- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by amannionFor sure. No doubt most people at that time were polytheists. But that does not necessarily mean that the author(s) of Exodus was a polytheist.
Perhaps, but don't you think that the commandments seem to be explicitly designed for a people who have struggled with belief in many gods - which seems to make sense based on the historical context of polytheism in the middle east at the time.
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by Conrau KDaniel seems to have a lot of one-liners. Like
What exactly is the point of this game? You make a statement, that the bible contradicts itself or the biblical writers sought to grab power, then, after you fail to give evidence, you hightail into retreat and belittle the other. Do you actually have anything with evidence?
(*) "There is only one god." No, the bible says otherwise.
(*) "God is good." No, he isn't, he was nearly to kill everyone on the earth.
(*) "The bible is without contradictions." There are full of contradictions and pradoxes.
(*) "It's okay to kill, under certain circumstances." And yet one of the commandments says NO without any exceptions.
...as a few examples.
If he doesn't have a one-liner cliché, then he delivers a link somehwere, as he want us to read the total contents within that link. If he told us what he wanted us to link inorder to get his point, and submitted a link to strengthen his point, then it would be alright. But just to give a link, and nothing more is a bad rethorics.
He treats his own words as 'truths' and everything that contradicts that as 'lies'. This is not a discussion, that's preaching, and not a very good preaching either. This is what this game is all about.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't see how you are any different. You have made several assertions without any real evidence. Just saying 'Karen Armstrong' is not very compelling.
Daniel seems to have a lot of one-liners. Like
(*) "There is only one god." No, the bible says otherwise.
(*) "God is good." No, he isn't, he was nearly to kill everyone on the earth.
(*) "The bible is without contradictions." There are full of contradictions and pradoxes.
(*) "It's okay to kill, under certain circumstances." And yet one of the comman ...[text shortened]... hing, and not a very good preaching either. This is what this game is all about.
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by Conrau KI mentionned Karen Armstrong to make note of someone I respect much. But I don't believe anything she writes because of her name alone. If she writes something that I cannot understand or I think is plain wrong, then I don't take her word for it.
I don't see how you are any different. You have made several assertions without any real evidence. Just saying 'Karen Armstrong' is not very compelling.
If you critisize *me* for doing the same as the creationists do - then you evidently should critisize the creationists what they are doing. You say that we do the same thing, don't you?
Well, the difference is that I rely on science. The creationists are not. (Tell me where the evidence are that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans? That the dinosaurs, two T-rex included, infact was onboard the Ark of Noah.) Creationists that refer to science is laughable.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhy not just abide by your own standards? You said the scripture writers basically concocted religious myths to perpetuate their power but you have not produced any evidence. Don't jump on Palynka simply because he asks you to justify this statement. You said that the bible claims that there are many gods -- again, prove it. It just seems to me that you and Daniel are conducting a pointless exchange of assertions. But at least Daniel has not claimed that he is following scientific, evidence-based rigour.
I mentionned Karen Armstrong to make note of someone I respect much. But I don't believe anything she writes because of her name alone. If she writes something that I cannot understand or I think is plain wrong, then I don't take her word for it.
If you critisize *me* for doing the same as the creationists do - then you evidently should critisize the c ...[text shortened]... cluded, infact was onboard the Ark of Noah.) Creationists that refer to science is laughable.
17 Sep 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI didn't jump on Palyanka. He gave me a personal attack. I refuse to politely discuss a matter to someone not giving me the same politeness back. If he wants a fight of who is the most rude of the two of us, then he won that fight. Discussion over with him. He accepted that.
Why not just abide by your own standards? You said the scripture writers basically concocted religious myths to perpetuate their power but you have not produced any evidence. Don't jump on Palynka simply because he asks you to justify this statement. You said that the bible claims that there are many gods -- again, prove it. It just seems to me that you and ...[text shortened]... ns. But at least Daniel has not claimed that he is following scientific, evidence-based rigour.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSure. But he asked you pointedly, how do you know their agenda? There is no scholarly consensus about the authorship of Genesis. So why not answer the question? You could have done it in the last post in fact.
I didn't jump on Palyanka. He gave me a personal attack. I refuse to politely discuss a matter to someone not giving me the same politeness back. If he wants a fight of who is the most rude of the two of us, then he won that fight. Discussion over with him. He accepted that.
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI went to a museum that had a fossil of a dinosaur and indented in a man's footprint!
I mentionned Karen Armstrong to make note of someone I respect much. But I don't believe anything she writes because of her name alone. If she writes something that I cannot understand or I think is plain wrong, then I don't take her word for it.
If you critisize *me* for doing the same as the creationists do - then you evidently should critisize the c ...[text shortened]... cluded, infact was onboard the Ark of Noah.) Creationists that refer to science is laughable.
18 Sep 09
Originally posted by daniel58So you believe that there was a bone from a dinosaur lying on the ground, a men stepped on it and left a footprint on it?
I went to a museum that had a fossil of a dinosaur and indented in a man's footprint!
Don't you understand yourself how improbable that is?
I must have misunderstood your words...
18 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasPalynka's rudeness aside, how can you know the intentions of the anonymous authors of the Scriptures?
Yes, he did, and he also deliberately offended me. Do you promote such a behaviour?
As it happens, I tend to agree with your views, but dogmatic insistence without argument doesn't serve you well.