Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you want to claim that John 17:13-20 applies to all Christians, now in the C21st, in the way you and the Jehovah's Witnesses think it should, then I have started a thread about it.
Your idea that John 17 is specific to Jehovahs witnesses stands refuted by history, its not specific aspect of Jehovas witness dogma, its was the case from the inception of Christianity.
Originally posted by FMFYes I saw that, how interesting! How do you think other Christians will be able to argue against the historical facts?
If you want to claim that John 17:13-20 applies to all Christians, now in the C21st, in the way you and the Jehovah's Witnesses think it should, then I have started a thread about it.
Originally posted by FMFI never made this claim, my claim of refutation was made with regard to a claim you made about John 17 and also about the idea that the Bible was written for a political purpose. If you think the Bible was written for a political purpose then I think I have refuted it, as you will not say I guess I will never know.
Are you retracting the claim that you have refuted it? Or do you, in fact, concur with it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs for your wriggling and squirming about the word "political". The substance of my claim is what it is, robbie. Whether you approve or disapprove of the issues it covers ~ i.e. social order, laws, punishments, and the regulation of individuals in a society ~ being deemed to be in the realm of politics or labelled that way is neither here nor there. You were trying to use a red herring dispute about a word in order to dodge the substance of what I was saying.
Gee I dunno, I would need to think deeply about that, probably meditate on it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo we both agree about what I claimed on page 18?
I never made this claim, my claim of refutation was made with regard to a claim you made about John 17 and also about the idea that the Bible was written for a political purpose. If you think the Bible was written for a political purpose then I think I have refuted it, as you will not say I guess I will never know.
Originally posted by FMFI am neither wriggling or squirming, I have already stated that your seeming definition of what constitutes a political purpose is about the broadest I have ever heard and would mean if we carried that idea forward that an NGO charity like Bernardos was engaging in a 'political purpose' by seeking to regulate the behaviour of parents and adults.
As for your wriggling and squirming about the word "political". The substance of my claim is what it is, robbie. Whether you approve or disapprove of the issues it covers ~ i.e. social order, laws, punishments, and the regulation of individuals in a society ~ being deemed to be in the realm of politics or labelled that way is neither here nor there. You were try ...[text shortened]... to use a red herring dispute about a word in order to dodge the substance of what I was saying.
Its not my fault that you provided some borderline sophistry in regard to the question of whether or not the Bible was authored for a political purpose, You seem to be attempting to blame me for the fact that the term 'political purpose' is rather broad and ill defined. How dastardly!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain, you are seeking to dodge the substance of what I said on page 18. I did not use the term "political purpose" on page 18. You have been using the two words over and over again as a red herring/straw man to sidestep the fact that I took on and successfully carried the burden of proof that you asked me to.
Its not my fault that you provided some borderline sophistry in regard to the question of whether or not the bible was authored for a political purpose,
When I said on page 13, "I doubt anyone disputes that the texts were written by men, and there is ample evidence that religious beliefs and religious laws (regardless of which religion) are instrumental to control and order within societies; again, I doubt anyone disputes this" ...you should have simply said, fair enough, and admitted that you don't dispute either of those two things, and then reciprocated by shouldering your burden of proof that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke to robbie carobbieAnd now he can't even bring himself to commit to the proposition that the Bible laid out rules that underpin a particular social and moral order! Goodness me, the discursive corners he manages to back himself into!
You current strategy of being non-committal, so as to dodge evidencing something you clearly believe, is wimpy to say the least.
Originally posted by FMFDid you or did you not proffer your explanation when asked if the Bible was written for a political purpose? There is nothing red or straw about it. As you have refused to answer the question although having been asked countless times I suggest to you that its you who are infact dodging the issue because you know you are on to a hiding to nothing if you do because the historical evidence that the Christians were non political will stand up and give you another spanking.
Again, you are seeking to dodge the substance of what I said on page 18. I did not use the term "political purpose" on page 18. You have been using the two words over and over again as a red herring/straw man to sidestep the fact that I took on and successfully carried the burden of proof that you asked me to.
When I said on page 13, "I doubt anyone disputes ...[text shortened]... , and then reciprocated by shouldering your burden of proof that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Originally posted by FMFor be coerced by some borderline sophist who cannot even answer simple and direct questions it seems. 😵
And now he can't even bring himself to commit to the proposition that the Bible laid out rules that underpin a particular social and moral order! Goodness me, the discursive corners he manages to back himself into!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat I said was the Bible laid out rules that created a social and moral order by regulating the individuals within a society. That was its purpose (along with recording history). The term "political purpose" is yours. I couldn't care less whether you personally think creating 'a social and moral order by regulating the individuals within a society' can accurately be described as a "political" phenomenon or not. You have been using the term "political purpose" to dodge debate.
Did you or did you not proffer your explanation when asked if the Bible was written for a political purpose?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Okay folks, I don't have a lot of time today.
My question WAS - What other book covers so many interesting and even critical pieces of information in as few words as is found roughly between Genesis 1 through 10 .
The more serious candidates submitted were the Quran of Isalm and the Vedas of Hinduism.
Brief response. I like the suggestion of the Vedas, not because I think it covers as many crucial points as Genesis 1 through 10 covers. But because it is the only other writing I know which is a collection of books like the Bible, put together over centuries, like the BIble.
In that regard, the Vedas is another "book" somewhat like the Bible.
Since I have not read the first 11 chapters of the Vedas sequentially, I reserve to comment. If Dasa was still here he could probable tell me if the early part of this long writing, the Vedas, covers matters like that.
The Quran, I probably have read up to the same amount of words found in Genesis 1 through 10. And the answer would be No indeed. In as many initial words the Quran does not lay down things about human life and the world as Gensis does.
I would add that the Quran is the product of one man over 30 years.
And he doubted at first that he was really getting speaking from God.
He first thought those "revelations" were coming to him in a cave from demonic spirits.
His wife and another relative convinced him to keep on "keeping on" to receive those messages.
My opinion is that Mohammed's first assumption was correct.
Ghost you gave it a good college try.
I think no other book in existence covers the same number of crucial items of the world and human culture as Genesis 1 through 10.
But I am not read sufficiently in the Vedas. I'll check.
Many sacred books, however, do writings cover origins. Most of them that I know of always have the source of the world as really part of the world.
I would say Genesis is unique in that the Creator is transcendent to, above, outside of time and space. This of necessity hinders the expression of such a profound truth in human language. But we have ( I believe, from God) this -
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." (Gen. 1:1)
"Before" time and space, "before" matter, energy, motion you have already God outside of all.
I would challenge anyone to submit another utterance like this from any other sacred writing, showing a Creator totally above, transcendent to, outside of, and apart from the cosmos. I'd start with the Vedas of Hinduism to search for a parallel expression.
Too bad Dasa is no longer here to speak on the Vedas.