It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question About The Bible

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
the five books of Moses, or The pentacheuch cannot be 100% metaphor since they have never proven any part of it to just a parable with no bearing on fact. Also, if you not the only time parables are recorded in the bible and we KNOW them to be parables is when the speaker prefaces the story by saying it is a parable. Please tell me what parts of the bible pentacheuch are parable and what proves it to be one? the simple matter is the bible pentacheuch is a historical document and those that cannot belive that are still stuck in thier unbelief.

TO me, beliving in the mature creation of the universe is part of my faith that the Bible is a complete and true whole without contradictions, and thus is the true word of God, and his plan for our salavation. To say that I doubt the creation story would be saying I don't belive in God's plan of salvation.

now, FYI, I love exploring theories about astronomy, and the Scientific creation of the earth. I was even facinated with dinosaurs like every kid was. But I do know that is not where my focus is, nor should I pat myself on the back at discovering something that GOd hadn't really created as far as donosaurs being a living creaure

Also, to say that the account in Genesis covers the creation of dinosaurs is decieving to others who do not believe since it confuses a mater and glosses over it in order to fit in like everyone else and not have to defend your beliefs under scrutiny




posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
Also, to say that the account in Genesis covers the creation of dinosaurs is decieving to others who do not believe since it confuses a mater and glosses over it in order to fit in like everyone else and not have to defend your beliefs under scrutiny


I disagree, Genesis tells us when animals were created. Dinosaurs are animals, thus we know when dinosaurs were created.

I am not deceiving anyone, some people chose not to believe what God has told us in the Bible. I can't make anyone believe the Bible. I can tell them why I believe it, but I cna't believe for them. To believe it is an act of the will and that can only be done by the person who uses that free will.

Sometimes people think a problem that seems complicated has to have a complicated answer when in reality some answers are simple.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
You do know that the catholic church isn't Biblical and does not teach salvation through Christ alone.


By chance do you know who compiled the Bible you idolize?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   


Spamandham,
By chance do you know who compiled the Bible you idolize?


Yup, and anyone who wants an accurate history lesson can too! I’ll tell you this much it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church!

www.chick.com...

www.chick.com...


A True Christian
In These Last Days,

James



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
Yup, and anyone who wants an accurate history lesson can too! I’ll tell you this much it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church!

www.chick.com...

www.chick.com...


Jack Chick is a moron. You might want to look elsewhere for your information.

The KJV does not contain any books the Catholic church didn't want in it. Why? Because it's just a translation of the books the Catholic church used for over 1000 years before the KJV was penned.

If the Catholic church is satanic as you seem to think, why could they not have propogated whatever texts they want?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   


Spamandham,
The KJV does not contain any books the Catholic church didn't want in it. Why? Because it's just a translation of the books the Catholic church used for over 1000 years before the KJV was penned.


The King James traces its roots outside of the Roman Catholic Church. You have swallowed a Catholic lie if you believe that the Catholic Church gave us the King James Bible. There are numerous books which discuss this topic in detail. Catholic Rome was and has always been to this very day an enemy of Jesus Christ and Christianity.


A True Christian
In These Last Days,

James



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
The King James traces its roots outside of the Roman Catholic Church.


You do realize the King James is a translation and not the original texts right? Who controlled the books during the intervening 1500 years?


Originally posted by Machine
Catholic Rome was and has always been to this very day an enemy of Jesus Christ and Christianity.


I knew there was a reason I had you on my ignore list.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   


The King James traces its roots outside of the Roman Catholic Church. You have swallowed a Catholic lie if you believe that the Catholic Church gave us the King James Bible. There are numerous books which discuss this topic in detail.


I actually agree with Machine here, although I'm not here to bash Catholics or their religon I have to say I dont really see why so many people trust in the religon so faithfully but look past the fact that...the Romans were the ones that persecuted Jesus?

I was sent to a Catholic church as a boy and although they taught me good morals, they really didn't explain the Bible that well, and I dont recall them going into any detail about any spirtual aspect. If your going to teach your religon off of the Bible then you must follow it and not add traditions or change things. Thats why I'm not currently part of any religon, it seems like very few are truthfully speaking the word of God, thats just my observation. I've learned more in 1 year from reading just parts of the KJV myself than I ever learned from 7 years of hearing sermons from my Priest.



You do realize the King James is a translation and not the original texts right? Who controlled the books during the intervening 1500 years?


I dont quite understand that comment, isn't nearly every modern Bible simply an attempt at translation of the original Hebrew texts? The King James is widely viewed as the most accurate translation by Christians and non Christians like myself alike, and I know that because with some additional resources I can actually look up the original word meanings.

Of course I dont have proof that it is the best version or anything, I dont know exactly who it was put together by, or if there was any political influence involved but I dont need physical evidence because the proof is in what reading it does with your mind and spirit, honestly.

[edit on 10/22/2005 by JKersteJr]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JKersteJr
I dont quite understand that comment, isn't nearly every modern Bible simply an attempt at translation of the original Hebrew texts?


No. None of the original texts exist. There are very ancient Hebrew texts for the Old Testament (and the apocryphal books the KJV inerrantists despise), but they are not the originals.

For the New Testament, the oldest extant copies are hundred of years after the purported facts, although a couple of scraps of older manuscripts do exist from the 2nd century. Most of the fragments prior to the 4th century contain no more than a a couple of words.

It would have been quite easy for the RRC to completely alter these texts in the intervening centuries.


Originally posted by JKersteJr
The King James is widely viewed as the most accurate translation by Christians and non Christians like myself alike, and I know that because with some additional resources I can actually look up the original word meanings.


Regardles of the accuracy of the translation, the texts that the translation are based from were in the hands of the RRC, and you do not have the original manuscripts. For all you know, those oldest texts have been greatly altered from the originals by the entity machine views as the tool of Satan.

RRC haters are stuck simply assuming on faith that god somehow magically protected the texts while they were in the hands of his enemy.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by JKersteJr
I dont quite understand that comment, isn't nearly every modern Bible simply an attempt at translation of the original Hebrew texts?


No. None of the original texts exist. There are very ancient Hebrew texts for the Old Testament (and the apocryphal books the KJV inerrantists despise), but they are not the originals.


Well, no ancient text is extant in the autograph -- indeed no autograph may ever have existed for texts dictated to a group of scribes. To suggest that no text can be preserved unless we have the autograph disposes of 99% of modern literature, never mind ancient literature.



For the New Testament, the oldest extant copies are hundred of years after the purported facts, although a couple of scraps of older manuscripts do exist from the 2nd century. Most of the fragments prior to the 4th century contain no more than a a couple of words.


These words have been copied from some atheist apologist, for I have heard something very like them before; they are almost a century out of date. Complete gospels from around 200AD exist. The NT is better attested in manuscript terms than almost any other ancient text; if these arguments dispose of it, Cicero and his like vanish likewise.



It would have been quite easy for the RRC to completely alter these texts in the intervening centuries.


Or, as Von Daniken points out, for aliens to have done so. Speculation is not evidence; and altering all the copies of a widely dispersed text is actually not at all easy.



RRC haters are stuck simply assuming on faith that god somehow magically protected the texts while they were in the hands of his enemy.


It's certainly more rational than presuming that a value-idea set is to be obeyed, simply because we happen to live at the same time that it is popular. And this, as we all know, is the real alternative here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 24/10/2005 by roger_pearse]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Well, no ancient text is extant in the autograph


The autograph itself is not the issue.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
These words have been copied from some atheist apologist,


Are you so sure? Roger Pearse agrees with my statement when he says...


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Complete gospels from around 200AD exist.


i.e., nearly 200 years after the fact. That counts as 'hundreds of years'. If you wish to refute something, at least be honest about it rather than just throw up the 'you got that from some atheist site' card at every opportunity.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The NT is better attested in manuscript terms than almost any other ancient text; if these arguments dispose of it, Cicero and his like vanish likewise.


Do you consider the writings you're referring to with regard to Cicero to be without error, perhaps even significant error? If so, why?

Any text written ~200 years after the fact can not simply be assumed to accurately reflect the events nor even necessarily the original texts (assuming they existed). This is particularly the case if the writers of the extant copies may have had motivation to fabricate or alter the meaning of it. Even contemporary works can have drastic errors.

But beyond that, the Bible is not simply a historical record, it's a collection of ancient religious writings. Would you even accept modern religious writings that made fantastic claims differing from your preconceptions, even if the authorship could be absolutely confirmed, and the author was still alive, and all the facts that could be verified checked out? Would that automatically imply the fantastic parts were true as well? If not, then why do you use a different standard when the Bible is concerned?

I find it difficult to believe you would accept such an argument for any other religious writings, historical or contemporary.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Or, as Von Daniken points out, for aliens to have done so. Speculation is not evidence;


Well then, we'll simply dismiss any speculation that the Bible is the word of god. I have no problem with that standard.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
and altering all the copies of a widely dispersed text is actually not at all easy.


Why do you believe the Gospels were widely dispersed? A couple of fragments proves that? In the words of Roger Pearse, speculation is not evidence.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
It's certainly more rational than presuming that a value-idea set is to be obeyed, simply because we happen to live at the same time that it is popular.


The consequence of failure to believe the Bible is inspired has no bearing on whether it actually is inspired or not.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
And this, as we all know, is the real alternative here.


There is no rationality in uncritically assuming that the moral codes of ancient herdsmen are somehow superior to those of the society you find yourself in. It could be argued that the ethics of the society you find yourself in are in fact relatively superior to all other moral codes, as they ensure your acceptance within that society if you abide by them.

If you want a rational set of ethics, then use reason to derive them.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
(Duplicate in error -- sorry)

[edit on 25/10/2005 by roger_pearse]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Well, no ancient text is extant in the autograph


The autograph itself is not the issue.


I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I do not understand what your comment means.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
These words have been copied from some atheist apologist,


Are you so sure? Roger Pearse agrees with my statement when he says...


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Complete gospels from around 200AD exist.


i.e., nearly 200 years after the fact. That counts as 'hundreds of years'. If you wish to refute something, at least be honest about it rather than just throw up the 'you got that from some atheist site' card at every opportunity.


If you mean '170 years after the event', then I suggest not using the phrase 'hundreds of years.' It is misleading.

It is a common mistake of the modern era to suppose ancient literary texts are preserved in manuscripts close to contemporary. The majority are preserved in texts of the 9th or 12th century, or even later.

I note that you offer no other reference for your comments, so am a bit surprised that you are upset by my comment about them.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
The NT is better attested in manuscript terms than almost any other ancient text; if these arguments dispose of it, Cicero and his like vanish likewise.


Do you consider the writings you're referring to with regard to Cicero to be without error, perhaps even significant error? If so, why?


I'm afraid I'm going to ask you the same question! Do we, or do we not, possess the extant works of Cicero?



Any text written ~200 years after the fact can not simply be assumed to accurately reflect the events nor even necessarily the original texts (assuming they existed). This is particularly the case if the writers of the extant copies may have had motivation to fabricate or alter the meaning of it. Even contemporary works can have drastic errors.


The argument is that no ancient text can have reached us, therefore the bible did not reach us, is merely obscurantism, I'm sorry to say. The modern era begins with the recovery of classical literature.



But beyond that, the Bible is not simply a historical record, it's a collection of ancient religious writings. Would you even accept modern religious writings that made fantastic claims ...


All this amounts to is a complaint that Christian beliefs are not acceptable to those who set the media agenda of our day. This I think we both knew. The question you need to answer is why we should conform to such a purely temporary set of values and ideas -- whatever other options may be on offer is neither here nor there, surely?




Originally posted by roger_pearse
It's certainly more rational than presuming that a value-idea set is to be obeyed, simply because we happen to live at the same time that it is popular.


The consequence of failure to believe the Bible ...


Surely it matters nothing what the bible is, if we live by a set of irrational beliefs adopted from societal values?



If you want a rational set of ethics, then use reason to derive them.


I do. What I don't find, tho, is that you do, because your 'ethics' are merely conformity to a subset of the values and ideas fashionable when you were growing up. I too once did this -- no longer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 25/10/2005 by roger_pearse]

[edit on 25/10/2005 by roger_pearse]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
If you mean '170 years after the event', then I suggest not using the phrase 'hundreds of years.' It is misleading.


Most datings of p45 are early 3rd century, not precisely 200 CE. You already know that. We are both using round numbers here. I see nothing misleading about using the term 'hundreds of years' in regard to things that are approximately 200 years. Whether it's precisely 200 years, 170 years, or 220 years is not important. Any of those is well beyond the point at which the writings could be considered high fidelity.

The point of this subdiscussion was not to go into a detailed review of the datings of extant New Testament documents, that information is readily available even on non-atheist web sites (such as the Catholic encylopedia, or perhaps your own Tertullian site?). The purpose was to point out the inconsistency of refering to the Catholic church as the tool of satan while simultaneously holding a KJV inerrantist perspective.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid I'm going to ask you the same question! Do we, or do we not, possess the extant works of Cicero?


I have no idea, nor do I care much other than mild curiosity.

Ciceronians are not causing wars, crusades, burning witches, justifying slavery with writings about Cicero, forcing references to Cicero into the pledge, forming PACs to force Ciceronian aesthetics onto the rest of the population through law, or attempting to indoctrinate my children behind my back.

The Bible gets scrutiny because it is a significant source of modern conflict. As a historian, I would think you would cherish the opportunity such scrutiny provides.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The argument is that no ancient text can have reached us, therefore the bible did not reach us, is merely obscurantism, I'm sorry to say.


Why should you be sorry? Neither you nor I am making any such claim. The claim is that there was both opportunity and motivation for tampering. A further claim is that even if we had the originals and they were conclusively dated to some time near 30 CE, and the authorship could be ascertained, that this would not be sufficient documentation for the fantastic claims made.

I seriously doubt you would accept such an argument even from a modern writing where the authorship and date were incontrovertable, and all the basic facts checked out, if the fantastic portions defied your preconceptions and were not substantiated with significant external evidence. Would you?

Rather than be accused again of simply cutting information from 'some atheist web site', I'll ask someone who already knows the answer to this question; you

Are there significant variations in extant copies of New Testament texts?


Originally posted by roger_pearse
All this amounts to is a complaint that Christian beliefs are not acceptable to those who set the media agenda of our day.


No, it's a complaint about special pleading.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The question you need to answer is why we should conform to such a purely temporary set of values and ideas


I'll answer your question in the hope that you will answer the questions I've posed as a courtesy.

I don't believe that conformance to modern values and ideas is inherently better or worse than conformance to ancient values and ideas, because I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.

Since there is a common denominator of benefit and harm for most people, there is general agreement on what is definitively good and what is definitively evil. But even these are situational in reality.

Treating others as we would like to be treated is an implicit agreement with others. When we violate it, they will stop honoring it as well and we will likely be harmed. You already know that the New Testament is not the original source of this concept.

There are instances where conformance to ancient values conflicts with modern values by an incompatible degree. Ancient value systems advocated slavery, the taking of women as spoils of war, genocide, preferential treatment based on race, and placing loyalty to authority above loyalty to family. These are incompatible with modern values, and have rightly been rejected by virtually everyone who claims to accept ancient values.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Surely it matters nothing what the bible is, if we live by a set of irrational beliefs adopted from societal values?


Why do you assume societal values are irrational?


Originally posted by roger_pearse
I do. What I don't find, tho, is that you do, because your 'ethics' are merely conformity to a subset of the values and ideas fashionable when you were growing up. I too once did this -- no longer.


You don't know me from Adam. You have merely assumed what my ethics are and how I've derived them.

But even if you were correct that all I've done is conform to the values around me, why is that not a rational thing to do? More importantly, why do you consider it rational to instead conform to the values of ancient Bedouin?



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Hi folks,
I was just reading this thread, and I knew of a really awesome website on Creation vs. evolution.
Everything you always wanted to know about that debate is on this very educational website.

www.answersingenesis.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
If you mean '170 years after the event', then I suggest not using the phrase 'hundreds of years.' It is misleading.


Most datings of p45 are early 3rd century, not precisely 200 CE....


Why not just be more precise?




Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid I'm going to ask you the same question! Do we, or do we not, possess the extant works of Cicero?


I have no idea, nor do I care much other than mild curiosity. (rant snipped)


I'm going to put you on the spot, then. Is it acceptable under any moral system you care to mention for you to ask 'questions' to which you neither know the answer nor care what it might be? Would you like to be on the receiving end of that?

The point, of course, was that we cannot sensibly argue from manuscript ages for the NT if the same argument disposes of the classical heritage, can we?




Originally posted by roger_pearse
The argument is that no ancient text can have reached us, therefore the bible did not reach us, is merely obscurantism, I'm sorry to say.


Why should you be sorry? Neither you nor I am making any such claim. The claim is that there was both opportunity and motivation for tampering.


This is not different from what I just said. Either the 'tampering' is trivial, or it means that in effect the text is destroyed.



A further claim is that even if we had the originals and they were conclusively dated to some time near 30 CE, and the authorship could be ascertained, that this would not be sufficient documentation for the fantastic claims made.


I'm afraid this is merely prejudice. Any claims must be evaluated in the same way. There is no practical difference between demanding a different standard for things we consider 'fantastic' and demanding a higher standard for whatever we are prejudiced against or societally conditioned not to believe. If we wish to learn anything we must get past this.

But you are quite welcome to conform to purely temporary and irrational values; just not to sneer at others who refuse to do so.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
All this amounts to is a complaint that Christian beliefs are not acceptable to those who set the media agenda of our day.


No, it's a complaint about special pleading.


'Fraid not.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
The question you need to answer is why we should conform to such a purely temporary set of values and ideas


I don't believe that conformance to modern values and ideas is inherently better or worse than conformance to ancient values and ideas...


Nor I. But why do either? Given that we have different values and ideas every 50 years, how can the set we happen to have now be right?



I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.


Selfishness is not much of a philosophy, tho, is it?

The remainder of these comments seem to me to reduce to an assertion that the values of late 20th century America are of eternal verity. This cannot be so, and needs little discussion.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
Surely it matters nothing what the bible is, if we live by a set of irrational beliefs adopted from societal values?


Why do you assume societal values are irrational?


Have you assessed them? Why do you assume the contrary? How did this set of values come into existence, 50 years ago?




Originally posted by roger_pearse
I do. What I don't find, tho, is that you do, because your 'ethics' are merely conformity to a subset of the values and ideas fashionable when you were growing up. I too once did this -- no longer.


You don't know me from Adam. You have merely assumed what my ethics are and how I've derived them.


Ahem. I live in this society too, you know. I don't think being evasive like this exactly recommends your position, you know.



But even if you were correct that all I've done is conform to the values around me, why is that not a rational thing to do?


You need to explain why conformity to the values of the USA in 1978 is more rational than those of the USA in 1923; in 1871; in 1802; and indeed in 2020, 2090, and 2112.

Value-idea sets that are only held so long as they are fashionable, and not heard of after that can have no validity, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Why not just be more precise?


I spoke of the New Testament as a whole. You brought up the gospels. They are not the complete New Testament. Extant copies of other books in the NT came even later than early 3rd century. I was trying to avoid a derailed discussion about the ages of each book in the NT by generalizing. Apparently I didn't succeed.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Is it acceptable under any moral system you care to mention for you to ask 'questions' to which you neither know the answer nor care what it might be?


You asked me if we had extant copies regarding Cicero. I didn't ask you that. What I asked you was whether you felt the writings you referred to were without error, possibly even significant error. I am interested in the answer to that question, and you have not answered it.

In your moral system, is it acceptable to use diversionary tactics to hide responses simply because they reveal that you are operating with a dual standard, while simultaneously using deceptive tactics to attempt to discredit another? Would you like to be on the receiving end of that?


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The point, of course, was that we cannot sensibly argue from manuscript ages for the NT if the same argument disposes of the classical heritage, can we?


I have no problems applying the same standards to all ancient texts uniformly. That includes the Greek manuscripts that claim Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus Ammon, as well as writings about Cicero or anyone else. Simply because it is written down and is ancient does not in the least imply we should embrace credulity. My standards for ancient documents are not lower than for modern documents. Are yours?

Does this mean we must abandon all effort to learn from such texts and simply discard them as worthless? By no means! It simply means that we use discernment just like we would with modern writings, always knowing that what we think we know is approximate and could be disrupted by new evidence. Ancient writers had the same political and religious motivations as modern writers, and were subject to influence by legend and mythology just as are modern writers.

There is no reason to even suspect ancient writings did not contain the same exaggerations and half truths, myths and legends that modern writings do. You yourself have noted the tendency to accept uncritically information from 'some atheist site'. This happens today even when information is much easier to validate than it was in ancient times. How much more would it have happened in the ancient world then?

Due to the mystical mindset of the ancient world, the heavy influence of writers to stroke the king's ego, the relatively increased difficulty of verifying basic facts in a world before archaeology, and the lack of widespread critical review such as exists today, I would expect ancient writings to suffer from even greater problems regarding half-truths, outright lies of propoganda, myths and legends than modern writings.

For these reasons, it is valid to reject the mystical, legendary or otherwise fantastic aspects of the Bible (or any other ancient writing) without throwing out the entire thing. I suspect that's exactly what you do in regard to ancient works unrelated to Christianity.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
This is not different from what I just said. Either the 'tampering' is trivial, or it means that in effect the text is destroyed.


I don't know how you can call yourself a historian with this black and white mindset. Tampering only "destroys the text" if you believe the original text was without error.

I have no reason to even suspect the original texts (assuming the extant copies are not the originals) were without error, legend, myth, allegory and symbolism later misunderstood to be literal, or lies and half-truths. That is the same standard I apply to all other ancient texts, as well as modern writings.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid this is merely prejudice.


Indeed it is! And such predjudice is justifiable. I suspect you apply the same predjudice to non-Christian documents.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Any claims must be evaluated in the same way. There is no practical difference between demanding a different standard for things we consider 'fantastic' and demanding a higher standard for whatever we are prejudiced against or societally conditioned not to believe.


I seriously doubt you really believe this. The more a claim deviates from the ordinary, the greater the liklihood it is false. There is little motivation to exaggerate or lie about a weather report, but there is great motivation to lie or exaggerate about military conquests, divine lineages, etc.

Even if a writer is pure in heart, they may have simply uncritically accepted a lie, myth, or legend, or misunderstood as literal an allegory or symbolic message they were told and wrote it down as literal.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
If we wish to learn anything we must get past this.


No, we have to appreciate it and simply accept that anything we think we know might be in error.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
But you are quite welcome to conform to purely temporary and irrational values; just not to sneer at others who refuse to do so.


...and you are welcome to irrationally apply double standards, special pleading, false arguments involving black and white knowledge, and dishonest tactics aimed at discrediting those who disagree with you. I would suggest putting a lid on your ego if you continue to choose that path.

It saddens me to watch someone with such vast historical knowledge render himself useless. I would like to have picked your brain instead, but I don't believe I can trust you at this point.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Nor I. But why do either? Given that we have different values and ideas every 50 years, how can the set we happen to have now be right?


From my perspective the question is invalid as it presumes there is such a thing as apodictic right and wrong.


Originally posted by roger_pearse


I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.


Selfishness is not much of a philosophy, tho, is it?


Why not? IMHO, it is the underlying basis of all moral and ethical codes whether those who hold such codes realize it or not.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The remainder of these comments seem to me to reduce to an assertion that the values of late 20th century America are of eternal verity.


It is you who are claiming there is a set of ethics with eternal value, not I. All I did was to point out the likely reality that you too have accepted at least a subset of modern ethics, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Have you assessed them? Why do you assume the contrary? How did this set of values come into existence, 50 years ago?


You refer to 'societal values' as if there were a set of uniform values codified somewhere that we can analyze. You then claim this set is irrational. I have not claimed it is rational, as I reject the hidden premise that there is such a thing as a uniform set of societal values that can even be analyzed.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Ahem. I live in this society too, you know. I don't think being evasive like this exactly recommends your position, you know.


You didn't ask me what my ethics are or how I arrived at them. You merely presumed that your process was superior to mine and then accused me of evasion when I pointed out that you had made such a presumption.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
You need to explain why conformity to the values of the USA in 1978 is more rational than those of the USA in 1923; in 1871; in 1802; and indeed in 2020, 2090, and 2112.


The purpose of ethics from my perspective is to maximize the well being of self with a set of well proven basic codes that deal with common circumstances. Compatibility with the dominant ethics of the society I find myself in best ensures I will not be ostracized and thus rationally forms boundaries on personal ethics. A rational set of personal ethics must then consider the present dominant ethics of society.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Value-idea sets that are only held so long as they are fashionable, and not heard of after that can have no validity, surely?


Obviously I don't agree, as I view ethics as nothing but a tool.

Do you not realize that it is your society and upbringing that ingrained within you the idea that ethics must be eternal/absolute in order to have validity?

You are a victim of a meme, acting with the same "irrational" behavior of which you accuse the rest of us.

That preconception has driven you to seek what you think to be absolute/eternal, taking with it your ability to think critically about a subset of ancient documents that supports that preconception, motivating you to behave dishonestly as necessary to support the meme, and fueling a sense of superiority that permeates virtually everything you write.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I've snipped most of this, as consisting primarily of evasions, misrepresentations, and personal insults of one kind or another. What it does not contain is any rational appreciation of the transmission of texts, or any reasoned explanation of why we should conform to purely societal values.

It does, however contain two telling comments, which highlight why I am posting no further.



I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.

...


Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid this is merely prejudice.


Indeed it is!


It seems unnecessary to comment further.




Originally posted by roger_pearse
But you are quite welcome to conform to purely temporary and irrational values; just not to sneer at others who refuse to do so.


...and you are welcome to ... (abuse snipped)


I'm afraid all you are doing is articulating a hatred of Christianity. This is sad stuff. Would you like to tell us honestly why you hate Christians? I for one have never done you the slightest harm.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
It's unfortunate Roger that some will read what you have snipped out of context and believe that to have actually been the meaning of what I wrote. You are by far the most evasive and dishonest poster I have run across on this site. What a waste.

The ethics you claim to value are worthless if you do not abide by them.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
Would you like to tell us honestly why you hate Christians?


I'll be happy to answer that after you tell us whether or not you've stopped beating your wife.


All the best.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join