(August 26, 2019 at 3:10 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(August 26, 2019 at 2:56 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: I've written it in Latin myself. Creationists often say that the Bible makes perfect sense if you read it in Latin or Greek or Hebrew. Well, that's not true in my case.

After having read Cicero, Sallust and Caesar, your text seemd to be very simply structured. Then i realized that all those authors are really heavyweights and probably latin as having been spoken on the street (or what you wrote) may differ from those like common english differs from Shakespeare.

Anyhow, was quite fun to read your article, although i have to admit to my long time *problem*, an abundance of lack of latin vocabulary (i had to look up quite a few words ).

I've got better at writing Latin over time. There are a few syntax errors in that essay, I think now. "quae nunc scimus" should have probably been "quas nunc scimus" (the difference between accusative with infinitive and nominative with infinitive) and "futuri esse" should have probably been "futuros esse" (for the same reason). I've recently written an essay about vegetarianism in Latin, you can read it at the bottom of this web-page if you are interested, it's certainly better-written.

Don't listen to these grouches; I don't think they get outside much.

I think it's actually a bit fun that you've done this. Hilariously ironic because many churches used Latin in their services for many, many years. This is almost a way to take that concept and turn it around on them.

We're going to hit you with some truth but in a language you don't understand so it makes it all esoteric and ritualistic.

Cool idea.

And the defender of the oppressed strikes again.

(August 30, 2019 at 8:23 am)EgoDeath Wrote: Don't listen to these grouches; I don't think they get outside much.

I think it's actually a bit fun that you've done this. Hilariously ironic because many churches used Latin in their services for many, many years. This is almost a way to take that concept and turn it around on them.

We're going to hit you with some truth but in a language you don't understand so it makes it all esoteric and ritualistic.

Cool idea.

Well, yes, that was kind of what I wanted. It was primarily intended to be an elegant response to religious people saying stuff like "You need to read the Bible in its original languages, or at least in Latin, for it to make sense to you.".

(September 1, 2019 at 3:29 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(August 30, 2019 at 8:23 am)EgoDeath Wrote: Don't listen to these grouches; I don't think they get outside much.

I think it's actually a bit fun that you've done this. Hilariously ironic because many churches used Latin in their services for many, many years. This is almost a way to take that concept and turn it around on them.

We're going to hit you with some truth but in a language you don't understand so it makes it all esoteric and ritualistic.

Cool idea.

Well, yes, that was kind of what I wanted. It was primarily intended to be an elegant response to religious people saying stuff like "You need to read the Bible in its original languages, or at least in Latin, for it to make sense to you.".

I think it's great you could write that in Latin. I wish I could do as much.

If the content is to be as important as the language, though, I think you'll have to rise above the level of quoting Dawkins. He's not someone who can be taken seriously on the topic of theology.

(September 1, 2019 at 3:36 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 3:29 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, yes, that was kind of what I wanted. It was primarily intended to be an elegant response to religious people saying stuff like "You need to read the Bible in its original languages, or at least in Latin, for it to make sense to you.".

I think it's great you could write that in Latin. I wish I could do as much.

If the content is to be as important as the language, though, I think you'll have to rise above the level of quoting Dawkins. He's not someone who can be taken seriously on the topic of theology.

Theology is best described as "the study of nothing".
Its on the same level as the science of mythical beasts

(September 1, 2019 at 3:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: If the content is to be as important as the language, though, I think you'll have to rise above the level of quoting Dawkins. He's not someone who can be taken seriously on the topic of theology.

Says a guy who never read any of Dawkins books.

(September 1, 2019 at 4:28 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 3:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: I think it's great you could write that in Latin. I wish I could do as much.

If the content is to be as important as the language, though, I think you'll have to rise above the level of quoting Dawkins. He's not someone who can be taken seriously on the topic of theology.

Theology is best described as "the study of nothing".
Its on the same level as the science of mythical beasts

Or ships, remember the flying dutchman legend. Some peplple claim to see her to this day.

(September 1, 2019 at 3:36 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 3:29 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, yes, that was kind of what I wanted. It was primarily intended to be an elegant response to religious people saying stuff like "You need to read the Bible in its original languages, or at least in Latin, for it to make sense to you.".

I think it's great you could write that in Latin. I wish I could do as much.

If the content is to be as important as the language, though, I think you'll have to rise above the level of quoting Dawkins. He's not someone who can be taken seriously on the topic of theology.

And isn't what the Dawkin's quote says an obvious truth?

(September 1, 2019 at 12:48 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: And isn't what the Dawkin's quote says an obvious truth?

My Latin is next to non-existent. (I meant to say that in the past, in general, when Dawkins talks about theology he makes a lot of mistakes.)

Does the quote translate to something like: "What theology says is not clear, and when it's clear it's false"?

That's a very big claim. Does it mean to include ALL of theology? Is it true, by definition, that no statement in the field of theology can be both clear and true?