a couple questions for our creationist friends
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
So I have a few questions:
(1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
(2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>
> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
>
>
3) Should people be killed for having a competing religious belief?
Turner
My prediction: no creationists will respond (or a creationist will
respond but not actually answer the questions properly)
Desertphile
> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
By "witch" I assume the text means "poisoner of water supplies" or "one
who mutters." Both existed, and still exist (look at what American
insurgents did to Iraq's water supply).
And yes, Creationists think they should be killed--- even the
"pro-life" ones.
Bob Pease
"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tui...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kIOdnbv8k_IAXtnY...@comcast.com...
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
> >
> > So I have a few questions:
> >
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
> >
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 3) Should people be killed for having a competing religious belief?
I suppose it's a good idea if their religion demands that they kill you
first!!!
RJ Pease
Reformed Church of the subgenius
"We don't want to kill anyone except BOB and Roadbuddhas"
Bob Pease
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162134638....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"...
World WarII popular song in USA
RJ pease
Ken Shackleton
It is my experience that "pro-lifers" are only interested in saving
those humans that have yet to draw a breath......
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Oct 29, 10:07 am, "Turner" <joebobjoe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> My prediction: no creationists will respond (or a creationist will
> respond but not actually answer the questions properly)
Well, that's, uh, kind of the point. ;)
Generally, whenever I ask a question of fundies, the question makes its
point all by itself. If they answer, they usually just reinforce the
point. And if they don't answer, well, that is quite an eloquent
answer all by itself.
I don't need their cooperation.
Bobby Bryant
I suspect that for many of them the actual interest is in controlling
sexual activity.
Case in point, yesterday several blogs mentioned a "pro-life, family
values" politician running pictures of his family in his ads. Except
that two of his children aren't in the picture: a son who was disowned
for being gay, and a daugher who was disowned for having a child out
of wedlock.
Shouldn't he be _proud_ of the latter?
Not if his real values are anti-sex rather than pro-life.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Denis Loubet
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
No.
> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
Here's another set of questions:
(1) Do you believe that prayers before a football game can supernaturally
influence the outcome?
(2) If so, don't you think that's cheating?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Zorg
news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
the context of the quote. I'm not a "fundie" and don't know
what the real definition of "creationist" is yet, and don't see
the relevance of the questions with respect to science.
Nevertheless...
You are quoting old covenant Jewish law for *Jews*. It also
says in verse 21, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him."
The death penalty spoken of here is for Jews, who are supposed
to be in covenant with God. These are social laws for a people set
apart by God, called out of the degenerate cultures which
surrounded them, and for the purpose of beginning to form
them in the knowledge of God through an historical process.
The law of Moses is nearer to the beginning of what we call
salvation history. God, having chosen to create free beings
rather than robots, has to work through man's free will,
which necessitates some sort of historical process of
revelation.
Earlier, a promise had been made to Abraham
regarding land and posterity. "I will make you into a great
nation and I will bless you...and ALL the people of the
earth will be blessed through you." Now this is beginning to
take shape under Moses.
These laws also say, "Have nothing to do with a false charge,
and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I
will not acquit the guilty." There are many other laws which
would be seen by most people to be universal in terms of
justice.
But that there should be a death penalty for those among
them who invoke demonic spirits or have sex with animals,
etc., should not be surprising if you understand the context.
God delivered these people from slavery through a series of
miraculous events which were seen and experienced by the
nation. They were not ignorant of God's power and
authority and of the fact that He had chosen them to be
in covenant relationship with Him.
"When Moses went and told the people all the Lord's
words and laws, they responded with one voice,
'Everything the Lord has said we will do.' Moses then
wrote down everything the Lord had said." (Ex 24:3)
Do you understand that it's a covenant? That promises
are made both ways?
If the people who agree to be bound by the covenant
then proceed to break it, they call down upon themselves
the curses implicit or explicit in the oath.
Now understanding the context, here are the answers
to your questions.
> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
> So I have a few questions:
>
> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
Of course witchcraft exists. Just ask a witch. Or better
yet, someone delivered of witchcraft.
> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
No.
~Zorg
Ken Shackleton
On Oct 29, 11:33 am, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> In article <1162138708.801388.196...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 8:10 am, "Desertphile" <desertph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> >> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> >> > So I have a few questions:
>
> >> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> >> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> >> By "witch" I assume the text means "poisoner of water supplies" or "one
> >> who mutters." Both existed, and still exist (look at what American
> >> insurgents did to Iraq's water supply).
>
> >> And yes, Creationists think they should be killed--- even the
> >> "pro-life" ones.
>
> > It is my experience that "pro-lifers" are only interested in saving
> > those humans that have yet to draw a breath......
>
> I suspect that for many of them the actual interest is in controlling
> sexual activity.
>
> Case in point, yesterday several blogs mentioned a "pro-life, family
> values" politician running pictures of his family in his ads. Except
> that two of his children aren't in the picture: a son who was disowned
> for being gay, and a daugher who was disowned for having a child out
> of wedlock.
>
> Shouldn't he be _proud_ of the latter?
Yes....and assuming that his son is a good person who just happens to
be gay....he should be proud of him as well.
>
> Not if his real values are anti-sex rather than pro-life.
Agreed.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Ray Martinez
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
>
Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
The law of the O.T. requires death for much more "trivial" offenses
than witchcraft. The N.T. sums it all up when it says "all have sinned"
and God's final official word through the mouth of Jesus was to the
woman taken in adultery: "he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Jesus had the right (being without sin) but He chose to forgive.
Ray
SNIP...
Bob Pease
"Zorg" <fee...@home.org> wrote in message
news:b5mdnR3Y17ufmtjY...@giganews.com...
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
> >
> > So I have a few questions:
> >
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
> >
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
> the context of the quote. I'm not a "fundie" and don't know
> what the real definition of "creationist" is yet, and don't see
> the relevance of the questions with respect to science.
> Nevertheless...
The rest of your post identifies you as a fundie, whether you admit it or
not
> You are quoting old covenant Jewish law for *Jews*. It also
> says in verse 21, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him."
> The death penalty spoken of here is for Jews, who are supposed
> to be in covenant with God. These are social laws for a people set
> apart by God, called out of the degenerate cultures which
> surrounded them, and for the purpose of beginning to form
> them in the knowledge of God through an historical process.
So "GOD" selected a special group of folks for his covenent which applies
to All humans??
How nice for them !!!
> The law of Moses is nearer to the beginning of what we call
> salvation history. God, having chosen to create free beings
> rather than robots, has to work through man's free will,
> which necessitates some sort of historical process of
> revelation.
why?
> Earlier, a promise had been made to Abraham
> regarding land and posterity. "I will make you into a great
> nation and I will bless you...and ALL the people of the
> earth will be blessed through you." Now this is beginning to
> take shape under Moses.
> These laws also say, "Have nothing to do with a false charge,
> and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I
> will not acquit the guilty." There are many other laws which
> would be seen by most people to be universal in terms of
> justice.
And many which are despotic or nutz
> But that there should be a death penalty for those among
> them who invoke demonic spirits or have sex with animals,
> etc., should not be surprising if you understand the context.
> God delivered these people from slavery through a series of
> miraculous events which were seen and experienced by the
> nation. They were not ignorant of God's power and
> authority and of the fact that He had chosen them to be
> in covenant relationship with Him.
There is considerable doubt that this ever really happened.
Or did God permit Satan to erase evidence that should be there?
> "When Moses went and told the people all the Lord's
> words and laws, they responded with one voice,
> 'Everything the Lord has said we will do.' Moses then
> wrote down everything the Lord had said." (Ex 24:3)
>
> Do you understand that it's a covenant? That promises
> are made both ways?
Yep
Nice fiction
Sounds like something out of Monty Python
BTW your tone is of a preacher rather than a discusser
If you want a monologue, post elsewhere
> If the people who agree to be bound by the covenant
> then proceed to break it, they call down upon themselves
> the curses implicit or explicit in the oath.
Where is there given any choice but to agree??
> Now understanding the context, here are the answers
> to your questions.
Yes Father!!
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
"Not suffer to live" MEANS "Kill"
Please demonstrate otherwise
K> > So I have a few questions:
> >
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> Of course witchcraft exists. Just ask a witch. Or better
> yet, someone delivered of witchcraft.
I know several people who claim to be Witches
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> No.
Nope!!
They are nice snacks for Cthulhu
Pope Bobby II
69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
Reformed Church of the Subgenius
CreateThis
wrote:
>
>'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>>
>> So I have a few questions:
>>
>> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>>
>> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>>
>>
>
>Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
>fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
>
>The law of the O.T. requires death for much more "trivial" offenses
>than witchcraft.
So does the law of nature. For instance, being born is a capital
offense.
CT
Denis Loubet
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162157603.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>>
>> So I have a few questions:
>>
>> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>>
>> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>>
>>
>
> Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
> fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
>
> The law of the O.T. requires death for much more "trivial" offenses
> than witchcraft. The N.T. sums it all up when it says "all have sinned"
Why should we listen to self-avowed sinners such as yourself then? Don't
sinners lie?
> and God's final official word through the mouth of Jesus was to the
> woman taken in adultery: "he who is without sin cast the first stone".
> Jesus had the right (being without sin) but He chose to forgive.
So what's your excuse? Your posts are nothing but cast stones. Are you
without sin?
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162157603.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>>
>> So I have a few questions:
>>
>> (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>>
>> (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>>
>>
>
> Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
> fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
the fossil record supports the theory of evolution, whether or not
"punctuationism" is mentioned or not. Since you brought it up, maybe you'd
be willing to discuss such transitional fossil species as H. erectus, and H.
habilis?
>
> The law of the O.T. requires death for much more "trivial" offenses
> than witchcraft. The N.T. sums it all up when it says "all have sinned"
> and God's final official word through the mouth of Jesus was to the
> woman taken in adultery: "he who is without sin cast the first stone".
> Jesus had the right (being without sin) but He chose to forgive.
Ray, I've chosen to forgive your taking my words out of context (but not
forgotten), and your attempts to paint me as a racist. I know it was done
only to avoid answering hard questions about the fossil evidence for human
evolution.
Are you willing to discuss these fossils, or are you going to chicken out
yet again?
DJT
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Oct 29, 5:54 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> > So I have a few questions:
>
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
> the context of the quote.
I'm kinda thinking you won't . . .
(snip lots of irreleventia)
>
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
I see. so we shouldn't kill them, but we should not suffer them to live
. . . . .
Um, what's the difference, again . . .?
>
> > So I have a few questions:
>
> > (1) do you think **********supernatural********** witches and witchcraft exist?
>Of course witchcraft exists. Just ask a witch. Or better
> yet, someone delivered of witchcraft.
So these witches have supernatural powers, do they . . . . ?
>
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>No.
Right, we should just "not suffer them to live". Got it.
(sigh) No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are nuts.
But tell me, please, how can one identify a supernatural witch? Please
be as detailed as possible.
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
> >
> > So I have a few questions:
> >
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
> >
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
> >
> >
>
> Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
> fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
>
intermediate between modern humans and primitive nonhuman apes (even if
it took Gould's magic spell to make it so)? Dana Tweedy will be so
pleased.
Note that Gould's point was that the fossil record (which most
evolutionists thought told us nothing about how evolution actually
happened, because too tiny a portion of things that die are preserved
as fossils) supports one version of how evolution works
(punctuationalism) over another version (phyletic gradualism). Note
that Gould was seeking to explain why we don't see many fossil examples
of the sort of transitions (from one species in a genus to another)
that scientists have observed in the laboratory; he noted that
transitionals between higher-level taxa are common.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Ray
>
>
> SNIP...
-- Steven J.
Ken Rode
Regarding the story of the woman taken in adultery...
>From Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus",
--- begin quote ---
Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its
inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses.
As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact,
it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later
scribes.
How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript
tradition have no doubts about this particular case. ... Here I can
simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to
nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our
oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is
very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the
stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number
of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The
conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the
Gospel.
... It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in
different locations in the New Testament -- some of them after John
21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38.
In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.
That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not
originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not
everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most
textual critics, the answer is no.
--- end quote ---
Sorry, Ray, you were saying... ?
Deadrat
news:ei36er$l...@dispatch.concentric.net:
>
> "Zorg" <fee...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:b5mdnR3Y17ufmtjY...@giganews.com...
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
<snip>
> I know several people who claim to be Witches
>
>> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>>
>> No.
>
> Nope!!
> They are nice snacks for Cthulhu
>
> Pope Bobby II
> 69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
> Reformed Church of the Subgenius
More slack!
Deadrat
Ray Martinez
Pure rubbish. Generalizations and outright falsehoods.
The account of the woman taken in adultery appears in our best
manuscript. The best mss are the three great uncials (Sinaiticus;
Vaticanus; and the Alexandrinus).
Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
Vaticanus do not.
View a rare facsimile copy here:
http://www.drgenescott.com/stn34.htm
Ray
Ray Martinez
Steven J. wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> > > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
> > >
> > > So I have a few questions:
> > >
> > > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
> > >
> > > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
> > fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
> >
> So you now acknowledge that KNM-WT15000 ("Turkana boy") is an
> intermediate between modern humans and primitive nonhuman apes (even if
> it took Gould's magic spell to make it so)? Dana Tweedy will be so
> pleased.
>
Steven:
Three Things:
1. I have noticed, as of late, that you have chosen to align yourself
with the gutter element here at T.O. and sacrifice your earned respect.
Why ?
You were person who had respect in Creationist quarters.
2. In addition, you know my view on Turkana, only atheist needs put
apemen flesh on the specimen.
3. I am still wondering how you think nature did not produce it self ?
> Note that Gould's point was that the fossil record (which most
> evolutionists thought told us nothing about how evolution actually
> happened, because too tiny a portion of things that die are preserved
> as fossils) supports one version of how evolution works
> (punctuationalism) over another version (phyletic gradualism).
Negative. Gould's point was an honest admission: Darwinian gradualism
is not seen in the fossil record. The point was (and is) that your
theory has no support in this line of evidence taken at face value.
Punctuationism and [the path of] gradualism are antonyms. Both falsify
one another and both cannot be true.
> Note
> that Gould was seeking to explain why we don't see many fossil examples
> of the sort of transitions (from one species in a genus to another)
> that scientists have observed in the laboratory; he noted that
> transitionals between higher-level taxa are common.
Show me where Gould said this about transitionals, book and year.
Ray
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> > > > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
> > > >
> > > > So I have a few questions:
> > > >
> > > > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
> > > >
> > > > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
> > > fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
> > >
> > So you now acknowledge that KNM-WT15000 ("Turkana boy") is an
> > intermediate between modern humans and primitive nonhuman apes (even if
> > it took Gould's magic spell to make it so)? Dana Tweedy will be so
> > pleased.
> >
>
> Steven:
>
> Three Things:
>
> 1. I have noticed, as of late, that you have chosen to align yourself
> with the gutter element here at T.O. and sacrifice your earned respect.
> Why ?
>
with? Implicitly I suppose I am "aligning myself" with Dana Tweedy, a
very reasonable person, who hardly strikes me as a "gutter element."
>
> You were person who had respect in Creationist quarters.
>
groups in the United States, considered an expression of respect.
>
> 2. In addition, you know my view on Turkana, only atheist needs put
> apemen flesh on the specimen.
>
reconstruction of soft tissues, is very persuasive of its transitional
status, I agree, but I suspect you do not mean that at all.
>
> 3. I am still wondering how you think nature did not produce it self ?
>
deal with where the laws of nature came from, or even where the Earth
came from. It seems to me that there must be some fundamental "nature
of things" that has always existed (if the nature that science studies
is a creation of God, then God's divine nature is the fundamental
nature of things that always existed; otherwise there must be some
fundamental underlying laws of nature that account for the laws of
physics). But how things seem to me is doubtless a dubious ground to
speculate upon such high and abstract matters.
>
> > Note that Gould's point was that the fossil record (which most
> > evolutionists thought told us nothing about how evolution actually
> > happened, because too tiny a portion of things that die are preserved
> > as fossils) supports one version of how evolution works
> > (punctuationalism) over another version (phyletic gradualism).
>
> Negative. Gould's point was an honest admission: Darwinian gradualism
> is not seen in the fossil record. The point was (and is) that your
> theory has no support in this line of evidence taken at face value.
>
arguing for one view of the "tempo and mode" of evolution against
another version, and argued that the fossil evidence was sufficient to
decide the question. Note that Gould is not arguing for "hopeful
monsters," or one species giving birth to another, but simply for a
rapid succession of gradual evolutionary steps in small, isolated
populations rather than for a slow succession of such steps over the
entire range of a species.
Your phrasing is interesting, though: "your theory has no support in
this line of evidence." The fossil record has always been seen as the
weakest (though hardly unimpressive in its own right) of the major
lines of evidence for common descent and, particularly, for a
"Darwinian" view of evolutionary mechanisms. That some aspect of
evolutionary theory is not strongly supported by the very imperfect
fossil record does not mean that it is unsupported by other lines of
evidence.
>
> Punctuationism and [the path of] gradualism are antonyms. Both falsify
> one another and both cannot be true.
>
Given the immense number of branches and sub-branches on the phylogenic
tree, it seems that one could be true in some cases, and the other true
in other cases.
>
> > Note
> > that Gould was seeking to explain why we don't see many fossil examples
> > of the sort of transitions (from one species in a genus to another)
> > that scientists have observed in the laboratory; he noted that
> > transitionals between higher-level taxa are common.
>
> Show me where Gould said this about transitionals, book and year.
>
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but
they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1994), p.261
>
> Ray
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Ken Rode
Assertions noted and summarily dismissed.
> The account of the woman taken in adultery appears in our best
> manuscript. The best mss are the three great uncials (Sinaiticus;
> Vaticanus; and the Alexandrinus).
>
> Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
> the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
> Vaticanus do not.
The web site from which I quoted below disagrees with you, Ray.
>From http://www.nttext.com/adult.html:
--- begin quote ---
The non-Johannine origin of the Pericope Adulterae is considered a
foregone conclusion by most textual critics. This is hardly surprising,
considering the external evidence against it:
1. The agreement of the most ancient MSS of John's Gospel in
omitting the passage: including P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus (01), Codex
Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Ephraemi (C), Codex
Purpureus (N), Codex Borgianus (T) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) - all
dating from the 3rd to the 6th centuries.
2. The breadth of versional support is against the passage, most
manuscripts of the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and
Slavonic Versions omitting the incident.
3. The early Greek Church Fathers who provide commentaries on John
omit it, including Origen and Chrysostom.
4. The placement of the account in various positions, including at
the end of John's Gospel or at the end of Luke chapter 21 in some
manuscripts.
5. The marking of the passage as dubious with an asterisk or obelus
in many manuscripts which contain it.
6. Finally, the disturbed state of the text in the manuscripts that
contain it, seen in the fact that various forms of the incident are
found in the manuscripts. Von Soden classifies seven different versions
of the text amongst the manuscripts.
--- end quote ---
I can certainly see that whether or not this passage belongs to John is
controversial. It is controversial because it is questionable. It is
questionable because, regardless of whether it belongs or not, the text
for John's Gospel has obviously been changing over time.
Now, to prevent you from replying to this post, how about finding the
sunken continent of Atlantis for me on a bathymetric chart of the North
Atlantic? You know, that challenge that you haven't yet responded to?
The challenge that you dare not respond to because you can't do it.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > Most certainly witchcraft exists; when Gould says "punctuationism" the
>> > fossil record suddenly re-materializes into a record that supports ToE.
>> >
>> So you now acknowledge that KNM-WT15000 ("Turkana boy") is an
>> intermediate between modern humans and primitive nonhuman apes (even if
>> it took Gould's magic spell to make it so)? Dana Tweedy will be so
>> pleased.
>>
>
> Steven:
>
> Three Things:
>
> 1. I have noticed, as of late, that you have chosen to align yourself
> with the gutter element here at T.O. and sacrifice your earned respect.
> Why ?
Ray, the only "gutter element" here is yourself. You referred to a human
population that lives in the Congo, as "monsters". You suggested that a
population of modern humans who live in Tierra del Feugo were "savages".
You have called the ancient Egyptians "North African camel riding sun
worshipers", and implied they were too unintelligent to build the pyramids
on their own. You have insulted women, and suggested that one come and
serve you in the bedroom.
>
> You were person who had respect in Creationist quarters.
But according to you, that would mean that the "Creationist quarters" were
wrong.
>
> 2. In addition, you know my view on Turkana, only atheist needs put
> apemen flesh on the specimen.
Ray, as you are well aware I'm not an atheist. Also, one does not need to
put "apeman flesh" on the bones to see the it's a transitional hominid
fossil. The bones themselves show clear transitional features.
>
> 3. I am still wondering how you think nature did not produce it self ?
Please translate this into English....
>
>> Note that Gould's point was that the fossil record (which most
>> evolutionists thought told us nothing about how evolution actually
>> happened, because too tiny a portion of things that die are preserved
>> as fossils) supports one version of how evolution works
>> (punctuationalism) over another version (phyletic gradualism).
>
> Negative. Gould's point was an honest admission: Darwinian gradualism
> is not seen in the fossil record.
Gould himself stated that was a misinterpetation of his statements.
> The point was (and is) that your
> theory has no support in this line of evidence taken at face value.
That's not true, and your refusal to even look at the fossil evidence, much
less the genetic, biochemical, molecular, anatomical, etc.... evidence only
supports that you are speaking falsely.
>
> Punctuationism and [the path of] gradualism are antonyms.
No, they are not. Please learn a little about the subject.
> Both falsify
> one another and both cannot be true.
Wrong on both counts.
>
>> Note
>> that Gould was seeking to explain why we don't see many fossil examples
>> of the sort of transitions (from one species in a genus to another)
>> that scientists have observed in the laboratory; he noted that
>> transitionals between higher-level taxa are common.
>
> Show me where Gould said this about transitionals, book and year.
Steven did, but just so you don't miss it...
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but
they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1994), p.261
A more complete quote is:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists- whether through
design or stupidity, I do not know- as admitting the fossil record contains
no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. "
You may read it for yourself at Amazon.com using their 'search inside'
feature.
http://www.amazon.com/Teeth-Horses-Toes-Stephen-Gould/dp/0393311031/sr=8-2/qid=1162174099/ref=sr_1_2/002-1883995-7740811?ie=UTF8&s=books
DJT
Zorg
>
>
> On Oct 29, 5:54 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>>
>> > So I have a few questions:
>>
>> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>>
>> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
>> the context of the quote.
>
>
>
> I'm kinda thinking you won't . . .
>
>
> (snip lots of irreleventia)
So for you, context is irrelevant? Ok. That's what fundies do.
Which question did I not answer?
1) Yes, witches exist.
2) No, we shouldn't kill them.
Those were the only questions that I saw.
>> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>>Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
>
> I see. so we shouldn't kill them, but we should not suffer them to live
> . . . . .
>
> Um, what's the difference, again . . .?
You should read the parts you labelled and snipped
(conveniently) as "irrelevantia".
Why do you think that you or I are being commanded
to kill (murder) witches because of an ancient Jewish
law which applied capital punishment to ancient Jewish
witches?
Should we sacrifice animals too, and not cut our beards?
Who's the "fundie"?
>> > So I have a few questions:
>>
>> > (1) do you think **********supernatural********** witches and
>> > witchcraft exist?
>
>>Of course witchcraft exists. Just ask a witch. Or better
>> yet, someone delivered of witchcraft.
>
>
> So these witches have supernatural powers, do they . . . . ?
Another fundie tactic. Don't stop to deal with the first series of
questions, just keep on adding more and more. Bait and switch.
>> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
>>No.
>
>
> Right, we should just "not suffer them to live". Got it.
The law applied to Jews of the old covenant. It was
legislation. Do you know what a law is? Do you know
who the Jews were? Do you know what legislation is? Do you
know what the death penalty is?
Do you know the difference between capital punishment
and murder?
In this country they can lock you up for life for selling
plant material. In other countries today, for the same offense,
they might put you to death.
Or try mentioning "bomb" to your flight attendant the next
time you fly. That might teach you with what seriousness
societies take their laws. Laws which allow the death
penalty to be applied are not invitations to the rabble to start
murdering folk. The fact that _you_ think they are tells us more
about _you_ than anything else.
There's a fire in California right now. They were just talking
about the possibility of the death penalty for the arsonist
if they catch him. Do you understand that if he is caught
and tried and convicted, that they could put him to death
if the law allows? Does that offend you?
Is that a license for everyone in America (or everyone
everywhere in the future) to murder anyone who starts a fire?
According to your logic, it is. You're a fundie.
> (sigh) No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are nuts.
Oh please. I'm not responsible for your ridiculous idea
that the Bible commands us to kill witches. You came up with
that one. I'm just trying to set you straight.
> But tell me, please, how can one identify a supernatural witch? Please
> be as detailed as possible.
What does this have to do with your original post?
If you're so curious about witches and what they do,
go look it up. I'm not the witch librarian.
~Zorg
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not
>> originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not
>> everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most
>> textual critics, the answer is no.
>> --- end quote ---
>>
>> Sorry, Ray, you were saying... ?
>
> Pure rubbish. Generalizations and outright falsehoods.
Which is what we come to expect from your posts, Ray.
>
> The account of the woman taken in adultery appears in our best
> manuscript. The best mss are the three great uncials (Sinaiticus;
> Vaticanus; and the Alexandrinus).
Why don't you take this up with Ken's source, Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting
Jesus".
>
> Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
> the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
> Vaticanus do not.
What's your "source" for this claim, Ray?
>
> View a rare facsimile copy here:
>
> http://www.drgenescott.com/stn34.htm
Can you read the language it's written in, Ray? Tell the truth, now. If
you don't, it will come back to bite you...
DJT
Glenn
I don't know what Ray was saying, but my answer is that unless the "if"
is removed, it should not be removed. It contradicts nothing, and
Erhman, throws no new light on the well known subject. You might have
noticed that Ehrman is an atheist without balls, apparently trying to
weaken Christian faith. As to the evidence, I'll leave you to decide
what makes you happy.
http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm
"Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in
existence."
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html
"This proceeding, however, shocks the minds of some weak believers, or
rather unbelievers and enemies of the Christian faith: inasmuch that,
after (I suppose) of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they
struck out from their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in
pardoning the woman taken in adultery: as if He granted leave of
sinning, Who said, Go and sin no more."
Ken Rode
Based on the reading that I've done so far, I'd have to agree: Ehrman
isn't shedding any new light. The book that I've quoted from is not a
scholastic book, but intended for the popular press. It seems, more
than anything else, to be a brief summary of
the state of textual criticism of the New Testament today.
> You might have
> noticed that Ehrman is an atheist without balls, apparently trying to
> weaken Christian faith. As to the evidence, I'll leave you to decide
> what makes you happy.
You will find the introduction to this book on amazon.com. If you read
it, you will see that Ehrman describes his spiritual journey as a
Christian, a born-again Christian, a fundamentalist Christian, an
evangelical Christian. What he personally believes now isn't clear, but
after having studied the history and texts of the Bible, it is clear
that his views regarding its "inerrancy" have most certainly changed.
To charge him with "apparently trying to weaken Christian faith" is
unfounded.
> http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm
>
> "Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
> godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
> Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in
> existence."
Isn't that odd... Ray identifies the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as two of
the best manuscripts in existence.
Glenn
It seems to me to be an "agenda" to persuade others to his
"agnosticism".
>
> > You might have
> > noticed that Ehrman is an atheist without balls, apparently trying to
> > weaken Christian faith. As to the evidence, I'll leave you to decide
> > what makes you happy.
>
> You will find the introduction to this book on amazon.com. If you read
> it, you will see that Ehrman describes his spiritual journey as a
> Christian, a born-again Christian, a fundamentalist Christian, an
> evangelical Christian. What he personally believes now isn't clear, but
> after having studied the history and texts of the Bible, it is clear
> that his views regarding its "inerrancy" have most certainly changed.
> To charge him with "apparently trying to weaken Christian faith" is
> unfounded.
Why is it unfounded, because I gave no support? Duh. I simply said that
you might have noticed it.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html
>
> > http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm
> >
> > "Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
> > godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
> > Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in
> > existence."
>
> Isn't that odd... Ray identifies the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as two of
> the best manuscripts in existence.
Why is it odd? Do you expect me to agree with anything any creationist
says? Is that not unfounded?
Ye Old One
Your opinion, which we do not put much store by.
>
>The account of the woman taken in adultery appears in our best
>manuscript. The best mss are the three great uncials (Sinaiticus;
>Vaticanus; and the Alexandrinus).
>
>Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
>the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
>Vaticanus do not.
So it only appears in a 5th century version - nothing earlier. Thank
you for confirming that Bart D. Ehrman's book is correct
>
>View a rare facsimile copy here:
>
>http://www.drgenescott.com/stn34.htm
Nobody in their right mind would use a scumbag like Gene Scott as a
source Dishonest Ray - that really is sinking very low.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ken Rode
I can certainly see how you might see that.
> > > You might have
> > > noticed that Ehrman is an atheist without balls, apparently trying to
> > > weaken Christian faith. As to the evidence, I'll leave you to decide
> > > what makes you happy.
> >
> > You will find the introduction to this book on amazon.com. If you read
> > it, you will see that Ehrman describes his spiritual journey as a
> > Christian, a born-again Christian, a fundamentalist Christian, an
> > evangelical Christian. What he personally believes now isn't clear, but
> > after having studied the history and texts of the Bible, it is clear
> > that his views regarding its "inerrancy" have most certainly changed.
> > To charge him with "apparently trying to weaken Christian faith" is
> > unfounded.
>
> Why is it unfounded, because I gave no support? Duh. I simply said that
> you might have noticed it.
>
> http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html
You'll forgive me if I don't take someone's blog as necessarily
authoritative. Who precisely is Ben Witherington, and why should I
consider him an expert in these matters?
Nick Keighley
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
> >
> > So I have a few questions:
> >
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
> >
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
> the context of the quote. I'm not a "fundie" and don't know
> what the real definition of "creationist" is yet,
creationist, one who belives living things were created by God on
a more or less individual basis. That it "classes" or "kinds" of animal
were created by God rather than evolving from existing species.
The real loons believe the earth is only 6000 years old despite
a ton of evidence from a dozen fields of science.
> and don't see the relevance of the questions with respect to science.
the relevence is some creationists try to impose their beliefs on
science curricula.
> Nevertheless...
>
> You are quoting old covenant Jewish law for *Jews*. It also
> says in verse 21, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him."
> The death penalty spoken of here is for Jews, who are supposed
> to be in covenant with God. These are social laws for a people set
> apart by God, called out of the degenerate cultures which
> surrounded them, and for the purpose of beginning to form
> them in the knowledge of God through an historical process.
so the stuff in exodus no longer applies? Where does it say that in the
bible? Can we choose which bits to follow? So I can kill people if I
feel
like it?
<snip more of same>
> Now understanding the context,
well, no
> here are the answers to your questions.
>
> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
so you cannot follow simple logic or understand KJ Biblical english?
> > So I have a few questions:
> >
> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> Of course witchcraft exists. Just ask a witch.
wouldn't you get a slightly biased answer. I know a number of people
who believe in witchcraft, should I ask them?
> Or better
> yet, someone delivered of witchcraft.
like mail order?
> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> No.
--
Nick Keighley
The Last Conformist
Glenn wrote:
... nothing of significance.
A good old Glenn. No-one else makes Ray look sensible the way Glenn
does.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> >> > (1) do you think **********supernatural********** witches and
> >> > witchcraft exist?
>
> >>Of course witchcraft exists. Just ask a witch. Or better
> >> yet, someone delivered of witchcraft.
>
> > So these witches have supernatural powers, do they . . . .
fundie tactic. Don't stop to deal with the first series of
> questions, just keep on adding more and more.
Not terribly bright, are you.
Once again, I repeat my original questions, exactly as they were
written:
*ahem*
Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
So I have a few questions:
(1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
(2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
Now answer my question.
As for your blitheirng about Jewish law and capital punishments, I will
ask, just for you:
Do you think supernatural witches should be executed?
Oh, and how, again, do we recognize supernatural witches (as opposed to
plain old ordinary Wiccans)? Are you and your fellow fundies working
on an updated version of the malleus Maleficarum, so we can all be
clear about the law regarding witches and their executions?
No WONDER nobody takes fundies seriously. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
By the way, Mr Zorg, you seem to be arguing that we don't have to
follow ancient Jewish law (but, apparently, we DO have to take ancient
Jewish myth as history). I assume that also means we don't have to
follow ancient Jewish laws about homosexuality, premarital sex, and all
that. Right?
But how about New Testament law, do we have to follow that?
If so, do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?
I Corinthians 14:
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Agree? Disagree? Or, uh, don't we have to follow that one either.
Stanley Friesen
>
>Glenn wrote:
> [snip]
>> http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm
>>
>> "Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
>> godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
>> Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in
>> existence."
>
>Isn't that odd... Ray identifies the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as two of
>the best manuscripts in existence.
It is interesting that Glenn is quoting from a source that maintains the
KJV is the best English translation. I think that says much.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>>
>>Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
>>the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
>>Vaticanus do not.
>
>So it only appears in a 5th century version - nothing earlier. Thank
>you for confirming that Bart D. Ehrman's book is correct
He is also wrong - the Alexandrinus does NOT contain the story, as that
page is missing.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
>>>the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
>>>Vaticanus do not.
>>
>>So it only appears in a 5th century version - nothing earlier. Thank
>>you for confirming that Bart D. Ehrman's book is correct
>
>He is also wrong - the Alexandrinus does NOT contain the story, as that
>page is missing.
Ah! Even better :)
--
Bob.
Glenn
I'm interested to find out how your peculiar religious "theistic"
philosophy regards the Bible. Complete myth, completely/partially
inspired by God thru the authors, or no response?
If I had to guess, I'd say that you would have to believe that the "end
result", every current and past version, was the direct result of God's
action, being constant and indistinguishable from nature. Am I way off?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hello? Zorg? Hello?
(sound of crickets chirping)
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> "Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >Glenn wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm
>> >>
>> >> "Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
>> >> godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
>> >> Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in
>> >> existence."
>> >
>> >Isn't that odd... Ray identifies the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as two of
>> >the best manuscripts in existence.
>>
>> It is interesting that Glenn is quoting from a source that maintains the
>> KJV is the best English translation. I think that says much.
>>
>Perhaps you should speak with Sharon about that.
>
>I'm interested to find out how your peculiar religious "theistic"
>philosophy regards the Bible. Complete myth, completely/partially
>inspired by God thru the authors, or no response?
You really never did understand my theology. If you had you would not
write it in scare quotes. Indeed I find it hard to see how you could
equate the Active Maintainer Guy with the non-involved God of deism.
The Bible is, of course inspired. That is a core part of Christian
theology. Actually the only area where I am really outside of mainline
orthodoxy is on the matter of the Trinity, as you would realize if you
understood what I have said.
>If I had to guess, I'd say that you would have to believe that the "end
>result", every current and past version, was the direct result of God's
>action, being constant and indistinguishable from nature. Am I way off?
Yes.
Ray Martinez
I said, contrary to Stile's ad hoc googling, we who have studied the
Bible under persons with Ph.Ds know that the account of the woman taken
in adultery appears in our BEST mss - the Codex Alexandrinus, moreover,
it is the only uncial that contains the story.
Stile's ignorant axe grinding atheist source said the account is not in
the best mss.
Codex Alexandrinus is one of three great uncials in existence, it is
the only uncial that contains the book of Genesis - it is the eminent
and most holy of all mss.
Case closed.
Ray
SNIP...
Stile4aly
Without commenting on the subject in question, since Biblical Apocrypha
isn't one of my areas of knowledge, I'm curious to know how my name got
dragged into this. I haven't even posted in this thread until now, Ray.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> I don't know what Ray was saying,
>
> I said, contrary to Stile's ad hoc googling,
It wasn't "Stile" who found the information. What is "ad hoc googling"
anyway? It sounds illegal...
> we who have studied the
> Bible under persons with Ph.Ds
Ray, you haven't "studied the Bible", you've swallowed Gene Scott's
assertions, hook, line and sinker... If you had ever done any independent
study, you'd have found that Gene was wrong about quite a lot of his cliams.
That's why you make such horrendious errors in Greek.
> know that the account of the woman taken
> in adultery appears in our BEST mss - the Codex Alexandrinus, moreover,
> it is the only uncial that contains the story.
Again, perhaps you should take this up with the author of the book cited,
ie. Bart D. Ehrman, a Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary.
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150&d=Bart+Ehrman
Why is Dr. Ehrman's Ph.D. less an authority than Gene Scott's (which wasn't
even in Theology)?
>
> Stile's ignorant axe grinding atheist source said the account is not in
> the best mss.
Dr Ehrman is not an atheist.
>
> Codex Alexandrinus is one of three great uncials in existence, it is
> the only uncial that contains the book of Genesis - it is the eminent
> and most holy of all mss.
On what "source" do you base that assertion?
>
> Case closed.
No, Ray, you don't get to be the judge.
DJT
Ken Rode
I'll take the blame for that. Ray is trying to respond to one of my
posts without responding to one of my posts directly. He's become
afraid of responding to any post in which both "Atlantis" and
"bathymetric charts of the North Atlantic" are mentioned. I think that
he's quite shaken about the fact that there is *absolutely no evidence*
of a sunken continent in the North Atlantic. Not responding to me is
his way of being in denial.
Ray Martinez
My bad, I meant Ken Rode - sorry.
Ray
Stanley Friesen
>"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>>I'm interested to find out how your peculiar religious "theistic"
>>philosophy regards the Bible. Complete myth, completely/partially
>>inspired by God thru the authors, or no response?
>
>You really never did understand my theology. If you had you would not
>write it in scare quotes. Indeed I find it hard to see how you could
>equate the Active Maintainer Guy with the non-involved God of deism.
>
>The Bible is, of course inspired. That is a core part of Christian
>theology. Actually the only area where I am really outside of mainline
>orthodoxy is on the matter of the Trinity, as you would realize if you
>understood what I have said.
>
>>If I had to guess, I'd say that you would have to believe that the "end
>>result", every current and past version, was the direct result of God's
>>action, being constant and indistinguishable from nature. Am I way off?
>
>Yes.
I realized I was ambiguous above - I meant "Yes you are way off".
Stanley Friesen
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1162323633.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>snip
>> we who have studied the
>> Bible under persons with Ph.Ds
>
>Ray, you haven't "studied the Bible", you've swallowed Gene Scott's
>assertions, hook, line and sinker... If you had ever done any independent
>study, you'd have found that Gene was wrong about quite a lot of his cliams.
>That's why you make such horrendious errors in Greek.
Indeed, the one time I tried to watch one of Gene Scott's lectures on
the meaning of the scriptures in Greek, I heard him make so many errors
of fact and logic in 5 minutes I could no longer stand to watch him.
Stanley Friesen
>
>
>I said, contrary to Stile's ad hoc googling, we who have studied the
>Bible under persons with Ph.Ds know that the account of the woman taken
>in adultery appears in our BEST mss - the Codex Alexandrinus, moreover,
>it is the only uncial that contains the story.
According to *every* source I could find about the Codex Alexandrinus
the page/section that would contain the story is in fact *missing* in
the document.
For instance, from Wikipedia:
"while the corresponding portion of John is a lacuna, scholars posit
that the Pericope Adulteræ was not included in the text based on space
calculations."
[The word "lacuna" mean empty space - that is a missing page].
So, at *best* one can say that the Codex Alexandrinus *may* have the
story.
Ken Rode
Never let it (Atlantis) be said, Ray, that (bathymetric) you don't
(chart) allow yourself (North) to be corrected (Atlantic) over the most
trivial of errors.
Glenn
Glenn
> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >Stanley Friesen wrote:
> >> "Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Glenn wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >> >> http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> "Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
> >> >> godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
> >> >> Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in
> >> >> existence."
> >> >
> >> >Isn't that odd... Ray identifies the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as two of
> >> >the best manuscripts in existence.
> >>
> >> It is interesting that Glenn is quoting from a source that maintains the
> >> KJV is the best English translation. I think that says much.
> >>
> >Perhaps you should speak with Sharon about that.
> >
> >I'm interested to find out how your peculiar religious "theistic"
> >philosophy regards the Bible. Complete myth, completely/partially
> >inspired by God thru the authors, or no response?
>
> You really never did understand my theology. If you had you would not
> write it in scare quotes. Indeed I find it hard to see how you could
> equate the Active Maintainer Guy with the non-involved God of deism.
A maintenance guy isn't actively involved in how the machine is
operated. I haven't equated as you say, I've said that the two are for
all practical purposes no different with respect to God's active
involvement with us. All this philosophical positing is useless and
irrelevant. Your argument is that your theology could be accepted by
any other Christian, and that it doesn't conflict with science.
Christians must have miracles, for instance the resurrection. I'd think
you'd have a hard time mating your theology to that, and in showing
that didn't conflict with science. Even the belief in humans being or
having anything different from any other animal would conflict with
science.
>
> The Bible is, of course inspired. That is a core part of Christian
> theology. Actually the only area where I am really outside of mainline
> orthodoxy is on the matter of the Trinity, as you would realize if you
> understood what I have said.
You didn't answer. Is the "Bible" as we have it now, totally inspired,
or partially inspired, which parts are and aren't, and how do you make
those determinations?
>
> >If I had to guess, I'd say that you would have to believe that the "end
> >result", every current and past version, was the direct result of God's
> >action, being constant and indistinguishable from nature. Am I way off?
>
> Yes.
>
I'd have thought that this would be the same as man being created by
"the maintenance guy", and that the end result would be God's Will as
surely as you must believe the (evolutionary) end result of man is
God's will.
So what do you consider God's involvement in our present written word
of God?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Oct 30, 8:25 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello?? Anyone home? Zorg? Hellooooooooo?????
(sound of crickets chirping)
(sigh) Why oh why why why don't fundies ever answer my goddamn
questions . . . . .
sharon
Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
> Ray, I've chosen to forgive your taking my words out of context (but not
> forgotten), and your attempts to paint me as a racist. I know it was done
> only to avoid answering hard questions about the fossil evidence for human
> evolution.
why would anyone assume you, of all people, a racist?
but Ray Martinez specializes in absurdity and I followed the thread all
the way down to last post....
> Are you willing to discuss these fossils, or are you going to chicken out
> yet again?
maybe I missed it, but I think, he never responded to anything you
asked.
>
> DJT
Glenn
Glenn
sharon wrote:
You should take your own advice. I wasn't unfriendly to you, yet you
quickly ended up telling me to get screwed. Sharon, women don't have
the market on intuition or the ability to read people. And you sure as
hell don't. I suspect you have a mental problem. I don't say this to
hurt you. I'm not blaming you, but you appear overly defensive, quick
to anger, resentful of men in general, and insecure. You haven't seemed
to really engage in any conversation here yet. Deadrat bent over
backwards to be polite and discuss your claims, and you pissed all over
him. You thought one poster was male, when most here knows is female.
Sometimes tough love is the right way to go. Take it or leave it.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> How cliquey of you.
I WAS SPEAKING TO DANA TWEEDY. NOT YOU GLENN.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> quickly ended up telling me to get screwed. Sharon, women don't have
Mr. Psychic man is an expert on women.
I WAS SPEAKING TO DANA TWEEDY, NOT YOU.
Do you know how to butt out of other people's conversation, Glenn. Or
is your egocentrism hereditary?
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > How cliquey of you.
>
> I WAS SPEAKING TO DANA TWEEDY. NOT YOU GLENN.
And Dana was speaking to Ray.
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
> > Ray, I've chosen to forgive your taking my words out of context (but not
> > forgotten), and your attempts to paint me as a racist. I know it was done
> > only to avoid answering hard questions about the fossil evidence for human
> > evolution.
>
> why would anyone assume you, of all people, a racist?
> but Ray Martinez specializes in absurdity and I followed the thread all
>
> the way down to last post....
>
>
> > Are you willing to discuss these fossils, or are you going to chicken out
> > yet again?
>
>
> maybe I missed it, but I think, he never responded to anything you
> asked.
And now you're speaking to me. Look up.
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > quickly ended up telling me to get screwed. Sharon, women don't have
>
>
> Mr. Psychic man is an expert on women.
Why do you think I'm a man?
>
> I WAS SPEAKING TO DANA TWEEDY, NOT YOU.
And Dana was speaking to Ray, when you "butted in".
>
> Do you know how to butt out of other people's conversation, Glenn. Or
> is your egocentrism hereditary?
How about yours? You apparently have a problem with people butting in
to other's conversations. I don't, and neither does *anyone* else here.
So take your own medicine.
Or can you show that you can really communicate at all?
sharon
> Glenn wrote:
> > quickly ended up telling me to get screwed. Sharon, women don't have
I spoke to DANA TWEEDY. What part have you failed to understand in
that?
Are you jealous that I said something nice to somebody, other than
yourself?
Is that what it is? You must be the center of attention? What is your
problem with selfishness?
I have read Dana Tweedy's posts for several years, on and off, enough
to draw a judgment (my intution, for which I have no apologies). if you
don't like what I say, go read another thread, including the old thread
where you are doing your red herring bullshit, to say I claimed I
should be able to distinguish "a male from female" from every person --
including unfamiliar people. You are an ignorant man. Intuition has
*nothing* to do with psychic superstition, but you know that already.
The entire thread I presented scientific research they've done on
female brain, but you chose to reject, and refused to discuss fairly.
You are simply trying to create problems here.
MY JUDGMENT IS: The least thing I would ever suspect, was Dana Tweedy
being racist. It was absurd that Ray Martinez should make such an
accusation.
Is my intuition wrong, Glenn?
Is Dana a racist?
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > quickly ended up telling me to get screwed. Sharon, women don't have
>
> I spoke to DANA TWEEDY. What part have you failed to understand in
> that?
I haven't failed to understand that. It is irrelevant. All are welcome
here to post to anyone.
I spoke to you. Apparently you are continuing to fail to understand
that just as Dana was "speaking" to Ray when you "spoke" to Dana, I
"spoke" to you. Or do you think you are entitled to some special
treatment?
>
> Are you jealous that I said something nice to somebody, other than
> yourself?
> Is that what it is? You must be the center of attention? What is your
> problem with selfishness?
If you think that posting to someone who has posted to someone besides
you is selfish, then you better get a sharp pencil.
>
> I have read Dana Tweedy's posts for several years, on and off, enough
> to draw a judgment (my intution, for which I have no apologies). if you
> don't like what I say, go read another thread, including the old thread
> where you are doing your red herring bullshit, to say I claimed I
> should be able to distinguish "a male from female" from every person --
> including unfamiliar people. You are an ignorant man. Intuition has
> *nothing* to do with psychic superstition, but you know that already.
> The entire thread I presented scientific research they've done on
> female brain, but you chose to reject, and refused to discuss fairly.
> You are simply trying to create problems here.
Sharon, you're just downright rude. And you won't tolerate anyone being
rude to you in the slightest. In fact, you create it in your own mind.
For your information (not that you will believe it), when I read your
original post concerning this research, I was tempted to confront
Deadrat for his treatment of your claim. But first I read all the
reasearch. And -yep I bet you "guessed it", because I am ignorant, man,
mean, blah blah blah - I found nothing to your claim. And I haven't
seen an argument from you that counts for squat. You just won't accept
anyone elses opinion, and won't even *consider* any. At least up till
now.
>
sharon
> > Glenn who understands nothing about what intuition is, wrote (a whole lot of stuff)...
Intuition is a judgment made of a collection of information. In this
case, I have been following Dana and other regulars' posts for a few
years now. I have not followed Glenn's. I have not followed his consort
Rat. I have only recently acquainted Ray Martinez, but quickly
intuition sniffed out some of his nasty, dishonesty.
>From my intuition... the information I have retained on Dana Tweedy
over several years...
MY JUDGMENT IS: The least thing I would ever suspect, was Dana Tweedy
being racist. It was absurd that Ray Martinez should make such an
accusation.
Do you disagree with my judgment? If so, speak now or forever hold your
peace.
Is this being "psychic", Glenn?
> Is my intuition wrong, Glenn?
>
> Is Dana a racist?
But Glenn says Dana is an ASCII-only-medium.. how could I possibly know
anything about Dana Tweedy.
I say it with all conviction and would love for somebody to prove me
wrong. I feel safe enough to wager money -- Dana Tweedy is no racist!
I trust my intuition on this matter.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> Sharon, you're just downright ... won't tolerate anyone being
> rude to you
Um. That's quite intuitive of you. Remember it from now on.
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> > > Glenn who understands nothing about what intuition is, wrote (a whole lot of stuff)...
>
> Intuition is a judgment made of a collection of information. In this
> case, I have been following Dana and other regulars' posts for a few
> years now. I have not followed Glenn's. I have not followed his consort
> Rat. I have only recently acquainted Ray Martinez, but quickly
> intuition sniffed out some of his nasty, dishonesty.
Frankly, Sharon, you're full of shit. Rat and I are definitely not in
bed with eachother. And claiming that I understand nothing about what
intuition is does not advance your feeble attempt to bully your point
across.
>
> >From my intuition... the information I have retained on Dana Tweedy
> over several years...
>
> MY JUDGMENT IS: The least thing I would ever suspect, was Dana Tweedy
> being racist. It was absurd that Ray Martinez should make such an
> accusation.
>
> Do you disagree with my judgment? If so, speak now or forever hold your
> peace.
>
> Is this being "psychic", Glenn?
>
> > Is my intuition wrong, Glenn?
> >
> > Is Dana a racist?
>
> But Glenn says Dana is an ASCII-only-medium.. how could I possibly know
> anything about Dana Tweedy.
>
> I say it with all conviction and would love for somebody to prove me
> wrong. I feel safe enough to wager money -- Dana Tweedy is no racist!
>
> I trust my intuition on this matter.
Sheesh. You think I said that Dana is an "ASCII-only-medium", for
crying out loud. You expect me to know and understand every little
detail of your contorted mental wanderings, yet claim I know nothing of
intuition, am ignorant, etc. Whew! You are the one who started the
clique talk. You're transparent, Sharon.
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
Sharon who understands nothing about what intuition is, wrote (a whole
lot of stuff)...
Am I learning from the pro? Remember this from now on.
Stanley Friesen
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> You really never did understand my theology. If you had you would not
>> write it in scare quotes. Indeed I find it hard to see how you could
>> equate the Active Maintainer Guy with the non-involved God of deism.
>
>A maintenance guy
Not "maintenance guy", "maintainer guy", as in the guy without which
nothing would remain in existence.
> isn't actively involved in how the machine is
>operated. I haven't equated as you say, I've said that the two are for
>all practical purposes no different with respect to God's active
>involvement with us.
And this is for all *practical* purposes the same as equating them.
> All this philosophical positing is useless and
>irrelevant. Your argument is that your theology could be accepted by
>any other Christian, and that it doesn't conflict with science.
>Christians must have miracles, for instance the resurrection. I'd think
>you'd have a hard time mating your theology to that,
No, miracles are in the eye of the beholder. The resurrection is part
of our faith, but there is no rule it *must* have occurred in any
*particular* way.
> and in showing
>that didn't conflict with science.
I don't *care* if that conflicts with science or not, as it is currently
unverifiable by scientific means, and will remain so short of the
invention of a time machine.
> Even the belief in humans being or
>having anything different from any other animal would conflict with
>science.
Let's see, we have language, no other animal truly has language in it
full, arbitrary glory.
And note, the existence of eternal life ("life after death") does *not*
require the existence of any immaterial, transcendent "stuff" called a
soul that is lacking in other animals.
>>
>> The Bible is, of course inspired. That is a core part of Christian
>> theology. Actually the only area where I am really outside of mainline
>> orthodoxy is on the matter of the Trinity, as you would realize if you
>> understood what I have said.
>
>You didn't answer. Is the "Bible" as we have it now, totally inspired,
>or partially inspired,
Ill-posed question. It assumes a particular, non-universal meaning for
"inspired". One cannot separate the inspired parts from the uninspired
parts. Inspired does not necessarily mean every word in every passage
was dictated by God to some humans acting as a secretary (the
Fundamentalist version of inspiration). Inspired can *also* mean that
God inspired certain people with the truths he desired us to know and
they expressed that revealed truth in their own words. So, under this
view, all passages *express* the inspiration given by God in human
words.
> which parts are and aren't, and how do you make
>those determinations?
>>
>> >If I had to guess, I'd say that you would have to believe that the "end
>> >result", every current and past version, was the direct result of God's
>> >action, being constant and indistinguishable from nature. Am I way off?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>I'd have thought that this would be the same as man being created by
>"the maintenance guy", and that the end result would be God's Will as
>surely as you must believe the (evolutionary) end result of man is
>God's will.
Well, *one* *part* of God's will. It is hubris to think that God
created the entire vast universe, and the mind-boggling entirety of
terrestrial history just for *us*.
This whole matter gets into the entire difficult subject of free-will
and its relation to God's will. Free-will itself is God's will, but does
that mean that every action performed by willful agents is, itself,
God's will? Because humans were involved in writing and translating the
Bible, this means that our free-will may well have influenced the
result.
>
>So what do you consider God's involvement in our present written word
>of God?
Inspiration in the sense described above.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> him. You thought one poster was male, when most here knows is female.
Of course you won't say who it is.
Though, this question is indifferent.
And who was that may I ask?
There's two talk origins persons which come to mind, you might be
referring to.
#1 Dana Tweedy. Dana is in fact, a name that can be given to either
male or female. That's occured to me before but, I sense only a nice,
well-rounded, level-headed individual. They are nice online as well as
offline.
#2 Vend, to which I sensed might be female, and commented thus,
> No! No! No! I win the argument!!! I win the argument!!! Not you! Not a
> woman!
There's an issue to study but no battle to "win".
BTW, you could be a woman yourself.
That's the only two possible candidates that come to mind. And
personally, I don't care.
However, I'm not trying to be a psychic. I simply remember details, men
would not, which makes it easier, later, to pull all the information
together and make a judgment on something. Including a judgment on you.
You deliberately twist facts around. I don't need to argue with you to
set a record straight, everyone already knows. Intuition is not being
psychic. Some have labeled it a sixth sense, like a superstition.
Scientific research is showing women's brains are wired, for what
intuition does. The issue was discussed despite your trolling the
thread. You do not want people to have freedom to discuss issues or
feel welcomed on this forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Stanley Friesen wrote:
> >> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You really never did understand my theology. If you had you would not
> >> write it in scare quotes. Indeed I find it hard to see how you could
> >> equate the Active Maintainer Guy with the non-involved God of deism.
> >
> >A maintenance guy
>
> Not "maintenance guy", "maintainer guy", as in the guy without which
> nothing would remain in existence.
What's the diff? A maintenance guy maintains, a maintainer. The point
is that this maintaining has no correlation to "active involvement"
unless you regard what is being maintained as having a preordained
order, which is counterintuitive.
>
> > isn't actively involved in how the machine is
> >operated. I haven't equated as you say, I've said that the two are for
> >all practical purposes no different with respect to God's active
> >involvement with us.
>
> And this is for all *practical* purposes the same as equating them.
Fine, use whatever word you want. Just so you understand what I mean by
having no practical purpose with respect to God's involvement *within*
this structure of "maintaining" the universe.
>
> > All this philosophical positing is useless and
> >irrelevant. Your argument is that your theology could be accepted by
> >any other Christian, and that it doesn't conflict with science.
> >Christians must have miracles, for instance the resurrection. I'd think
> >you'd have a hard time mating your theology to that,
>
> No, miracles are in the eye of the beholder. The resurrection is part
> of our faith, but there is no rule it *must* have occurred in any
> *particular* way.
Oh, but I beg to differ. If Christ had not arisen from the dead,
something that science considers impossible, Christianity would not
exist. Attacks on Christianity focus on just these kinds of events.
>
> > and in showing
> >that didn't conflict with science.
>
> I don't *care* if that conflicts with science or not, as it is currently
> unverifiable by scientific means, and will remain so short of the
> invention of a time machine.
That a belief can not be proven to be false does not equate to not
being in conflict with science. And you must care, at least in context
to your claims, whether your theology conflicts with science, Stanley.
That's one of the things we originally disagreed on.
>
> > Even the belief in humans being or
> >having anything different from any other animal would conflict with
> >science.
>
> Let's see, we have language, no other animal truly has language in it
> full, arbitrary glory.
You mean level of communication is greater, so that makes us different,
Biblically speaking?
Come now, you know what I mean. God, Adam, science, the Pope thing, all
that?
>
> And note, the existence of eternal life ("life after death") does *not*
> require the existence of any immaterial, transcendent "stuff" called a
> soul that is lacking in other animals.
I said nothing about afterlife. Christians believe that man was created
in some way different from an animal, to be treated differently, and so
on. That doesn't conflict with science?
> >>
> >> The Bible is, of course inspired. That is a core part of Christian
> >> theology. Actually the only area where I am really outside of mainline
> >> orthodoxy is on the matter of the Trinity, as you would realize if you
> >> understood what I have said.
> >
> >You didn't answer. Is the "Bible" as we have it now, totally inspired,
> >or partially inspired,
>
> Ill-posed question. It assumes a particular, non-universal meaning for
> "inspired". One cannot separate the inspired parts from the uninspired
> parts. Inspired does not necessarily mean every word in every passage
> was dictated by God to some humans acting as a secretary (the
> Fundamentalist version of inspiration). Inspired can *also* mean that
> God inspired certain people with the truths he desired us to know and
> they expressed that revealed truth in their own words. So, under this
> view, all passages *express* the inspiration given by God in human
> words.
Well what if the places in the Bible that knowledge of God comes from
had been inspired by a 15th century scribe who was not inspired by God?
I don't see much sense in what you wrote just above. God would have a
reason to inspire humans to communicate certain things. Is that part of
this "maintaining"?
>
> > which parts are and aren't, and how do you make
> >those determinations?
> >>
> >> >If I had to guess, I'd say that you would have to believe that the "end
> >> >result", every current and past version, was the direct result of God's
> >> >action, being constant and indistinguishable from nature. Am I way off?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >I'd have thought that this would be the same as man being created by
> >"the maintenance guy", and that the end result would be God's Will as
> >surely as you must believe the (evolutionary) end result of man is
> >God's will.
>
> Well, *one* *part* of God's will. It is hubris to think that God
> created the entire vast universe, and the mind-boggling entirety of
> terrestrial history just for *us*.
It appears the short answer is yes. If that is so, you contradict
yourself. How way off can I be, if you believe that the "end result" is
what God intended?
>
> This whole matter gets into the entire difficult subject of free-will
> and its relation to God's will. Free-will itself is God's will, but does
> that mean that every action performed by willful agents is, itself,
> God's will? Because humans were involved in writing and translating the
> Bible, this means that our free-will may well have influenced the
> result.
You mean that the revelation and prophecy of the Bible possibly could
not come about due to man's free will? Wow. Perhaps you are willing to
only consider this influence as minor?
You're really throwing me for a loop here. My intention was to provide
a method of determining whether you can really fit your concept of a
"maintainer" with God's active role, through such things as miracles,
accurate information about past events. I see no consistency in your
argument. You want God to be invisible, yet participate in *reality*,
or perhaps you perceive that you must include God as participating in
reality. You've done a good job with the "active maintainer guy" but as
I see it a lousy job at describing God's active role as humans have
perceived it. Without that perception, Stanley, there can be no
knowledge of God. You must close the door on the Bible and appeal
solely to personal revelation to make this "theistic evolutionism"
stick with either religion or science.
sharon
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > him. You thought one poster was male, when most here knows is female.
>
> Of course you won't say who it is.
>
> Though, this question is indifferent.
>
> And who was that may I ask?
>
> There's two talk origins persons which come to mind, you might be
> referring to.
>
> #1 Dana Tweedy. Dana is in fact, a name that can be given to either
> male or female. That's occured to me before but, I sense only a nice,
> well-rounded, level-headed individual. They are nice online as well as
> offline.
>
> #2 Vend, to which I sensed might be female, and commented thus,
> > No! No! No! I win the argument!!! I win the argument!!! Not you! Not a
> > woman!
>
> There's an issue to study but no battle to "win".
>
> BTW, you could be a woman yourself.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d791ade3e5046964/b27d1940708fab94?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#b27d1940708fab94
>
Yeah, I remember conversing with Vend. Wasn't sure if it was female or
male. I cannot know what is on the other side of the screen. Something
seemed peculiarly effiminate about Vend. So, it was up in the air...
maybe all men, or the majority were men? Does it really matter? Even
psychics are infamous for errors. Who is trying to be the psychic,
except you, Glenn?
Vend wrote:
> > I know what you are and what you are trying to do. i.e., ignoring
> > scientific research I posted earlier in the thread, denying evidence /
> > including providing none.
> What evidence have I ignored?
Speaking plural. I'm just getting aggravated. I'm tired. Been a long
day. I don't personally savor hours-long debates with hostile men --
and the majority are men. I sense their brute aggression. Several have
entered this thread since it was started, and don't seem interested in
the subject, as much as they wish to simply debunk it, without any
evidence to back them. I know they haven't studied the subject, to have
an opinion on it. So why bother?
>
> That's the only two possible candidates that come to mind. And
> personally, I don't care.
Have I misjudged Dana, when I said Dana is not a racist?
I feel completely confident in my intuition, Dana is a good,
down-to-earth, level-headed person.. not only online, but pretty much
the same person, offline.
Dana is not a grand-stander. That's something that has always impressed
me. No matter when Dana *could have* gloated and beat the drum, Dana
remains calm, and polite.
At least, that I've always seen.
That's the impression I have been left with.
sharon
> Have I misjudged Dana, when I said Dana is not a racist?
>
> I feel completely confident in my intuition, Dana is a good,
> down-to-earth, level-headed person.. not only online, but pretty much
> the same person, offline.
>
> Dana is not a grand-stander. That's something that has always impressed
> me. No matter when Dana *could have* gloated and beat the drum, Dana
> remains calm, and polite.
>
> At least, that I've always seen.
>
> That's the impression I have been left with.
It doesn't matter. Dana isn't a racist.
That's *all* I entered the thread for.
I have work to get done!!! I cannot stay on this site anymore. I have
work to do, and I am leaving now.
Ken Rode
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > By the way, Mr Zorg, you seem to be arguing that we don't have to
> > follow ancient Jewish law (but, apparently, we DO have to take ancient
> > Jewish myth as history). I assume that also means we don't have to
> > follow ancient Jewish laws about homosexuality, premarital sex, and all
> > that. Right?
> >
> > But how about New Testament law, do we have to follow that?
> >
> > If so, do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?
> >
> > I Corinthians 14:
> >
> > [34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
> > permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
> > obedience, as also saith the law.
> > [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
> > home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
> >
> > Agree? Disagree? Or, uh, don't we have to follow that one either.
>
>
>
>
> Hello?? Anyone home? Zorg? Hellooooooooo?????
>
> (sound of crickets chirping)
>
>
> (sigh) Why oh why why why don't fundies ever answer my goddamn
> questions . . . . .
Perhaps he's out delivering pizza.
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Ali-G-ing all
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162168648.6...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >> That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not
> >> originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not
> >> everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most
> >> textual critics, the answer is no.
> >> --- end quote ---
> >>
> >> Sorry, Ray, you were saying... ?
> >
> > Pure rubbish. Generalizations and outright falsehoods.
>
> Which is what we come to expect from your posts, Ray.
>
> >
> > The account of the woman taken in adultery appears in our best
> > manuscript. The best mss are the three great uncials (Sinaiticus;
> > Vaticanus; and the Alexandrinus).
>
> Why don't you take this up with Ken's source, Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting
> Jesus".
>
> >
> > Only the Alexandrinus (5th century) contains the book of Genesis and
> > the account of the woman taken in adultery. The Sinaiticus and the
> > Vaticanus do not.
>
> What's your "source" for this claim, Ray?
>
> >
> > View a rare facsimile copy here:
> >
> > http://www.drgenescott.com/stn34.htm
>
> Can you read the language it's written in, Ray? Tell the truth, now. If
> you don't, it will come back to bite you...
>
>
> DJT
Ali-G-ing all
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> >> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You really never did understand my theology. If you had you would not
>> >> write it in scare quotes. Indeed I find it hard to see how you could
>> >> equate the Active Maintainer Guy with the non-involved God of deism.
>> >
>> >A maintenance guy
>>
>> Not "maintenance guy", "maintainer guy", as in the guy without which
>> nothing would remain in existence.
>
>What's the diff? A maintenance guy maintains, a maintainer.
Read the rest of the sentence. That's the diff. A maintenance guy is
called in when something goes wrong and needs to be fixed. A maintainer
guy maintains existence itself - without his continued action nothing
exists.
> The point
>is that this maintaining has no correlation to "active involvement"
>unless you regard what is being maintained as having a preordained
>order, which is counterintuitive.
No, you still don't understand what I am saying.
Perhaps if I came at this another way, by explaining the basis for the
position. I started from two basic observations:
1. In the Bible and in general Christian theology God is described as
the ruler of the world and master of history: in a word, as omnipotent.
2. If the existence of a scientific explanation for something ruled out
God's involvement in it then God would be restricted to an ever
shrinking range of activity. (aka "God of the Gaps").
I noticed that these two points are in direct contradiction. It is
impossible for *both* to be true. Rejecting the first is the source of
Deism - because deists noticed, *correctly*, that the second point leads
to the logical conclusion that God has nothing to do on a day-to-day
basis. I decided to take the Bible more seriously and rejected the
second - thus accepting the *orthodox* position represented in the first
point.
That is the core of it. All else is elaboration, and is in some sense
unimportant.
And note, I reached this conclusion over 30 years ago, long before the
rise of the New Creationism. I am not sure I even knew what
Fundamentalism was.
>
>> And this is for all *practical* purposes the same as equating them.
>
>Fine, use whatever word you want. Just so you understand what I mean by
>having no practical purpose with respect to God's involvement *within*
>this structure of "maintaining" the universe.
This is based on a complete misunderstanding of the core point. The
core point is #1 above - God is in charge and running things. That is
first and primary. Science can be viewed, in many ways, as a method for
describing *how* God acts. But that is secondary.
>
>> > All this philosophical positing is useless and
>> >irrelevant. Your argument is that your theology could be accepted by
>> >any other Christian, and that it doesn't conflict with science.
>> >Christians must have miracles, for instance the resurrection. I'd think
>> >you'd have a hard time mating your theology to that,
>>
>> No, miracles are in the eye of the beholder. The resurrection is part
>> of our faith, but there is no rule it *must* have occurred in any
>> *particular* way.
>
>Oh, but I beg to differ. If Christ had not arisen from the dead,
>something that science considers impossible, Christianity would not
>exist. Attacks on Christianity focus on just these kinds of events.
Without knowing how it happened, or at least in observing the situation
in which it happened, I maintain science can make no statement about it
at all. We don't know *what* happened, so we cannot say it is
impossible.
In addition, there certainly is a possibility that God on a few special
occasions chooses to violate his own rules, so some very rare events
might indeed be non-natural.
>>
>> > Even the belief in humans being or
>> >having anything different from any other animal would conflict with
>> >science.
>>
>> Let's see, we have language, no other animal truly has language in it
>> full, arbitrary glory.
>
>You mean level of communication is greater, so that makes us different,
>Biblically speaking?
No, scientifically speaking. You made a bald, unconditional statement,
I presented a counter-example to show the bare statement is false.
>Come now, you know what I mean. God, Adam, science, the Pope thing, all
>that?
A. Adam was not a person. The word is simply Hebrew for "man" and the
story has the form of an allegory.
B. The Pope is strictly relevant only to Catholics. He has no special
status to any other Christians.
>>
>> And note, the existence of eternal life ("life after death") does *not*
>> require the existence of any immaterial, transcendent "stuff" called a
>> soul that is lacking in other animals.
>
>I said nothing about afterlife. Christians believe that man was created
>in some way different from an animal, to be treated differently, and so
>on.
That is not a central dogma of Christianity. At least not as stated.
That man, by virtue of his understanding and ability to reason, is
capable of having a relationship with God is the key doctrinal point.
> That doesn't conflict with science?]
Not in the bare-bones version I mentioned above.
>> >You didn't answer. Is the "Bible" as we have it now, totally inspired,
>> >or partially inspired,
>>
>> Ill-posed question. It assumes a particular, non-universal meaning for
>> "inspired". One cannot separate the inspired parts from the uninspired
>> parts. Inspired does not necessarily mean every word in every passage
>> was dictated by God to some humans acting as a secretary (the
>> Fundamentalist version of inspiration). Inspired can *also* mean that
>> God inspired certain people with the truths he desired us to know and
>> they expressed that revealed truth in their own words. So, under this
>> view, all passages *express* the inspiration given by God in human
>> words.
>
>Well what if the places in the Bible that knowledge of God comes from
>had been inspired by a 15th century scribe who was not inspired by God?
A. All places in the Bible provide some knowledge of God.
B. Historically speaking I do not know of any place where any writing of
the 15th century is even used in any modern English version of the Bible
(well, except possibly for the New King James Version).
C. The vast majority of the differences in reading between the KJV and
more modern translation are on incidental and minor points.
>I don't see much sense in what you wrote just above. God would have a
>reason to inspire humans to communicate certain things. Is that part of
>this "maintaining"?
It is part of his mastery of history. Of his omnipotence. Of his care
for humans.
>> >I'd have thought that this would be the same as man being created by
>> >"the maintenance guy", and that the end result would be God's Will as
>> >surely as you must believe the (evolutionary) end result of man is
>> >God's will.
>>
>> Well, *one* *part* of God's will. It is hubris to think that God
>> created the entire vast universe, and the mind-boggling entirety of
>> terrestrial history just for *us*.
>
>It appears the short answer is yes. If that is so, you contradict
>yourself. How way off can I be, if you believe that the "end result" is
>what God intended?
This assumes we have achieved the "end result". Also, there is the
whole possibility of him working things out despite human choices, but
perhaps in a less optimal way than he would otherwise have done. As C.S.
Lewis put it, there can be a difference between God's highest/best will
and his contingent will given poor human choices. (I cannot remember the
more elegant words that C.S. Lewis used to express this better than I
do).
>>
>> This whole matter gets into the entire difficult subject of free-will
>> and its relation to God's will. Free-will itself is God's will, but does
>> that mean that every action performed by willful agents is, itself,
>> God's will? Because humans were involved in writing and translating the
>> Bible, this means that our free-will may well have influenced the
>> result.
>
>You mean that the revelation and prophecy of the Bible possibly could
>not come about due to man's free will?
No. Why do you always take everything and turn it into an all or
nothing proposition. That human choices can add noise to the signal
does not mean there is no signal. Nor is there any reason to believe the
noise introduced is more than minor.
>You're really throwing me for a loop here. My intention was to provide
>a method of determining whether you can really fit your concept of a
>"maintainer" with God's active role, through such things as miracles,
>accurate information about past events. I see no consistency in your
>argument. You want God to be invisible, yet participate in *reality*,
Not invisible, inaccessible to science. The methodological naturalism
that is the sine qua non of science makes science unable to process the
supernatural.
Matt Silberstein
<sar...@friesen.net> in <no1kk21oc1rt7g7v3...@4ax.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>A. Adam was not a person. The word is simply Hebrew for "man" and the
>story has the form of an allegory.
Adama is dirt, soil.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
try to step in to this discussion and distract I have two questions
for you. First, do you agree or disagree that, regardless of whether
or not science is accurate (or even if accurate science is possible),
God maintains existence? Second I wonder if you would elaborate by
telling us what you do think rather than comment on Stanley's views.
(Yes, I know that I have little standing to ask this question since I
don't give my religious views.) I am not interested in criticizing
your views (I rarely criticize theological views), but it would
clarify this discussion if you presented an affirmative alternative
rather than questions.
Glenn
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:34:18 GMT, in talk.origins , Stanley Friesen
> <sar...@friesen.net> in <no1kk21oc1rt7g7v3...@4ax.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >A. Adam was not a person. The word is simply Hebrew for "man" and the
> >story has the form of an allegory.
>
> Adama is dirt, soil.
>
Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
physical children and identifiable descendents, walking around,
conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
it's all allegory. Stanley has claimed that his theology does not
conflict with science, *and* that his theology is not so unorthodox as
to be acceptable to the theists to which he is concerned, Christians. I
have suspected that Stanley has created his own theology to suit his
concept of scientific knowledge, and claim that theists
(Judeo/Islamic/Christian) could not accept this theology, and that even
this theology he proposes conflicts with science. What say you?
Matt Silberstein
<GlennS...@msn.com> in
<1162498952.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:34:18 GMT, in talk.origins , Stanley Friesen
>> <sar...@friesen.net> in <no1kk21oc1rt7g7v3...@4ax.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >A. Adam was not a person. The word is simply Hebrew for "man" and the
>> >story has the form of an allegory.
>>
>> Adama is dirt, soil.
>>
>Glenn is simply scottish for valley. Glenn is a valley.
So look at the passage:
Bereshit 2:5
no bush of the field was yet on the earth,
no plant of the field had yet sprung up,
for YHWH, God, had not made it rain upon earth,
and there was no human (adam) to till the soil (adama) ---
Do you think it is coincidence? Or if "Adam" means "human" then what
is his name?
>Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
>that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
>physical children and identifiable descendents, walking around,
>conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
>it's all allegory.
Either way believing Christians think that God "just made it up". The
question is whether the text is meant as descriptive history, a plan
for living, both, or something else.
>Stanley has claimed that his theology does not
>conflict with science, *and* that his theology is not so unorthodox as
>to be acceptable to the theists to which he is concerned, Christians. I
>have suspected that Stanley has created his own theology to suit his
>concept of scientific knowledge, and claim that theists
>(Judeo/Islamic/Christian) could not accept this theology, and that even
>this theology he proposes conflicts with science. What say you?
I don't see the conflict and I think that there are those that would
agree with this theology and those who would object. It is not clear
to me how much it differs from deism. That is, I can see differences
but not in any areas that are of particular interest to me.
Zorg
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162268473....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 30, 8:25 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> By the way, Mr Zorg, you seem to be arguing that we don't have to
>> follow ancient Jewish law (but, apparently, we DO have to take ancient
>> Jewish myth as history). I assume that also means we don't have to
>> follow ancient Jewish laws about homosexuality, premarital sex, and all
>> that. Right?
You need to make a distinction between the ten commandments
and the Jewish social or ceremonials laws.
The moral code is distinct from the legislative code. This is
something that all societies wrestle with. The moral code is a
universal while legislation is a particular application to a
particular situation. They are related but not the same.
The post-exodus Jewish nation was a homogeneous society.
We are a pluralistic society. All legitimate legislation is directed
toward the common good. It can be stricter in a stricter
environment. Think of the exodus Jewish nation as a religious order
or family clan exercising sovereignty over themselves as a group
by submitting to God's personal direction. That's exactly what was
going on there. Later, they lost this sense of themselves. They
demanded to have a king so they could be like "the nations",
and so God gave them (or gave them over to) Saul - who was
not exactly a saint. And we actually find him, in the end, consulting
a witch (the witch of Endor) rather than God!
If it helps you, think of the ten commandments as "the constitution"
and the social laws as a derivative for that very specific context.
We also base our laws on what is accepted as a universal
moral code. People argue over what applies, sure, but does
anyone really deny that prohibitions against murder and
stealing, for example, are not based on something which is universal?
While their social law allowed for the death penalty for *Jews*
who committed some grave moral crimes, it was not something
aimed at outsiders, nor was it a license to kill. There's a whole
governmental structure there and the necessity for witnesses
and the admonitions against bearing false witness and not
oppressing foreigners in their land, etc.
In that kind of environment, you can "legislate morality" to a
higher degree than you can in our environment. It would not
be just for us to expect the highest standards of conformity
to the moral law via civil law in all situations.
Even the Jewish nation which had experienced the exodus
could not fully conform to the law. That's a key to understanding
the NT teaching on grace. Jesus explained that Moses allowed
divorce among the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts
in that area. IOW, because they were not ready to live up to
God's plan for marriage (that two become "one flesh" for life),
a prudential judgment was made to allow divorce for the sake
of the common good.
This, and every other moral failure, is exposed by the law. That's
what it does. Paul says that the whole system was "a teacher
for a time". It cannot change people from the inside, only
expose the fact that the problem is within the human heart. So
the law proves that man is unable to keep it, and so another
principle is needed - and internal one (from God) which can
transform the person from the inside.
This was the promise of the new covenant given in the old.
"I will sprinkle clean water on you..", "I will give you a new
heart", etc.
>> But how about New Testament law, do we have to follow that?
>>
>> If so, do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?
Again, you're blurring distinctions. Jesus affirmed that the first
commandment was the heart of everything. "This is the law
and the prophets, " He said. What's that? To love God with
all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your
neighbor as yourself. Not very complicated.
The ten commandments always apply. Jesus elaborated
very clearly on how the moral law applies to everyone, and
what it means. But it's impossible to do on your own.
Any derivative applications of moral law must not contradict
that law, but as derivatives they are conditional. Such conditional
rules can either apply or not apply depending upon the
circumstance.
You give this example below of Paul instructing the Corinthians.
You need to distinguish, however, between what is universal
and what is particular about this rule. There are other
examples of rule-making in the NT which are conditional.
If you can't understand this concept, I wonder how you survive.
We all function under a great hierarchy of rules and laws. Most
people do not have any trouble distinguishing between the
concept of what is universal in all cases and what is not.
Rules apply to practically everything.
>> I Corinthians 14:
>>
>> [34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
>> permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
>> obedience, as also saith the law.
>> [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
>> home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
>>
>> Agree? Disagree? Or, uh, don't we have to follow that one either.
All this is is a statement regarding proper order in the church. The
Jewish custom was to have men and women segregated in the
synagogue. Assuming that this model was adopted by the early
Christians at Corinth or that the cultural/religious significance was
similar there, it makes perfect sense. Read the context
and see that one of the points of the letter is to address the
disorder of the Corinthians in their services!
They were so free about everything that it was disorderly. Several
issues got back to Paul, and so he address them in the letter.
If women were shouting questions to their husbands (which is
just what Paul implies), or otherwise being disruptive by
talking it up with the gals, or trying to take control, then they
were being disrespectful in that context.
They were seen to be acting in a way which was socially
inappropriate. Every culture has certain expectations of how
people should act socially.
If you take it to mean that Paul is forbidding women to speak
at all for any purpose whatsoever in church, then that would
be contradicted earlier by 11:5 where it is assumed that women
pray and prophesy. And the issue there is again a cultural/social
one regarding head covering!
Whatever the offending women were doing, it was considered
offensive. The issue is not the exact circumstances of the offense
but the fact that offense was being given. We still (and always
will) have dress codes and social norms for different situations.
When people ignore these things, it's seen as disruptive and
anti-social. While the context may be cultural, or more exactly,
a cultural expression of religious norms, the giving of offense
itself in any context is a spiritual matter if done intentionally.
That's why he mentions the law. So the offending women
were probably bringing shame to their husbands by speaking
inappropriately, therefore not being "submissive".
The "speaking" was not praying or prophesying. It was
something else having to do with violating the social order.
The cultural aspect is conditional. The spiritual aspect is not.
There is not one example that I know of where women
"are not allowed to speak in church" the way you want it
to mean. Taking that meaning out of the text is just absurd.
Again, see 11:5 for examples of speaking.
> Hello? Zorg? Hello?
>
> (sound of crickets chirping)
The silence is on your end, not mine. I'm doing my best
to give you comprehensive answers. And still waiting
for _substantive_ comments on what I've written. Where
are they?
~Zorg
Glenn
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2006 12:22:32 -0800, in talk.origins , "Glenn"
> <GlennS...@msn.com> in
> <1162498952.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:34:18 GMT, in talk.origins , Stanley Friesen
> >> <sar...@friesen.net> in <no1kk21oc1rt7g7v3...@4ax.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >A. Adam was not a person. The word is simply Hebrew for "man" and the
> >> >story has the form of an allegory.
> >>
> >> Adama is dirt, soil.
> >>
> >Glenn is simply scottish for valley. Glenn is a valley.
>
> So look at the passage:
>
> Bereshit 2:5
>
> no bush of the field was yet on the earth,
> no plant of the field had yet sprung up,
> for YHWH, God, had not made it rain upon earth,
> and there was no human (adam) to till the soil (adama) ---
>
> Do you think it is coincidence? Or if "Adam" means "human" then what
> is his name?
Uh, "Adam". I knew a girl named Lily. If "Lily" means a flower, then
what was her name?
Adam is regarded in both Judaism and Christianity as the first human
being, Matt. I don't know how Stanley could claim this theology of
allegorizing Adam could be accepted by Judaism or Christianity.
>
> >Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
> >that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
> >physical children and identifiable descendents, walking around,
> >conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
> >it's all allegory.
>
> Either way believing Christians think that God "just made it up". The
> question is whether the text is meant as descriptive history, a plan
> for living, both, or something else.
Your "either way" is misleading. Yes, God creating can be seen as "just
made up". That's not relative to the issue. We do recognize that there
is a reality, concrete things do exist. God either "made up" the whole
story and references to a real person named Adam in order to teach us
something, or the story really relates to a real person. The question
really is, whether this theology could be accepted or integrated into
any current Christian theist's theology. Christian theists aren't just
theists that have a general believe in a god, Matt. There are basic
reasons, what holds Christianity together as a coherent religion, that
if removed would cease to be.
>
> >Stanley has claimed that his theology does not
> >conflict with science, *and* that his theology is not so unorthodox as
> >to be acceptable to the theists to which he is concerned, Christians. I
> >have suspected that Stanley has created his own theology to suit his
> >concept of scientific knowledge, and claim that theists
> >(Judeo/Islamic/Christian) could not accept this theology, and that even
> >this theology he proposes conflicts with science. What say you?
>
> I don't see the conflict and I think that there are those that would
> agree with this theology and those who would object. It is not clear
> to me how much it differs from deism. That is, I can see differences
> but not in any areas that are of particular interest to me.
>
I'm close to that. It appears to me that Stanley attempts to remove any
perceived conflict with science that comes along, and that the more he
does, the more his theology is reduced to something, like deism.
Zorg
"Bob Pease" <Pope...@pope.com> wrote in message
news:ei36er$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> "Zorg" <fee...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:b5mdnR3Y17ufmtjY...@giganews.com...>> news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>> >
>> > So I have a few questions:
>> >
>> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>> >
>> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>>
>> I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
>> the context of the quote. I'm not a "fundie" and don't know
>> what the real definition of "creationist" is yet, and don't see
>> the relevance of the questions with respect to science.
>> Nevertheless...
>
>
> The rest of your post identifies you as a fundie, whether you admit it or
> not
All believers must be "fundies" then. I'm not saying anything
that isn't traditional.
>> You are quoting old covenant Jewish law for *Jews*. It also
>> says in verse 21, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him."
>> The death penalty spoken of here is for Jews, who are supposed
>> to be in covenant with God. These are social laws for a people set
>> apart by God, called out of the degenerate cultures which
>> surrounded them, and for the purpose of beginning to form
>> them in the knowledge of God through an historical process.
>
>
> So "GOD" selected a special group of folks for his covenent which applies
> to All humans??
Not exactly sure what you mean, but I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt in case you're sincere.
God chose the Jews first so that He could form them into a
people who would come to know Him and love Him, and so they
could eventually introduce the rest of the world to Him. He started
with a small group and taught them His ways.
The ten commandments apply to all. Dietary laws and other customs
and rituals do not. They had the purpose then of setting the Jews
apart from their neighbors and teaching them concepts and types
for later revelation. He prepared them as a people to be the
place where Jesus would come into the world. The Jewish people
themselves are a type for the whole world. The ground had to
be prepared first.
>> The law of Moses is nearer to the beginning of what we call
>> salvation history. God, having chosen to create free beings
>> rather than robots, has to work through man's free will,
>> which necessitates some sort of historical process of
>> revelation.
>
> why?
Why a historical process you mean? Because you have to
change people and environments (the whole world) gradually.
That's just how it works.
You could liken it to children growing up and learning. It's
a process. You can't force it.
>> Earlier, a promise had been made to Abraham
>> regarding land and posterity. "I will make you into a great
>> nation and I will bless you...and ALL the people of the
>> earth will be blessed through you." Now this is beginning to
>> take shape under Moses.
>
>> These laws also say, "Have nothing to do with a false charge,
>> and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I
>> will not acquit the guilty." There are many other laws which
>> would be seen by most people to be universal in terms of
>> justice.
>
>
> And many which are despotic or nutz
How so? Which are despotic or nuts?
If God miraculously delivers you from slavery and manifests
Himself to you and then you start calling on demons, how
much lower can you get? Why would it be unjust for that
person to be punished? Laws are enacted because there
really is something at stake. We don't take them lightly.
If a person knows about any law and chooses to disobey
it, knowing that the law in itself was good, how can that
person expect to avoid punishment if in fact they are guilty
and are caught? If the offense is grave, then the punishment
will be. There's nothing despotic or nuts about that.
>> But that there should be a death penalty for those among
>> them who invoke demonic spirits or have sex with animals,
>> etc., should not be surprising if you understand the context.
>> God delivered these people from slavery through a series of
>> miraculous events which were seen and experienced by the
>> nation. They were not ignorant of God's power and
>> authority and of the fact that He had chosen them to be
>> in covenant relationship with Him.
>
>
> There is considerable doubt that this ever really happened.
Not to them! Not to their children, and their children's
children, and their children's children's children...
Not to anyone who knows God.
> Or did God permit Satan to erase evidence that should be there?
Oh come on. What evidence _should_ be where? If you're
talking about archaeology, that's really hit or miss. You mean
to say if you don't manage to find Jewish artifacts somewhere
in Sinai then it means they didn't cross? Or the fact that
Pharoah didn't erect a monument to the Jews?
Did Egyptians enslave people? Did the Jews live nearby?
Did the Jews appear in Canaan after the time of the Exodus?
Of course.
The history goes all the way back there. If you don't accept
history, that's another issue. To deny the Exodus, IMHO, is
really a very very crass move. It's _the_ thing that defined
those people. It's what they preserved in their history and
taught their children. If the claim was that they were in China,
then you could argue. If you don't believe the miracles,
that's your choice (you should get around more), but then the
rest of their history doesn't make sense. Their whole culture
was informed by those events. It was memorialized in songs
and rituals and feasts, and taught to succeeding generations.
How does someone manage to create a fake history in
the midst of actual history? The story is too big to fake.
It would be like trying to deny the American Revolution.
When people live through these things, they get seared
into the memory. They get written down and memorialized.
We have the fourth of July and the founding documents.
They have the Passover and the Bible. And the accounts
were written at or near the time they happened, then
faithfully passed down to us. Why shouldn't we believe it?
>> "When Moses went and told the people all the Lord's
>> words and laws, they responded with one voice,
>> 'Everything the Lord has said we will do.' Moses then
>> wrote down everything the Lord had said." (Ex 24:3)
>>
>> Do you understand that it's a covenant? That promises
>> are made both ways?
>
>
> Yep
> Nice fiction
Why do you think it's fiction?
If it's all fiction, when do you think "the real" Jewish
history starts? And what is it? And what is your evidence
for it? I'd like to see it.
> BTW your tone is of a preacher rather than a discusser
> If you want a monologue, post elsewhere
I was trying to explain the context. Apparently it doesn't
help around here to take the time to explain things. The
general rule seems to be to twist what someone says to
mean the opposite.
>> If the people who agree to be bound by the covenant
>> then proceed to break it, they call down upon themselves
>> the curses implicit or explicit in the oath.
>
> Where is there given any choice but to agree??
Well, the verse I quoted above. I'd write more but then
you'd accuse me of preaching, so...
>> Now understanding the context, here are the answers
>> to your questions.
>
> Yes Father!!
I offend you because I take the time to give detailed
answers? Why respond to me then?
>> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>>
>> Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
>
>
> "Not suffer to live" MEANS "Kill"
> Please demonstrate otherwise
Wow. I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote
either.
Exodus does not tell US (that is, you and me) to kill/murder
witches. Exodus describes legislation for the post-exodus Jewish
nation which allows for the death penalty for certain offenses,
including "witchcraft" (calling on demons rather than God).
It was Jewish legislation for Jews. Not part of the ten
commandments.
~Zorg
Matt Silberstein
<GlennS...@msn.com> in
<1162507144.5...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On 2 Nov 2006 12:22:32 -0800, in talk.origins , "Glenn"
>> <GlennS...@msn.com> in
>> <1162498952.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:34:18 GMT, in talk.origins , Stanley Friesen
>> >> <sar...@friesen.net> in <no1kk21oc1rt7g7v3...@4ax.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >A. Adam was not a person. The word is simply Hebrew for "man" and the
>> >> >story has the form of an allegory.
>> >>
>> >> Adama is dirt, soil.
>> >>
>> >Glenn is simply scottish for valley. Glenn is a valley.
>>
>> So look at the passage:
>>
>> Bereshit 2:5
>>
>> no bush of the field was yet on the earth,
>> no plant of the field had yet sprung up,
>> for YHWH, God, had not made it rain upon earth,
>> and there was no human (adam) to till the soil (adama) ---
>>
>> Do you think it is coincidence? Or if "Adam" means "human" then what
>> is his name?
>
>Uh, "Adam". I knew a girl named Lily. If "Lily" means a flower, then
>what was her name?
Go back and look at the passage and see how he is named.
"and there was no human (adam) to till the soil (adama)"
>Adam is regarded in both Judaism and Christianity as the first human
>being, Matt.
And some see the text as a literal description and some don't.
> I don't know how Stanley could claim this theology of
>allegorizing Adam could be accepted by Judaism or Christianity.
I am sorry you don't know this, but seeing Genesis as far more (or
other than) descriptive has a long history. Plenty of Jews and
Christians have that view.
>> >Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
>> >that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
>> >physical children and identifiable descendents, walking around,
>> >conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
>> >it's all allegory.
>>
>> Either way believing Christians think that God "just made it up". The
>> question is whether the text is meant as descriptive history, a plan
>> for living, both, or something else.
>
>Your "either way" is misleading. Yes, God creating can be seen as "just
>made up". That's not relative to the issue.
It was your term, I was pointing out that your usage was not relevant.
>We do recognize that there
>is a reality, concrete things do exist. God either "made up" the whole
>story and references to a real person named Adam in order to teach us
>something, or the story really relates to a real person.
Or both. I just said that.
>The question
>really is, whether this theology could be accepted or integrated into
>any current Christian theist's theology. Christian theists aren't just
>theists that have a general believe in a god, Matt. There are basic
>reasons, what holds Christianity together as a coherent religion, that
>if removed would cease to be.
>
Christianity is, roughly speaking, acceptance of the Nicaean Creed. I
don't think that requires a literal Genesis.
>> >Stanley has claimed that his theology does not
>> >conflict with science, *and* that his theology is not so unorthodox as
>> >to be acceptable to the theists to which he is concerned, Christians. I
>> >have suspected that Stanley has created his own theology to suit his
>> >concept of scientific knowledge, and claim that theists
>> >(Judeo/Islamic/Christian) could not accept this theology, and that even
>> >this theology he proposes conflicts with science. What say you?
>>
>> I don't see the conflict and I think that there are those that would
>> agree with this theology and those who would object. It is not clear
>> to me how much it differs from deism. That is, I can see differences
>> but not in any areas that are of particular interest to me.
>>
>I'm close to that. It appears to me that Stanley attempts to remove any
>perceived conflict with science that comes along, and that the more he
>does, the more his theology is reduced to something, like deism.
Glenn
"The text" as in all references to Adam? There is no use swapping
verses with you, Matt.
You should know that there are more than one instance where Adam is
mentioned. Adam is regarded as a real person, irregardless of whether
some people regard some verses as other than literally referring to a
real person.
>
> > I don't know how Stanley could claim this theology of
> >allegorizing Adam could be accepted by Judaism or Christianity.
>
> I am sorry you don't know this, but seeing Genesis as far more (or
> other than) descriptive has a long history. Plenty of Jews and
> Christians have that view.
Far more descriptive than what? I am aware than it is not necessary to
hold a literal view of Genesis. In fact, the concept itself seems to me
to be quite silly. But appealing to some "far more descriptive view"
does not support the contention that completely allegorizing Genesis
and Adam could be accepted by Judaism or Christianity.
>
> >> >Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
> >> >that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
> >> >physical children and identifiable descendents, walking around,
> >> >conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
> >> >it's all allegory.
> >>
> >> Either way believing Christians think that God "just made it up". The
> >> question is whether the text is meant as descriptive history, a plan
> >> for living, both, or something else.
> >
> >Your "either way" is misleading. Yes, God creating can be seen as "just
> >made up". That's not relative to the issue.
>
> It was your term, I was pointing out that your usage was not relevant.
Matt, what "it" referred to was what is written in the Bible, not God's
intial creation. Believing Christians don't think what they read in the
Bible was "just made up" as in fabricated, or myth, or complete story
telling allegory.
>
> >We do recognize that there
> >is a reality, concrete things do exist. God either "made up" the whole
> >story and references to a real person named Adam in order to teach us
> >something, or the story really relates to a real person.
>
> Or both. I just said that.
It is not possible to be both, Matt. Either Adam was a real person or
he was not. If he had not been a real person, then you might as well
tear out half of the pages of the old testament, and more than a few of
the new, or jump through a whole bunch of hoops trying to justify the
concept that Adam was an allegory. In the meantime, you'll have
thoroughly alienated every Christian around.
>
> >The question
> >really is, whether this theology could be accepted or integrated into
> >any current Christian theist's theology. Christian theists aren't just
> >theists that have a general believe in a god, Matt. There are basic
> >reasons, what holds Christianity together as a coherent religion, that
> >if removed would cease to be.
> >
> Christianity is, roughly speaking, acceptance of the Nicaean Creed. I
> don't think that requires a literal Genesis.
I think it requires trust in an inspired written word "in accordance
with the Scriptures", or "He has spoken through the prophets". I
really don't know what you mean by "literal", except in the sense that
you think it possible to *regard* certain parts of the Bible that you
don't like as being allegory. The interpretation of words and meanings
is not something that is plain and clear to everyone, and so to me the
term "literal" has little meaning. That is not something unique to the
Bible, even in a reader's native language. But your argument seems to
rest on one short set of verses in one place in one book. That I find
quite curious.
The Nicean Creed requires belief in *real* events and *real*
characters, Matt. There really is a world full of *real* people, that
had a beginning. The Bible indicates that the first man was made from
dirt, yes. The Bible indicates that the first man was also named Adam,
and had children, and so forth. Perhaps I am misreading you, and you
aren't saying that Christianity doesn't require that God has provided
them with a truthful history of *reality*. I suspect that if you had
been there when the Creed was drafted, they'd have wanted to have a
very long talk with you about this. Don't you?
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
>that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
>physical children and identifiable descendents,
You seem to approach the Bible with the same literalism as a
Fundamentalist.
An allegory is not bull in and of itself.
> walking around,
>conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
>it's all allegory.
Yep. If it were not in the Bible nobody would even question that
interpretation. It reads like an Aesop's fable, with talking animals and
characters called after their prime characteristic.
> Stanley has claimed that his theology does not
>conflict with science, *and* that his theology is not so unorthodox as
>to be acceptable to the theists to which he is concerned,
Because I *am* a Theist.
> Christians. I
>have suspected that Stanley has created his own theology to suit his
>concept of scientific knowledge,
No, I explained where I got it in my previous post. Go back and read
it, it was a simple piece of logic based on two simple points.
> and claim that theists (Judeo/Islamic/Christian)
Of which I am one.
Glenn
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
> >that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
> >physical children and identifiable descendents,
>
> You seem to approach the Bible with the same literalism as a
> Fundamentalist.
>
> An allegory is not bull in and of itself.
If you'll look up, after the word "bull", I didn't say "in and of
itself". It doesn't matter whether you regard me as a fundamentalist or
not, Stanley. Your judgements about what is allegorical and what is
literal is subjective, unless it is identified as such by the author.
Personally, I don't make decisions like that. It could be, it might not
be. With respect to Adam being a real person or not, however, is a
somewhat critical aspect of Judeo/Christian theology.
>
> > walking around,
> >conversing with God directly, living a certain length of time...and
> >it's all allegory.
>
> Yep. If it were not in the Bible nobody would even question that
> interpretation. It reads like an Aesop's fable, with talking animals and
> characters called after their prime characteristic.
So because you think that Genesis reads like Aesop's fable, that
everything within the book is allegory? And you call me
fundamentalist??
Stanley, what about this one? "This is the book of the generations of
Adam"?
>
> > Stanley has claimed that his theology does not
> >conflict with science, *and* that his theology is not so unorthodox as
> >to be acceptable to the theists to which he is concerned,
>
> Because I *am* a Theist.
I have no problem with your belief system, Stanley. I am arguing your
two claims about "theistic evolutionism". A deist is a theist. That you
call yourself a theist does not bring support to your theology being
not so unorthodox as to be unacceptable to Judeo/Christian theists.
>
snip
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
>> >that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
>> >physical children and identifiable descendents,
>>
>> You seem to approach the Bible with the same literalism as a
>> Fundamentalist.
>>
>> An allegory is not bull in and of itself.
>
>If you'll look up, after the word "bull", I didn't say "in and of
>itself". It doesn't matter whether you regard me as a fundamentalist or
>not, Stanley. Your judgements about what is allegorical and what is
>literal is subjective, unless it is identified as such by the author.
Or, as in this case, by textual analysis by Biblical experts other than
myself. It is pretty much uncontested among those who actually study
the Bible, except by those who insist on literalism.
>Personally, I don't make decisions like that. It could be, it might not
>be. With respect to Adam being a real person or not, however, is a
>somewhat critical aspect of Judeo/Christian theology.
No, it isn't. There are only about four or five critical things, and
the existence Adam is not one of them. It is critical that God exists
and is the source of life. It is critical (to Christians) that Jesus
was God incarnate, and was raised from the dead. Little else is
critical.
Viewing it as a story of Everyman, it says the same thing about who we
are and our relationship to God as it does when viewed as literal
history. And *that* is what is important in any Biblical passage: what
it says about us and about God.
>>
>> Yep. If it were not in the Bible nobody would even question that
>> interpretation. It reads like an Aesop's fable, with talking animals and
>> characters called after their prime characteristic.
>
>So because you think that Genesis reads like Aesop's fable, that
>everything within the book is allegory?
No, just the one story. Each passage is analyzed on its own.
>Stanley, what about this one? "This is the book of the generations of
>Adam"?
It is an origin story. Like many others in other cultures. The
question is, what does it say about you and me and God?
>>
>> Because I *am* a Theist.
>
>I have no problem with your belief system, Stanley. I am arguing your
>two claims about "theistic evolutionism". A deist is a theist.
No, that is not my claim. Theism is central. Deism is heterodox. The
concept "theistic evolutionism" is simply one aspect of the more general
point - that science and *theism* are not in conflict in general.
> That you
>call yourself a theist does not bring support to your theology being
>not so unorthodox as to be unacceptable to Judeo/Christian theists.
And how is theism not orthodox?
Glenn
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >Stanley Friesen wrote:
> >> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Stanley claims that the Bible is inspired. That would seem to indicate
> >> >that he thinks God just made up all this bull about a nonperson having
> >> >physical children and identifiable descendents,
> >>
> >> You seem to approach the Bible with the same literalism as a
> >> Fundamentalist.
> >>
> >> An allegory is not bull in and of itself.
> >
> >If you'll look up, after the word "bull", I didn't say "in and of
> >itself". It doesn't matter whether you regard me as a fundamentalist or
> >not, Stanley. Your judgements about what is allegorical and what is
> >literal is subjective, unless it is identified as such by the author.
>
> Or, as in this case, by textual analysis by Biblical experts other than
> myself. It is pretty much uncontested among those who actually study
> the Bible, except by those who insist on literalism.
Well I think thats a very extraordinary unsupported claim. Even if
there is some truth in it, this "analysis" would still be subjective,
without the author's clear input. We're talking about whether there was
a "first man" who was the physical father of *humans*, as separate from
animals. In the case of Catholics, you know you are dead wrong.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and
the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this
context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of
two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early
human couples (a teaching known as polygenism)."
>
> >Personally, I don't make decisions like that. It could be, it might not
> >be. With respect to Adam being a real person or not, however, is a
> >somewhat critical aspect of Judeo/Christian theology.
>
> No, it isn't. There are only about four or five critical things, and
> the existence Adam is not one of them. It is critical that God exists
> and is the source of life. It is critical (to Christians) that Jesus
> was God incarnate, and was raised from the dead. Little else is
> critical.
I happen to agree except about the existence of the first man; the
foundation for belief in those critical things are critical as well.
For example, would it be possible to accept that Jesus existed if it is
believed that Mary and Joseph were not real people, but only
allegories? No.
>
> Viewing it as a story of Everyman, it says the same thing about who we
> are and our relationship to God as it does when viewed as literal
> history. And *that* is what is important in any Biblical passage: what
> it says about us and about God.
Not in *any* passage, as in all passages. You yourself just admitted
that there are certain critical beliefs. Were Jesus seen as an allegory
and not a real person, there would be no Christianity. And were Adam,
Abraham, Moses, not real people, there would be no Judaism.
> >>
> >> Yep. If it were not in the Bible nobody would even question that
> >> interpretation. It reads like an Aesop's fable, with talking animals and
> >> characters called after their prime characteristic.
> >
> >So because you think that Genesis reads like Aesop's fable, that
> >everything within the book is allegory?
>
> No, just the one story. Each passage is analyzed on its own.
You are most definitely out of line. A story can be both allegorical
and literal. But the deeper problem here is that you are denying that
there was a "first man", not just that the first man wasn't called
"Adam" who is written about in Genesis. Clearly this is an attempt to
"evolutionize" the whole Bible.
>
> >Stanley, what about this one? "This is the book of the generations of
> >Adam"?
>
> It is an origin story. Like many others in other cultures. The
> question is, what does it say about you and me and God?
> >>
In other words, you don't want to come right out and say that's
allegory as well, but your theology requires that it is. By not
accepting the geneology of Adam in Genesis as other than purely
allegorical, you're making a mockery of what you claim is the purpose,
what this inspired writing says to us about ourselves *and* God. You
better get those textual "experts" to work on this genealogical record
of Adam, Stanley, so they can tell us Christians why God chose to spin
that yarn. Was it to teach us that we would have children who would
have children?
> >> Because I *am* a Theist.
> >
> >I have no problem with your belief system, Stanley. I am arguing your
> >two claims about "theistic evolutionism". A deist is a theist.
>
> No, that is not my claim. Theism is central. Deism is heterodox. The
> concept "theistic evolutionism" is simply one aspect of the more general
> point - that science and *theism* are not in conflict in general.
I didn't say deism was your claim, and we've already gone over this
before. I have said before that your theology has no practical
difference from deism with respect to the relevant issues, is all.
Above I only meant to point out that a person can be a theist who's
theology is not accepted by "orthodox" Christian theism.
>
> > That you
> >call yourself a theist does not bring support to your theology being
> >not so unorthodox as to be unacceptable to Judeo/Christian theists.
>
> And how is theism not orthodox?
>
I explain above. Not any old theistic belief is orthodox. My meaning
for the word is simply "correct belief". Unorthodox implies belief so
uncorrect as to be unacceptable.
Stanley. You do admit that a critical belief you can not deny in your
theology is the incarnation of Jesus. Can you really keep a straight
face and claim isn't in conflict with science?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Nov 2, 8:28 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1162268473....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 8:25 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> By the way, Mr Zorg, you seem to be arguing that we don't have to
> >> follow ancient Jewish law (but, apparently, we DO have to take ancient
> >> Jewish myth as history). I assume that also means we don't have to
> >> follow ancient Jewish laws about homosexuality, premarital sex, and all
> >> that. Right?
You need to make a distinction between the ten commandments
> and the Jewish social or ceremonials laws.
Which of the Ten Commandmemts covers homosexuality, premarital sex, and
all that . . . . ?
None?
So what is it, again, that you are bitching about . . . ?
>
> The moral code is distinct from the legislative code. This is
> something that all societies wrestle with. The moral code is a
> universal while legislation is a particular application to a
> particular situation. They are related but not the same.
That's nice. So why, again, if we don't have to follow ancient Jewish
law about witches, do we have to follow ancient Jewish law about gays
or premarital sex . . .?
> >> But how about New Testament law, do we have to follow that?
>
> >> If so, do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?Again, you're blurring distinctions. Jesus affirmed that the first
> commandment was the heart of everything. "This is the law
> and the prophets, " He said. What's that? To love God with
> all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your
> neighbor as yourself. Not very complicated.
>
> The ten commandments always apply. Jesus elaborated
> very clearly on how the moral law applies to everyone, and
> what it means. But it's impossible to do on your own.
>
> Any derivative applications of moral law must not contradict
> that law, but as derivatives they are conditional. Such conditional
> rules can either apply or not apply depending upon the
> circumstance.
>
> You give this example below of Paul instructing the Corinthians.
> You need to distinguish, however, between what is universal
> and what is particular about this rule. There are other
> examples of rule-making in the NT which are conditional.
>
> If you can't understand this concept, I wonder how you survive.
> We all function under a great hierarchy of rules and laws. Most
> people do not have any trouble distinguishing between the
> concept of what is universal in all cases and what is not.
> Rules apply to practically everything.
>
That's nice. So, should women be allowed to speak in church, or
shouldn't they?
> >> I Corinthians 14:
>
> >> [34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
> >> permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
> >> obedience, as also saith the law.
> >> [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
> >> home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
>
> >> Agree? Disagree? Or, uh, don't we have to follow that one either.
>All this is is a statement regarding proper order in the church. The
> Jewish custom was to have men and women segregated in the
> synagogue. Assuming that this model was adopted by the early
> Christians at Corinth or that the cultural/religious significance was
> similar there, it makes perfect sense. Read the context
> and see that one of the points of the letter is to address the
> disorder of the Corinthians in their services!
I see. So the Bible is just Jewish and early Christian church customs
and morals, and not the eternal word of God that applies in all
situations everywhere.
Got it.
That's nice. So, given that every other Biblical law and admonition
was based on Jewish and earyl Christian social customs and traditions,
we don't have to follow ANY of it.
Right?
> > Hello? Zorg? Hello?
>
> > (sound of crickets chirping)
The silence is on your end, not mine. I'm doing my best
> to give you comprehensive answers.
I must have missed the part where you answered whether or not you think
supernatural witches exist.
"Yes" or "no", will do nicely.
And still waiting
> for _substantive_ comments on what I've written. Where
> are they?
>
You are of course entirely entitled to your religious opinions. They
are, of course, no more authoritative or divine than anyone ELSE's
religious opinions. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Nov 2, 8:53 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
> "Bob Pease" <Popes...@pope.com> wrote in messagenews:ei36er$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote in message
> >news:b5mdnR3Y17ufmtjY...@giganews.com...
> >> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1162129986....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> >> > So I have a few questions:
>
> >> > (1) do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
>
> >> > (2) if so, do you think they should be killed?
>
> >> I'll answer the question for those who might be ignorant of
> >> the context of the quote. I'm not a "fundie" and don't know
> >> what the real definition of "creationist" is yet, and don't see
> >> the relevance of the questions with respect to science.
> >> Nevertheless...
>
> > The rest of your post identifies you as a fundie, whether you admit it or
> > notAll believers must be "fundies" then. I'm not saying anything
> that isn't traditional.
>
> >> You are quoting old covenant Jewish law for *Jews*. It also
> >> says in verse 21, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him."
> >> The death penalty spoken of here is for Jews, who are supposed
> >> to be in covenant with God. These are social laws for a people set
> >> apart by God, called out of the degenerate cultures which
> >> surrounded them, and for the purpose of beginning to form
> >> them in the knowledge of God through an historical process.
>
> > So "GOD" selected a special group of folks for his covenent which applies
> > to All humans??Not exactly sure what you mean, but I'll give you the benefit of
> the doubt in case you're sincere.
>
> God chose the Jews first so that He could form them into a
> people who would come to know Him and love Him, and so they
> could eventually introduce the rest of the world to Him. He started
> with a small group and taught them His ways.
>
> The ten commandments apply to all. Dietary laws and other customs
> and rituals do not. They had the purpose then of setting the Jews
> apart from their neighbors and teaching them concepts and types
> for later revelation. He prepared them as a people to be the
> place where Jesus would come into the world. The Jewish people
> themselves are a type for the whole world. The ground had to
> be prepared first.
>
> >> The law of Moses is nearer to the beginning of what we call
> >> salvation history. God, having chosen to create free beings
> >> rather than robots, has to work through man's free will,
> >> which necessitates some sort of historical process of
> >> revelation.
>
> > why?Why a historical process you mean? Because you have to
> change people and environments (the whole world) gradually.
> That's just how it works.
>
> You could liken it to children growing up and learning. It's
> a process. You can't force it.
>
> >> Earlier, a promise had been made to Abraham
> >> regarding land and posterity. "I will make you into a great
> >> nation and I will bless you...and ALL the people of the
> >> earth will be blessed through you." Now this is beginning to
> >> take shape under Moses.
>
> >> These laws also say, "Have nothing to do with a false charge,
> >> and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I
> >> will not acquit the guilty." There are many other laws which
> >> would be seen by most people to be universal in terms of
> >> justice.
>
> > And many which are despotic or nutzHow so? Which are despotic or nuts?
>
> If God miraculously delivers you from slavery and manifests
> Himself to you and then you start calling on demons, how
> much lower can you get? Why would it be unjust for that
> person to be punished? Laws are enacted because there
> really is something at stake. We don't take them lightly.
>
> If a person knows about any law and chooses to disobey
> it, knowing that the law in itself was good, how can that
> person expect to avoid punishment if in fact they are guilty
> and are caught? If the offense is grave, then the punishment
> will be. There's nothing despotic or nuts about that.
>
> >> But that there should be a death penalty for those among
> >> them who invoke demonic spirits or have sex with animals,
> >> etc., should not be surprising if you understand the context.
> >> God delivered these people from slavery through a series of
> >> miraculous events which were seen and experienced by the
> >> nation. They were not ignorant of God's power and
> >> authority and of the fact that He had chosen them to be
> >> in covenant relationship with Him.
>
> > There is considerable doubt that this ever really happened.Not to them! Not to their children, and their children's
> children, and their children's children's children...
>
> Not to anyone who knows God.
>
> > Or did God permit Satan to erase evidence that should be there?Oh come on. What evidence _should_ be where? If you're
> > Nice fictionWhy do you think it's fiction?
>
> If it's all fiction, when do you think "the real" Jewish
> history starts? And what is it? And what is your evidence
> for it? I'd like to see it.
>
> > BTW your tone is of a preacher rather than a discusser
> > If you want a monologue, post elsewhereI was trying to explain the context. Apparently it doesn't
> help around here to take the time to explain things. The
> general rule seems to be to twist what someone says to
> mean the opposite.
>
> >> If the people who agree to be bound by the covenant
> >> then proceed to break it, they call down upon themselves
> >> the curses implicit or explicit in the oath.
>
> > Where is there given any choice but to agree??Well, the verse I quoted above. I'd write more but then
> you'd accuse me of preaching, so...
>
> >> Now understanding the context, here are the answers
> >> to your questions.
>
> > Yes Father!!I offend you because I take the time to give detailed
> answers? Why respond to me then?
>
> >> > Exodus 22:18 tells us to "suffer not a witch to live".
>
> >> Exodus does not tell us to kill witches.
>
> > "Not suffer to live" MEANS "Kill"
> > Please demonstrate otherwiseWow. I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote
> either.
>
> Exodus does not tell US (that is, you and me) to kill/murder
> witches. Exodus describes legislation for the post-exodus Jewish
> nation which allows for the death penalty for certain offenses,
> including "witchcraft" (calling on demons rather than God).
Does does that mean, in your opinion, that supernatural witches did
actually exist?
Do they still exist today?
If so, should they be given the death penalty?
If not, when did they stop existing, and why?
>
> It was Jewish legislation for Jews. Not part of the ten
> commandments.
Says you. (shrug)
Hey Zorg, I have a simple question for you:
*ahem*
What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less)
authoritative than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more
attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the
religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy
who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive
would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does,
since there doesn't seem to be any potential source of such knowledge
that isn't equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You
read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the
pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it,
exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid
than anyone else's. Are you more holy than anyone else? Do you walk
more closely with God than anyone else? Does God love you best? Are
you the best Biblical scholar in human history? What exactly makes
your opinions better than anyone else's? Other than your say-so?
Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible,
but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?
Sorry, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible. Would you
mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your
say-so?
It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your
opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or
authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is
obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions,
to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.
Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your
say-so?
Zorg
>
>
> On Nov 2, 8:28 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1162268473....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 30, 8:25 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> By the way, Mr Zorg, you seem to be arguing that we don't have to
>> >> follow ancient Jewish law (but, apparently, we DO have to take ancient
>> >> Jewish myth as history). I assume that also means we don't have to
>> >> follow ancient Jewish laws about homosexuality, premarital sex, and
>> >> all
>> >> that. Right?
>
>
> You need to make a distinction between the ten commandments
>> and the Jewish social or ceremonials laws.
>
>
>
> Which of the Ten Commandmemts covers homosexuality, premarital sex, and
> all that . . . . ?
>
> None?
>
> So what is it, again, that you are bitching about . . . ?
I was answering your questions. Remember? Questions
about sexual morality were not part of your original post.
Try to stick to the subject. You asked about witches.
>> The moral code is distinct from the legislative code. This is
>> something that all societies wrestle with. The moral code is a
>> universal while legislation is a particular application to a
>> particular situation. They are related but not the same.
>
>
>
>
> That's nice. So why, again, if we don't have to follow ancient Jewish
> law about witches, do we have to follow ancient Jewish law about gays
> or premarital sex . . .?
The answer regarding laws about witches is right above. Let's
see if you can respond to my reply to that one first before moving on
to other questions.
Do you acknowledge the right of civil society to make law?
<snip>
>> You give this example below of Paul instructing the Corinthians.
>> You need to distinguish, however, between what is universal
>> and what is particular about this rule. There are other
>> examples of rule-making in the NT which are conditional.
>>
>> If you can't understand this concept, I wonder how you survive.
>> We all function under a great hierarchy of rules and laws. Most
>> people do not have any trouble distinguishing between the
>> concept of what is universal in all cases and what is not.
>> Rules apply to practically everything.
>>
>
>
>
> That's nice. So, should women be allowed to speak in church, or
> shouldn't they?
Of course. Paul's issue was with women acting inappropriately,
not "speaking" per se, as I showed you. Women pray and
prophesy in church services then and now. That is _speaking_.
Paul was concerned with women apparently going against
the socio-religious convention, perhaps usurping the role of
the celebrant or doing something else that was seen as not being
proper in that situation, and probably shaming their husbands in
doing so.
Without studying the context, such verses are not going to make
sense to you - or anyone else for that matter. Randomly quoting
verses is not going to lead you to understanding.
<snip>
>>All this is is a statement regarding proper order in the church. The
>> Jewish custom was to have men and women segregated in the
>> synagogue. Assuming that this model was adopted by the early
>> Christians at Corinth or that the cultural/religious significance was
>> similar there, it makes perfect sense. Read the context
>> and see that one of the points of the letter is to address the
>> disorder of the Corinthians in their services!
>
>
> I see. So the Bible is just Jewish and early Christian church customs
> and morals, and not the eternal word of God that applies in all
> situations everywhere.
>
> Got it.
I never said any such thing. Please read what I say and comment
on the substance of what I say. So far, I haven't seen you argue
against any point that I've made. You seem to be more concerned
with creating straw men in your mind that you can knock down just by
breathing. Are you not up to the challenge of making a real substantial
argument?
Do you deny that there is a distinction between universal objective
moral law and the civil code in any given area, or other derivative rules
with even less authority and import?
Do you deny that cultural norms differ? If you acknowledge
that they differ, does that mean you deny there is a universal code
because local applications differ?
Let's hear your argument. If you don't agree with what I'm saying,
then tell me why.
<snip>
>> The "speaking" was not praying or prophesying. It was
>> something else having to do with violating the social order.
>> The cultural aspect is conditional. The spiritual aspect is not.
>>
>> There is not one example that I know of where women
>> "are not allowed to speak in church" the way you want it
>> to mean. Taking that meaning out of the text is just absurd.
>> Again, see 11:5 for examples of speaking.
>>
>
>
>
> That's nice. So, given that every other Biblical law and admonition
> was based on Jewish and earyl Christian social customs and traditions,
> we don't have to follow ANY of it.
>
> Right?
I didn't say that either. Please don't misrepresent.
> I must have missed the part where you answered whether or not you think
> supernatural witches exist.
>
> "Yes" or "no", will do nicely.
If you'd be so kind as to actually read my responses, you'd
see that I already answered "Yes" to this question.
> And still waiting
>> for _substantive_ comments on what I've written. Where
>> are they?
>>
>
>
>
> You are of course entirely entitled to your religious opinions. They
> are, of course, no more authoritative or divine than anyone ELSE's
> religious opinions. (shrug)
You didn't ask me about my opinions. You asked me about Exodus
supposedly telling us to kill witches. The answer is no, it does not.
That's not an opinion.
If you want to ask a question about teaching authority and
revelation, that's fine, but that wasn't the subject of your original post.
~Zorg
Ken Shackleton
On Nov 4, 9:18 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1162602123.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> Do you deny that there is a distinction between universal objective
> moral law and the civil code in any given area, or other derivative rules
> with even less authority and import?
I deny that there is "universal objective moral law"
It does not exist, except in the narrow minds of religious absolutists.
Ernest Major
Shackleton <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> writes
>
>
>On Nov 4, 9:18 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>messagenews:1162602123.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
><snip>
>
>>
>> Do you deny that there is a distinction between universal objective
>> moral law and the civil code in any given area, or other derivative rules
>> with even less authority and import?
>
>I deny that there is "universal objective moral law"
>
>It does not exist, except in the narrow minds of religious absolutists.
Or, even if it did exist, as humans appear to be unable to identify it,
it might as well not exist.
--
alias Ernest Major
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Nov 4, 11:18 pm, "Zorg" <feel...@home.org> wrote:
(snip lots of self-righteous pronunciomentos)
> Do you deny that there is a distinction between universal objective
> moral law
There is no such thing.
> > I must have missed the part where you answered whether or not you think
> > supernatural witches exist.
>
> > "Yes" or "no", will do nicely.
If you'd be so kind as to actually read my responses, you'd
> see that I already answered "Yes" to this question.
OK, so you do, indeed, believe in supernatural witchcraft and witches.
(snicker) (giggle)
So then, given the fact that you believe in supernatural witches and
witchcraft (snicker, giggle):
(1) should they be given the death penalty when they are recognized?
(2) how do we recognize them?
Are you working on an updated version of the Malleus Maleficarum?
(snicker) (giggle) Or did you plan on just leaving those supernatural
witches (snicker) (giggle) to run free and do whatever it is that they
do, unchallenged?
What DO they do, anyway? Cause diseases? Cause crop failures? Change
the weather? Curse their neighbor's cows? Turn people into frogs?
(snicker) (giggle)
"Witches", indeed. No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are nuts. (sigh)
Ken Rode
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
This shouldn't come as a surprise. If you happen to have a "knowledge"
system that doesn't discriminate between those things for which there
is evidence and those things for which there is no evidence, how can
you possibly keep from believing in angels, demons, witches, alien
abduction, astrology, reflexology, etc.?
Stanley Friesen
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >If you'll look up, after the word "bull", I didn't say "in and of
>> >itself". It doesn't matter whether you regard me as a fundamentalist or
>> >not, Stanley. Your judgements about what is allegorical and what is
>> >literal is subjective, unless it is identified as such by the author.
>>
>> Or, as in this case, by textual analysis by Biblical experts other than
>> myself. It is pretty much uncontested among those who actually study
>> the Bible, except by those who insist on literalism.
>
>Well I think thats a very extraordinary unsupported claim.
Check any non-Fundamentalist commentary or scholarly work on the passage
if you doubt me.
> Even if
>there is some truth in it, this "analysis" would still be subjective,
>without the author's clear input.
I see, so you reject the results of all forms of textual analysis and
inference as "subjective"?
> We're talking about whether there was
>a "first man" who was the physical father of *humans*, as separate from
>animals. In the case of Catholics, you know you are dead wrong.
>http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
>"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and
>the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this
>context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of
>two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early
>human couples (a teaching known as polygenism)."
I am not dismissing it as "fiction", but treating it as allegory, which
is not the same thing.
>>
>> No, it isn't. There are only about four or five critical things, and
>> the existence Adam is not one of them. It is critical that God exists
>> and is the source of life. It is critical (to Christians) that Jesus
>> was God incarnate, and was raised from the dead. Little else is
>> critical.
>
>I happen to agree except about the existence of the first man; the
>foundation for belief in those critical things are critical as well.
And how are Adam and Eve foundational to the other beliefs?
>For example, would it be possible to accept that Jesus existed if it is
>believed that Mary and Joseph were not real people, but only
>allegories? No.
That is not at all at issue. We were talking about Adam and Eve.
>
>> Viewing it as a story of Everyman, it says the same thing about who we
>> are and our relationship to God as it does when viewed as literal
>> history. And *that* is what is important in any Biblical passage: what
>> it says about us and about God.
>
>Not in *any* passage, as in all passages. You yourself just admitted
>that there are certain critical beliefs. Were Jesus seen as an allegory
>and not a real person, there would be no Christianity. And were Adam,
>Abraham, Moses, not real people, there would be no Judaism.
As I am not a Jew any answer I give is of little value. However, I do
not see any of that as required for Judaism. If I understand Jewish
theology correctly I believe the core point of their faith is the
covenant relationship with God, the existence of which does not actually
require any of those people to have been historical. Certainly Jewish
Bibilical exegesis allows for a very broad interpretive system (e.g.
midrash).
>
>> >So because you think that Genesis reads like Aesop's fable, that
>> >everything within the book is allegory?
>>
>> No, just the one story. Each passage is analyzed on its own.
>
>You are most definitely out of line. A story can be both allegorical
>and literal. But the deeper problem here is that you are denying that
>there was a "first man", not just that the first man wasn't called
>"Adam" who is written about in Genesis. Clearly this is an attempt to
>"evolutionize" the whole Bible.
As it is not my idea, *I* am not doing it. Check out, for instance,
_Understanding the Old Testament_ by Anderson. (He also addresses the
issue above of the historical reality of Abrahem et alii, and per his
analysis, anyhow, their historical reality is unimportant, though I am
not sure how many Jews would agree).
>>
>> >Stanley, what about this one? "This is the book of the generations of
>> >Adam"?
>>
>> It is an origin story. Like many others in other cultures. The
>> question is, what does it say about you and me and God?
>> >>
>In other words, you don't want to come right out and say that's
>allegory as well,
OK, it is an allegory, just one I do not understand.
> but your theology requires that it is. By not
>accepting the geneology of Adam in Genesis as other than purely
>allegorical, you're making a mockery of what you claim is the purpose,
>what this inspired writing says to us about ourselves *and* God.
And how does the physical genealogy of Adam make any difference
whatsoever to who we are or how we relate to God?
> You
>better get those textual "experts" to work on this genealogical record
>of Adam,
They have, many times. See, again, the same book (_Undertanding the Old
Testament_) I mentioned above.
> Stanley, so they can tell us Christians why God chose to spin
>that yarn.
God only "spun the yarn" if God dictated the exact words to be used.
You seem to have forgotten what definition of "inspired" we are using
here.
> Was it to teach us that we would have children who would
>have children?
I have no clue. Ask Anderson, the author of the above-mentioned book.
He discusses it.
>>
>> No, that is not my claim. Theism is central. Deism is heterodox. The
>> concept "theistic evolutionism" is simply one aspect of the more general
>> point - that science and *theism* are not in conflict in general.
>
>I didn't say deism was your claim, and we've already gone over this
>before. I have said before that your theology has no practical
>difference from deism with respect to the relevant issues, is all.
Same difference - if my position is not practically different than it
*is* Deism. And it is an inaccurate description of my position anyhow.
I can reword my position in may ways: God matters and is active in our
lives. He routinely acts to accomplish his purposes. Or, to use
Anderson's words, God is a God of history, one who acts in history to
work out his plans. [That, by the way, is his take on one of the main
themes of the Old Testament].
You seem to have misunderstood my position as saying God doesn't act in
meaningful ways. That is incorrect.
>>
>> And how is theism not orthodox?
>>
>I explain above. Not any old theistic belief is orthodox. My meaning
>for the word is simply "correct belief". Unorthodox implies belief so
>uncorrect as to be unacceptable.
Except that, outside of Fundamentalists and the conservative branch of
Catholics it is my position is quite well within the Orthodox, as you
might understand if you truly understood what I have said.
>
>Stanley. You do admit that a critical belief you can not deny in your
>theology is the incarnation of Jesus.
> Can you really keep a straight
>face and claim isn't in conflict with science?
Yes.
A. It is not testable, as I have already said.
And B. resurrection may indeed be a natural process, one we just have
not yet observed.