is the article by so-and-so found on page 12.
I think I've written way too many term papers, don't you? :)
I think we're both right!
David wrote: "Let me put it another way. If Travis, Maria, and Mary each write books about their home town and I then take those books and put them into one book to make a Home Town Trilogy, how many sources do..."well, since a trilogy is three books, so you have a collection of three books.
In what church do they call the bible the 'holy collection' or the 'good many sources all in one thing'?
Isn't the commonly used term the 'good book'?
So, both christianity and I agree on something.
So, you got a problem with my calling the bible a book, take it up with the christians.
Travis wrote,"In what church do they call the bible the 'holy collection' or the 'good many sources all in one thing'?"
In any church I have been in every child learns to recite the books of the bible. There are 39 books in the Old Testament beginning with Genesis and 27 in the New Testament for a total of 66. There are more than 40 authors of these books.
The originals of most of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew but a few were written in Greek and Aramaic. They were all separate texts until they were canonized into three different collections some time between 400BC and 200BC. Those three collections were later combined into what we call the Old Testament.
All of the New Testament books were written in Greek. They were not made into the collection we know today until about 400AD.
So, you have a collection of books written over several centuries, by more than 40 authors, in three different languages. To call that a single source is rather silly don't you think?
David wrote: "Travis wrote,"In what church do they call the bible the 'holy collection' or the 'good many sources all in one thing'?"
In any church I have been in every child learns to recite the books of the..."
Trying to tell me that one book is in fact 66 books is silly.
A collection of greek myths is a single book.
A collection of christian myths...I mean books, is still a single book.
one book = one source.
Did none of you guys have to write term papers in high school?
if you were writing a term paper in 400BC you'd have a case, but since by your own facts the bible has been a single book for 1,613 years, then I think it is in fact a book.
Bible - A Greek word that translates to "the books". Notice that it is plural.
I'm sorry, what was the point of this again?
Travis said, "Trying to tell me that one book is in fact 66 books is silly."
Arguing against facts by simply repeating the same assertions is silly. I gave you a brief history of the bible in which it is known that the books of the bible were all separate texts, written over a long period of time, with different authors.
All you have is that the collection is customarily found between two covers. That is the entire basis of your argument and it is weak.
Maria wrote: "I'm sorry, what was the point of this again?"David thinks the bible isn't one book and that he could get away with using it as his only source on a term paper.
I think that since it looks like a single book and is called by the people that claim it as their holy manual 'the good book' it may in fact be a book.
cerebus wrote: That there was a person around at that time, called Jesus, is something I have no issue with.....but that is what I said previously, we agree.
cerebus wrote: But if you interpret the historical existence of a person as being sufficient evidence for the claims made of that person, then it would seem to be a consistent position to hold for both Jesus and Mohamed.
You could make that connection but I do not know enough about Mohamed to do that.
cerebus wrote: But what evidence do you have for him being an actual prophet, and for doing the supernatural things that are claimed of him?
The bible suggests, that is what he was, maybe he was something else, a carpenter or a fisherman.
Supernatural things no, miracles yes. Maybe this is splitting hairs but if Jesus was who he said he was then the 'stuff' he did would be seen as a miracle and so not be put into the supernatural category. Supernatural suggests the unknown, but Jesus performing a miracle is perfectly explained, because he is the son of god and it would be no big deal, other then for him to prove a point. Evidence, none other than what people have told us from their writings and those people were a lot nearer to Jesus, time wise than we are.
cerebus wrote:Nope, not a slip....whilst there may be evidence for the existence of someone of that name, at that time, it is not evidence of supernatural.
No, no evidence of supernatural/miracles, if there were we would not be having this discussion. It comes down to taking sides. If something feels right then is most likely is....and for me it does seem right. But regardless that does not rule out a creator.
cerebus wrote: I will follow up with another question based on this, asking if the bible is god's word interpreted, how do you make a decision on which parts have been correctly interpreted.
I have never digested the bible that much and have never studied it in great detail. It is just an overall impression. The bible is not going to prove or disprove everything or anything. My overall feeling is that Jesus did exist and he was who he said he was, and also that the Virgin Mary (non bible) did appear to Bernadette Soubirous.
cerebus wrote:(being gay is a sin, stone disobedient children, keeping slaves is ok)
This one question could be a whole debate on it's own and a short reply would not do justice here, but I will say that interpretation plays a big part here, and just as society has moved on regarding 'gay' being a sin or not legal so I guess religion will as well given time. The sin part is something atheists like to play on a bit, but in reality, like birth control it does get overlooked in religion.
In the uk until recently the law stated that a London taxi had to carry a bale of hay at all times. An old law from the days of horse drawn cabs that had never been revoked. The above is a bit like that for many.
cerebus wrote:(We only have Moses word that what was said to him was what god said....maybe god had another commandment that said "Thou shalt not wear odd socks on the sabbath" and Moses thought "that's daft, I'm not writing that one down".
Maybe. :) Maybe Moses got to the top of the mountain and met with aliens who gave him commandments or orders to bring back down. And Moses thought, the folks below will never believe I talked with aliens, I’ll say it was God.
Travis said "David thinks the bible isn't one book and that he could get away with using it as his only source on a term paper.I think that since it looks like a single book and is called by the people that claim it as their holy manual 'the good book' it may in fact be a book."
OK - thanks. I think that even though it has lots of books within the main book (if that makes sense) - I still would only count it as one "source" as far as a term paper goes.
When I had to write term papers in college and the Bible was one of the sources, no matter how many books from the Bible that I used it was considered one source.
Maria wrote: "Travis said "David thinks the bible isn't one book and that he could get away with using it as his only source on a term paper.I think that since it looks like a single book and is called by the ..."
Thank you!
I agree that it is a collection, but a collection of myths and stories, wether greek, norse, christian or eskimo is still one book, so that's one source.
If you do a search on Goodreads for "The Bible" only one book comes up, not 66... (although there are different versions)
Haha...thanks for the good laugh today. Are we really arguing over whether the bible is one source or not. Well, in scholarly circles, when citing the bible, both MLA and APA styles consider the bible one source. That's good enough for me. I think some missed the bigger point, which was Chris admitting. that as a source, the bible is not the actual word of god. He admits its accuracy is in doubt. That's the real point here. You cannot point to the bible as proof god exists, anymore than you can point to Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone (different name in England)as proof Harry Potter exists. We do not really know if the writers of the bible meant it to be a collection of fictional stories, it could be at the time, they did indeed know they were writing fictional morality stories to direct people on the right way to live.
David wrote: "Let me put it another way. If Travis, Maria, and Mary each write books about their home town and I then take those books and put them into one book to make a Home Town Trilogy, how many sources do..."By your own definition, you said you put them into one book....so...one book. This is a slightly amusing debate, but I think you continue to persist with your splitting hairs because it keeps you from addressing the validity of the bible as a source. "If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation" Advertising 101 You don't like the question, so you are changing what's being discussed.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Have freaking mercy?
You didn't. The word "troll" was thrown around today but not by you.
You came to this party for one reason, Shanna. I was talking with Cerebus and Mary; I didn't think they were being truly honest on two key points. Then, I realized you'd said something ... not Mary. So, I admitted that, told Mary I was wrong, and apologized. You entered at that point.
Then, you asked me about "camps" ....
A camp signifies more than one person. You're not the only person in the "camp" you referred to. Not every thing I said was directed at you.