"In the beginning"......Brain teaser for creationists.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

...
Thus states,
Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.

1) The Universe had a beginning.
2) God was around before it.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending".
Thus states,
Rev 1:8. Conclusion?.

1) Nothing existed before god.
2) Nothing will exist after god.

"The plans of the Lord stand firm forever".
Thus states,
Psalm 33:11. Conclusion?.

1) God knows his plans in advance.
*************************************************************

Here's where it gets tricky.

"Go to the ant, you slacker! Observe its ways".
Thus states,
Proverbs 6:6. Conclusion?.

1) Never put off till tomorrow what can be done today, or you are a lazy procrastinating bastard.
****************************************************************


So the logical conclusion, of all this is that, Either;

1) God is Lazy.
2) The "Heavens & Earth", were created *INSTANTLY* by god, as soon as he became aware of his plan.
*****************************************************************
3) If god created the "Heavens & the Earth" *INSTANTLY*, as he became aware, & they had "A Beginning". Then *SO DID gOD*.
4) If they weren't. God is a LIAR!

[James Beck]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

>...
>Thus states,
>Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
>
>1) The Universe had a beginning.
>2) God was around before it.

At worst it doesn't say that at all. At best the translation involves
wish fulfillment.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 18:45:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> >...
> >Thus states,
> >Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
> >
> >1) The Universe had a beginning.
> >2) God was around before it.


> At worst it doesn't say that at all.

I posted, so a 6 year old could comprehend.

> At worst it doesn't say that at all.

I assure you, It *DOES SAY THAT*.
**********************************************************************
Now this is why religious *LUNATICS*, hold such an *IRON GRIP* over their

*********
SHEEP
*********

They treat them like idiots, misinterpret a simple comment, and treat it like gospel.
***************************************************************************



Now, James Beck, may, or may not, have been on the side of theists. But his comments were disambiguous, giving rise to interpritation.

Years & years into the future, Jame's comment gets lost in translation.

****************************************************************************

So I will ask again, so that a 5 year old can understand, (And give proof later).


Questions.

1) Did god create, the "Heavens & the Earth"?
2) Does god know the future & the past?
3) Does god hate procrastination?

[James Beck]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 18:45:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >Thus states,
>> >Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
>> >
>> >1) The Universe had a beginning.
>> >2) God was around before it.

[snip]

>> At worst it doesn't say that at all.

>I assure you, It *DOES SAY THAT*.

On what basis do you assert such assurances?

[snip]

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

Quote:
"In the beginning....' 1) The Universe had a beginning'".
"God created the heavens and the earth'... 2) God was around before it'".

Now plz fuck off back to your mushrooms.

All you are proving is;

1) You are an illogical creationist.
2) You are an antagonistic/self/wanna be/non-scientist, who only serves to further their cause.

Either way, fuck off!

[James Beck]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:43:12 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

wrote:

>On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 22:20:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 18:45:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >...
>> >> >Thus states,
>> >> >Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
>> >> >
>> >> >1) The Universe had a beginning.
>> >> >2) God was around before it.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> At worst it doesn't say that at all.
>>
>> >I assure you, It *DOES SAY THAT*.
>>
>> On what basis do you assert such assurances?
>>
>> [snip]
>
>Quote:
>"In the beginning....' 1) The Universe had a beginning'".

How certain are you that it says, "In the beginning ...?"

>"God created the heavens and the earth'... 2) God was around before it'".

On what basis do you assert that the best translation is: "God created
the heavens and the earth?"

[snip]

[TomS]

"On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d96163ad-52b1-4b7b...@googlegroups.com>,
pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk stated..."

>
>...
>Thus states,
>Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.

[...snip...]

There is dispute as to what the Hebrew text means. Check several recent
translations.

"In the beginning of God's creation", "When God began to create", ...


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 00:05:09 UTC+1, TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <d96163ad-52b1-4b7b...@googlegroups.com>,
> pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk stated..."
> >
> >...
> >Thus states,
> >Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
> [...snip...]
>
> There is dispute as to what the Hebrew text means. Check several recent
> translations.

O.K. Since I'm well versed in Hebrew...

Lets try my translation.

3 for emphasis, 7 for completeness.

37*73 = 2701 = Gen1:1.

A Super-Poulet number.

Has these unique properties.

3*(900+1/3) ...900/3^2 = 33*3
5*(540+1/5) ...540/5*3 = 33+3
7*(385+6/7) ...385/5*7 = 11 = 33/3
11*(245+6/11) ...245/11 = 2* (33/3)+ 3/11
13*(207+10/13)...207/13 = 5* 3+4 * 3/13
17*(158+15/17)...158/17 = 3*3 + 5/17


Now we can dance about the maypole all day.

But the simple logic is this.

1) God either delays in creation of this universe & is "Lazy".
2) He creates is as he imagines it. Since he knew everything, from forever in the past, if this is true, he & the universe were created at the same time.

[Kalkidas]

<pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d96163ad-52b1-4b7b...@googlegroups.com...

What are you so angry about? God is not going away. You'll just have to get
used to it.

[hacker...@gmail.com]

Woah, dude. You got some serious air time with that logic jump.

God isn't lazy, he's taking his time spreading his work over a period of 6 days, and resting on the seventh day, just as he prescribes to the Israelites to do in exodus.

He's always following the patteren, he just explains himself later.

[Bob Casanova]

In the category "Say what?!?"

>...his comments were disambiguous, giving rise to interpritation.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[John Vreeland]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:41:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>In the category "Say what?!?"
>
>>...his comments were disambiguous, giving rise to interpritation.

Shouldn't that be the category "Chez Watt?"

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:27:17 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Vreeland
<vreejackat...@spam.hole>:

Nah; already covered in the Subject: field. I'm open to
suggestions for a better category, though.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by hacker...@gmail.com:

All his posts tend to hover over the court for extended
periods with no visible support; get used to it.

>God isn't lazy, he's taking his time spreading his work over a period of 6 days, and resting on the seventh day, just as he prescribes to the Israelites to do in exodus.
>
>He's always following the patteren, he just explains himself later.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

You do realise, the one of the very definitions of 'ambiguous', is comments having more than one meaning?

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Thursday, 23 April 2015 20:30:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

I keep forgetting you have a low I.Q.

There is no paradox here. We were talking about translation.

He did 2 things, in this statement;

> At worst it doesn't say that at all. At best the translation involves
> wish fulfillment.

1) He made a clatification to his position. (Becoming disambiguous).
2) He implied the passage, specifically Gen 1:1 was.. "open to interpritation" or (Ambiguous).


What you failed to comprehend with your littlenitpick, is that;

You implied my comment about disambiguation, was ambiguous, when in fact it was a disambiguous comment about his comment sharing both ambiguous & disambiguous parts in tandem.

Was that disambiguous enough for you?

[Earle Jones27]

*
I thought God was all-powerful. What the hell is this "rest" crap?

earle
*

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:20:55 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

Apparently you don't recognize the hole you dug yourself into.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

How do you know I wasn't going for "Underground Bunker"?

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:11:41 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

Gobsmacked to silence. I get it.

It's O.k, calm down, I'm just a man.

[jillery]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:13:59 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

Just a twitchy trigger finger. My bad.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:20:55 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>On Thursday, 23 April 2015 20:30:03 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:27:17 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Vreeland
>> <vreejackat...@spam.hole>:
>>
>> >On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:41:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>In the category "Say what?!?"
>> >>
>> >>>...his comments were disambiguous, giving rise to interpritation.
>> >
>> >Shouldn't that be the category "Chez Watt?"
>>
>> Nah; already covered in the Subject: field. I'm open to
>> suggestions for a better category, though.

>I keep forgetting you have a low I.Q.

Yeah, it's easy to forget errors of "interpritation",
apparently more so for you than for most.

How are the sheep doing?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:11:41 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>How do you know I wasn't going for "Underground Bunker"?

Switching from "Aboveground Bunk"?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:45:04 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:

FWIW, it's documented (in a sense), while AFAIK omnipotence
isn't.

And even "Ahhnaald" has to rest occasionally...but he'll be
baaack. ;-)

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 17:54:59 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:


> >> >Shouldn't that be the category "Chez Watt?"
> >>
> >> Nah; already covered in the Subject: field. I'm open to
> >> suggestions for a better category, though.
>
> >I keep forgetting you have a low I.Q.
>
> Yeah, it's easy to forget errors of "interpritation",
> apparently more so for you than for most.

Bob, *YOU* are burdened by stickle things. It urgs you if I misplace my keys.

I am free, I am not lowered to your level by pointing out that you mispelled "interpretation".

It's very easy to do & a cheap shot.

Now I explained my position, but for the life of me. I cannot work out why you & John Harshman hate me so much.

[lucaspa]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 10:50:11 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> ...
> Thus states,
> Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
>
> 1) The Universe had a beginning.
> 2) God was around before it.
>
> "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending".
> Thus states,
> Rev 1:8. Conclusion?.
>
> 1) Nothing existed before god.
> 2) Nothing will exist after god.

Non sequitor. Yes, Genesis 1 clearly states that Yahweh existed before the universe: Yahweh created the universe. However, Revelations is stating that Yahweh existed before the universe and will exist "after" the universe. This is consistent with Judeo-Christian belief that Yahweh is outside the universe, not a part of it.

>
> "The plans of the Lord stand firm forever".
> Thus states,
> Psalm 33:11. Conclusion?.
>
> 1) God knows his plans in advance.

Bad conclusion. The quote says that Yahweh's plans will happen. That's all.

>
> Here's where it gets tricky.
>
> "Go to the ant, you slacker! Observe its ways".
> Thus states,
> Proverbs 6:6. Conclusion?.
>
> 1) Never put off till tomorrow what can be done today, or you are a lazy procrastinating bastard.

I am used to creationists taking scripture out of context, but atheists say they have more morals than to take quotes out of context. Guess not.

Let's start at the beginning:
"My child, if you have put up security for a friend's debt or agreed to guarantee the debt of a stranger-- if you have trapped yourself by your agreement and are caught by what you said-- follow my advice and save yourself, for you have placed yourself at your friend's mercy.
Now swallow your pride; go and beg to have your name erased. Don't put it off; do it now! Don't rest until you do. Save yourself like a gazelle escaping from a hunter, like a bird fleeing from a net. Take a lesson from the ants, you lazybones. Learn from their ways and become wise!"

This isn't about a generic "never put off until tomorrow", but about a very specific circumstance. If you have been caught in a MONETARY situation and cannot pay, don't ignore it. Go to the debtor and negotiate payment or try to get him to forgive the debt.

Shame on you, taking out of context!

> So the logical conclusion, of all this is that, Either;
>
> 1) God is Lazy.
> 2) The "Heavens & Earth", were created *INSTANTLY* by god, as soon as he became aware of his plan.
> *****************************************************************
> 3) If god created the "Heavens & the Earth" *INSTANTLY*, as he became aware, & they had "A Beginning". Then *SO DID gOD*.
> 4) If they weren't. God is a LIAR!

All this is non-sequitor based on 2 false premises.

The valid conclusion here is that you will be as dishonest in trying to discredit belief in deity as creationists are in trying to promote creationism.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

You see Bob, if you are patient. Every once in a while you catch a fish.

Now I know this person intimately.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 20:50:00 UTC+1, lucaspa wrote:

Shame she's a fucking lunatic. Who shagged an old man.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by
pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:

>On Friday, 24 April 2015 17:54:59 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> >> >Shouldn't that be the category "Chez Watt?"

>> >> Nah; already covered in the Subject: field. I'm open to
>> >> suggestions for a better category, though.

>> >I keep forgetting you have a low I.Q.

>> Yeah, it's easy to forget errors of "interpritation",
>> apparently more so for you than for most.

>Bob, *YOU* are burdened by stickle things. It urgs you if I misplace my keys.

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

>I am free, I am not lowered to your level by pointing out that you mispelled "interpretation".

That "misspelling" was a direct quote from your post, which
was the initial impetus for this CW:

">> >>>...his comments were disambiguous, giving rise to
interpritation."

>It's very easy to do & a cheap shot.

You specialize in cheap shots, so you should know.

>Now I explained my position, but for the life of me. I cannot work out why you & John Harshman hate me so much.

I don't hate you (I can't speak for John, but I suspect he
doesn't either). I merely think you're afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Again, I can't speak for John.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Saturday, 25 April 2015 18:44:57 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk:
>
> >On Friday, 24 April 2015 17:54:59 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >> >> >Shouldn't that be the category "Chez Watt?"
>
> >> >> Nah; already covered in the Subject: field. I'm open to
> >> >> suggestions for a better category, though.
>
> >> >I keep forgetting you have a low I.Q.
>
> >> Yeah, it's easy to forget errors of "interpritation",
> >> apparently more so for you than for most.
>
> >Bob, *YOU* are burdened by stickle things. It urgs you if I misplace my keys.
>
> Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
>
> >I am free, I am not lowered to your level by pointing out that you mispelled "interpretation".
>
> That "misspelling" was a direct quote from your post, which
> was the initial impetus for this CW:
>
> ">> >>>...his comments were disambiguous, giving rise to
> interpritation."
>
> >It's very easy to do & a cheap shot.
>
> You specialize in cheap shots, so you should know.
>
> >Now I explained my position, but for the life of me. I cannot work out why you & John Harshman hate me so much.
>
> I don't hate you (I can't speak for John, but I suspect he
> doesn't either). I merely think you're afflicted with
> Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

I seem to remember Robert Hooke diagnosing someone with that condition.

[Aerion]

On 4/21/2015 6:49 PM, James Beck wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:43:12 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 22:20:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 18:45:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Thus states,
>>>>>> Gen 1:1. Conclusion?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The Universe had a beginning.
>>>>>> 2) God was around before it.
>>>

>>> [snip]

>>>
>>>>> At worst it doesn't say that at all.
>>>

>>>> I assure you, It *DOES SAY THAT*.
>>>
>>> On what basis do you assert such assurances?
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Quote:
>> "In the beginning....' 1) The Universe had a beginning'".
>
> How certain are you that it says, "In the beginning ...?"
>
>> "God created the heavens and the earth'... 2) God was around before it'".
>
> On what basis do you assert that the best translation is: "God created
> the heavens and the earth?"
>
The King James Version, does say "In the Beginning God created the
heavens and the Earth."
>
So, the Universe had a beginning. One can make nothing else out of it.
This is also scientific. The universe had a beginning. It began with
what is termed the Big Bang.
>
> [snip]
>


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Earle Jones27]

*
Was Genesis 1:1 written by a human being?

If so, is there a reference cited?

earle
*

[James Beck]

Irrelevant. The KJV is a self-serving translation. The plainest
reading of the Hebrew in the Codex Sinaiticus is that a male deity
impregrated a pre-existing Earth mother. Again, on what basis do you

assert that the best translation is: "God created the heavens and the

Earth?"

[snip]

[walksalone]

James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:99senal1ev8si29cb...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:45:57 -0400, Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 4/21/2015 6:49 PM, James Beck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:43:12 -0700 (PDT),
>>> pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 22:20:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 18:45:10 UTC+1, James Beck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>> pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>

snip

>>The King James Version, does say "In the Beginning God created the
>>heavens and the Earth."

<https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=KJV>

Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face
of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Versus

<http://biblehub.com/ojb/genesis/1.htm>

In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and
haaretz (the earth). 2 And the earth was tohu vavohu (without form, and
void); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Ruach Elohim was
hovering upon the face of the waters. 3 And Elohim said, Let there be
light: and there was light [Tehillim 33:6,9]. 4 And Elohim saw the light,
that it was tov (good); and Elohim divided the ohr (light) from the
choshech (darkness). 5 And Elohim called the light Yom (Day), and the
darkness He called Lailah (Night). And the erev (evening) and the boker
(morning) were Yom Echad (Day One, the First Day, Mk 16:2).

Versus:
<http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/enuma.html

Way to much for a usenet posting, even as an attachment. But there were
gods involved before the Hebraic one was finalized after the shortened
Babylonian vacation. & though it says babylonian, I suspect it was much
earlier. From the work.

Ea, his triumph over his enemies secured,
In his sacred chamber in profound sleep he rested.
He named it "Apsu," for shrines he assigned (it).
In that same place his cult hut he founded.
Ea and Damkina, his wife, dwelled (there) in splendor.
In the chamber of fates, the abode of destinies,
A god was engendered, most potent and wisest of gods.
In the heart of Apsu was Marduk created,
In the heart of holy Apsu was Marduk created.
He who begot him was Ea, his father;
She who conceived him was Damkina, his mother.
The breast of goddesses did she suck.
The nurse that nursed him filled him with awesomeness.
Alluring was his figure, sparkling the lift in his eyes.
Lordly was his gait, commanding from of old.
When Ea saw him, the father who begot him,
He exulted and glowed, his heart filled with gladness.

> Irrelevant. The KJV is a self-serving translation. The plainest

Indeed, it was meant to be used to block the popes de Roma from telling
English kings what to do, & how.

> reading of the Hebrew in the Codex Sinaiticus is that a male deity

Mythology is a minor interest of mine. Would you have any sources that are
well translated. or at least as well translated as damaged goods can be?
If so, TIA. duckduckgo.com let me down this time.

> impregrated a pre-existing Earth mother. Again, on what basis do you
> assert that the best translation is: "God created the heavens and the
> Earth?"

Arrogance? Or Assumption. Never heard it said any other way in any church
I was drug to.

walksalone who has found that creation myths have a tendency to be
fascinating. Well, other than those involving the revealed gods of the
desert. They are so unimaginative for that type of myth.



If he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword holds true,
then jesus the carpenter met his end properly. After all, he
was nailed to a piece of wood, wasn't he?
Author unkown to me.

[Aerion]

I do not believe this. The "plainest" certainly doesn't mean the most
accurate translation.
If what you say is true this is paganism. I wanted to
check, and I download the first chapter. However, It began with chapter
23. This had the language of the writers, and the English translation.
I could not find anything about Genesis 1;1. So what is your source?

Again, on what basis do you
> assert that the best translation is: "God created the heavens and the
> Earth?"
>

If you go the the Blue Letter Bible each of the translations (several
from original manuscripts) say the same thing. "In the beginning...."
So, until shown differently, I will continue thinking the translations
of the several Bible translations are correct on Genesis 1;1.

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ml84qe$13ct$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

snip, SBTSGI

>>>> How certain are you that it says, "In the beginning ...?"
>>>>
>>>>> "God created the heavens and the earth'... 2) God was around
>>>>> before it'".
>>>>
>>>> On what basis do you assert that the best translation is: "God
>>>> created the heavens and the earth?"
>>>>
>>> The King James Version, does say "In the Beginning God created the
>>> heavens and the Earth."

& therein is one of your major problems. You are assuming there is any
validity in mythology written by unknown authors to unknown audiences. &
yet, you only use one version of those myths? why not?

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/
http://www.onlinebible.net/downloads/translations
http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm <cute>

& of course, the one that tells the reading ages of rather a lot of the
Holy Word, ™.

http://www.allbibles.com/t-bibleversions.aspx

So how many bibles are there, world wide ove 700 known.
https://www.bible.com/versions

>> Irrelevant. The KJV is a self-serving translation. The plainest
>> reading of the Hebrew in the Codex Sinaiticus is that a male deity
>> impregrated a pre-existing Earth mother.
> >
> I do not believe this. The "plainest" certainly doesn't mean the most
> accurate translation.

You are not required to believe that. Nor is the audience required to
believe your version.

> If what you say is true this is paganism. I wanted to
> check, and I download the first chapter. However, It began with

Oh no, the horror. Someone expects an ancient document left in harsh
weather conditions to be completer. Hint, even recent xian writings are
not always complete. Damndest thing, I know. Can't even count on the gods
to keep their books straight.

> chapter 23. This had the language of the writers, and the English
> translation. I could not find anything about Genesis 1;1. So what is
> your source?

Have you tried the JPS version?
http://www.breslov.com/ref/Genesis1.htm

> Again, on what basis do you
>> assert that the best translation is: "God created the heavens and the
>> Earth?"
> >
> If you go the the Blue Letter Bible each of the translations (several
> from original manuscripts) say the same thing. "In the beginning...."

What original manuscripts. To the best of my limited knowledge, other than
the dead sea scrolls, there are none left. Now, the Greek Testaments,
maybe. Some claimed but I've yet to see the positive evidence. & even the
dead sea scrolls are rewrites, aka translations with all that implies.
Errors, rewrites, forgery's, etc., are common.

> So, until shown differently, I will continue thinking the translations
> of the several Bible translations are correct on Genesis 1;1.

Your privilege, but I suspect it will go beyond that. Based on your
particular version of the bible is right tap dance.

walksalone who prefers physical evidence to claimed written evidence. AKA
a volcano did erupt, or contrary to local legend, did not.



All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different
holidays.
-Cathy Ladman, comedian, writer, actress (1955- )

[James Beck]

That's true. On the other hand, as more people gain access to the
oldest extant text along with the tools to translate it, anyone
defending something other than a plain reading will have some
explaining to do.

>If what you say is true this is paganism.

In the earlier sense of the word 'pagan' just mean 'non-Christian,' so
of course it's paganism. Judaism didn't even start out monotheistic.

[snip]

>If you go the the Blue Letter Bible each of the translations (several
>from original manuscripts) say the same thing. "In the beginning...."
>So, until shown differently, I will continue thinking the translations
>of the several Bible translations are correct on Genesis 1;1.

It is almost inconceivable to me that you would do otherwise. Besides,
Jeebus described the flock as sheeple and some of what he said makes
sense.

[Mitchell Coffey]

It would have been interesting to see your response in re: the apparent
fact that the Codex Sinaiticus starts with Genesis 23.

Mitchell Coffey

[Aerion]

Yes, but the Massoretic, Hebrew and Aramaic are indecipherable to me.
The JPS and Kaplan both are English and they state: "In the beginning..."
>
Your point?

>
>> Again, on what basis do you
>>> assert that the best translation is: "God created the heavens and the
>>> Earth?"
>>>
>> If you go the the Blue Letter Bible each of the translations (several
>> from original manuscripts) say the same thing. "In the beginning...."
>
> What original manuscripts. To the best of my limited knowledge, other than
> the dead sea scrolls, there are none left. Now, the Greek Testaments,
> maybe. Some claimed but I've yet to see the positive evidence. & even the
> dead sea scrolls are rewrites, aka translations with all that implies.
> Errors, rewrites, forgery's, etc., are common.
>

You have little or no trust in ancient scholarship. But when different
scholars translate from whatever different ancient sources they used:
which became different pathways, yet, they arrive at the same message:
This convincing, as far as I'm concerned. Had the message come down to
have different meaning I would rightly become a doubting Thomas. But
they all arrive at the same message; "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth".

>
>> So, until shown differently, I will continue thinking the translations
>> of the several Bible translations are correct on Genesis 1;1.
>
> Your privilege, but I suspect it will go beyond that. Based on your
> particular version of the bible is right tap dance.
>

See the above statement by yours truly.

>
> walksalone who prefers physical evidence to claimed written evidence. AKA
> a volcano did erupt, or contrary to local legend, did not.
>

This is admirable and I agree, but one should be willing to go where the
evidence takes, and not be limited and restricted by philosophical
considerations: IE limited strictly to the _naturalistic_ straight jacket.

>
>
> All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different
> holidays.
>

To some point I agree with this, but that's certainly not all there is.

> -Cathy Ladman, comedian, writer, actress (1955- )
>

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mla42l$30qh$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

> On 6/10/2015 9:34 AM, walksalone wrote:

snip

>>> I do not believe this. The "plainest" certainly doesn't mean the
>>> most accurate translation.
>>
>> You are not required to believe that. Nor is the audience required
>> to believe your version.
>>
>>> If what you say is true this is paganism. I wanted to
>>> check, and I download the first chapter. However, It began with
>>
>> Oh no, the horror. Someone expects an ancient document left in harsh
>> weather conditions to be completer. Hint, even recent xian writings
>> are not always complete. Damndest thing, I know. Can't even count
>> on the gods to keep their books straight.
>>
>>> chapter 23. This had the language of the writers, and the English
>>> translation. I could not find anything about Genesis 1;1. So what is
>>> your source?
>>
>>
>> Have you tried the JPS version?
>> http://www.breslov.com/ref/Genesis1.htm
> >
> Yes, but the Massoretic, Hebrew and Aramaic are indecipherable to me.
> The JPS and Kaplan both are English and they state: "In the
> beginning..."

That tells me that you are not a student. Not to worry, few of us are. &
that includes myself. However, there are those that can read the ancient
languages, & provide us with translations.

> Your point?

No, it's the point. The point is if you rely on only one source when
discussing mythology, you can never win your argument. You see, when you
do that, you have no alternative to supporting the POV of that author.
Right or wrong. To see how that works,
Scribal Culture & the makeing of the Hebrew bible is a decent start.
Author
Karl van der Troon [IIRC].
Or
God's problem
Bart D Erhman [Again IIRC].

snip

>>> If you go the the Blue Letter Bible each of the translations
>>> (several from original manuscripts) say the same thing. "In the
>>> beginning...."
>>
>> What original manuscripts. To the best of my limited knowledge,
>> other than the dead sea scrolls, there are none left. Now, the Greek
>> Testaments, maybe. Some claimed but I've yet to see the positive
>> evidence. & even the dead sea scrolls are rewrites, aka translations
>> with all that implies. Errors, rewrites, forgery's, etc., are common.
> >
> You have little or no trust in ancient scholarship. But when different

Wrong guess. I have quite a bit of faith in non fundamentalist scholars.
Or those that don't pretend to have the answers to questions that they care
about.
Among the authors I have read.
William Dever
Bart D Erhman
Elaine Pagels
All conributer to
The Dictionary Of Deities & Demons In The Bible [quite a lot really]
Michael Jordon

Books
The Bible Unearthed
Israel's Grateful Dead

& that is not involving all that I have read. I doubt you have studied the
subject to any depth, most believers, concept immaterial, don't. They stop
when they find what they want to believe.

> scholars translate from whatever different ancient sources they used:
> which became different pathways, yet, they arrive at the same message:

Do they, I can recall reading passages that disagree with you. Neither you
nor those passages appear to be worth the effort to look up. But the
Hebrew Bible as well as the Greek Testaments are loaded, for starters, with
contradictions. Not to good for the word of any god.

> This convincing, as far as I'm concerned. Had the message come down to
> have different meaning I would rightly become a doubting Thomas. But

One thing I learned in the military, when politicians agree, the troops
need to put on battle gear & let them fight it out. Or do you assume there
was only one writer involved? BTW, that is an extremely serious question.

> they all arrive at the same message; "In the beginning God created the
> heavens and the earth".
>>
>>> So, until shown differently, I will continue thinking the
>>> translations of the several Bible translations are correct on
>>> Genesis 1;1.
>>
>> Your privilege, but I suspect it will go beyond that. Based on your
>> particular version of the bible is right tap dance.
> >
> See the above statement by yours truly.

Why, you've added no new information.

>> walksalone who prefers physical evidence to claimed written evidence.
>> AKA a volcano did erupt, or contrary to local legend, did not.
>>
> This is admirable and I agree, but one should be willing to go where
> the evidence takes, and not be limited and restricted by philosophical
> considerations: IE limited strictly to the _naturalistic_ straight
> jacket.

& there is your problem. You are assuming that there is any reason to
accept your POV, in spite of the lack of supporting evidence. I expect any
claims I make to be questioned, but only by those that like to know instead
of making it a matter of unfounded faith. AKA the xian & religious
version. Not faith based on evidence.

snip

>> All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with
>> different holidays.
> >
> To some point I agree with this, but that's certainly not all there
> is.

To date, I've seen nothing else. Especially among the pentacostals.

walksalone who still has time for serious discussion with those that know
the topic, or are willing to learn it.

Old this is, but still appropriate.

God's Total Quality Management Questionaire

God would like to thank you for your belief and patronage. In order to
better serve your needs, He asks that you take a few moments to answer the
following questions.

Please keep in mind that your responses will be kept completely
confidential, and that you need not disclose your name or address unless
you prefer a direct response to comments or suggestions.


How did you find out about God?
__ Newspaper
__ Television
__ Word of mouth
__ Tabloid
__ Bible
__ Torah __ Other Book
__ Divine Inspiration
__ Near Death Experience
__ Burning Shrubbery
__ Other (specify): _____________



Which model God did you acquire?
__ Yoweh
__ Jehova
__ Allah
__ God
__ G_d __ Father, Son & Holy Ghost Triplet
__ Jesus
__ Satan
__ None of the above, I was taken in by a false god



Did your God come to you undamaged, with all parts in good working order
and with no obvious breakage or missing attributes?

__ Yes __ No

If no, please describe the problems you initially encountered here:

_______________________________________________________


What factors were relevant in your decision to acquire a god? Please check
all that apply.
__ Indoctrinated by parents
__ Needed a reason to live
__ Indoctrinated by society
__ Needed focus in who to despise
__ Imaginary friend grew up
__ Hate to think for myself
__ Wanted to meet girls/boys __ Fear of death
__ Wanted to piss off parents
__ Needed a day away from work
__ Desperate need for certainty
__ Like Organ Music
__ Need to feel Morally Superior
__ My shrubbery caught fire and told me to do it



Have you ever worshipped a God before? Is so, which false god were you
fooled by? Please check all that apply.
__ Odin
__ Cthulhu
__ Zeus
__ The Almighty Dollar
__ Apollo
__ Left Wing Liberalism
__ Ra
__ Barney T.B.P.D. __ The great Spirit
__ The Great Pumpkin
__ The Sun
__ Bill Clinton
__ The Moon
__ A burning cabbage
__ The Bomb
__ Other: ________________



Are you currently using any other source of inspiration in addition to God?
Please check all that apply.
__ Tarot
__ Lottery
__ Astrology
__ Television
__ Fortune cookies
__ Ann Landers
__ Psychic Friends Network
__ Dianetics
__ Palmistry
__ Playboy and/or Playgirl
__ Self-help books
__ Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll
__ Biorythms
__ Bill Clinton __ Tea Leaves
__ EST
__ Mantras
__ Jimmy Swaggert
__ Crystals
__ Human Sacrifice
__ Pyramids
__ Wandering around a desert
__ Insurance policies
__ Burning Shrubbery
__ Barney T.B.P.D.
__ Barney Fife
__ None
__ Other: _______________



God employs a limited degree of Divine Intervention to preserve the
balanced level of felt presence and blind faith. Which would you prefer
(circle one)?

More Divine Intervention
Less Divine Intervention
Current level of Divine Intervention is just right
Don't know ... what's Divine Intervention?



God also attempts to maintain a balanced level of disasters and miracles.
Please rate on a scale of 1 - 5 his handling of the following (1
=unsatisfactory, 5=excellent):



Disasters
flood 1 2 3 4 5
famine 1 2 3 4 5
earthquake 1 2 3 4 5
war 1 2 3 4 5
pestilence 1 2 3 4 5
plague 1 2 3 4 5
SPAM 1 2 3 4 5
AOL 1 2 3 4 5


Miracles
rescues 1 2 3 4 5
spontaneous remissions 1 2 3 4 5
stars hovering over towns 1 2 3 4 5
crying statues 1 2 3 4 5
water changing to wine 1 2 3 4 5
walking on water 1 2 3 4 5
(other than the Hudson)
talking flaming shrubbery 1 2 3 4 5
VCRs that set their own 1 2 3 4 5
clocks
Saddam Husein still alive 1 2 3 4 5
Cubs winning the Series 1 2 3 4 5
Clinton's re-election 1 2 3 4 5



Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for improving the
quality of God's services? (Attach an additional sheet if necessary):
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

[James Beck]

21:26, actually.

I misspoke re: the Hebrew. It's the Aleppo Codex. Thank you for
checking.

[Aerion]

You are exactly right.

>
>> Your point?
>
> No, it's the point. The point is if you rely on only one source when
> discussing mythology, you can never win your argument. You see, when you
> do that, you have no alternative to supporting the POV of that author.
> Right or wrong. To see how that works,
> Scribal Culture & the makeing of the Hebrew bible is a decent start.
> Author
> Karl van der Troon [IIRC].
> Or
> God's problem
> Bart D Erhman [Again IIRC].
>
> snip
>

This is Old Testament, which is interesting but it's been surpassed
by the New Testament.

>
>>>> If you go the the Blue Letter Bible each of the translations
>>>> (several from original manuscripts) say the same thing. "In the
>>>> beginning...."
>>>
>>> What original manuscripts. To the best of my limited knowledge,
>>> other than the dead sea scrolls, there are none left. Now, the Greek
>>> Testaments, maybe. Some claimed but I've yet to see the positive
>>> evidence. & even the dead sea scrolls are rewrites, aka translations
>>> with all that implies. Errors, rewrites, forgery's, etc., are common.
>>>
>> You have little or no trust in ancient scholarship. But when different
>
> Wrong guess. I have quite a bit of faith in non fundamentalist scholars.
> Or those that don't pretend to have the answers to questions that they care
> about.
>

This must characterizes most scholars, otherwise, there would be few in
any points of agreement.

>
> Among the authors I have read.
> William Dever
> Bart D Erhman
> Elaine Pagels
> All conributer to
> The Dictionary Of Deities & Demons In The Bible [quite a lot really]
> Michael Jordon
>
> Books
> The Bible Unearthed
> Israel's Grateful Dead
>
> & that is not involving all that I have read. I doubt you have studied the
> subject to any depth, most believers, concept immaterial, don't. They stop
> when they find what they want to believe.
>

I haven't and did not care to. I had a very difficult childhood.
Joined a gang, was in trouble with the police, for stealing, fights
shop-lifting, reform school, gang activities which I won't go
into. Never knew my father.
But I managed to finish high school and won a scholarship to
the local 4 year community college and somehow I managed to graduate.
After my education, I went into real estate, first selling other
peoples property, then buying and re-selling properties.
In time I bought tracks of land, cut it up into lots and made good money.
Nothing dishonest, right? But I took advantage of peoples difficulties,
and their trust, I misrepresented properties, I wanted to sell, paid
small "down-payments" on properties and received their deeds with the
promise, rarely kept, to pay in full. Paid off officials to look away.
I wasn't raised Christian, never really gave religion or God any
thought. I don't think I was an atheist, didn't care - wasn't
important - just didn't think about it.
Making money, no matter who I hurt or how bad. Money was the only
important thing to me. If they were dumb and week, too bad. "survival of
the fittest"! Right. But I was unhappy and suspicious of everyone.
I married had two children, don't know where they are today, my ex wife
was terrified of me, I 6'4" 245 and a short fuze. I would rage at
insignificant things she didn't do. She died while the kids were very
young 6 and 8 years old. I didn't have time, so I didn't take them, so
they were adapted. IOW I was something of a scandal. But by then I had
everything I wanted, but I was extremely unhappy. I attempted suicide
and tried drugs and alcohol and women.
But then I found God - rather he found me. I became a Christian and
determined to never harm anyone ever again. Try to live the life he
wanted for me. For the first time I had a conscience. Thought in terms
of what right or wrong - good or bad. Strange for me. I started giving
to charities and tried to make amends to the people I wronged, if they
were alive, if not - their children. And I've spent a small fortune.
I've tried to find my kids, but as yet I'm unsuccessful.

I don't know the purpose of what follows, so I'm not participating.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:44:47 -0400, in article
<ml84qe$13ct$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Aerion stated..."

Several modern translations recognize that the Hebrew does not have
clear syntax. For example, the New English Bible begins: "In the
beginning of creation, when God made ..." It is easy to find different
translations on line.

There are these problems with the syntax: The word "b'reshith" does not
have a definite article ("the"); it is in the "construct" state, that is,
it is like a genitive phrase "beginning of ..."; the verb "bara" is in
the 3rd person masc. sing. perfect. It is far beyond my elementary
understanding of Hebrew to go beyond what scholars make of the text when
they suggest other than the traditional "In the beginning, God created ..."

In the "Text-Critical Commentary" in the ongoing "The Hebrew Bible: A
Critical Edition" (formerly known as "Oxford Hebrew Bible") (I'm to lazy
to type it all, but here is a sample of the difficulties): "This is
explicable as a linguistic modernization of an archaic grammatical
construction."


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mlanbf$t76$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

> On 6/10/2015 4:28 PM, walksalone wrote:

snip

>>> Yes, but the Massoretic, Hebrew and Aramaic are indecipherable to
>>> me. The JPS and Kaplan both are English and they state: "In the
>>> beginning..."
>>
>> That tells me that you are not a student. Not to worry, few of us
>> are. & that includes myself. However, there are those that can read
>> the ancient languages, & provide us with translations.
> >
> You are exactly right.

The problem, for all of us, is who is the best scholarly literature writer.
My preference is those that follow the evidence & let the truth land where
it will.

>>> Your point?
>>
>> No, it's the point. The point is if you rely on only one source when
>> discussing mythology, you can never win your argument. You see, when
>> you do that, you have no alternative to supporting the POV of that
>> author. Right or wrong. To see how that works,
>> Scribal Culture & the makeing of the Hebrew bible is a decent start.
>> Author
>> Karl van der Troon [IIRC].
>> Or
>> God's problem
>> Bart D Erhman [Again IIRC].
>>
>> snip
> >
> This is Old Testament, which is interesting but it's been surpassed
> by the New Testament.

Erm, no it's not. There is a Hebraic Bible, but old testament, no. The
was claimed by the supporters of the Greek Testaments. Practical reason
though, it leant authority to their writings if they could claim god
supported their fantasy. Bit why there are so few gospels. When the
church got the authority to be the official religion of the Roman Empire,
many a book was rejected. According to one source I've encountered, the
book of Revelation almost didn't make. It damn sight doesn't fit the
loving god image they were trying to pedal. I don't suppose you've read
the Acts of Paul & Thecla? if not, interesting from several aspects. The
Hebrew Bible we have today was formalised by the council of Jamia [Sp] in
the 90 CE time period. & it too excluded many a popular work. Adam & Eve
had a couple of books in there.

snip

>>> You have little or no trust in ancient scholarship. But when
>>> different
>>
>> Wrong guess. I have quite a bit of faith in non fundamentalist
>> scholars. Or those that don't pretend to have the answers to
>> questions that they care about.
> >
> This must characterizes most scholars, otherwise, there would be few
> in any points of agreement.

The thing of it you miss, there is no reason for agreement unless you are
pedaling falsehoods. An agreement reached in spite of the scholars
involved is to be preferred.

snip

>> & that is not involving all that I have read. I doubt you have
>> studied the subject to any depth, most believers, concept immaterial,
>> don't. They stop when they find what they want to believe.
> >
> I haven't and did not care to. I had a very difficult childhood.
> Joined a gang, was in trouble with the police, for stealing, fights
> shop-lifting, reform school, gang activities which I won't go
> into. Never knew my father.

Your's is not that unusual a sad song. But you have left it behind?

> But I managed to finish high school and won a scholarship to
> the local 4 year community college and somehow I managed to graduate.
> After my education, I went into real estate, first selling other
> peoples property, then buying and re-selling properties.
> In time I bought tracks of land, cut it up into lots and made good
> money. Nothing dishonest, right? But I took advantage of peoples
> difficulties, and their trust, I misrepresented properties, I wanted
> to sell, paid small "down-payments" on properties and received their
> deeds with the promise, rarely kept, to pay in full. Paid off
> officials to look away.

IOW, you followed society's lead. No shock there. Yet you appear to be
less than thrilled about your past conduct. Good show that man.

> I wasn't raised Christian, never really gave religion or God any
> thought. I don't think I was an atheist, didn't care - wasn't
> important - just didn't think about it.

The phrase is apatheist. Just don't care.

> Making money, no matter who I hurt or how bad. Money was the only
> important thing to me. If they were dumb and week, too bad. "survival
> of the fittest"! Right. But I was unhappy and suspicious of everyone.
> I married had two children, don't know where they are today, my ex
> wife was terrified of me, I 6'4" 245 and a short fuze. I would rage at
> insignificant things she didn't do. She died while the kids were very
> young 6 and 8 years old. I didn't have time, so I didn't take them, so
> they were adapted. IOW I was something of a scandal. But by then I had
> everything I wanted, but I was extremely unhappy. I attempted suicide
> and tried drugs and alcohol and women.

A set that is not unique to you.

> But then I found God - rather he found me. I became a Christian and
> determined to never harm anyone ever again. Try to live the life he
> wanted for me. For the first time I had a conscience. Thought in terms
> of what right or wrong - good or bad. Strange for me. I started giving
> to charities and tried to make amends to the people I wronged, if they
> were alive, if not - their children. And I've spent a small fortune.
> I've tried to find my kids, but as yet I'm unsuccessful.

No, you have found the substitute for yourself. others have paralleled
your journey, & cleaned up their act. BTW, your conversion story is not
untypical. Never needed it myself. My brief, Military brat 50's-61.
Military 61-81. Three years in Viet Nam, thank you President Eisenhower.
Military GED 61.

So I was paid to cause murder & mayhem for twenty years. Still being paid
for having done it. No guilt involved. Like you, it was just another day
at the office. Unlike you, I haven't allowed the bleaters to lay their
guilt trip on me. So my need for a god that never existed, according to
the history on the ground, or the need for a god story based on lies, is
non existent. & of course, YMWV. & yes, I've yet to encounter any
organised religion that is not based on lies & deception. Such as the
revealed gods of the desert being loving gods. Looked around lately? Not
very closely if you have.

> I don't know the purpose of what follows, so I'm not participating.

You were the one that started that journey. The only ones in this
conversation are you & me.

>>> scholars translate from whatever different ancient sources they
>>> used: which became different pathways, yet, they arrive at the same
>>> message:
>>
>> Do they, I can recall reading passages that disagree with you.
>> Neither you nor those passages appear to be worth the effort to look
>> up. But the Hebrew Bible as well as the Greek Testaments are loaded,
>> for starters, with contradictions. Not to good for the word of any
>> god.

snip, desprately needed.

walksalone who has seen enough to make him despair of humanity, yet there
are things like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOKOSV3uM8Y singings fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWRag1QKwTA

more at youtube.com ,yuk. using search phrase solider surprises.



Baptist/Republican Dictionary.

Activist -- Anyone you disagree with. Thus, "activist" judges,
"activist" unions, "activist" school boards, and "activist"
homosexuals.

Agenda -- All political objectives you oppose. Democrats, liberals,
feminists, gays, environmentalists have "agendas." Right-wing
politicians have "hopes" and "dreams" and "Godly plans of action."

Boycott -- God's preferred method of social change. If the targeted
organization capitulates to a boycott, it is proof of "the power of
God to change hearts." However, if a boycott is unsuccessful, it
proves the organization being boycotted is "hardened" and "in the
grip of the Devil."

Broken families -- Refers only to divorce and applies to ALL divorces.
Families are never "broken" or "shattered" by bad marriages,
domestic violence, child abuse, incest or molestation.

Career -- The greatest deception ever perpetrated upon women by
"radical feminists" and one of the primary causes for The Breakdown
Of The Family. Careers for women are "destructive" and
"unfulfilling" compared to full-time child-rearing and home
education. Women who attempt to balance family and career are seen
as "shirking their God-given responsibility" and are responsible
for creating another "generation without values."

Civil rights -- The concept of equal legal rights; applies to everyone
except gay and lesbian Americans for whom equal rights become
"special" rights.

Deception -- Term describing the state of being a fellow Christian is
in if they disagree with you on a social or theological issue. For
example, if another Christian holds views that are pro-choice,
pro-gay rights, or anti-death penalty, then they are "deceived."
If the same Christian makes a logical, reasoned argument for their
position, then they are "misled." If the same Christian also makes
a ScripturaL argument for their position, then they are "false
teachers," "rebellious," and guilty of "twisting the Word." See
"Liberal."

Death Penalty -- A form of punishment not used often enough. Most
right-wing Christians long for the day when this is implemented
against gays and lesbians. (See "Compassion.") The only time the
death penalty is not considered "God's mighty judgment" is when a
death row inmate has become a born-again Christian. Then, the
death penalty is "unnecessary" and seen as an "impediment to
further ministry" by the inmate slated for execution.

Disney -- The main force behind The Collapse of Traditional Moral
Values, and one of society's greatest threats to The Family,
second only to gays and lesbians. Responsible for creating and
popularizing the idea of domestic partner benefits.

Domestic partner benefits -- Given by most progressive businesses and
large corporations years before Disney offered them. Seen as a
sign of "collapsing moral values" and as one of the largest
threats to The Family. Main impetus for mplementing The Boycott,
but only against certain companies. See "Disney."

The Family -- Unit of: heterosexual male head of household married
for life to heterosexual female homemaker, with biological
homeschooled children concieved without birth control at least
nine months after marriage in conservative Bible-believing
church. No exceptions.

Feminist -- Term (derogatory) for women not sufficiently submissive.
Responsible for: neglected children, teenage pregnancy,
unemployed males, poor SAT scores, breakdown of The Family.

Gay/Lesbian -- Homosexual is the preferred term, as it focuses more
explicitly on sex. With feminists and liberals, responsible for
nearly all social ills (with the possible exception of abortion).

Gay Christians -- Not possible. Those that claim to exist are
"trapped" in a state of Deception, and are first in line for the
Lake of Fire because they "twist God's Word." To save them,
right-wing Christians must exercise "compassion" and tell them
that God wants to kill them.

God -- See "Republican".

Hate Crimes -- Do not exist. Just another lie from "militant radical
homosexual activists."

Heterosexuals --- Never used. Assumed to be everyone on earth,
except for tiny number of "militant radical homosexual activists".

Hollywood -- The source of all evil in Western Civilization.
Controlled either by Disney, feminists, liberals, and "militant
radical homosexual activists" or Time/Warner when a new rap album
is released. Also known as "Mystery Babylon" and "the pit of
Hell."

Homosexuals -- Tiny minority of "militant radical activists" seeking
special rights, hiring quotas and the destruction of The Family.
Recent phenomena signalling The End Is Near.

Judicial system -- Varying definitions. When ruling against you,
the courts are a sneaky way of subverting the "will of the
people". Otherwise, a perfectly acceptable way of enforcing
God's Will.

Materialism -- Does not exist; therefore, not an issue. Massive
personal wealth among leaders of organizations you support is
further evidence of "God's favor."

Media -- No such thing. Always "liberal, secular, biased media".
Responsible for teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, sexual
addictions, earthquakes, and the breakdown of The Family.

Militant -- Never applied to political positions you agree with.
Militant pro-lifers, militant pro-family-ists, and militant
Christians are a contradiction in terms.

Persecution -- Suffered if your position on an issue is actively
opposed. Examples of "persecution" include investigative
journalistic reporting, any lawsuit filed against a church
organization by the ACLU, or being yelled at by people you
have harrassed by fax or phone or misrepresented in your
fund-raising materials.

Physician -- Any doctor, except those who perform abortions.
Physicians who perform abortions are "abortionists". See
"baby-killer".

Radical -- Applied to anyone who disagrees with you. Thus,
"radical" homosexuals, "radical" feminists, "radical"
environmentalists. Right-wing Christians are not radical,
they are "committed" and "focused".

Republican -- See "God".

Social engineering (syn. social experimentation) -- Term for the
"activist agendas" of political opponents. Opposite is the
"natural God-given plan" as defined only by right-wing
Christians.

"Special" rights -- Applied only to gay and lesbian Americans.
Refers to marriage, adoption and other rights automatically
granted to heterosexuals.

Supreme Court -- "Activist" when ruling against you. But "evidence
of the mighty hand of God" when ruling in your favor or when
Clarence Thomas is admitted to the bench.

Supreme Court appointments -- Varying definitions. A presidential
right, if president is Republican. Called "stacking the court"
if president is Democrat.

Ten Percent -- A lie about the percentage of the population that
is gay or lesbian popularized by "militant radical homosexual
activists", when in fact Right-wing Christian organizations
have "proven" the figure is closer to one percent. How one
percent of the population is responsible for The Destruction Of
The Family is never clearly explained. See "Avoiding Difficult
Questions."

"Will of the people" -- Used only when the public votes your way.
Acceptable method of denying constitutional rights of
minorities. Never used when public opinion is against you
(i.e. abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, etc.).

Women -- See "wives", "mothers", or "homemakers". No other
definition available.

[Aerion]

On 6/11/2015 3:23 AM, walksalone wrote:
> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:mlanbf$t76$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>
>> On 6/10/2015 4:28 PM, walksalone wrote:

Got behind in my work had to catch up.

>
> snip
>
>>>> Yes, but the Massoretic, Hebrew and Aramaic are indecipherable to
>>>> me. The JPS and Kaplan both are English and they state: "In the
>>>> beginning..."
>>>
>>> That tells me that you are not a student. Not to worry, few of us
>>> are. & that includes myself. However, there are those that can read
>>> the ancient languages, & provide us with translations.
>>>
>> You are exactly right.
>
> The problem, for all of us, is who is the best scholarly literature writer.
> My preference is those that follow the evidence & let the truth land where
> it will.
>

THat's the ideal.

>
>>>> Your point?
>>>
>>> No, it's the point. The point is if you rely on only one source when
>>> discussing mythology, you can never win your argument. You see, when
>>> you do that, you have no alternative to supporting the POV of that
>>> author. Right or wrong. To see how that works,
>>> Scribal Culture & the makeing of the Hebrew bible is a decent start.
>>> Author
>>> Karl van der Troon [IIRC].
>>> Or
>>> God's problem
>>> Bart D Erhman [Again IIRC].
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>> This is Old Testament, which is interesting but it's been surpassed
>> by the New Testament.
>
> Erm, no it's not.
>

Yes, it has but only for the Christian that accepts Christ.
The Old Covenant was in the Old Testament. Which was the law
and the prophets. The New Covenant/New Testament is of one
of grace, not of law.

True, but then I had no concern about what's right or wrong.

>
>> But I managed to finish high school and won a scholarship to
>> the local 4 year community college and somehow I managed to graduate.
>> After my education, I went into real estate, first selling other
>> peoples property, then buying and re-selling properties.
>> In time I bought tracks of land, cut it up into lots and made good
>> money. Nothing dishonest, right? But I took advantage of peoples
>> difficulties, and their trust, I misrepresented properties, I wanted
>> to sell, paid small "down-payments" on properties and received their
>> deeds with the promise, rarely kept, to pay in full. Paid off
>> officials to look away.
>
> IOW, you followed society's lead. No shock there. Yet you appear to be
> less than thrilled about your past conduct. Good show that man.
>

I can understand, now why my past conduct was wrong. Right and wrong
were just words to me then.

>
>> I wasn't raised Christian, never really gave religion or God any
>> thought. I don't think I was an atheist, didn't care - wasn't
>> important - just didn't think about it.
>
> The phrase is apatheist. Just don't care.
>

Yes, unfortunately, that applies to many people today.

>
>> Making money, no matter who I hurt or how bad. Money was the only
>> important thing to me. If they were dumb and week, too bad. "survival
>> of the fittest"! Right. But I was unhappy and suspicious of everyone.
>> I married had two children, don't know where they are today, my ex
>> wife was terrified of me, I 6'4" 245 and a short fuze. I would rage at
>> insignificant things she didn't do. She died while the kids were very
>> young 6 and 8 years old. I didn't have time, so I didn't take them, so
>> they were adapted. IOW I was something of a scandal. But by then I had
>> everything I wanted, but I was extremely unhappy. I attempted suicide
>> and tried drugs and alcohol and women.
>
> A set that is not unique to you.
>
>> But then I found God - rather he found me. I became a Christian and
>> determined to never harm anyone ever again. Try to live the life he
>> wanted for me. For the first time I had a conscience. Thought in terms
>> of what right or wrong - good or bad. Strange for me. I started giving
>> to charities and tried to make amends to the people I wronged, if they
>> were alive, if not - their children. And I've spent a small fortune.
>> I've tried to find my kids, but as yet I'm unsuccessful.
>
> No, you have found the substitute for yourself.
>

No, I think you are being cynical here.

others have paralleled
> your journey, & cleaned up their act. BTW, your conversion story is not
> untypical. Never needed it myself. My brief, Military brat 50's-61.
> Military 61-81. Three years in Viet Nam, thank you President Eisenhower.
> Military GED 61.
>

I was cynical, even resentful of people like I've become. I think you
still are.

>
> So I was paid to cause murder & mayhem for twenty years. Still being paid
> for having done it. No guilt involved. Like you, it was just another day
> at the office. Unlike you, I haven't allowed the bleaters to lay their
> guilt trip on me. So my need for a god that never existed, according to
> the history on the ground, or the need for a god story based on lies, is
> non existent. & of course, YMWV. & yes, I've yet to encounter any
> organised religion that is not based on lies & deception. Such as the
> revealed gods of the desert being loving gods. Looked around lately? Not
> very closely if you have.
>

I don't think of God as acting in such a narrow, confined sense. This is
micro-managing. I don't believe God is involved to the extent that
you portray. I don't see God as involvement with day to day human
activities.

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mli48p$2q6g$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

> On 6/11/2015 3:23 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

snip

> Got behind in my work had to catch up.

<SEAG>So, claiminhg to be human you are?<?SEAG>

>>>> snip
>>>>
>>> This is Old Testament, which is interesting but it's been surpassed
>>> by the New Testament.
>>
>> Erm, no it's not.
> >
> Yes, it has but only for the Christian that accepts Christ.

Sorry, until the Council of Nicea, Jesus ben Joseph was not considered
divine by xianity at large. AAMOF, the Council was called so settle the
dogma once & for all. & if you read the early church fathers, say-2nd
Cen, CE, you find divinity was not even considered. It took one hell of
a fight among xians to replace the jesus of Saul. But that's history as
verified by scholars. All of modern xianity started there, & went
downhill. Er, you do realise that Protestant xianity is Catholicism
lite, don't you?

> The Old Covenant was in the Old Testament. Which was the law
> and the prophets. The New Covenant/New Testament is of one
> of grace, not of law.

Chapter & verse is required by those that don't accept a historical Jesus
ben Joseph. Now I'll give you there were many a male named Jesus in the
1st. Cen. CE. Either the first or second most popular name for males.
Joseph was the other one. & if you were to guess the girls had odds of
being named Mary, you would be right.
Nowhere in the Greek Testaments, to include to texts left out, does
yahweh say a new content is now in place. Humans & the council of Nicea
made that claim. Even with humans claiming to speak for any god, that is
a problem. Lacka evidence that they are telling the truth.

snip

>>>> & that is not involving all that I have read. I doubt you have
>>>> studied the subject to any depth, most believers, concept
>>>> immaterial, don't. They stop when they find what they want to
>>>> believe.
>>>>
>>> I haven't and did not care to. I had a very difficult childhood.
>>> Joined a gang, was in trouble with the police, for stealing, fights
>>> shop-lifting, reform school, gang activities which I won't go
>>> into. Never knew my father.
>>
>> Your's is not that unusual a sad song. But you have left it behind?
> >
> True, but then I had no concern about what's right or wrong.

You likely did, just not a strong concern. Most people do when they find
out it's easier to get along with others if they display that sense.

>>> But I managed to finish high school and won a scholarship to
>>> the local 4 year community college and somehow I managed to
>>> graduate.
>>> After my education, I went into real estate, first selling other
>>> peoples property, then buying and re-selling properties.
>>> In time I bought tracks of land, cut it up into lots and made good
>>> money. Nothing dishonest, right? But I took advantage of peoples
>>> difficulties, and their trust, I misrepresented properties, I wanted
>>> to sell, paid small "down-payments" on properties and received their
>>> deeds with the promise, rarely kept, to pay in full. Paid off
>>> officials to look away.
>>
>> IOW, you followed society's lead. No shock there. Yet you appear to
>> be less than thrilled about your past conduct. Good show that man.
> >
> I can understand, now why my past conduct was wrong. Right and wrong
> were just words to me then.

So you say. I suspect otherwise. But like you, I know not the person I
am conversing with, & therefore can only come up with a WAG as to how you
conducted yourself. Let alone why.

>>> I wasn't raised Christian, never really gave religion or God any
>>> thought. I don't think I was an atheist, didn't care - wasn't
>>> important - just didn't think about it.
>>
>> The phrase is apatheist. Just don't care.
> >
> Yes, unfortunately, that applies to many people today.

If they are, do you think it could be yahweh's fault. Or the missing
Jesus the Christ?


snip

>>> But then I found God - rather he found me. I became a Christian
>>> and
>>> determined to never harm anyone ever again. Try to live the life he
>>> wanted for me. For the first time I had a conscience. Thought in
>>> terms of what right or wrong - good or bad. Strange for me. I
>>> started giving to charities and tried to make amends to the people I
>>> wronged, if they were alive, if not - their children. And I've spent
>>> a small fortune. I've tried to find my kids, but as yet I'm
>>> unsuccessful.
>>
>> No, you have found the substitute for yourself.
> >
> No, I think you are being cynical here.

I almost wish I was. You see, it has taken me a long time to understand
who I am. It's not germane to this conversation but aspects are.
One of my personal problems, I can't lie to myself. That is so strong,
I've been known to ask people if they wanted the answer to the question
they just asked. The wiser ones say no. the foolish blame me for what
they got, that they asked for.
& that's one of minor problems. Gets interesting when bleaters try &
tell me they know there are gods, yet they can never provide evidence.
Logical fallacy's now, that they can & do provide. OTOH, evidence is
always missing.

> others have paralleled
>> your journey, & cleaned up their act. BTW, your conversion story is
>> not untypical. Never needed it myself. My brief, Military brat
>> 50's-61. Military 61-81. Three years in Viet Nam, thank you
>> President Eisenhower. Military GED 61.

> I was cynical, even resentful of people like I've become. I think you
> still are.

I have an unfair advantage, until you provide me a reason, I have no need
to be cynical. But cynical I can be. Say, have you met Bumba?
Interesting persona.

>> So I was paid to cause murder & mayhem for twenty years. Still being
>> paid for having done it. No guilt involved. Like you, it was just
>> another day at the office. Unlike you, I haven't allowed the
>> bleaters to lay their guilt trip on me. So my need for a god that
>> never existed, according to the history on the ground, or the need
>> for a god story based on lies, is non existent. & of course, YMWV.
>> & yes, I've yet to encounter any organised religion that is not based
>> on lies & deception. Such as the revealed gods of the desert being
>> loving gods. Looked around lately? Not very closely if you have.
>>
> I don't think of God as acting in such a narrow, confined sense. This
> is micro-managing. I don't believe God is involved to the extent that
> you portray. I don't see God as involvement with day to day human
> activities.

According to the books, that is exactly what it does. & trying to
replace yahweh with Jesus the Christ is just another attempt to get
around the problem the writers of the Hebrew Bible wrote for themselves.
look, we have a new god. No, not according to the Hebrew Bible you
don't. You have a failed messiah.

>>> I don't know the purpose of what follows, so I'm not participating.

The purpose, twofold at a minimum. Conversation & information.

>> You were the one that started that journey. The only ones in this
>> conversation are you & me.
>>
>>>>> scholars translate from whatever different ancient sources they
>>>>> used: which became different pathways, yet, they arrive at the
>>>>> same message:
>>>>
>>>> Do they, I can recall reading passages that disagree with you.
>>>> Neither you nor those passages appear to be worth the effort to
>>>> look up. But the Hebrew Bible as well as the Greek Testaments are
>>>> loaded, for starters, with contradictions. Not to good for the
>>>> word of any god.

snip

BTW, should you have a hard time finding texts to support your new
beliefs, let me know if you have a title or author. I have given quite a
few apologetic works away to those that need or want them. Granted, the
net is not the easiest way & I prefer to give URL's. But sometimes
that's not enough.

walksalone who has to grin when he is accused of being a cynic where
religion is concerned. hell, I'm a cynic where politicians are involved
as well.


Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to
be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
[Isaac Asimov]

[Aerion]

On 6/13/2015 7:25 PM, walksalone wrote:
> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:mli48p$2q6g$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
>
>> On 6/11/2015 3:23 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> snip
>
>> Got behind in my work had to catch up.
>
>
> <SEAG>So, claiminhg to be human you are?<?SEAG>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>> This is Old Testament, which is interesting but it's been surpassed
>>>> by the New Testament.
>>>
>>> Erm, no it's not.
>>>
>> Yes, it has but only for the Christian that accepts Christ.
>
> Sorry, until the Council of Nicea, Jesus ben Joseph was not considered
> divine by xianity at large. AAMOF, the Council was called so settle the
> dogma once & for all. & if you read the early church fathers, say-2nd
> Cen, CE, you find divinity was not even considered. It took one hell of
> a fight among xians to replace the jesus of Saul. But that's history as
> verified by scholars. All of modern xianity started there, & went
> downhill. Er, you do realise that Protestant xianity is Catholicism
> lite, don't you?
>

I know protestantism came out of the R. Catholic Church. And they share
most doctrine and beliefs.

>
>> The Old Covenant was in the Old Testament. Which was the law
>> and the prophets. The New Covenant/New Testament is of one
>> of grace, not of law.
>
> Chapter & verse is required by those that don't accept a historical Jesus
> ben Joseph. Now I'll give you there were many a male named Jesus in the
> 1st. Cen. CE. Either the first or second most popular name for males.
> Joseph was the other one. & if you were to guess the girls had odds of
> being named Mary, you would be right.
> Nowhere in the Greek Testaments, to include to texts left out, does
> yahweh say a new content is now in place. Humans & the council of Nicea
> made that claim. Even with humans claiming to speak for any god, that is
> a problem. Lacka evidence that they are telling the truth.
>

All I can say is the BIble - namely the New Testament is the standard
by which I try to live.
> snip

>>
>>>
>> True, but then I had no concern about what's right or wrong.
>
> You likely did, just not a strong concern. Most people do when they find
> out it's easier to get along with others if they display that sense.
>

I think the effect of societies in which one lives has an influence
behavior. In certain societies your statement might have been true, but
when you consider the people I "hung" around with, no the question of
right and wrong just didn't come to mind.

>
>>>> But I managed to finish high school and won a scholarship to
>>>> the local 4 year community college and somehow I managed to
>>>> graduate.
>>>> After my education, I went into real estate, first selling other
>>>> peoples property, then buying and re-selling properties.
>>>> In time I bought tracks of land, cut it up into lots and made good
>>>> money. Nothing dishonest, right? But I took advantage of peoples
>>>> difficulties, and their trust, I misrepresented properties, I wanted
>>>> to sell, paid small "down-payments" on properties and received their
>>>> deeds with the promise, rarely kept, to pay in full. Paid off
>>>> officials to look away.
>>>
>>> IOW, you followed society's lead. No shock there. Yet you appear to
>>> be less than thrilled about your past conduct. Good show that man.
>>>
>> I can understand, now why my past conduct was wrong. Right and wrong
>> were just words to me then.
>
> So you say. I suspect otherwise. But like you, I know not the person I
> am conversing with, & therefore can only come up with a WAG as to how you
> conducted yourself. Let alone why.
>

Fair enough. But I have no reason to misrepresent myself.

I disagree! No one _knows_. Religion is a matter of _faith_ not
knowledge. So, who ever told you they _know_ is just professing a
strong faith. But in reality they don't know.

yet they can never provide evidence.
> Logical fallacy's now, that they can & do provide. OTOH, evidence is
> always missing.
>

Well it depends. Observable, testable, repeatable empirical evidence is
not available. But I accept that. However, I look around and I see
design, organization, structure and purpose in so many things. Frankly,
I have difficulty in crediting unplanned, random chance actions as the
cause. Is this scientific - no! But it doesn't have to be. I think
the odds would favor deliberate planning.

>> others have paralleled
>>> your journey, & cleaned up their act. BTW, your conversion story is
>>> not untypical. Never needed it myself. My brief, Military brat
>>> 50's-61. Military 61-81. Three years in Viet Nam, thank you
>>> President Eisenhower. Military GED 61.
>
>> I was cynical, even resentful of people like I've become. I think you
>> still are.
>
>
> I have an unfair advantage, until you provide me a reason, I have no need
> to be cynical. But cynical I can be. Say, have you met Bumba?
> Interesting persona.
>

Maybe, your not, but from your response to me, you come across, to me,
as a bitter cynical person. I sure you don't mean to. And if
I wrong - I sincerely apologize.

>
>>> So I was paid to cause murder & mayhem for twenty years. Still being
>>> paid for having done it. No guilt involved. Like you, it was just
>>> another day at the office. Unlike you, I haven't allowed the
>>> bleaters to lay their guilt trip on me. So my need for a god that
>>> never existed, according to the history on the ground, or the need
>>> for a god story based on lies, is non existent. & of course, YMWV.
>>> & yes, I've yet to encounter any organised religion that is not based
>>> on lies & deception. Such as the revealed gods of the desert being
>>> loving gods. Looked around lately? Not very closely if you have.
>>>
>> I don't think of God as acting in such a narrow, confined sense. This
>> is micro-managing. I don't believe God is involved to the extent that
>> you portray. I don't see God as involvement with day to day human
>> activities.
>
> According to the books, that is exactly what it does. & trying to
> replace yahweh with Jesus the Christ is just another attempt to get
> around the problem the writers of the Hebrew Bible wrote for themselves.
> look, we have a new god. No, not according to the Hebrew Bible you
> don't. You have a failed messiah.
>

I'm not Jewish, so the Hebrew Bible, with the laws and ordinances are
not part of the new covenant. And I have a part in this new covenant
with God.

>
>>>> I don't know the purpose of what follows, so I'm not participating.
>
> The purpose, twofold at a minimum. Conversation & information.
>
>>> You were the one that started that journey. The only ones in this
>>> conversation are you & me.
>>>
>>>>>> scholars translate from whatever different ancient sources they
>>>>>> used: which became different pathways, yet, they arrive at the
>>>>>> same message:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do they, I can recall reading passages that disagree with you.
>>>>> Neither you nor those passages appear to be worth the effort to
>>>>> look up. But the Hebrew Bible as well as the Greek Testaments are
>>>>> loaded, for starters, with contradictions. Not to good for the
>>>>> word of any god.
>
> snip
>
> BTW, should you have a hard time finding texts to support your new
> beliefs, let me know if you have a title or author. I have given quite a
> few apologetic works away to those that need or want them. Granted, the
> net is not the easiest way & I prefer to give URL's. But sometimes
> that's not enough.
>
> walksalone who has to grin when he is accused of being a cynic where
> religion is concerned. hell, I'm a cynic where politicians are involved
> as well.
>
>
> Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to
> be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
> [Isaac Asimov]
>

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mliq4u$f0u$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

> On 6/13/2015 7:25 PM, walksalone wrote:
>> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

Snip

>>>>> This is Old Testament, which is interesting but it's been
>>>>> surpassed by the New Testament.
>>>>
>>>> Erm, no it's not.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it has but only for the Christian that accepts Christ.
>>
>> Sorry, until the Council of Nicea, Jesus ben Joseph was not
>> considered divine by xianity at large. AAMOF, the Council was called
>> so settle the dogma once & for all. & if you read the early church
>> fathers, say-2nd Cen, CE, you find divinity was not even considered.
>> It took one hell of a fight among xians to replace the jesus of Saul.
>> But that's history as verified by scholars. All of modern xianity
>> started there, & went downhill. Er, you do realise that Protestant
>> xianity is Catholicism lite, don't you?
>>
> I know protestantism came out of the R. Catholic Church. And they
> share most doctrine and beliefs.

It goes deeper than that, but for conversational purposes, that's good
enough.

>>> The Old Covenant was in the Old Testament. Which was the law
>>> and the prophets. The New Covenant/New Testament is of one
>>> of grace, not of law.
>>
>> Chapter & verse is required by those that don't accept a historical
>> Jesus ben Joseph. Now I'll give you there were many a male named
>> Jesus in the 1st. Cen. CE. Either the first or second most popular
>> name for males. Joseph was the other one. & if you were to guess the
>> girls had odds of being named Mary, you would be right.
>> Nowhere in the Greek Testaments, to include to texts left out, does
>> yahweh say a new content is now in place. Humans & the council of
>> Nicea made that claim. Even with humans claiming to speak for any
>> god, that is a problem. Lacka evidence that they are telling the
>> truth.
> >
> All I can say is the BIble - namely the New Testament is the standard
> by which I try to live.

If all you need is a philosophy to live by, then you might read up on the
eastern religions. More philosophy than religion. & generally speaking,
their gods don't demand sacrifice & worship. Bit like an old Chinese
writing in a temple. Treat the gods as if they were there. Given the
times & society, not a bad idea.

Now as to moral standards, I could never confine myself to those lack of
moral standards. You see, I've read the books, studied up some on the
society's involved, & came to a conclusion that you will not accept for
yourself.
1: if there is a god as claimed by the priesthood of archaic Judea, it
needs to be hunted down & killed.
2: If there is a god as claimed by the Greek Testaments, where is it?
Remember, Judaism is monotheistic. What that means is no manifestations,
no substitute, just one god.
The godhead, it's Greek in origin.
The Holy spirit, not the ruah of the Hebrew Text. Therefore Greek in
origin.
Side note, Greek is the primary language for all early xian writings,
including the holy books. Koni Greek was also the lingua franca of the
region & times.


What xians have is a Greek Version of the Hebrew God as a
dieing/resurrecting god. A concept that is totally alien to the Judaic
mythos.

>>> True, but then I had no concern about what's right or wrong.
>>
>> You likely did, just not a strong concern. Most people do when they
>> find out it's easier to get along with others if they display that
>> sense.
> >
> I think the effect of societies in which one lives has an influence
> behavior. In certain societies your statement might have been true,
> but when you consider the people I "hung" around with, no the
> question of right and wrong just didn't come to mind.

It certainly does, but you decided, eventually, you didn't want to live
like that. You used xianity, in this case, as an escape route. It has
been said, & I can't argue against it, that religion is no more or less
than trading one addiction for another. I've seen a few cases where that
was obvious. Now if that swap helped you feel you became a better person,
good on you. But if that swap turned you into a typical usenet droll, then
you really haven't changed at all. So far, in your case, I've yet to make
a decision.

snip

>>> I can understand, now why my past conduct was wrong. Right and wrong
>>> were just words to me then.
>>
>> So you say. I suspect otherwise. But like you, I know not the
>> person I am conversing with, & therefore can only come up with a WAG
>> as to how you conducted yourself. Let alone why.
>>
> Fair enough. But I have no reason to misrepresent myself.

People frequently misrepresent themselves to themselves. Part of being
human I suspect.

>>>>> I wasn't raised Christian, never really gave religion or God
>>>>> any
>>>>> thought. I don't think I was an atheist, didn't care - wasn't
>>>>> important - just didn't think about it.
>>>>
>>>> The phrase is apatheist. Just don't care.
>>>>
>>> Yes, unfortunately, that applies to many people today.
>>
>> If they are, do you think it could be yahweh's fault. Or the missing
>> Jesus the Christ?

No response, or you don't have one. Either way works. This is usenet
after all.

>>>>> But then I found God - rather he found me. I became a
>>>>> Christian and
>>>>> determined to never harm anyone ever again. Try to live the life
>>>>> he wanted for me. For the first time I had a conscience. Thought
>>>>> in terms of what right or wrong - good or bad. Strange for me. I
>>>>> started giving to charities and tried to make amends to the people
>>>>> I wronged, if they were alive, if not - their children. And I've
>>>>> spent a small fortune. I've tried to find my kids, but as yet I'm
>>>>> unsuccessful.
>>>>
>>>> No, you have found the substitute for yourself.
>>>>
>>> No, I think you are being cynical here.
>>
>> I almost wish I was. You see, it has taken me a long time to
>> understand who I am. It's not germane to this conversation but
>> aspects are. One of my personal problems, I can't lie to myself.
>> That is so strong, I've been known to ask people if they wanted the
>> answer to the question they just asked. The wiser ones say no. the
>> foolish blame me for what they got, that they asked for.
>> & that's one of minor problems. Gets interesting when bleaters try &
>> tell me they know there are gods,


> I disagree! No one _knows_. Religion is a matter of _faith_ not
> knowledge. So, who ever told you they _know_ is just professing a
> strong faith. But in reality they don't know.

What, the worn out no evidence is not proof of lack? Really now, I had
hoped not to encounter that. Evidence is a two way street. When it should
be there, as in the case of the gods of humanity, & it isn't, then you can
presume there is all smoke & no fire. When evidence should be there, it
is. Building burnt down, there's evidence. A killing, there is evidence.
The problem the gods have in this case is the priesthood's have been trying
to cover their tracks for century's, but people are gaining access to more
knowledge & information as time goes on. Why else would religious fanatics
be anti-science? no reason other than their gods can't pass the Turing
test. This does not mean that people are stupid for believing, or should
give up their beliefs. Some just aren't strong enough, & others derive
comfort from their beliefs. As long as they are not pushing it, there is
no harm done. Other than maybe to themselves.
& you may have noticed, there are those that have to be right, no matter
what. So yes, there will always be those that know the gods exist. Just
as there are those that can't accept the 20000+ gods of humanity.

> yet they can never provide evidence.
>> Logical fallacy's now, that they can & do provide. OTOH, evidence
>> is always missing.

> Well it depends. Observable, testable, repeatable empirical evidence

No it doesn't. Bit like that Yoda quote, there is no try, there is only do
or not do. What you are engaging in is referred to as apologetics.
Basically making excuses as to why, in this case, gods are not to be held
up to scrutiny & tested. One thing I like about science, it deals in the
real world only. Have a pet Leprechaun, science won't help you prove it.
it doesn't deal in, for lack of a better phrase, make believe.

> is not available. But I accept that. However, I look around and I see
> design, organization, structure and purpose in so many things.
> Frankly, I have difficulty in crediting unplanned, random chance
> actions as the cause. Is this scientific - no! But it doesn't have to
> be. I think the odds would favor deliberate planning.

What you see does have the appearance of forethought & design, until you do
your home work
Just take the planet earth. What do we know about it.
Well it's about 4.5MY old. That's a very long time.
We know that originally there was no life, or at least, not life as we know
& identify it.
We know that the first conditions on earth were not life sustaining. Bit
hard to get life with all that lava flowing around & the meteor/asteroid
bombardments. We also know the original atmosphere would not support life
as we know it.
So, how did we get here? Damn good question, & not one many really want
the answer. We, as ell as life, have every appearance of being an
accident. Ask some of the others who are more qualified about the cyan-
bacteria[?] & how they committed suicide, & never forget the time involved.
It is not like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoqSas2uFKw

Fortunately, there sources of information available. At local library's if
need be.

snip

>> I have an unfair advantage, until you provide me a reason, I have no
>> need to be cynical. But cynical I can be. Say, have you met Bumba?
>> Interesting persona.
> >
> Maybe, your not, but from your response to me, you come across, to me,
> as a bitter cynical person. I sure you don't mean to. And if
> I wrong - I sincerely apologize.

Accepted, & as they say elsewhere, no worries mate.


snip

>> According to the books, that is exactly what it does. & trying to
>> replace yahweh with Jesus the Christ is just another attempt to get
>> around the problem the writers of the Hebrew Bible wrote for
>> themselves. look, we have a new god. No, not according to the Hebrew
>> Bible you don't. You have a failed messiah.
>>
> I'm not Jewish, so the Hebrew Bible, with the laws and ordinances are
> not part of the new covenant. And I have a part in this new covenant
> with God.

<SEAG> Standard xian apologetic. The Hebrew Bible is the foundation &
authority for the Greek Testaments. Without it, there can be no Greek
texts, Now an oddity as it were. once their god has spoken, it is binding
on all that follow his priests lead. That includes xians for they pretend
their is an old testament. </SEAG>


snip

walksalone who has the time, but does he have the patience to find out, is
the OP here for conversation, or does it have a hook out. If the hook is
out, at least it is civil. & that is not a bad thing.


Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Author unkown to me.

[Aerion]

Not true! I did not need an escape route. Giving up the old familiar
way of life did not come easy. I had to fight against sliding back
into my old habits and familiar ways. Change was not easy.

>
It has
> been said, & I can't argue against it, that religion is no more or less
> than trading one addiction for another. I've seen a few cases where that
> was obvious. Now if that swap helped you feel you became a better person,
> good on you. But if that swap turned you into a typical usenet droll, then
> you really haven't changed at all. So far, in your case, I've yet to make
> a decision.
>

I'm not entirely new to the newsgroups years ago I participated for a
short time. In fact, I will be dropping out of this discussion very
soon. I have other things that demand my attention.

>
> snip
>
>>>> I can understand, now why my past conduct was wrong. Right and wrong
>>>> were just words to me then.
>>>
>>> So you say. I suspect otherwise. But like you, I know not the
>>> person I am conversing with, & therefore can only come up with a WAG
>>> as to how you conducted yourself. Let alone why.
>>>
>> Fair enough. But I have no reason to misrepresent myself.
>
> People frequently misrepresent themselves to themselves. Part of being
> human I suspect.
>

You've pegged me wrong almost from the start. So, I appreciate you
taking part in this discussion, but I see no purpose in continuing
so, I dropping out.

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

snip

>> It certainly does, but you decided, eventually, you didn't want to
>> live like that. You used xianity, in this case, as an escape route.
> >
> Not true! I did not need an escape route. Giving up the old familiar
> way of life did not come easy. I had to fight against sliding back
> into my old habits and familiar ways. Change was not easy.

We all make decisions that we don't think we would ever make. But that
is not important. What is important is you were not happy with the way
you were living, & for reasons that make good sense to you, changed it &
gave the credit elsewhere.

> It has
>> been said, & I can't argue against it, that religion is no more or
>> less than trading one addiction for another. I've seen a few cases
>> where that was obvious. Now if that swap helped you feel you became
>> a better person, good on you. But if that swap turned you into a
>> typical usenet droll, then you really haven't changed at all. So
>> far, in your case, I've yet to make a decision.
> >
> I'm not entirely new to the newsgroups years ago I participated for a
> short time. In fact, I will be dropping out of this discussion very
> soon. I have other things that demand my attention.

Don't we all. Well, no, not everyone or there would be no trolls on any
newsgroup.

>>>>> I can understand, now why my past conduct was wrong. Right and
>>>>> wrong were just words to me then.

>>>> So you say. I suspect otherwise. But like you, I know not the
>>>> person I am conversing with, & therefore can only come up with a
>>>> WAG as to how you conducted yourself. Let alone why.

>>> Fair enough. But I have no reason to misrepresent myself.

>> People frequently misrepresent themselves to themselves. Part of
>> being human I suspect.

> You've pegged me wrong almost from the start. So, I appreciate you
> taking part in this discussion, but I see no purpose in continuing
> so, I dropping out.

Depends I suppose, on the reasons you started the conversation on your
end. At any rate, I can only base my observations on what my
observations tell me. Observations based on my locality, SE Talabama, &
experience with people. There is a fair chance in real life we wouldn't
get along. There is an equal chance we would. But this is one case
where I can say I didn't mind the short journey. You were pleasant. &
remember, slightly less than half my adult life was spent in telling
others, what needed done, & on occasion how to do it. Out of those
twenty years, I only had to ask to have one man put out of the military.
He was gone in less than 5 hours. In one way, he was right, he didn't
have to do what I said. Fortunately for him, it was after VOLAR,
otherwise it would have been stockade time & a dishonorable discharge.
Back then, that would have been a bummer. Today, I no longer do that
work, but the training is still there. One can get where they can figure
another man's limits by casual conversation. Doesn't work that way on
usenet, to much information is missing. Voice tone, body language, etc.
Still a fair surmise is generally available, just by reading what they
write. Or in my case, what I write.

So good fortune on your journey, & if you suspect I may have an answer
you would like to access, feel free to drop by & give a shout.

walksalone who has found our prior conversations a waste of time. Not
very much new, but pleasant.



Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own.
You may both be wrong.

Author unkown to me.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Interlinear Hebrew:

in_beginnings he-created strengths with the_heavens and_with the_earth

and_the_earth she-becomes chaos and_vacancy and_darkness over faces_me abyss and_spirit strengths vibrating over faces_me the_waters

and_he-is-saying strengths he-is-becoming light and_he-is-becoming light

and_he-is-seeing strengths with the_light that good and_he-is-separating strengths between the_light and_between the_darkness

and_he-is-calling strengths to_light day and_to_darkness call night and_he-is-becoming evening and_he-is-becoming morning day[and waters] one.


and_he-is-saying strengths he-is-becoming atmosphere in_midst the_waters and_he-is-becoming separating between from_waters to_waters

and_he-is-making strengths with the_atmosphere and_he-is-separating between the_waters which from_under to_atmosphere and_between the_waters which from_over to_atmosphere and_he-is-becoming so

and_he-is-calling strengths to_atmosphere heavens and_he-is-becoming evening and_he-is-becoming morning day two.


and_he-is-saying strengths they-shall-be-flown-together[they are collecting] the_waters from_under the_heavens[to_heavens] to places[confluence] one and_she-shall-be-seen{and_she-is-seeing] the_dry
and_he-is-becoming so

and_he-is-calling strengths to_dry earth and_to_confluence the_waters call days and_he-is-seeing strengths that good...

[Aerion]

On 6/14/2015 5:07 PM, walksalone wrote:
> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> snip
>

I'm back for a few days!

>
>>> It certainly does, but you decided, eventually, you didn't want to
>>> live like that. You used xianity, in this case, as an escape route.
>>>
>> Not true! I did not need an escape route. Giving up the old familiar
>> way of life did not come easy. I had to fight against sliding back
>> into my old habits and familiar ways. Change was not easy.
>
> We all make decisions that we don't think we would ever make. But that
> is not important. What is important is you were not happy with the way
> you were living, & for reasons that make good sense to you, changed it &
> gave the credit elsewhere.
>

Had it not been for my acceptance of Christ, I would not have changed.

Actually, I joined in on the conversation already underway.

>
At any rate, I can only base my observations on what my
> observations tell me. Observations based on my locality, SE Talabama, &
> experience with people. There is a fair chance in real life we wouldn't
> get along. There is an equal chance we would. But this is one case
> where I can say I didn't mind the short journey.
>

Where is Talabama? Walksalone sounds like a Native-American name. I have
Native American blood in me. One great grandmother was a full blood
Shawnee

You were pleasant. &
> remember, slightly less than half my adult life was spent in telling
> others, what needed done, & on occasion how to do it. Out of those
> twenty years, I only had to ask to have one man put out of the military.
> He was gone in less than 5 hours. In one way, he was right, he didn't
> have to do what I said. Fortunately for him, it was after VOLAR,
> otherwise it would have been stockade time & a dishonorable discharge.
> Back then, that would have been a bummer. Today, I no longer do that
> work, but the training is still there. One can get where they can figure
> another man's limits by casual conversation. Doesn't work that way on
> usenet, to much information is missing. Voice tone, body language, etc.
> Still a fair surmise is generally available, just by reading what they
> write. Or in my case, what I write.
>
> So good fortune on your journey, & if you suspect I may have an answer
> you would like to access, feel free to drop by & give a shout.
>

I'm a salesman, so I have to travel to make a living for my family and
myself.

>
> walksalone who has found our prior conversations a waste of time. Not
> very much new, but pleasant.
>

I'm sorry, and hurt that you feel our previous converstion was a waste
of time.

>
> Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own.
> You may both be wrong.
>

I think we could be friends.

[walksalone]

Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mm052t$21es$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

> On 6/14/2015 5:07 PM, walksalone wrote:
>> Aerion <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>
>> snip
>>
> I'm back for a few days!

Pull up a chair, sit on the floor, & be welcome.

>>>> It certainly does, but you decided, eventually, you didn't want to
>>>> live like that. You used xianity, in this case, as an escape
>>>> route.

>>> Not true! I did not need an escape route. Giving up the old familiar
>>> way of life did not come easy. I had to fight against sliding back
>>> into my old habits and familiar ways. Change was not easy.
>>
>> We all make decisions that we don't think we would ever make. But
>> that is not important. What is important is you were not happy with
>> the way you were living, & for reasons that make good sense to you,
>> changed it & gave the credit elsewhere.
>>
> Had it not been for my acceptance of Christ, I would not have changed.

We all make decisions & then blame life changes on them. This may be why
some see religion as a addiction. Sure seems that way around here.

snip

>> Don't we all. Well, no, not everyone or there would be no trolls on
>> any newsgroup.

snip

>> Depends I suppose, on the reasons you started the conversation on
>> your end.
> >
> Actually, I joined in on the conversation already underway.

I know, but have you noticed, we are the only ones in it. & actually, we
are OT for we are not discussing the origins of life, nor what happened
after life showed up. That no one has suggested we take it elsewhere,
thanks group.

> At any rate, I can only base my observations on what my
>> observations tell me. Observations based on my locality, SE
>> Talabama, & experience with people. There is a fair chance in real
>> life we wouldn't get along. There is an equal chance we would. But
>> this is one case where I can say I didn't mind the short journey.
> >
> Where is Talabama? Walksalone sounds like a Native-American name. I
> have Native American blood in me. One great grandmother was a full
> blood Shawnee

Drop the t, the mindset beteween the talaban & local good xians is very
parallel. We have several members of the army of god in politics around
here.
As to the name, it is a diminutive of my tribal.
Northwestern Montana was our home. IIRC, Shawnee was SE/ & scattered out
after the invasions, or if you prefer, the settlements.

snip

>> walksalone who has found our prior conversations a waste of time.
>> Not very much new, but pleasant.
>>
> I'm sorry, and hurt that you feel our previous converstion was a waste
> of time.

Anytime you are not learning, or living to the fullest, it is a waste of
time. Yet when you consider it, there is just so much you can do in your
life span. It's inevitable that some things you see as a waste of time
are not viewed that way by others.

>> Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your
>> own. You may both be wrong.
> >
> I think we could be friends.

Friends, not likely, by nature I'm a loner. yes, I do interact with
people, & yes some of them are good people indeed. But friends, not a
word I would use. Chums maybe.


walksalone who has the time to engage in meandering conversation for a
while. As long as it doesn't interfere with the group.

One should count each day a separate life.
Marcus Arelius

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/19/15 4:57 AM, walksalone wrote:
>
> Friends, not likely, by nature I'm a loner. yes, I do interact with
> people, & yes some of them are good people indeed. But friends, not a
> word I would use. Chums maybe.

I recently came across a fictional character you might want to look out
for. The character is "Old McBein", from a book of that title by
William Westrup (London: M. Joseph, 1937). McBein wanders alone through
the heart of Africa, and would have it no other way.

Unfortunately, the book is not available online, and the nearest copy to
you, according to WorldCat, is at Michigan State University. I learned
about McBein from one short story from _Old McBein_ in _Anthology of
Short Stories by South African Writers_ (A. D. Dodd, ed.), which is
probably only marginally easier to find.

For what it's worth. Good luck.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[walksalone]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in news:mm2iq6$cvt$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 6/19/15 4:57 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>
>> Friends, not likely, by nature I'm a loner. yes, I do interact with
>> people, & yes some of them are good people indeed. But friends, not a
>> word I would use. Chums maybe.
>
> I recently came across a fictional character you might want to look out
> for. The character is "Old McBein", from a book of that title by
> William Westrup (London: M. Joseph, 1937). McBein wanders alone
through
> the heart of Africa, and would have it no other way.

A hero/role model type?

> Unfortunately, the book is not available online, and the nearest copy
to

Naturally.

> you, according to WorldCat, is at Michigan State University. I learned

Bit of a long walk for me. No longer 17. All right, I'm at least 18, 3
plus times over.

> about McBein from one short story from _Old McBein_ in _Anthology of
> Short Stories by South African Writers_ (A. D. Dodd, ed.), which is
> probably only marginally easier to find.

I suspect it won't be part of my library Loan network. & one that old, I
don't know if I would want them to ship it to Talabama.
Mayhap it is in the internet archives of old books. Fascinating place
that.

For those that are not familiar with a very good source of books.

https://archive.org/index.php

> For what it's worth. Good luck.

If it's this one, I'll have to skip.

http://www.amazon.com/Old-McBein-William-Westrup/dp/B009HTZK78

Bit more than my beer budget allows for items of that nature.

walksalone who does appreciate the info, I've known for years there are
Kindred Souls, & I won't meet that many of them. If any. Still, we must
all walk our journey, & hopefully it will have been more good than not.



Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer.
--Henry Lawson.