(June 30, 2013 at 2:13 pm)Consilius Wrote: This good is 'revealed' through encounters with it; the experience of what is good about life. When this good is harder to find, people believe that it is still present.

Good is simply good, without man needing to attach divinity to it. Good, beauty, pleasure, positivity, is not evidence of a god behind their existence.

(June 30, 2013 at 3:29 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Sure. You take the original text, compare the words, phrases and sayings with the usage of the same in other texts of the period. Transpose the cultural references to the present and viola, you have it.

Now, are you good for your method of black = white translation? I mean, even every English translation contradicts directly what you're saying.
It's not like the words you're contradicting are even questionable or in doubt according to ANY translation. This is completely unique and unsupported trash.

I think translation is one problem among many in this discussion, and one which deserves to be addressed only after other problems have been resolved. Problems such as:

1. At what point are you certain that a text is truly the original text, and not a copy of something earlier which is lost to us?
2. How can you be certain that the original text is accurate (especially regarding stories such as Genesis, which depicted many events without even the weak support of eyewitness testimony, or the stories which were written down centuries after they were supposed to have taken place)?
3. How do you definitively establish that any of the spiritual stuff in the Bible is legitimate? Sure, you can have your visions or revelations, but is that as reliable as evidence gets? Minds are terribly suggestive, especially when one's own self is doing the suggesting.
4. How much of the internal bias are you supposed to accept? The Bible is not telling facts neutrally; it is told very much from a certain point of view. It seems as if most Christians form their arguments from that internal perspective and insist that this is necessary to derive the truth from what is on the pages. I should think that, if there was actual truth in it, you would find it in spite of the clear partiality, rather than it being necessary to hold the same point of view (see: the entire argument about God killing Amalekites; you have to take for granted (and not seriously question) the internal assertion that God cannot do evil for many of his actions to be perceived as not some of the most cruel examples of evil in history). Scripture doesn't use the word 'rape' to describe what is very obviously rape (indeed, scripture does not make any attempt to avoid the implication that it's rape), but how are we wrong for calling it rape?
5. What is the single, gold standard by which all scripture should be interpreted? Given that virtually every Christian gets something different out of the Bible when they read it, with little consistency in interpretations from cover to cover, there seems to be no reason that our unflattering interpretation is any less correct a way to describe its contents than those which are pitifully fawning. And, what's more, once that standard is established, what objective facts support its legitimacy?

In my experience, Christians have no interest in exploring these matters, but I think they are serious. What difference do the various translations make, really, when the sources themselves are so questionable and vaporous? That puts the cart miles ahead of the horse.

(June 21, 2013 at 4:27 pm)cato123 Wrote: Consilius,

You are omitting a very important part of the Exodus account that renders much of what you said irrelevant.

The fact you have not mentioned is that it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart. Why? I think the only reasonable answer is so that God could keep fucking with them, including killing innocent children as you pointed out.

Actually - why are you limiting that question to only that mythical event?
THe great flood - another mythical event of the bible - would have killed nearly all the infants and babies on the earth - if it had happened - as well.

Of course - neither of these events actually happened.
There never was a great flood as described in the bible - and the Hebrews were not among the people held in bondage by egypt (THe claim of half a million or more would be notable if they were).

THe Exodus is another MYTH made up by humans - with no evidence that ever happened - primarily because there is no evidence that the Hebrews even existed near the implied time.

And of course - the the religion itself is a MYTH - since gods exist only as fictional characters - in made up stories - by mostly ancient people - who describe what the gods did in vivid terms based on the Humans assumptions of the characteristics of the Universe - which turned out not to be true.

(June 29, 2013 at 1:08 am)Consilius Wrote: "They did it first" is the much of way the legal system works today and exactly the way it did in 2000 B.C.

No one cares, I certainly don't. Whether or not something works a given way doesn't have anything to say with regards to whether or not it;s right. Here again you attempt to paint the character in the narrative as "no worse than".

Quote:Attacking soldiers are killed in battle because "they attacked first".

Not always, but who cares?

Quote:Murderers are killed because "they murdered first".

Not always, but who cares?

Quote:The "tu quoque" defense would only apply to this case if the Israelites had killed the Egyptian children themselves. The judgement was carried out by a judge.
Death is only a punishment on anyone if they are attached to the world around them. This being a biblical event, death for the innocent is the passing on into a better life. It is only a punishment to the people who have to live with the fact that they are dead.

TQ is not a defense...it's the name of a logical fallacy. If you form an argument around it, your'e communicating and arguing incoherently. End of. It doesn't matter whether or not the judgement was carried out "by a judge". Being a judge does not make you right, it simply makes you a judge. If simply being a judge excused any given judge for some decision then police officers would be incapable of breaking the law - along the same lines, because, you know..they're cops..and judges would be incapable of making bad decisions..because..you know, they're judges.....



It doesn't matter what sort of life people "pass into" or how many lollipops are handed out, the event and responsibility for that event is not changed. "I killed a bunch of kids but I made them totally happy in the hereafter"- that doesn't matter. That you even have to imagine it to reconcile the narrative tells me that you understand perfectly well why the narrative is soup sandwich to begin with. Why is the "god" character handing out lollipops again? What is it he's making up for?

Uh-huh.



@Frodo. My bastardization? I'm the one telling people that they might want to discard the narrative as obvious fiction. I'm criticizing your fellow christians demands of the narrative...so, as usual, bullshit.

Based on your own fantastic understanding rhythm. Therefore: nothing to see here folks.

The only bit of my understanding in operation here is that a logical fallacy makes for an incoherent statement. Would you like to dispute this, or not?

If not, bullshit, yet again, go troll someone who won't call you on it. Speaking of calling you on your bullshit..howsabout what was or was not in the posts I conveniently numbered? You plan on retracting or acknowledging your last bit of bullshit before moving on to the next?

Your numbered posts say absolutely nothing to my point rhythm. First you need to substantiate something. Anything. Then maybe we can talk. Right now I'm getting a nice breeze from your arms.

Quote:First you need to substantiate something. Anything.

Let's start with your God, since without that being substantiated, all we're doing is disseminating fiction really.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Your numbered posts say absolutely nothing to my point rhythm. First you need to substantiate something. Anything. Then maybe we can talk. Right now I'm getting a nice breeze from your arms.

I don't care about your point (and to be honest, I don't think that your point exists), you tried to call me out on a statement I made which was easily checked and for which I did all the legwork - before you ever decided to run your usual garbage-. Unfortunately for you, and the bullshit you like to peddle...anyone who cares to can go back through the thread and quote my posts...including myself.

Bullshit, again, Frodo..heinous bullshit. .

Did I, or did I not, already explain...many posts before...why a TQ was a TQ, and why it made a poor justification for action? Did you, or did you not..open your mouth and lie through your fucking teeth?
(do I need to quote you...and myself...again, or are you done trolling me?)

(July 1, 2013 at 7:24 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:First you need to substantiate something. Anything.

Let's start with your God, since without that being substantiated, all we're doing is disseminating fiction really.

Your obfuscation knows no limits Ryan. Answer the justification for your claim or we shall all know to ignore it for the nonsense that it is.

---

Of course you don't care about the point Rhythm. That's the problem. You'll happily wallow around in the mud, slinging it indiscriminately as swine do.

Fair enough, I'll lay off you. You carry on