|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Confession of a former christian | |||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Chinese writings is not old at all. If your refering to a controversial debate over fossil bones with markings said to resemble writings, you have to slot this in the trivia box for the time being. It is disputed by all reliable sources, and shows no transit imprints in the 3000 years upto the 2nd M BCE it claims. This is like the stories writings appeared in Europe 10,000 years ago! I believe you are referring to this one:
quote: Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The message is, DON'T MESS WITH THE OT LAWS. We can see clearly, from the attempted negation of circumsizion - the NT failed, and on its heels, from the same neck of the words as Jesus, came Islam - and the attempted negation ['by fullfilling'] was itself negated: a billion muslims uphold the OT law, as well as the science and medical community. This signifies the NT is a non-middle-east treatise, representing the wish list of Europe - than that of a jew named Jesus [a European name]. Europe has used the name of Jesus to foster blatant errors:
quote: Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: No, it's that the typical fallen human being would be utilising a different definition of evil to the one used hithertofore by me.
Rrhain writes: Um, isn't that what I just said? No. As you point out yourself in your next sentence, fallen people understand what evil is (whereas 'what you just said' suggested that they don't understand what evil is). Re-defining evil so that evil acts can be viewed other than being evil is the manner in which the impediments to sin are removed. Like, if conscience halts your achieving your desires then suppressing conscience is a good a way as any around the problem. -
By the way, you just contradicted your own book. The reason that we are "fallen" is because we know what good and evil are. That's the entire point behind the tree of knowledge. Forgive me if I'm beginning to view your liberally sprinkled accusations of contradiction as boy who cried wolf-ism. I've said fallen people redefine evil. I'm not sure how a knowledge of what evil is means you aren't able to redefine it to suit your book. Bill Clinton was certainly able to redefine what sexual relations with a woman meant. Are you suggesting he didn't know he was having sexual relations with that woman at the time he was having them? -
The "if god does it, it can't be evil" school of thought makes "evil" a meaningless term for it resolves god of any responsibility for anything. That's fine, I just want to make sure. That school of definition makes talk of God doing evil meaningless s'all. Is God responsible for placing his son in a situation which would result in his death? Seeing as he planned it so I would say that he is responsible - even if he utilised mans evil in pulling the trigger. -
So now that we've established that, we still haven't solved the problem: If god can do anything, why did he not create creatures that would never choose other than what he wants? Since it is trivial to create beings who have the ability to choose but will never disobey, the only possible reason is that god wants there to be evil. I'm not sure what you reckon yourself to have established. We are agreed, I think, that this God-who-can-do-anything cannot create a creature who could determine his own final destination without giving that creature a choice of destinations and the ability to determine which of the options he would like to have. But a willed creature choosing a final destination without God is choosing the option that God doesn't desire for them (even though God desires to supply a choice regarding the nature of the persons eternal destination). The person is doing evil not in exercising choice (which God has given them), but in the option they pick. As ever, it cannot be said that a person who wills to supply a choice desires all that can be chosen.
A dictionary definition of "theory" is "educated guess," but we all know that isn't what it means in science. A dictionary definition of "religion" is "devotion," but that makes football and Christianity the same thing, which they clearly are not. You'll have noted the definition supplied being a theological one? -
But that said, your definition actually helps me: It requires "deliberate" action which Adam and Eve were incapable of doing as they hadn't eaten from the tree yet. One can deliberately make a consequential choice without any reference to right and wrong. Deliberate requires deliberation only. I can deliberate on the consequences of painting my room red prior to painting it so. You do agree I can deliberately choose to paint my room red don't you? -
Besides, you don't need to know anything about right and wrong in order to reap the consequences of a consequential choice.
Irrelevant. If I have an accident and somebody dies, that's certainly tragic, but there are to be no consequences to befall me precisely because it was an accident, not a deliberate act. That's why the cliche is, "You should have known better." There is a distinction between actions that are known to be wrong and yet you do them anyway and actions that you don't know are wrong. There is nothing accidental about deliberating upon the consequences and subsequently painting, a wall red. I might find that the consequences of actually doing so are not to my liking. No matter, deliberation doesn't require that I have full knowledge of the actual consequences prior to choosing. Otherwise I'd be like God -
But this definition makes "evil" a meaningless term. You have to be able to choose and Adam and Eve were incapable of choice as they had not eaten from the tree yet. They didn't "deliberately" do anything because that requires knowledge of good and evil. Since they hadn't eaten from the tree, they were constitutionally incapable of such an act. See Red Wall above -
Except they are incapable of choosing as they don't have knowledge. ..of good and evil. We could shorten things down by agreeing to leave out references to moral choices. We are agreed they couldn't make such a one.
Again, Adam and Eve were sinning up a storm according to your definition of "sin." And yet, god didn't seem to mind. What was so special about this one act? If it was so important, why is it not the very first thing they panic over? The definition of sin requires disobeying the "known" will of God. There is no reference to them knowingly disobeying God prior to them eating the fruit. Nor a reference to Gods will in the matter of nakedness prior to them eating the fruit - for that matter. Your case supporting your assertion is..? -
Only because god brought it up. The only thing on their minds is that they're naked. That would seem to be the least of their worries. If you're doing a bunch of things wrong and you get caught, the first thing that goes through your mind is either the most recent thing you did or the most important thing. The others will come along, but it's either the one that's still hanging in the air because you've just done it or because it's the one that will cause the most trouble. Being naked is neither. The only thing they've been told not to do is eat from the tree. The thing they just did was eat from the tree. Therefore, they should immediately be panicking over having eaten from the tree. Where did being naked come from? A knowledge of good and evil brought it to their attention? I did make that suggestion and you seemed to have missed it altogether. -
What makes you think the god of the Christians is the same one as the god of the Jews? There's a reason they're separate religions. They don't follow the same god. Christians would disagree (and I'm a Christian). The Jews have the right God but the wrong end of the stick. Not surprisingly, "on the day you eat you shall surely die.." is viewed through different lens than a Jew would read through. -
As I said, it supports my argument: Sin requires will and deliberation, two things Adam and Eve couldn't do as they hadn't eaten from the tree yet I wish I hadn't painted that wall red - moral sluggard that I am. Perhaps the devil made me do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me in multiple posts:
quote: Huh? The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the 2nd century BCE, not the 3rd.
quote: You're referring to the Merneptah Stele, yes? It would be quite helpful if you would be forthcoming in your references so I don't have to guess. It was written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. I thought you didn't consider hieroglyphs to be a real writing system. "Deficient of any historical factors"? If you truly believed, as you said, that "95% of all archeological dating is via names," then one has to wonder if you have ever read the Iliad or the Odyssey as they are filled with names. You've heard of Agamemnon, right? He was the king from whom Helen was stolen by Paris and abducted to Troy, thus instigating the Trojan war where Agamemnon, leader of the Achaeans, sacked the city of Troy and burned it to the ground. The Hittite's mention him as "Akagamunas," ruler of "Ahhiyawa," the land of the Achaeans. The references date to the 14th century BCE. The Mask of Agamemnon: You really don't know anything about Greek history, do you?
quote: What is the obsession with books? Why is writing only legitimate if it is written in a book? Your Merneptah Stele isn't a book and it is written in hieroglyphics. By the way, the oldest "book" that currently exists was written in Greek: The Derveni papyrus. It only dates from the 4th century BCE. Why is this fetish of yours regarding books? Why are stone carvings illegitimate?
quote: That's because there aren't any books in any language that old. Paper and similar things simply don't last that long. Stone, however, does. That's why your Merneptah Stele is still around. If you're going to rely upon works written upon stone for one example, then you necessarily must accept everything else written on stone for every other language.
quote: Huh? Hebrew script as it is currently used didn't appear until the 2nd century BCE. Greek script as it is currently used appeared nearly 1000 years before that. Books, on the other hand, are extremely fragile and we don't have any from the area older than the 4th century BCE, and it's written in Greek. And there are many more books written in Greek contemporary to the appearance of the Hebrew script of the 2nd century BCE. There's a reason all the ancient philosophers are Greek ones: They're the ones whose writings we have been able to find.
quote: So Egypt, which built the pyramids, wasn't an "advanced" nation because their writing was phonetic, not alphabetic? China, which built the Great Wall, isn't "advanced" because their writing is glyphic, not alphabetic? The Maya, who developed the most accurate calendar the world has ever seen outside of modern astronomy, weren't an "advanced" nation because their writing was glyphic, not alphabetic?
quote: There's nothing in the Old Testament that relates to democracy. We've been through this before.
quote: Separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. In fact, it is a direct violation of the first commandment. The very law is a religious law.
quote: (*chuckle*) What do you think the dominant language of the time was? Why, then, do you think the gospels should have been writtin in Hebrew?
quote: ...is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. In fact, the exact opposite is true: Human sacrifice is required and capital punishment is part of the law.
quote: So Leviticus doesn't exist?
quote: So Leviticus doesn't exist?
quote: There are no exit clauses. Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled. Are you saying all was fulfilled back in 850 BCE? Nearly a thousand years before the person you claim was supposed to be the one to fulfill it?
quote: Then why do we have writings that date from the 5th millennium BCE? Note, I'm not talking about modern Chinese. I'm talking about writing that was used to transcribe the Chinese language, which is what all writing is: Transcriptions of verbal language. Greek was written in more than one script. So was Hebrew. So was Arabic. Chinese went through a number of scripts before coming to the current version we have today.
quote: Except Paul completely violated them. The law is that you are to be circumcised...except Paul said you don't have to be. Who are you going to believe? The Old Testament law, straight from god? Or Paul?
quote: Incorrect. The science and medical community pretty much reject the OT proscriptions as superstition from a scientific and medical point of view. Circumcision as a way to prevent HIV transmission is short-sighted and ineffective. The way to prevent it is to use a condom. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its over 200 years BCE, which means 3rd C BCE. The point is, you stated hebrew script was 2C BCE, and that the scrolls was not a script. I asked if you believed all of the scrolls package was written in that same century, even as it alligns with a 'history' [not a myth] dating back over a 1000 years - with specifics of historical names, dates and places? FYI, the names Mount Sinai, Medianites, Goshen, Pithom, Ramasey, Philistines, the King's Highway, Abraham, Israel, Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron, Mount Nebo, a giant red tree, and 100s of such factors - are first recorded in the Hebrew documents. Re:
quote: There is only one such stella dated over 3,200 years old, which mentions Israel by name, and describes a war with Egypt: that is called, 'independent historical vindication'. The issue of hieroglyphs in this instant is not a factor, but that Israel was already a recognised nation at this early time, and its written history is scientifically verifiable in stone etchings. Its hardly a fictional issue, as you are making it appear - in fact, no writings or nation can equate such vindication for this ancient period. Re The Illiad, you cannot select what you want. The facts ['historicity'] say different from what you are positing:
quote: There is no confusion from an archeological determination - you need to come up with something similar to the tel dan or the moabite stone, concerning Greece. This requires identifiable historical names and dates, wars, nations, etc. This one is written in alphabetical aramaic, which is always alligned with Hebrew, and vindicates independent Hebrew documents. Of course I have read copiosly of greek history, and looked but found no evidence of what is accepted. A vase with letters dated 8C BCE, hardly compares with 100s of alphabetical hebrew books. This also vindicates King David's psalms, by default, and which are alphabetical, historical, 3000 years old, and in Hebrew, mentioning the name Moses numerously, and alligning with the OT naratives and the book of kings, without any contradictions. Where is a greek document, or another nation's documents, vindicating greek's history as does this, by an independent nation:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Pointing out, the earliest DDS is the great Isaiah scroll, which has been carbon dated from between 335bc to 107 BC, so it could be anywhere from the 4th century bc to the second century bc. The others date from between 150 BC to 100 AD (probably 70 ad would be more accurate)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Although the scrolls parcel goes upto 330 BCE, IMHO, it is its content, more than the C14 process, which establishes its veracity. C14 is not reliable for small margin datings, but one cannot argue with specifics of historicity which are vindicated by other writings and events. IOW, the scrolls is not mythical but historical stuff.
If I saw something similar in veracity in the greek or any other document, with such vindicated historical criteria, there would be no need to question it. I see nothing similar in greek writings to accept it is older than the hebrew. I have witnessed scholars debating and there was unanimous agreement Hebrew is a far older script than the greek. The truth is, after a certain point in history, everything becomes fuzzy with regard which alphabetical writings was first; this allows anyone to make any assumption they prefer to, without being negated. Now obviously, the Hebrew people came late in the scene, well after babylon and canaan, and those early nations did have writings, as is seen on the pyramids and other monuments, and these would have later graduated to a shorter, more advanced alphabetical script, with the obvious, ever advancement processes of humanity. The anomoly is, why or how did the Hebrew writings become so copious, with the introduction of such an advanced grammatical writing, prior to a host of nations older and more mightier? Where are the phenecian/sumerian/canaanite/babylonion alphabetical books? - these nations prevailed for more than a 1000 years after the Hebrew emerged, eg. Babylon was a super-power, and conquered Israel in 586 BCE, but had not near equivalent alphabetical books as did the Hebrew at that point in time. This also applies to Greece, because Alexander allowed Israel to remain autonomous although it was a conqeured state of Greece, because he esteemeed their historical writings, which predated Greece, and his quest was it becomes translated into Greek; he esteemed Israel to such an extent, and vice versa, that his name became a Jewish one, the preists nameing all their first borns with his name, and the Hebrews were given the most prominent positions in the Greek society and parlaiment. Alexander's greatest conquest may be his decision to translate the OT, rather than all his military conquests: two religions emerged because of that decision, and history changed to what it is today. When happened here was, as in ancient Egypt, the Hellenist preists lost their prominence after the OT was translated and understood by the greeks - it was seen as far superior to greek theology and greek laws. This led to a hatred inculcated against the OT and the Hebrews, and Alexander was probably assassinated for this reason; exactly the same thing happened in Egypt, and its preists instigated the genocide of first born Hebrew males, to destroy the infusion of the Hebrews from Egypt. The pharoah inclined with the Hebrew theology via Joseph who was made its viceroy [second in command of egypt], but this also created internal havoc with many careers and traditions on the line, and the egyptian preistly power eventually prevailed, the pharoah was assassinated, and resulted here:
quote: Geneocide was the plan now. This is also what appears occured with christianity in medevial Europe - the greeks instigated many false reports and theologies into the Gospels, and christianity became seperated from its mother religion when it was merely one of its Jewish groups. The Jesus story has no historical veracity and prevails only on belief, its doctrines being a provable pre-dating hellenist tradition and religion. But this cannot be entertained today, because this hatred has been attached to belief in God, no less, and here the prefered lie transcends any disdained truth. Try telling a Muslim, for example, that neither Moses nor Jesus were Muslim by history or belief? Prior to christianity, the greeks proposed an amalgamation with Judaism, but this failed because they insisted on including in this new joint religion, all their pagan beliefs [Zeus, incest, gay, etc] - the greeks never forgave the Jews for declining, with numerous wars occuring before Rome entered the scene, and this hatred continued with christianity via the greek input into Rome, and then emulated with Islam. But both the gospels and quran cannot be right - they are in dire contradiction of each other - in history and theology. The truth is, the Jews did nothing untowards these belief systems other than continueing their own beliefs - and this was unacceotable to those claiming the OT as their own, with no fear of anyone disputing it. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Oh really< it's content does? It is just the scroll of Isaiah.. I would like to see you make a case for that using paleographies, which are even worse at dating precisely than carbon dating.
And, the scrolls themselves are very historical. However, their content might or might not be mythical. Let's see you provide external evidence that , oh , lets say , genesis is not mythical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Yes this the in the "Free For All", but even there topic drift control is in effect. Besides, it seems that many of the things being discussed belong in forums other that the "FFA".
If anyone wishes to make a case for this topic being reopened, go to the Thread Reopen Requests topic. Adminnemooseus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024