Ray's "debate".
Longfellow
>
>
>>
>> I cite the LXX as it appears to be the benchmark against which both
>> the
>> Christian and Jewish Bibles have been developed. The Christians
>> bought
>> it pretty much as is, with the rejection of certain texts that did
>> not
>> serve their purpose. Same with the Jews, of course.
>>
>
> This commentary is snide and betrays the first signs of overt secular
> bias appointing itself referee.
ROFL!!!!!!
*This* is your opening response? An argumentum ad hominem? "Overt
secular bias"? I'm disposed to disqualify you as a debater and claim a
win by default!!! But I won't. If you need more rope to hang yourself,
I don't mind ;)
> The LXX was produced 300 to 100 BC by Jewish scribes and scholars of
> Ezralitish origin, please note dating is prior to the birth of Christ
> -
> obviously, so its production cannot contain any post-Pentecost
> Christological considerations or bias. Any such endeavors, that is the
> identification of Jesus of Nazraeth, to fulfill O.T. Messianic
> prophetic shadows is inescapably factual.
Ezralitish?
> The perceived takeover of the LXX by the schismatics was the very
> irritation that provoked the Masoretes to embark on their journey to
> procure a Holy Text that predictibly reflected their "his blood be on
> us" [Matthew 27:25] defiance.
Schismatics?
Ray, I said *No interpretive material*. I'm looking only at primary
evidence here, and you've dragged in all this other irrelevant stuff for
which no context has been established. What do you not understand about
this?
>> In any case, I'm looking at the Torah, which is the core of the
>> Hebrew
>> canon, both for the Christian Old Testament and the Judaic Tanahk.
>> It
>> is my custom to look first at the oldest evidence, as later evidence
>> seems always influenced by earlier evidence. What I wish to avoid in
>> any case is any interpretive material, which is always of later
>> origin.
>
> Everything needs interpretation Longfellow.
No. Primary material is just exactly that. No interpretation is
acceptable until an interpretation is addressed in the context in which
it was made.
>>
>>This basic protocol is pretty much standard in any scholarship, and is
>> mandatory in science. I understand why: look at the evidence itself
>> and the objective reality it presents is most clearly expressed.
>> Then
>> look at the most recent interpretive data to get a handle on what is
>> the
>> current thinking. Finally, examine a representative cross-section of
>> the historical interpretive commentary to see how the evidence itself
>> was perceived down through history, and how that interpretation
>> changed
>> over time.
>>
>> That is a decent first scan protocol. After that, a full study has
>> some
>> structure of context to serve as a representation of the objective
>> reality of interest, here: the origins of the canonical sources of
>> the
>> Hebrew religious stream; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>
>> Now, you have specified an inclusion of Ancient History as a rational
>> base. So we will hold the evidence of Ancient History as a reference
>> and benchmark for our investigation.
>
> Whatever is said above seems to be a long-winded way of asserting
> yourself objective.
Yep, boilerplate.
> "There is no such thing as an objective historian....history truly is
> his story, that is the historian's....everyone has an axe to grind,
> objective persons state their bias up-front so when it creeps into
> their conclusions the audience will know it" [source: Dr. Gene Scott
> Ph.D. Stanford University]
ROFL!!!!! The talking head from LA!!! Well, he was one of the better
of a really bad lot, I think. Died recently, I noticed.
Problem is, I'm trying to establish matters of fact. Any argument you
make at this point *must* address matters of fact. If you don't, it
will be impossible to determine what anyone is talking about.
> My bias:
>
> Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, I am as such because of the
> evidence.
>
>
> I expect you to state your bias up-front in your next post.
>
> DO NOT CLAIM AGNOSTICISM.
>
> Dr. Scott, talking about the absurdity of agnosticism:
>
> "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an
> opinion."
>
> My next post will address the meat of your argument.
>
> Ray Martinez
Ray, I don't give a damn about your bias. I'm looking at matters of
demonstrable fact and you're out there somewhere tilting at windmills!
If you want to contribute to this debate, critique my assertions of
fact!
I chose the LXX because it is the common source to both the Christian
Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh. If that is not so, please so
state.
I asserted that the core text in both cases is the Torah/Pentateuch, and
Books of Moses. If there is another candidate for a core text, please
so state.
I established the conditions under which I would argue. If they are
unacceptible, then we have no debate, period. The reason is because
either of us could say whatever we like and declare ourselves winner
unilaterally. I won't waste my time under those conditions.
Fish or cut bait, Ray.
Longfellow
On 2005-08-23, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So we begin.
>>
>> We turn to the beginning of the Torah, and inspect the text as given
>> in
>> both English and Hebrew, Greek being a transitory language in this
>> case.
>>
>> Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
>> Bereshith Elohim.... oops, we have an immediate flag here.
>
>
> Are you serious ?
?
> Greek reduced to a "transitory language" while English is assigned
> primacy ?
For the purposes of this argument, Greek is not primary, as it is not
the native language for either western Christians or Jews. I said it is
"a transitory language in this case." What did you not understand about
"in this case"?
> The Greek translations of the Torah do not take a subordinate position
> of primacy or beneath when they are supremacy. You've clearly
> established yourself as starting in left field and alien to all theist
> Biblical scholarship.
Irrelevant.
> Now, lets look at your ***flag***:
>
>>
>> We look to see what is referenced, and we find that Ancient History
>> has
>> direct evidence that is immediately relevant. From the Ugarit texts
>> of
>> the early 2nd millennium BCE, we find that the Elohim are a family of
>> deities. The English version implies from the grammar that God is a
>> single entity, but the Hebrew version references a family of deities.
>>
>
> Ugarit texts aside, for now, the English translation is in error.
> Elohim is plural - not a matter of opinion.
Indeed. You have acknowledged a very large part of my argument. Thank
you!
> Some have attempted to skirt the direct implication of polytheism by
> rendering the verse:
>
> "In the beginning of God's creation of the heaven and earth...."
>
> But this is still an attempt to alter what is written based on an ***a
> priori*** need.
Interesting but irrelevant: interpretive material.
> The original Hebrew is plural, any translation which reflects or
> protects monotheism is an easily identifiable cultural theological
> bias
> which has no source.
Ibid.
> Why have you called a translation error a ***flag*** ?
Because of the inconsistency. It is noted without judgment or
explanation.
>>
>> Presented with this sort of conflicting evidence, any good researcher
>> will stop and see what has happened, and so shall we. From our
>> contextual knowledge of this material, we understand that the deity
>> in
>> question, God in English and Elohim in Hebrew, is the main focus of
>> interest. We have, almost before we start, a profound disagreement
>> about the essential nature of this essential aspect.
>>
>
> Okay - agreed.
>
> What you are calling a flag, I am calling a typical and easy to
> correct
> translation error.
Irrelevant, as that is your interpretation. The terminology and intent
is straightforward: I'm noting an inconsistency.
>>
>> That is a show-stopper, I'm afraid. There is something we must
>> discover
>> about all this before we can feel comfortable that we can continue
>> with
>> some understanding. Otherwise, we risk building our understanding
>> directly on an unrecognized assumption that, if false, will cause all
>> our work to crumble into irrelevance.
>>
>> What's going on here?
>>
>> Well, it turns out that the Elohim is a family of deities of the
>> Canaanite culture, which is directly related to the Phoenician
>> culture.
>> It was also located in the very area where this all started, and it
>> appears to have had a legacy that predates that of the Hebrew itself.
>> Therefore, we can tentatively conclude that the Hebrew use of the
>> name
>> 'Elohim' indicates an understanding and acceptance of the earlier
>> usage.
>> Why? If not, another name would be used!
>>
>
> You exclaimed "What's going on here ?", then proceeded to assume that
> which may predate Hebrew narratives to somehow become a source for its
> claims.
It predates the events that establish the Torah. The physical proximity
is obvious, and the probability that the term of interest here being an
unconnected coincidence is vanishingly small. We must assume that the
term is being used with knowledge of what it represents, else its use
would be meaningless.
> The Genesis verse in question, whenever it was written, was written to
> relay claimed facts that clearly predates Canaanite culture.
Ah, an assertion of fact. Please present your argument. Note the
facts, provide historical evidence that they predate the Canaanite
culture. You'll have to establish the origin of the Canaanite culture,
of course, and show that the facts you claim were not known to or
transmitted by the Canaanite culture.
> The context of Genesis 1:1 is that the author is God and He is
> revealing that the Godhead created the heavens and the earth, and not
> He by Himself. IOW, God is giving credit to those who helped. You must
> go to other passages in the Bible to find out who these "Gods" were.
Irrelevant interpretive material.
> I must go off-line for now.
>
> You can reply or wait until I am through which will be by Thursday.
>
> Ray Martinez
We'll see.
Longfellow
On 2005-08-23, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, it turns out that the Elohim is a family of deities of the
>> Canaanite culture, which is directly related to the Phoenician
>> culture.
>> It was also located in the very area where this all started, and it
>> appears to have had a legacy that predates that of the Hebrew itself.
>> Therefore, we can tentatively conclude that the Hebrew use of the
>> name
>> 'Elohim' indicates an understanding and acceptance of the earlier
>> usage.
>> Why? If not, another name would be used!
>>
>> So it turns out that our protocols cannot be used, as the material
>> itself is suspect and possibly corrupted. We have no choice but to
>> turn
>> to the evidence of Ancient History and use it as a direct guide and
>> interpretation of the text of interest. Otherwise the evident
>> corruption makes it useless for our purposes.
>>
>
> Why are you assuming a corruption ?
I'm not. I'm suspecting corruption, though.
> Genesis 1:1 states a fact:
>
> GodS created the heavens and the Earth.
>
> English versions cannot accept the polytheism declaration and have
> ignored the plurality.
>
> Text without context is error.
>
> There are 3 Gods revealed in the Bible: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
>
> The introduction of the Spirit is immediate in Genesis. The N.T.
> informs us that Christ had an eternal pre-existence. The Colossians
> epistle informs us that when God spoke the universe into existence
> Christ was the speaking agent, hence the 3 Gods of Genesis 1:1.
>
> Social evolutionists predicted ancient history would end up proving
> the
> origins of mankind's religious beliefs to be multi-idolatrous. They
> were correct. In response, theist archaeologists predicted that
> previous to these polytheistic origins all of mankind believed in one
> universal deity.
> They were correct. The subsequent departure into polytheistic idolatry
> marks the introduction of Satan into these histories.
>
> All ancient civilizations claim God is found and related to upon a
> mountain. The Torah says Moses received the law on Mt. Sinai. Jesus
> was
> transfigured on a mount.
>
> The point is that mankind began worshipping one universal deity
> revealed in many ancient cultures as Elohim = proof that the theist
> archaeologists were correct. As Satan asserted himself per the events
> in the Garden of Eden - he corrupted mankind into idolatry.
>
> Don't believe in Satan ?
>
> The evidence of the Bible says he is a fact just as much as God,
> Moses,
> Elijah, or Jesus.
>
> His invisible presence is seen via the effects of his doings much like
> science who accepts the reality of invisible particles based on the
> effects of their presence.
>
Well, this is interesting but interpretive, so irrelevant.
>> Ancient history is generally regarded as beginning in the
>> Mesopotamian
>> Plain, now Iraq. The date appears to be somewhere in the very early
>> 4th
>> millennium BCE, or late 5th. Evidence of much older civil
>> architecture
>> exists in surrounding areas, but no written evidence appears to have
>> survived, and after all, history is about written evidence that can
>> be
>> shown authentic.
>>
>> In virtually all the most ancient texts, we find the assertion that a
>> family of deities is responsible for the origin and continuing
>> welfare
>> of mankind. The names change with the change in languages, but the
>> functions remain mostly the same, the deities are responsible for
>> mankind, if obviously not responsible *to* mankind.
>>
>
> Ray Martinez
>
No comment on the above two paragraphs? The are made as claims of fact.
Accept or rebut them; silence constitutes acceptance.
Longfellow
On 2005-08-24, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Further, a common description provides some defining material. The
>> deities, whatever else they may be, are also biologically human.
>> They
>> beget and bear human children with human men and women, though those
>> children are said to be of a special nature. They also have their
>> own
>> issue, which are of the nature of the parents.
>>
>
> The accounts other than the Biblical are unprotected versions of facts
> that contain corruptions and embellishments. The claim of the Biblical
> is that it is the word of God.
"unprotected versions"? Versions of facts? Facts are facts, however
stated. They either can or cannot be demonstrated. Do you refute these
claims? If so, provide exclusive counterclaims of fact, not
interpretation.
>>
>> Further, it is fairly clear from the written evidence that these folk
>> possess some unknown technology, most probably biological. There are
>> references to food substances that confer remarkable attributes. And
>> it
>> is evident from the nature of their influence on mankind that they
>> already possess the technology of civilization such that mankind is
>> provided with virtually all the essential attributes of modern
>> civilization. Hence, Sumer suddenly emerges fully developed from no
>> perceivable previous archaeological source.
>>
>
> Right.
>
> Because the Great Flood destroyed everything prior in 3140 BC.
>
> ALL the oldest civilizations suddenly appear right after this dating.
I think not. This statement is false. Any introductory text in
Assyriology will yield enough citations to provide a range of well
accepted assertions that Sumer predates 3140 BC(E). Check this out.
>
>>
>> For the area of interest to us, we find that Sumeria gave rise to the
>> Akkadian culture, and closely contemporary, a culture arose in Egypt
>> as
>> well. We also know of other cultures in other areas, but we have no
>> useful written records from them, so we can only conjecture how they
>> may
>> or may not have been related to what we do have.
>>
>> It appears that changing climate had a great deal to do with the
>> early
>> history of mankind. The written record does not provide sufficient
>> identifying detail to build a model of those changes, but we do have
>> reference to extensive flooding, both in Mesopotamia and in Egypt.
>> In
>> fact Egyptian history seems to begin with a recovery from an episode
>> of
>> flooding, somewhere in the latter part of the 4th millennium BCE.
>>
>
> The ancient name of Egypt is Mizraim who was a son of Ham. [Genesis
> 10:6]
>
> This person founded the cultures that we now know as Egyptian because
> he was successful at embanking and stopping the chronic flooding of
> the
> Nile in the delta regions.
>
> You will find no evidence of Egyptian culture prior to CIRCA 3000 BC.
> Codex Alexandrinus, the ONLY great uncial mss to preserve Genesis
> dates
> the Flood 3140 BC. [source Dr. Adam Rutherford, "Pyramidology III",
> 1970]
Would you provide independent confirmation of the ancient name, please.
There is some evidence, I believe, that delta flooding was indeed a very
early problem that had possibly caused the Nile to have become a
potential lake in the making. Can't recall the citations here, but I
think it may be worth checking out.
There is a good deal of archaeological evidence that a culture existed
in what is now Egypt before circa 3000 BC. The simplest assumption is
that it was at least a precursor to historical Egypt, I think.
>>
>> Now, with all this in hand, we can turn to a much more comfortable
>> source of information provided for us by the earth sciences. We know
>> that we should be well within an Ice Age, which appears to have been
>> terminated or severely interrupted. We know that the last
>> significant
>> glacial advance in the northern hemisphere was about 10-11K years
>> ago,
>> or about 8000/9000 BCE. From that we understand that a significant
>> amount of flooding in that area would have occured as the glaciers
>> retreated, so the flooding records are reasonable.
>>
>> We have excellent evidence that Africa did not have significant
>> glaciation, as we would expect. We know that Asia and Europe did
>> have
>> significant glaciation. So we can presume that the boundary area
>> between the two, precisely that area of interest to us, was one known
>> area of human access to glaciated land.
>>
>> We know, from the evidence of genetic studies, that humanity did its
>> major development in Africa. We also know that humanity had
>> significant
>> contribution from both contemporary and earlier development in Asia.
>> We
>> have good reason to speculate that the areas of interaction between
>> these two distinct streams of development occured in areas accessible
>> to
>> both; exactly the area of interest to us.
>>
>> The generally agreed models of development, as well as archaeological
>> records, specify that homo sapiens can be as old as nearly a million
>> years, and that homo sapiens sapiens is probably somewhere on the
>> order
>> of one to two hundred thousand years old.
>>
>> These are the findings of science.
>>
>
> Those are the necessary conclusions of secularists evading the Bible
> and seeking to falsify it regardless of the evidence.
Secularists? What sort of claim is this? I don't recognize it as
having any relevance to this debate.
Wait a minute... are you claiming that science was developed with the
sole purpose of falsifying the Bible? Please support this contention
with verifiable documentation! What is the evidence you claim that
science evades?
> Now you show your Darwinian hand and view all evidence through its
> atheistic starting assumptions.
Ad hominem attack. Irrelevant and unacceptable.
> Science has firmly shown your wild speculations to be false.
Interesting claim. Please support!
>
>
>
>>
>> But let us turn to the immediate object of interest, the canonical
>> texts. We have determined that they are corrupt
>>
>
> You have asserted according to the needs of your worldview. I could
> not
> find even ONE source cite for any of your opinions thus far.
>
> I wonder why ?
Perhaps you didn't look? Perhaps you don't know where to look, or how
to recognize whatever you might find?
>>
>> to what extent we
>> cannot yet tell. So let us just read the material and see what we
>> find.
>> On inspection, we discover that the Hebrew and English texts agree
>> except in differences of language, one of which of course is that of
>> the
>> names used. We can, then, use the English text with reasonable
>> comfort.
>>
>> As we read through Genesis, we discover that it comprises at least
>> four
>> different accounts, and that those accounts are woven together to
>> present a rough chronological consistentency of story line. We can
>> now
>> turn to scholarly evaluation to see what they made of this, and use
>> their determinations. There are four discernable sources: 1) That
>> of
>> the Yahvehists, denoted by the letter 'J'. 2) That of the Elohists,
>> denoted by the letter 'E'. 3) That of the priests, denoted by the
>> letter 'P'. 4) That of the Deuteronomists (teachers), denoted by the
>> letter 'D'.
>>
>> Now, we note, the movement is towards a consolidation of these
>> sources.
>> Whatever else that accomplishes, it homogenizes the text, further
>> corrupting it in translation by interpretive recension. We can
>> reasonably gather from this that the corruption we originally noted
>> is
>> not accidental, but deliberate.
>>
>
> Finally, you arrive at JEDP.
>
> What is JEDP ?
>
> Answer: The biggest quote mine of all time.
>
> Who produced JEDP ?
>
> Answer: Atheists, could one expect their groundless assertions to say
> anything else ?
>
> What is the evidence for JEDP ?
>
> Answer: The Torah.
>
> Don't they have any mss outside the Torah ?
>
> Answer: None.
>
> You mean they have no evidence, but biased selection of text chopped
> into 4 pieces ?
>
> Answer: Yes.
>
> JEDP was invented by GERMAN "scholars", and the basis of their
> conclusions predictibly assert the age-old blasphemy that the Jews
> conspired to fool the world, IOW, JEDP is just another Jewish
> conspiracy theory produced by the intellectual proto type of Nazi's.
> Decades later their philosophic pupils - the Third Reich, would take
> these conspiracy theories to a genocidal extreme.
ROFL!!!!
Atheists and NAZIs? Well, I laughed when I read this, but on reflection
it's not funny at all. Not only are you not addressing matters of fact,
you are engaging in some rather unsavory cultural judgments here.
Unacceptible in any legitimate debate.
>>
>> We can
>> reasonably gather from this that the corruption we originally noted
>> is
>> not accidental, but deliberate.
>>
>
> JEDP says the Jews conspired to fool the world and luckily atheist
> GERMAN scholars were smarter to expose their conspiracy - LOL !
>
> The many different names of God in the Torah is God naming Himself to
> reveal a certain attribute about Himself to meet a need of Adamkind -
> thats all, its theological, but German atheists concoct a Jewish
> conspiracy theory out of it. What else could one expect German
> atheists
> to do ?
>
> The Torah = the word of God, but the obvious brilliance was recognized
> and judged to be impossible, which is the measure and prediction of
> Divine involvement.
>
> Ray Martinez
Again, interpretive material having nothing to do with matters of fact.
Where I've gotten to is to show that the core material that supports the
Hebrew religious stream is suspect before it gets out the first
statement. I've established that there is abundant contextual material
well understood by scholars and scientists, such that can supply a
cohesive context for assuming the Christian text as corrupt, and
assuming the Hebrew text as either recensed or glossed, probably both.
I've claimed that a variety of evidence supports the multiple gods
assertion by the Canaanites, and further noted that they were
exceptional human beings. So far as I'm aware, no writings describing
these individuals have claimed otherwise, and the Torah is explicit in
the matter of their humanity.
Finally, I cited the rather extensive scholarly support for my claims.
I suggested that individual citations were essentially useless, as a
Google search yields probably as many as one would wish. If you can
show that this is not the case, please do so.
Longfellow
Okay, there are the responses.
It's obvious that this is an exercise in futility as far as I'm
concerned. You have made a couple of interesting claims, the relevance
of which are probably at least tangential. But you have made no counter
assertions of fact in the matter of the primary material that would form
the foundation of the debate you solicited. And you have not accepted
them as stated, so I cannot proceed.
Where you leave me is dead in the water, Ray. I have much more material
to present, but absent any agreement on the matter of the fundamentals
here, nothing further is possible.
What I think is the case is that you don't like where I'm going with
this, because you have no valid alternatives to what you have reason to
believe I will present. What you have done, in my view, is splodge my
argument with a liberal coating of interpretive claims for which no
context has yet been established.
In effect, you've panicked and shot your wad with entirely too much
lead, and wasted it all upon the ground. So far as I can tell, all you
have left is more Christian apologia, none of which is likely to be any
more effective than what you've already used. Your mistake, when you
panicked, was to run wildly with an armful of assumptions you may not
even recognize as extant, and certainly do not have a good handle on
what they are or why and how they came to exist.
So I'm going to let you off the hook, Ray.
You may now run about trumpeting that you have my head on your belt, but
you know that you don't because you failed to make any meaningful
contact at all. You will claim that you won by default because I got
disgusted and left the field, but you and the readership will understand
what they've read here, and know that your claim is baseless.
I don't know what your personal situation is, Ray, and it's really none
of my business. But if it promotes the need to engage in the sort of
fantasy you evidence here, I think you've got some serious problems
ahead of you. I wish you well with them, nonetheless.
Longfellow
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125085472.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My reply is here:
>
> http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17599
>
> http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=201498#201498
>
> Two links for the same message (I hope).
>
> Ray Martinez
Ray, since you entered the "debate" in this newsgroup, why place your reply
somewhere else. Also, I notice in your "reply" you cut out a great deal of
what Longfellow wrote to explain why you were not debating in good faith,
and why he abandoned the farce.
Futhermore, you assume Longfellow to be atheist, without any evidence of
this.
Care to comment?
DJT
>
David Jensen
>My reply is here:
>
>http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17599
>
>http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=201498#201498
>
>Two links for the same message (I hope).
>
>Ray Martinez
Sadly, I am no longer surprised when self-described Christians like you
choose to lie and justify your lies by the fact that you claim to be
Christian.
So far, you have failed to provide any evidence that you are a
Christian.
David Jensen
>JENSEN:
>
>Sadly, I am no longer surprised when self-described Christians like you
>
>choose to lie and justify your lies by the fact that you claim to be
>Christian.
>
>So far, you have failed to provide any evidence that you are a
>Christian.
>
>
>Because Jensen is a Darwinist/atheist, his opinion that I am not a
>christian is the best evidence that I am.
Keep telling yourself that. Ignore the fact that you make a mockery of
Christianity with your lies.
>If Jensen the
>Darwinist/atheist had approved of me this would have shown how wrong
>and unchristian I am.
Keep telling yourself that. Tell yourself that no one can read the Bible
other than you. Tell yourself that no one can recognize what Jesus
taught. Tell yourself that your self-righteousness isn't being a modern
day Pharisee. Tell yourself that no one can criticize you because you
are incapable of error now.
>BTW, the Pharisees, that is the established religious community in
>Christ's day, said He was insane - a demon. As I have said before,
>looks like I am in good company with Jesus, and we know Jesus said the
>Pharisees, that is the type of the established religious community in
>ANY era were of their father the devil.
No, you are not in the company of Jesus. You delude yourself. You
persuade yourself with your lies. I speak up because there are so many
who have invented a modern religion that is the opposite of what Jesus
taught, but still call themselves Christians. You are one such false
Christian. If I can recognize it, anyone can.
Repent.
Dana Tweedy
> DANA:
>
> Ray, since you entered the "debate" in this newsgroup, why place your
> reply
> somewhere else. Also, I notice in your "reply" you cut out a great
> deal of
> what Longfellow wrote to explain why you were not debating in good
> faith,
> and why he abandoned the farce.
>
> Futhermore, you assume Longfellow to be atheist, without any evidence
> of
> this.
>
>
> Care to comment?
>
>
> Question assumes as fact what is false - that Longy is not an atheist.
Are you presuming to know Longfellow's personal beliefs?
> Does your deliberate misrepresentation have anything to do with your
> atheism ?
Since I'm not an atheist, I don't see how it could.
>
> How is it you have the ability to deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as
> needed, but cannot see Longfellow's JEDP/Jews conspired to fool the
> world = argument of atheism ?
Well, first of all, the fossil evidence for human evolution is much more
than "obscure scraps". I've asked you before, and you've ignored the
question: Is the "Turkana Boy" skeleton, which is over 90% complete,
obscure, or a "scrap"? Second, the documentary hypothesis does not claim
that Jews conspired to fool anyone, and it's not an argument of atheism.
It's a recognition that the book of Genesis is made up of a number of
writings from different authors combined into one book. Most religious
scholars today recognize the documentary hypothesis as most likely correct.
For more information, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
>
> Longy then makes many hateful anti-religious comments but according to
> you, a ***christian*** this does not make him an atheist.
I didn't notice any "hateful anti-religious" comments made by Longfellow.
Perhaps you could point them out? You, on the other hand have made many
hatefilled speeches where you denegrate devoutly religious people. Shall
we assume then that you are atheist?
>
> Dana, you are anything but a christian based on your silly opinions.
Here is a good example of what I was just saying. Ray, in his blind hatred
and rage, turns on a devout Christian and employs mere ad hominem, rather
than addressing the issues brought up by that Christian.
I'm a Christian based on my faith in the teaching of Christ. My opinions
my be silly, but they are supported by my faith in God.
> Nobody can trust you. The true evolutionist uses you and no christian
> thinks of you as a christian.
Now Ray lies about me, and asserts he knows the mind of other people. It
doesn't matter to me what others may think of me, or if they "trust" me. I
support my statements with evidence, that anyone can confirm. My identity
as a Christian does not derive from anyone else's opinion of me.
>
> But we know Hitler insisted that he was a christian as do you.
Likewise Ray insists he is a Christian. Fortunately, the Bible provides us
with a way of telling who is a Christian. "By their fruits you will know
them" Matthew 15:20 If anyone is confused as to who is following the
words of Christ, you only need to see how they act. It's obvious that
neither Hitler's claims of Christanity, or Ray's merit any serious
consideration.
>
> The Graf-Wellhausen school were atheists - German atheists = their
> conclusions predetermined, as are yours being a Darwinist.
Neither Graf, or Wellhausen were atheists, and it doesn't matter if they
were Germans. Martin Luther was a German as well. Are you saying that
all Germans were atheists, or proto-Nazis?
My conclusions are determined by the phyiscal evidence, and by my faith in
God. You may deny my beliefs, and my evidence, but it's of no consequence.
You've revealed yourself as being false, and clinging to the falshoods of
others.
>
> I posted my reply elsewhere because he departed from the already
> existing topic and did the same.
Actually, he posted his statements here, and gave his reasons for ending the
"debate" here. You ran away to a different forum, clipped away those
reasons, and misrepresented your opponent. Do you really feel that's
ethical behavior?
>
> I predict you will produce one line denials = debater with nothing to
> say much less counter with.
You haven't offered anything that requries more than a single line to
refute. Care to comment?
DJT
Longfellow
> My reply is here:
>
> http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17599
>
> http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=201498#201498
>
> Two links for the same message (I hope).
>
> Ray Martinez
No surprises here, except that Ray did not claim my head, at least that
I saw. Probably not appropriate behavior in his Christian forum, I
suspect.
For those in the market for unusual entertainment, there is a web comic
strip called "Oh My Gods!". Google it. Ray belongs in that cast of
characters, I think.
Longfellow
Dana Tweedy
>
> LONGFELLOW:
>
> No surprises here, except that Ray did not claim my head, at least that
>
> I saw. Probably not appropriate behavior in his Christian forum, I
> suspect.
>
> For those in the market for unusual entertainment, there is a web comic
>
> strip called "Oh My Gods!". Google it. Ray belongs in that cast of
> characters, I think.
>
>
> The weasel words of a person unable to refute:
Ray issues more Sour grapes from a person who just lost another debate.....
DJT
shane
> JENSEN:
>
> Sadly, I am no longer surprised when self-described Christians like you
>
> choose to lie and justify your lies by the fact that you claim to be
> Christian.
>
> So far, you have failed to provide any evidence that you are a
> Christian.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Because Jensen is a Darwinist/atheist, his opinion that I am not a
> christian is the best evidence that I am. If Jensen the
> Darwinist/atheist had approved of me this would have shown how wrong
> and unchristian I am.
>
> BTW, the Pharisees, that is the established religious community in
> Christ's day, said He was insane - a demon. As I have said before,
> looks like I am in good company with Jesus, and we know Jesus said the
> Pharisees, that is the type of the established religious community in
> ANY era were of their father the devil.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
What stunning examples of Ray's "logic". Lets analyse it a little closer;
1. Ray equates himself with Jesus because Jesus was accused of being
demon posessed. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has accused Ray
of demon posession, so how then does he equate to Jesus?
2. The established religious community in the U.S. today is Christian,
therefore, according to Ray, they are children of the devil. Yet if Ray
lived in a country where the established religious community was
non-christian then christianity would not necessarily be of the devil.
Isn't it amazing how the nature of a particular religion can alter based
on the numbers of people who support it in any defined set of
boundaries. Note that it is only the establishe religious community that
is characterized under this concept. No conclusions can be drawn about
any other religious community, as to their parentage, or correctness.
3. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being posessed by a demon, Jesus
accused the Pharisees of being children of the devil, (which is
effectively the same accusation). So in believing that such an
accusation has been made against him - see point 1 - based on the
accusation alone, all that Ray indicates is required, he could equally
be compared with either the Pharisees, or Jesus. On what basis then does
he choose Jesus? Is he able to point to any other characteristics of
Jesus that he shares, which would indicate the he has chosen correctly?
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Longfellow
>
> LONGFELLOW:
>
> No surprises here, except that Ray did not claim my head, at least that
>
> I saw. Probably not appropriate behavior in his Christian forum, I
> suspect.
>
> For those in the market for unusual entertainment, there is a web comic
>
> strip called "Oh My Gods!". Google it. Ray belongs in that cast of
> characters, I think.
>
>
> The weasel words of a person unable to refute:
>
>
> Ray M.
Weasel words? You gave me nothing to refute!
I was addressing the extant primary evidence, with the intent of
ascertaining what could be done with it. It was obvious from the very
first phrase of the Torah that it could not be taken as written, because
of the internal evidence (singular vs plural regarding a name). An
inspection of the scholarly approach, as acknowledged by all accredited
religious scholars, showed a recognition of complexity. I also noted
that said complexity was being subject to gloss.
I then gave a thumbnail sketch of the scientific and historical reading
of the contextual evidence, in order to set the groundwork for further
investigation, and basically sat down, saying it was your turn.
You did acknowledge a few of my assertions, but in the main, you simply
larded it all with a gloss of modern interpretation, which you stated
that you provided to show that I was some sort of heathen monster, out
to threaten all you held dear, or so it seemed.
None of the above addressed the assertion and inspection of primary
evidence.
As for your Christian fantasy, I have the following to say. You, and
many others, held in the thrall of millennia of militant political abuse
by the time-honored technique of enforced brain-washing, have your own
little world that has little correspondence to observed objectivity.
All I can do is wish you the joy if it.
The abusive institutions, now seeking dominance once again, are driving
you and yours to invade the realms of objective reality, with the intent
that you throw your credibility on the dung-heap of their past failures.
And it would appear that you aren't smart enough to see what you are
being made to do.
There are many intelligent people who find great comfort in the fantasy
of Christianity: it sooths the depths of their psyche where the
substance of that fantasy resides in virtually indelible meme. But they
fully understand that what they hold is fantasy, not objective reality,
and they do not confuse the two. And what they have is held closely
private, if you have had the wit to notice.
Though it appears you do not, but you are not alone.
For my part, I'm happy that I avoided those memes. Not that I was not
exposed to them, for I certainly was. I could never comprehend how they
could be objectively real, however, and so never embraced them. I count
myself fortunate not to have that burden to bear.
As far as I'm concerned, you and yours are people who live in a small
container where the sides/walls bear vistas of tragedy, pain, torture,
and opportunities to enjoy the "pleasures" of masochism. A state of
abject slavery that binds the mind as tightly as the Chinese once bound
the feet of their women.
Your state saddens me, Ray. I sometimes ask: "How in the world can
people live like that!?" I guess the answer is that they have no
choice. Especially given their environment, where the mindnumbing
miasma of Christianity is pervasive.
No, Ray, you are not capable of debating what you advertized. All you
can do is preach to your own choir, who also are not capable of debating
any of these issues. You will undoubtedly continue to present yourself
here with your "message", unable to comprehend the reality of what you
offer. The real tragedy is the folk who you think are "out to get you",
are actually shaking their heads at your intellectual zombie-ism. I
won't adjure you to "get a life" because you obviously have one, such as
it is, and, as before, I wish you well with it.
Longfellow
er...@swva.net
> JENSEN:
>
> Sadly, I am no longer surprised when self-described Christians like you
>
> choose to lie and justify your lies by the fact that you claim to be
> Christian.
>
> So far, you have failed to provide any evidence that you are a
> Christian.
>
>
> Because Jensen is a Darwinist/atheist, his opinion that I am not a
> christian is the best evidence that I am.
Bzzt! Wrong. What Jensen is or isn't has nothing to do with what you
are or aren't.
> If Jensen the
> Darwinist/atheist had approved of me this would have shown how wrong
> and unchristian I am.
Bzzt! Wrong. What Jensen is or isn't has nothing to do with what you
are or aren't. That's two down.
>
> BTW, the Pharisees
Who are like Ray, except with better clothing.
> . , that is the established religious community in
> Christ's day, said He was insane - a demon. As I have said before,
> looks like I am in good company with Jesus
In that you are both homo sapiens.
>, and we know Jesus said the
> Pharisees, that is the type of the established religious community in
> ANY era were of their father the devil.
Which means you, Ray. Just look how you behave.
>
> Ray Martinez
er...@swva.net
He and Jesus are both bilaterally symmetrical.
>
> --
> shane
> And the truth shall set you free.
Eric Root
Longfellow
> Atheist rant.
>
> When you calm down I am still interested in the debate.
>
> Here is what I suggest:
>
> 1) Make a list of facts.
>
> 2) Make a list of conclusions based on those facts.
>
> 3) THEN, I will address EACH one.
>
> You might want to also incorporate relevant replies of mine already
> posted, namely things I said that claim to falsify your conclusions.
> This is how debate works: each debater is supposed to repel
> falsification, not act like its not there.
>
> I have ignored some of your material BECAUSE you do not have the
> honesty to even admit to a bias, for the single reason that the
> admission thereof decimates your arguments.
>
> I will overlook this absurdity because your pasted excerpt above now
> plainly shows what your bias is.
>
> Ray Martinez
Nope. You lose.
You set the subject and I set the conditions. I accepted your subject,
but you couldn't accept my conditions. Why should I think a repeat
performance might make a difference?
I don't engage in debates where the deck is stacked, because doing so is
an exercise in futility. What I suggested would have provided a level
field equally accessible to both of us. You couldn't handle that then
and there is no evidence you could handle it now.
Because you could not accept the conditions I set, but went ahead with
your own arguments; if indeed a debate took place, you lost.
End of story.
Longfellow
Richard Clayton
> On 2005-08-26, Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My reply is here:
>>
>>http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17599
>>
>>http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=201498#201498
>>
>>Two links for the same message (I hope).
>>
>>Ray Martinez
>
>
> No surprises here, except that Ray did not claim my head, at least that
> I saw. Probably not appropriate behavior in his Christian forum, I
> suspect.
Give it time.
> For those in the market for unusual entertainment, there is a web comic
> strip called "Oh My Gods!". Google it. Ray belongs in that cast of
> characters, I think.
>
> Longfellow
>
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero