Open Debate Challenge
B Richardson
>From:
>
>Ray Martinez
>
>To:
>
>Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
>I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
>topics:
>
>1) Archaeology
>
>2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
>3) The Exodus
>
>4) Chronology
>
>5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
>6) Theology
>
>7) Prophecy
>
>When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
>talk.
>
>This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
If you want to call the infidels out on their home court,
throw down the gauntlet for geology, paleontology, genetics
or cladistics.
Bobby D. Bryant
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
Would you mind defining what you mean by those terms, so we can see
whether we qualify?
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
Resolved: Archaeology is the study of old stuff.
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
Resolved: Biblical history is a sub-field of ancient history.
> 3) The Exodus
Resolved: Plagues are a good way to change an absolute monarch's mind
about stuff.
> 4) Chronology
Resolved: Chronology is the study of time.
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
Resolved: There's no claim so stupid that no one will want to debate it.
> 6) Theology
Resolved: Theology is what you get when you try to rationalize the
irrational.
> 7) Prophecy
Resolved: You will ultimately lose your debate, run away, and come back
later with excuses that amaze even t.o. regulars.
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
Yes, I always had difficulty walking the talk, and dancing the listen
as well.
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
And this t.o. regular is laughing at you.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
Haw-haw-haw! Can't even manage to get a cliché right, can you?
You're a joke, Ray.
Frank Sullivan
lmao.
He's been corrected on the punchline of a certain joke at least twice
already too.
John Harshman
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
The reason people tend not to take you up on this is that you are so
irrational that what results can't be considered an argument at all,
just an exercise in trying to deal with nonsense. This is better handled
informally. But feel free to declare victory and take all your marbles home.
Pfusand
> From: Ray Martinez
> To: Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
Sure. I'll take you up on this.
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
This one looks to be within my competence too.
> 3) The Exodus
Well, since this never happened, I can talk about nothing as well as
anyone else can.
> 4) Chronology
This is really just a subset of archaeology, so I volunteer for this as
well.
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
Hoo boy, is that ever wrong! Fortunately, Neolithic through Bronze Age
Britain is one of my favorite topics, so I can do this one as well.
> 6) Theology
Nope.
> 7) Prophecy
Snicker. I'll let someone else take this.
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
Eh? I'll sit and type, thank you. I volunteer for topics 1 through 5.
I await your response with baited (sic) breath.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
Has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
shane
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
>
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
>
> Ray Martinez
>
I accept The Exodus Debate challenge.
As you did not specify which side you wanted in the debate, I will take
the Exodus it true position, you the Exodus is false position.
As I chose the position, you may post first.
Shane
The truth will set you free.
AC
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
How about we debate what particular mental disorder you are suffering?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
Ray Martinez *is* the punchline of a certain joke.
I'll be honest, I've largely stopped reading his posts. He's dull, abusive
and so intellectually stunted, and worse he can't even create a properly
formatted Usenet post so reading anything he's responding to is an exercise
in futility. Even McNameless at his worst is more entertaining than this
kook. Heck, Busterboo/Andromeda/Sharon has returned, and as kooks go, she's
much more interesting than this guy with his inability to even
understand his own religion.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Ross Langerak
news:1124327172.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
What does any of this have to do with evolution? Suppose you were able to
kick everyone's butt in a discussion of theology. How would that change the
validity of evolution? Scientists accept evolution because it is the best
explanation for the evidence. It has nothing to do with how much you know
about theology.
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Wombat
Ray Martinez wrote:
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
If the truthfulness of 5) depends on the historical vaidity of "History
of the Kings of Britain" by Geoffrey of Monmouth then you're on a
hiding to nothing.
Try reading the book: particularly the absolute tripe written about
King Arthur. It's about as accurate as Monty Python and the Holy
Grail, and almost as funny.
Terry Rigby
VBM
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124327172.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
Well, I am none of those, being a TE, although I still want to know what you
mean by "Darwinist". Someone that believes in Darwin? Someone that
believes everything he thought was true? Someone who thought he was on the
right track?
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
Odd that this statement comes in the same post as the challenge. Did you
wait in front of your monitor for a few minutes before making this response
to your as yet unposted challenge?
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
And this Evangelical says you are doing more damage to the Gospel than any
atheist I have ever met.
Augray
wrote in news:<1124327172.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
Gee Ray, I challenged you to a debate on bird evolution a while ago.
Aren't I good enough?
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
Look over here.
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
Will you run from my earlier challenge? I've no doubts that you will.
> Ray Martinez
Gary Bohn
news:jqSMe.330$zD3...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
I thought he was missing a few?
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
Gary Bohn
news:2eVMe.62$Ko....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
ROTFLMAO
Beautiful gambit.
loua...@yahoo.com
John Harshman wrote:
> The reason people tend not to take you up on this is that you are so
> irrational that what results can't be considered an argument at all,
> just an exercise in trying to deal with nonsense. This is better handled
> informally. But feel free to declare victory and take all your marbles home.
I think someone should take him up on it, actually. It's going to be
hideously one-sided, but it would provide another transcript to point
to when the next one comes up and starts going on about how scientists
are afraid to debate creationists.
Right next to this classic:
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>The reason people tend not to take you up on this is that you are so
>>irrational that what results can't be considered an argument at all,
>>just an exercise in trying to deal with nonsense. This is better handled
>>informally. But feel free to declare victory and take all your marbles home.
>
>
> I think someone should take him up on it, actually. It's going to be
> hideously one-sided, but it would provide another transcript to point
> to when the next one comes up and starts going on about how scientists
> are afraid to debate creationists.
I don't think that being unafraid to debate mentally unbalanced
creationists shows anything at all. Really, I think Ray needs all the
marbles he has left, so let's not offer to play for keepsies.
George Cleveland
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The reason people tend not to take you up on this is that you are so
>>>irrational that what results can't be considered an argument at all,
>>>just an exercise in trying to deal with nonsense. This is better handled
>>>informally. But feel free to declare victory and take all your marbles home.
>>
>>
>> I think someone should take him up on it, actually. It's going to be
>> hideously one-sided, but it would provide another transcript to point
>> to when the next one comes up and starts going on about how scientists
>> are afraid to debate creationists.
>
>I don't think that being unafraid to debate mentally unbalanced
>creationists shows anything at all. Really, I think Ray needs all the
>marbles he has left, so let's not offer to play for keepsies.
The trouble with "debating" Creationists etc. is that they don't
engage in a debate but rather use the debate as an opportunity to
present a scripted performance. If you are unfortunate enough to ever
witness one you'll see that in the "debate" they rarely respond to the
points made by their opponents, they just keep repeating points from
their script. As with most ideologues they are not creative thinkers
but rather pedants. Some of them are very able propagandists. Why give
them the chance?
g.c.
David Jensen
>SHANE:
>
>I accept The Exodus Debate challenge.
>
>As you did not specify which side you wanted in the debate, I will take
>
>the Exodus it true position, you the Exodus is false position.
>
>
>As I chose the position, you may post first.
>
>
>Most atheists have been forced into accepting the historocity of the
>Exodus, at issue is when it happened.
>
>Minimalists/atheists have decided that if they can falsify the Biblical
>date of mid-15th century then this will satisfy their need to prove the
>Bible wrong.
>
>I will argue for the Biblical date of mid-15th century (14446-1453 BC).
>
>You will probably want to argue a 1250-1290 BC date, am I correct ?
You didn't accept the challenge he offered.
George Cleveland
wrote:
>SHANE:
>
>I accept The Exodus Debate challenge.
>
>As you did not specify which side you wanted in the debate, I will take
>
>the Exodus it true position, you the Exodus is false position.
>
>
>As I chose the position, you may post first.
>
>RAY:
>
>Most atheists have been forced into accepting the historocity of the
>Exodus, at issue is when it happened.
>
>Minimalists/atheists have decided that if they can falsify the Biblical
>date of mid-15th century then this will satisfy their need to prove the
>Bible wrong.
>
>I will argue for the Biblical date of mid-15th century (14446-1453 BC).
>
>You will probably want to argue a 1250-1290 BC date, am I correct ?
>
>
>Ray Martinez
Weaseling.
A good debater should be able to argue convincingly for either
proposition i.e. Exodus is History/Exodus is Myth.
g.c.
parrotlady
<aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2005 18:06:12 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in news:<1124327172.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > From:
> >
> > Ray Martinez
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
> >
> > I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> > topics:
> >
> > 1) Archaeology
> >
> > 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
> >
> > 3) The Exodus
> >
> > 4) Chronology
> >
> > 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
> >
> > 6) Theology
> >
> > 7) Prophecy
>
> Gee Ray, I challenged you to a debate on bird evolution a while ago.
> Aren't I good enough?
I would be very interested in hearing your side of this debate, just to
get the information. Perhaps you could debate with yourself? If you
like, I would be happy to put in an occasional "no it isn't" every once
in a while, just to keep you going.
>
>
> > When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> > talk.
>
> Look over here.
>
>
> > This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
> Will you run from my earlier challenge? I've no doubts that you will.
>
>
> > Ray Martinez
>
--
There are 247 real people in the world and the rest are ducks.
Jim Willemin
> SHANE:
>
> I accept The Exodus Debate challenge.
>
> As you did not specify which side you wanted in the debate, I will take
>
> the Exodus it true position, you the Exodus is false position.
>
>
> As I chose the position, you may post first.
>
> RAY:
>
> Most atheists have been forced into accepting the historocity of the
> Exodus, at issue is when it happened.
>
> Minimalists/atheists have decided that if they can falsify the Biblical
> date of mid-15th century then this will satisfy their need to prove the
> Bible wrong.
>
> I will argue for the Biblical date of mid-15th century (14446-1453 BC).
>
> You will probably want to argue a 1250-1290 BC date, am I correct ?
>
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Pardon me for butting in here, Ray, but I think you misunderstand. I think
that Shane means to argue for the position that Exodus occurred, period.
Your position therefore is that Exodus did NOT occur. Ever. You must
argue that Exodus never happened. Hope this helps.
Jim
WCB
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
> Ray Martinez
I choose theology for $300..
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature of
god. But it is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses rather
easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus in about
the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance of evil.
This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct decision
of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent and contradictory
as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of all god's alledged
attributes the most important. Because from that attribute you can
derive others attributes, including omniscience. If you say for
purposes of argument god is omnipotent, you are also implying
god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also have omniscience because
if he does not have omniscience, that destroys omnipotence
as a claimed attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all, free will is impossible
because creation and omniscience rule out free will as was shown.
In this world god supposedly created, evil exists. So god must not
be omnibenevolent as claimed.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus mutually exclusive
in a world that does in fact have evil in it.
Because omniscience must exist as part of omnipotence and omniscience
and creatorhood cannot coexist with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and omnibenevolence.
One cannot finesse this all by ignoring omniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also explicitly
abandoning omnipotence.
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god created all.
But that has some very strong logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or modify any other
creation he does not himself create. No other being or process
may create something god could not modify, by the power of
his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the Universe was
not created by god, he could, being omnipotent, change
that creation for his own purposes.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he could change
creation such that no evil John Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for existance of all evil.
I. If evil exists because god could change the Universe he did not
create, and he fails to do so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
J. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by any other process or
other entities. He may modify anty works or creations made by them.
K. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled in a manner
that makes it hard to abandon the doctrine god created all.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts with a Universe that
is a chaotic void. This void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods, the Titans, who in
their turn created the Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as representing god creating
the world out of a similar void, a primordial sea god did not himself
create, but used as raw material for his creations.
God's existance is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not absolve an omnipotent
god from responsibility for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them as he pleased. If
that god is omnipotent, then he bears all responsibilty for the world he
did create out of pre-existing material. Whether this god is said
to be eternal or like Hesiod's Titans was somehow emanated from the
chaos of the void does not materially change any arguments involving
omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence, if god is said to have
these attributes.
****************
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe
or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god set as part of the nature of
the Universe or is that outside and beyond god? Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and logic of the Universe,
he could also change them as needed. God is claimed to be omnipotent
as one of his attributes.
B. For example, many claim that man's free will is necessary. That
is why evil exists. But a god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent
could simply make a world where man has free will yet freely choses
only to do moral good. Since god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence, free will is perserved
and evil is banished. Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil exists solely and only because
of god's failure to use his omnipotence to change the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not omnibenevolent as claimed,
a contradiction.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the creator and sustaining cause of
all
evil that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the very logic of the
Universe,
then we have the problem of what these things are and where they come
from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god, then god is obviously not
omnipotent as claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest thing that can be imagined.
Obviously laws and rules and logic that limit the most powerful being
in the Universe are greater still because they do in fact limit such a
being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and beyond god do exist, and
are
thus greater than god, god is not the greatest thing imaginable and all
ontological 'proofs' that are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist outside of god's control and
must have always been outside his control. If there were ever in god's
control, god cannot have reduced his power to abandon omnipotence
voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would be like abandoning a sense
of
taste or touch.
K. If god could indeed abandon omnipotence, he must avoid that. After all,
he is also omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he must at all
times do the good thing, never an evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence
such that he could no longer create a world where man has free will,
and a nature incapable of evil is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition evil is to be allowed to
flourish.
So any claims god might have for some greater good abandoned omnipotence
freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at anytime gave up any abilities
he can no longer said to be omnipotent, if he gave them up in actuality.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and abilities and cannot have at
any
time vountarily relinquished any powers or abilities, the fact that
there
are laws and rules and logic of a universe outside and beyond god, they
are truely beyond and outside god, and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside god, and always were so,
and are properties of the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its collection of laws and rules and logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and logic are outside
of god, god is not as claimed, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for its purported existance,
nor on god for the existance of its laws and rules and logic, god is no
longer
a necessary being. If there are things that have necessary existance, it
would
have to be the Universe as whole, or possibly its laws, its rules or its
logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the underlying causes of these
things,
if any. None were created by god or can be modified by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be modified by god, then the
rules
and laws and logic of the Universe would have been modified to end
existance of
evil, and must be modified this if god is actually omnipotent and
omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not
exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash
again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology
tells us it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws, rules and laws of that
Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existance based on claims
god is the greatest thing imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some reason abandon or limit
any abilities cannot be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical examination of
consequences
of Grand Theology's overarching claims to god's attributes or nature.
The fact that god is alledgedly omnibenevolent and evil exists, demonstrates
god cannot make the rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the
nature
of the Universe, not something god created. Because if god did create the
rules
and laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent, we should have
no
signs of evil, especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important claims collapse, many other
arguments
about god and his attributes and nature no longer are viable. Some of these
claims,
god's creation of the Universe are among the oldest and most basic of
theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the 11th century,
all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical argument is
now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil opened up a line
of attack here that is powerful and pretty final.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
Pfusand
> Why don't we debate the Exodus because like you said it covers
> archaeology, history, chronology, Bible, etc.etc.
I said no such thing. In response to your point:
"3) The Exodus"
I wrote:
"Well, since this never happened, I can talk about nothing as well as
anyone else can."
You have just lied about me.
Before I agree to debate you, you are going to have to raise the tone
of your discourse. Here's your chance.
How many potsherds can one expect to find in one level of an occupation
site of a few acres? Can potsherds be used for dating?
mur...@tntech.edu
[snippo]
> > This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
> How about we debate what particular mental disorder you are suffering?
I'd be more interested in the following:
Did Ray go cuckoo as a result of following Gene Scott or did he follow
Gene Scott as a result of having already gone cuckoo?
--DPM
> Aaron Clausen
> mightym...@hotmail.com
David Jensen
>GEORGE:
>
>The trouble with "debating" Creationists etc. is that they don't
>engage in a debate but rather use the debate as an opportunity to
>present a scripted performance. If you are unfortunate enough to ever
>witness one you'll see that in the "debate" they rarely respond to the
>points made by their opponents, they just keep repeating points from
>their script. As with most ideologues they are not creative thinkers
>but rather pedants. Some of them are very able propagandists. Why give
>them the chance?
>
>
>George is advocating censorship under the color of biased reasons not
>to debate, as the Creationist could certainly say the same about the
>atheist/Darwinist/secularist.
But the Creationist would be lying, something that too many of them are
very good at.
VBM
<mur...@tntech.edu> wrote in message
news:1124399647.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> AC wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2005 18:06:12 -0700,
> > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snippo]
>
> > > This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
> >
> > How about we debate what particular mental disorder you are suffering?
>
> I'd be more interested in the following:
>
> Did Ray go cuckoo as a result of following Gene Scott or did he follow
> Gene Scott as a result of having already gone cuckoo?
Oh my, he is follower of Gene Scott? That explains a great deal.
George Cleveland
It doesn't matter whether they were consciously lying or not, it still
would be a discussion in which everything they said was derived from
received "wisdom" not from logical argument, which is the definition
of debate. The same problem applies to Creationists "debating" as to
Creationists performing "science". The conclusion is already arrived
at before either practice begins.
As far as Ray's charge of censorship, not at all. I encourage
Creationists to debate each other. Seventh Day Adventists vs.
Presbyterians... Baptists vs. Shi'ites... they would probably come
closer to arguing from logic and thinking on their feet during a
debate amongst themselves than you'd see from any "argument" that
you'd see them engage in with non-Creationists.
g.c.
Who also thinks that if you'd provided them with a cage in which to
debate in you could probably sell tickets. (Thanx and a tip o' the hat
to Mark Twain and the WWF.)
mur...@tntech.edu
> <mur...@tntech.edu> wrote in message
> news:1124399647.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Did Ray go cuckoo as a result of following Gene Scott or did he follow
> > Gene Scott as a result of having already gone cuckoo?
>
> Oh my, he is follower of Gene Scott? That explains a great deal.
Well, it does explain the arrogance and nastiness and the pyramids and
the Romans stuff but it creates more mysteries:
Why the anti-evolution rant in the first place? As someone else here
pointed out, Scott never made a big deal of evolution on his
broadcasts. He alternately seemed to support it or attack it depending
on his mood but it didn't come up much.
And why doesn't Ray get on the phone and make his reservations for the
Cathedral? Is he boring you? (No sir!!) Then if you want him to
continue get on the phone!!!
--DPM
AC
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> AC wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2005 18:06:12 -0700,
>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>From:
>>>
>>>Ray Martinez
>>>
>>>To:
>>>
>>>Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>>>
>>>I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
>>>topics:
>>>
>>>1) Archaeology
>>>
>>>2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>>>
>>>3) The Exodus
>>>
>>>4) Chronology
>>>
>>>5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>>>
>>>6) Theology
>>>
>>>7) Prophecy
>>>
>>>When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
>>>talk.
>>>
>>>This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>>
>>
>> How about we debate what particular mental disorder you are suffering?
>>
> The DSM IV has a category for assholes?
Anybody care to submit a collection of Ray's posts? I think they might find
it pretty darn interesting.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GEORGE:
>
> The trouble with "debating" Creationists etc. is that they don't
> engage in a debate but rather use the debate as an opportunity to
> present a scripted performance. If you are unfortunate enough to ever
> witness one you'll see that in the "debate" they rarely respond to the
> points made by their opponents, they just keep repeating points from
> their script. As with most ideologues they are not creative thinkers
> but rather pedants. Some of them are very able propagandists. Why give
> them the chance?
>
>
> George is advocating censorship under the color of biased reasons not
> to debate, as the Creationist could certainly say the same about the
> atheist/Darwinist/secularist.
I think what we're discussing is whether or not you are so incompetent, so
deranged and so incapable of anything even resembling rational debate that
it might be more worthwhile to just let you melt down in regular play,
rather than going through what is clearly an absolute waste of time. You
don't know how to debate, Ray, and worse, you don't even understand your own
side of the debate.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
shane
> SHANE:
>
> I accept The Exodus Debate challenge.
>
> As you did not specify which side you wanted in the debate, I will take
>
> the Exodus it true position, you the Exodus is false position.
>
>
> As I chose the position, you may post first.
>
> RAY:
>
> Most atheists have been forced into accepting the historocity of the
> Exodus, at issue is when it happened.
This does not apply to me as i am not an atheist, and i rather suspect
it applies to no atheists at all, but perhaps i am wrong and you can
name one who accepts it. However, that aside, my side of the debate is
to support that the Exodus happened, part of which, obviously, will be
when the Exodus happened.
>
> Minimalists/atheists have decided that if they can falsify the Biblical
> date of mid-15th century then this will satisfy their need to prove the
> Bible wrong.
This is not important just now and is also part of my side of the
debate, your side, as is clearly stated in my acceptance of your
challenge, is to argue that the Exodus never happened.
>
> I will argue for the Biblical date of mid-15th century (14446-1453 BC).
No, again my acceptance clearly states that I am arguing for the Exodus,
and you are arguing against.
>
> You will probably want to argue a 1250-1290 BC date, am I correct ?
>
Not surprisingly, you are not correct as is made clear by my acceptance
of your challenge where i say "I will take the Exodus it true position,
you the Exodus is false position." I think that the terms are perfectly
clear in that statement, and I await your first post to argue that the
Exodus is false, i.e. never happened.
>
> Ray Martinez
shane
> Opponent:
>
> Why don't we debate the Exodus because like you said it covers
> archaeology, history, chronology, Bible, etc.etc.
>
> How about you and Shane versus me ?
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Sorry Ray I decline to be part of a two on one debate, as your challenge
was for one on one debates, so lets not change things now. BTW, my
debate with respect to the Exodus is awaiting your first post.
Ian H Spedding
John Wilkins wrote:
>
> AC wrote:
> > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>From:
> >>
> >>Ray Martinez
> >>
> >>To:
> >>
> >>Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
> >>
> >>I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> >>topics:
> >>
> >>1) Archaeology
> >>
> >>2) Ancient history/Biblical history
> >>
> >>3) The Exodus
> >>
> >>4) Chronology
> >>
> >>5) Celts = Lost Tribes
> >>
> >>6) Theology
> >>
> >>7) Prophecy
> >>
> >>When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> >>talk.
> >>
> >>This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
> >
> >
> > How about we debate what particular mental disorder you are suffering?
> >
> The DSM IV has a category for assholes?
Rectal Orificial Dysphasia?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124398384.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> GEORGE:
>
> The trouble with "debating" Creationists etc. is that they don't
> engage in a debate but rather use the debate as an opportunity to
> present a scripted performance. If you are unfortunate enough to ever
> witness one you'll see that in the "debate" they rarely respond to the
> points made by their opponents, they just keep repeating points from
> their script. As with most ideologues they are not creative thinkers
> but rather pedants. Some of them are very able propagandists. Why give
> them the chance?
>
>
> George is advocating censorship under the color of biased reasons not
> to debate, as the Creationist could certainly say the same about the
> atheist/Darwinist/secularist.
>
and someone comes along and steals your soapbox and chases off your audience
with cudgels. "Censorship" is *NOT* when you want to harangue an audience
from a soapbox, but no one wants to loan you the soapbox or the audience.
You do not have a God-given or constitutionally-guaranteed right to be taken
seriously.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
-- Steven J.
Augray
<wbar...@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:<11g9t5r...@corp.supernews.com>:
A claim that is contradicted by the Bible. For instance, see Jeremiah
18:11.
> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
> derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
> so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
> considered special aspects of omnipotence.
Why does an omniscient god need to be omnibenevolent? Perhaps you should
demonstrate the link between omnibenevolence and omniscience
> There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
> such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
> existed that are not important for this discussion and for
> now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
> no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
> that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
> above.
[snip arguments that depend on God's omnibenevolence]
> OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
>
> A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of all god's alledged
> attributes the most important. Because from that attribute you can
> derive others attributes, including Omnipotence. If you say for
> purposes of argument god is omnipotent, you are also implying
> god is also omniscient.
That is an unsupported claim. One can imagine an all-powerful god, but
who also doesn't know everything. One can also imagine the converse god.
[snip arguments that depend on unsupported linkage between God's
omnipotence and omniscience]
[snip further arguments that depend on God's omnibenevolence]
> Free will defenses against the problem of evil opened up a line
> of attack here that is powerful and pretty final.
Only if evil is assumed to be a problem.
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
> G. God is that which nothing more powerful
> can be imagined.
Hee-hee-hee!
*snurf* *choke*
Haw-haw-haw!
Stop it, Ray!
*pant* *wheeze*
Yer killin' me!
*snort*
Ho-ho-haw-haw!
John Harshman
I think there is a link between omnipotence and omniscience. If he's
really omnipotent, he can do anything. And I think that knowing
everything falls under the umbrella of doing anything. Then again, just
because he has the power to know everything doesn't mean he necessarily
has used that power. Maybe he chose to remain in ignorance about some
things, and therefore is not omniscient. But if he's omnipotent, that
means he could be omniscient if he wanted. So the link exists, but the
one does not necessarily imply the other.
> [snip further arguments that depend on God's omnibenevolence]
>
>>Free will defenses against the problem of evil opened up a line
>>of attack here that is powerful and pretty final.
>
> Only if evil is assumed to be a problem.
It's a problem (theologically, that is) only if god is assumed to be
omnibenevolent. Is that what you mean?
Darrell Stec
pyram...@yahoo.com wrote:
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> 1) Archaeology
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
> 7) Prophecy
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
> Ray Martinez
I'll take 6) Theology for $600 Daily Double. You can show your superiority
by answering 3 little questions:
**********
How does one determine which might deceive the reader:
vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem lemor lekh mene
et-yisrael veet-yehuda
OR THIS
vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael
**********
Can you explain what we should do:
lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol betsedek
tishpot amitekha
OR THIS
me krinete ina me krithete
**********
Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you believe:
hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis ton
aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos
OR THIS
in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur
OR THIS
horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon
OR THIS
te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon theou
to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai
**********
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
shane
> Shane:
>
> Where did I say I would argue against that which I know for certain
> happened in 1453 BC ?
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Your acceptance of the debate is inherent in the issuing of the
challenge to debate. But to make it completely clear, following is the
sequence of events.
You offered the challenge of a debate on any one of a list of topics.
I accepted your challenge and indicated which topic we would debate -
the Exodus. As you had not indicated which side of the issue you would
take, I selected the 'Exodus is true' as my position and consequently
left you with the alternate position, i.e. the 'Exodus is not true'. As
I chose first, and being a polite person, I have given you the
opportunity to post first.
I hope this clarifies matters, and that your opening arguments
supporting the position of the Exodus being false, will soon be posted.
Shane
the truth will set you free.
Dan Luke
"Ray Martinez" wrote:
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> My opponent wrote what you ascribe to me.
>
> No big deal - you made a mistake.
>
Ray, you *agreed* with him.
tee-hee!
shane
> SHANE:
> RAY:
>
> Then I concede the resolve and am glad to see you win.
Nice try, but no cigar. You have refused to debate, after making the
following statements;
"When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
talk.
This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court."
Your evasion and refusal to debate is noted. It may be thought by some
as a result of your refusal, that your challenge was not sincere, and
therefore offered in knowledge that it was, in effect, a lie, but that
aside, it is clear you are not prepared to "walk the talk."
> I only hope you agree that the date of the said event to be 1453 BC
> just like the Bible says.
Why would you hope that?
I am somewhat nonplussed by you even making the comment. You refuse to
debate the topic by not posting, and then immediately want to find out
what i would have posted. Again nice try, but if you really want to
know, post your opening arguments.
> Ray Martinez
>
Shane
The truth will set you free.
Pfusand
find in one level of an occupation
even try to answer it.
You have just demonstrated that you are a cowardly, delusional, little
ignoramus. You clearly lack even the rudiments of the education
necessary to even understand what anyone here could tell you. No, I
will not enter into a debate with you; the willingness to deal with the
mentally unfit skipped my generation.
Thutmose III is dated to the fifteenth century because he is known to
immediately follow Queen Hatshepsut. She became pharaoh in about 1490
bce.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DAN LUKE:
>
> My opponent wrote what you ascribe to me.
>
> No big deal - you made a mistake.
Perhaps if you actually learned to post like 99% of the people Usenet post
there wouldn't be such problems.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
shane
You have answered your own point. If the majority post a certain way, it
must be wrong.
Shane
Tristan Miller
In article <ki0ag1p55hgr5h5rr...@4ax.com>, Augray wrote:
>> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
>> derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
>> so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
>> considered special aspects of omnipotence.
>
> Why does an omniscient god need to be omnibenevolent? Perhaps you should
> demonstrate the link between omnibenevolence and omniscience
A few years ago, the University of Toronto was visited by some professor
who claimed to have a logical proof of the existence of God. His visit
was sponsored by some local student Christian groups and was heavily
publicized before the event. I attended the event out of curiosity (and
was lucky to get a seat -- the auditorium was packed). I was rather
disappointed, however, when it turned out his proof was nothing more than
a trumped-up version of the Prime Mover argument ("Everything that begins
to exist must have a cause...").
Nonetheless, it is true that the logic he used in his argument was
impeccable. He was very careful to state outright all of his assumptions
and made a point of explaining all the logical steps in his argument.
Provided that you agreed with his postulates (and I don't), the conclusion
that an omnipotent God exists was perfectly sound and correct.
Now, this fellow went on to prove the omnibenevolence of God by the same
means. I regret I don't remember exactly what the argument was, but
again, it logically followed from his postulates and from his existence
proof. He didn't give this proof in as much detail, but I was reasonably
convinced that the argument was sound.
So what's the point of this e-mail? Well, for what it's worth (and
probably not much given that I don't remember the name of this guy or the
exact steps in his proof), I just wanted to testify that omnibenevolence
does indeed logically follow from omnipotence. Or at least, that
Christian apologists have shown it to, provided that their initial
assumptions are correct.
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Tristan Miller
In article <1328110.F...@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>, Tristan
Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> In article <ki0ag1p55hgr5h5rr...@4ax.com>, Augray wrote:
>>> Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
>>> derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
>>> so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
>>> considered special aspects of omnipotence.
>>
>> Why does an omniscient god need to be omnibenevolent? Perhaps you should
>> demonstrate the link between omnibenevolence and omniscience
>
> A few years ago, the University of Toronto was visited by some professor
Upon doing some more Googling, I came up with a report of the talk, which
took place in October 2002. The guy's name is William Hatcher, and he was
actually sponsored by the Baha'is, not the Christians:
<http://bahai-library.com/wwwboard/messages02/760.html> Hatcher was
hawking a book at the end of his talk, so I suppose if you're interested
in his proof of omnibenevolence, you can ask your local/online bookseller
for the book.
rogue
Ray Martinez wrote:
> From:
> Ray Martinez
> To:
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
JERRY
So, I guess you wouldn't be adverse to taking the position:
Resolved: The destruction of the city of Tyre happened in all details
as prophecied by Ezekiel chapter 26?
Go ahead and prepare your affirmative position.
Also, Ray, understand that in a debate, your opinion carries zero
weight. You will have to back up your statements with citations of
fact.
Are you game? Or are you simply "running your mouth" to get attention?
;-)
John Harshman
You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right? I only wish you
could remember the argument. But if you can't, this isn't very useful.
gregwrld
Ray Martinez wrote:
> CHARLIE:
>
> A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
>
>
> The general overarching definition of god as per
> the major religions of the world is:
>
>
> A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
> B. God has free will.
> C. God is the creator of all.
> D. God is omnipotent.
> E. God is omnibenevolent.
> F. God is omniscient.
> can be imagined.
>
>
> the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
> Hinduism.
>
>
> Okay - I agree in principle with the above.
>
> I wish to restrict the debate to the Biblical Deity because He is the
> only Deity that has worldwide support on a massive scale, and because
> He is the only Deity supported by massive evidence.
Please define what you mean by "worldwide support." There are Hindus
the world-over who support the existence of Brahman.
Then show us this "massive evidence" so that we can judge its
quality.
<snip>
>
> CHARLIE:
>
>
> A CLASS OF GODS
>
>
> It is important to note here that this is a definition
> not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
> Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
> claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
> claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
> blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
> to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
> creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
> The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
> Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
> class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature of
> god. But it is important to remember here that what is being
> discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
>
>
> RAY:
>
> But we haven't agreed to debate what the above paragraph now defines
> the debate to be about, just like I asked/insisted above that our
> debate be about the Biblical Deity.
>
> However, I think I can roll here.
>
> Is your statement above talking about the CLAIMED universal Deities ?
>
> If so, then you are framing the debate to define God based upon the
> major and respected defintions of universally accepted Deities ?
>
> IOW, a all in one God ?
>
> No such God exists.
Please submit your evidence.
<snip>
>
> CHARLIE:
>
> THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
>
>
> The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
> to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
> and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
>
>
> God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
> Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
>
> RAY:
>
> Free will is not a defense, but is reality.
>
> Your argument ignores the reality of Satan, the Garden, and the
> circumstances, all of which are reflected in the world today.
Please submit your evidence for the "reality of Satan" and "the
garden."
Define what you mean by "circumstances".
<snip>
> Your on-going beliefs about God have no source as they contradict with
> the most credible source we have about the universal Deity.
Why is it so "credible"?
Gregwrld
Ray Martinez
David Jensen
>JERRY:
>
>Resolved: The destruction of the city of Tyre happened in all details
>as prophecied by Ezekiel chapter 26?
>
>
>If you think this prophecy failed then make your argument.
>
>The Tyre prophecy is the easiest of all to prove.
Then provide the evidence. You claim the prophecy was fulfilled. You
have to provide the evidence.
rogue
demonstrate for you why it didn't happen as claimed.
David Jensen
>DAVID:
>
>Then provide the evidence. You claim the prophecy was fulfilled. You
>have to provide the evidence.
>
>
>Which prophecy ?
>
>Ezekiel's
>
>Isaiah's
>
>Which details are being contested ?
>
>The Tyre prophesied to no longer exist does not exist as it is
>submerged under water. The locales that do exist are not at the same
>location of the one prophesied.
>
>In any case, I have accepted the theology debate by Charlie and do not
>have the time to engage in another.
Then maybe you shouldn't make claims you cannot back up.
Andrew Arensburger
> You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
> details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right?
Sheesh! Next you'll be telling us that Argumentum ad Some
Bloke Down At the Pub Tole Me is a fallacy.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Have you counted your LEGOs lately?
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
>>details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right?
>
>
> Sheesh! Next you'll be telling us that Argumentum ad Some
> Bloke Down At the Pub Tole Me is a fallacy.
>
Depends on the pub.
John Wilkins
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
>>details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right?
>
>
> Sheesh! Next you'll be telling us that Argumentum ad Some
> Bloke Down At the Pub Tole Me is a fallacy.
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Steve Schaffner
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> > John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
> >>details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right?
> >
> >
> > Sheesh! Next you'll be telling us that Argumentum ad Some
> > Bloke Down At the Pub Tole Me is a fallacy.
> >
> Argumentum *ab* SBDATPTM. It's ablative.
After you've had a couple of drinks at the pub, you tend to get
a little ablative yourself.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Longfellow
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
>
> I challenge any of the above to a one-on-one debate in any of these
> topics:
>
>
> 2) Ancient history/Biblical history
>
> 3) The Exodus
>
> 4) Chronology
>
> 5) Celts = Lost Tribes
>
> 6) Theology
>
>
> When it comes down to it I see none of you loud talkers can walk the
> talk.
>
> This Evangelical is in your face calling you out on your home court.
>
> Ray Martinez
I'm none of the invitees, but I'll take 2).
Opening material for context:
Ancient history is an open ended subject and therefore not definable in
terms of references.
Biblical history has a built-in reference: The Bible.
For history, what is sought is primary material. That is different from
all other types of material: commentary, analysis, interpretation, etc.
I choose to argue from primary material only, thereby avoiding any
necessary limitations.
It is now thought, so I understand, that the earliest complete Biblical
text extant is the LXX. This is the so-called Septuagint, a translation
of written material in Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek. The origin of
this document was the contract between various Hebrew scholars and
Ptolemy Philadelphius in or around 280BCE. The initial contract was for
a translation of the Torah (also known as the Pentateuch, the books of
Moses, and the first five books of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible).
Other translations were added over the following decades and centuries
until there existed in the 1st century CE a collection of documents that
were accepted as authentic by the earliest Christians. As such, the
direct source of the Biblical Old Testament is the LXX.
In general, the Hebrew Testament, or Bible, called the Tenahk (sp?) is
the Hebrew equivalent of the Old Testament. Although there is a
different book count and some rearrangement of some texts, there is a
virtual line by line agreement on the Torah itself. The Hebrew
Massorah, which is the Tenahk and the entire corpus of commentary and
interpretation, has been generally agreed to be definitive, especially
with regard the Torah.
As the initial contract stipulated the Torah, I will undertake to
examine that document, as provided in the KJV, for purposes of easy
accessibility to all readers.
If this is satisfactory, please so indicate.
Longfellow
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> writes:
>
>
>>Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>>
>>>John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
>>>>details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sheesh! Next you'll be telling us that Argumentum ad Some
>>>Bloke Down At the Pub Tole Me is a fallacy.
>>>
>>
>>Argumentum *ab* SBDATPTM. It's ablative.
>
>
> After you've had a couple of drinks at the pub, you tend to get
> a little ablative yourself.
>
drinking, and besides, the bartender gal was over 18.
Bob Pease
"Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
news:de5lrv$li3$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > You realize that "I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember the
> > details" does not count as acceptable evidence, right?
>
> Sheesh! Next you'll be telling us that Argumentum ad Some
> Bloke Down At the Pub Tole Me is a fallacy.
>
But the singular of "Data" is no longer "Datum" but rather "Anecdote"
RJ P
Augray
<parrotla...@hyperactivesw.com> wrote in
news:<200508182049....@ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com>:
> In article <o2c9g197cinlptrfg...@4ax.com>, Augray
> <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip Ray]
> > Gee Ray, I challenged you to a debate on bird evolution a while ago.
> > Aren't I good enough?
>
> I would be very interested in hearing your side of this debate, just to
> get the information. Perhaps you could debate with yourself?
I doubt it. My opponent would end up resorting to strawmen and
misrepresentation, and the debate would quickly descend into innuendo
and insults.
> If you
> like, I would be happy to put in an occasional "no it isn't" every once
> in a while, just to keep you going.
I'm working on something on bird evolution that will go into nauseating
detail. I can let you know when it gets posted.
[snip the rest]
Greg G.
> > I would be very interested in hearing your side of this debate, just to
> > get the information. Perhaps you could debate with yourself?
>
> I doubt it. My opponent would end up resorting to strawmen and
> misrepresentation, and the debate would quickly descend into innuendo
> and insults.
--
Greg G.
Integrity has no need for rules.
Ray Martinez
Longfellow
> Hi Longfellow:
>
>
> LONGFELLOW:
>
> If this is satisfactory, please so indicate.
>
>
> Okay, you know a little about the LXX, where are you going with this ?
>
> I essentially agree with what you wrote as it is historically accepted
> facts, but you're poker face hasn't defined a resolve.
>
> Please continue....
>
> Ray Martinez
Thank you.
I cite the LXX as it appears to be the benchmark against which both the
Christian and Jewish Bibles have been developed. The Christians bought
it pretty much as is, with the rejection of certain texts that did not
serve their purpose. Same with the Jews, of course.
In any case, I'm looking at the Torah, which is the core of the Hebrew
canon, both for the Christian Old Testament and the Judaic Tanahk. It
is my custom to look first at the oldest evidence, as later evidence
seems always influenced by earlier evidence. What I wish to avoid in
any case is any interpretive material, which is always of later origin.
This basic protocol is pretty much standard in any scholarship, and is
mandatory in science. I understand why: look at the evidence itself
and the objective reality it presents is most clearly expressed. Then
look at the most recent interpretive data to get a handle on what is the
current thinking. Finally, examine a representative cross-section of
the historical interpretive commentary to see how the evidence itself
was perceived down through history, and how that interpretation changed
over time.
That is a decent first scan protocol. After that, a full study has some
structure of context to serve as a representation of the objective
reality of interest, here: the origins of the canonical sources of the
Hebrew religious stream; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Now, you have specified an inclusion of Ancient History as a rational
base. So we will hold the evidence of Ancient History as a reference
and benchmark for our investigation.
So we begin.
We turn to the beginning of the Torah, and inspect the text as given in
both English and Hebrew, Greek being a transitory language in this case.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Bereshith Elohim.... oops, we have an immediate flag here.
We look to see what is referenced, and we find that Ancient History has
direct evidence that is immediately relevant. From the Ugarit texts of
the early 2nd millennium BCE, we find that the Elohim are a family of
deities. The English version implies from the grammar that God is a
single entity, but the Hebrew version references a family of deities.
Presented with this sort of conflicting evidence, any good researcher
will stop and see what has happened, and so shall we. From our
contextual knowledge of this material, we understand that the deity in
question, God in English and Elohim in Hebrew, is the main focus of
interest. We have, almost before we start, a profound disagreement
about the essential nature of this essential aspect.
That is a show-stopper, I'm afraid. There is something we must discover
about all this before we can feel comfortable that we can continue with
some understanding. Otherwise, we risk building our understanding
directly on an unrecognized assumption that, if false, will cause all
our work to crumble into irrelevance.
What's going on here?
Well, it turns out that the Elohim is a family of deities of the
Canaanite culture, which is directly related to the Phoenician culture.
It was also located in the very area where this all started, and it
appears to have had a legacy that predates that of the Hebrew itself.
Therefore, we can tentatively conclude that the Hebrew use of the name
'Elohim' indicates an understanding and acceptance of the earlier usage.
Why? If not, another name would be used!
So it turns out that our protocols cannot be used, as the material
itself is suspect and possibly corrupted. We have no choice but to turn
to the evidence of Ancient History and use it as a direct guide and
interpretation of the text of interest. Otherwise the evident
corruption makes it useless for our purposes.
Ancient history is generally regarded as beginning in the Mesopotamian
Plain, now Iraq. The date appears to be somewhere in the very early 4th
millennium BCE, or late 5th. Evidence of much older civil architecture
exists in surrounding areas, but no written evidence appears to have
survived, and after all, history is about written evidence that can be
shown authentic.
In virtually all the most ancient texts, we find the assertion that a
family of deities is responsible for the origin and continuing welfare
of mankind. The names change with the change in languages, but the
functions remain mostly the same, the deities are responsible for
mankind, if obviously not responsible *to* mankind.
Further, a common description provides some defining material. The
deities, whatever else they may be, are also biologically human. They
beget and bear human children with human men and women, though those
children are said to be of a special nature. They also have their own
issue, which are of the nature of the parents.
Further, it is fairly clear from the written evidence that these folk
possess some unknown technology, most probably biological. There are
references to food substances that confer remarkable attributes. And it
is evident from the nature of their influence on mankind that they
already possess the technology of civilization such that mankind is
provided with virtually all the essential attributes of modern
civilization. Hence, Sumer suddenly emerges fully developed from no
perceivable previous archaeological source.
For the area of interest to us, we find that Sumeria gave rise to the
Akkadian culture, and closely contemporary, a culture arose in Egypt as
well. We also know of other cultures in other areas, but we have no
useful written records from them, so we can only conjecture how they may
or may not have been related to what we do have.
It appears that changing climate had a great deal to do with the early
history of mankind. The written record does not provide sufficient
identifying detail to build a model of those changes, but we do have
reference to extensive flooding, both in Mesopotamia and in Egypt. In
fact Egyptian history seems to begin with a recovery from an episode of
flooding, somewhere in the latter part of the 4th millennium BCE.
Now, with all this in hand, we can turn to a much more comfortable
source of information provided for us by the earth sciences. We know
that we should be well within an Ice Age, which appears to have been
terminated or severely interrupted. We know that the last significant
glacial advance in the northern hemisphere was about 10-11K years ago,
or about 8000/9000 BCE. From that we understand that a significant
amount of flooding in that area would have occured as the glaciers
retreated, so the flooding records are reasonable.
We have excellent evidence that Africa did not have significant
glaciation, as we would expect. We know that Asia and Europe did have
significant glaciation. So we can presume that the boundary area
between the two, precisely that area of interest to us, was one known
area of human access to glaciated land.
We know, from the evidence of genetic studies, that humanity did its
major development in Africa. We also know that humanity had significant
contribution from both contemporary and earlier development in Asia. We
have good reason to speculate that the areas of interaction between
these two distinct streams of development occured in areas accessible to
both; exactly the area of interest to us.
The generally agreed models of development, as well as archaeological
records, specify that homo sapiens can be as old as nearly a million
years, and that homo sapiens sapiens is probably somewhere on the order
of one to two hundred thousand years old.
These are the findings of science.
But let us turn to the immediate object of interest, the canonical
texts. We have determined that they are corrupt, to what extent we
cannot yet tell. So let us just read the material and see what we find.
On inspection, we discover that the Hebrew and English texts agree
except in differences of language, one of which of course is that of the
names used. We can, then, use the English text with reasonable comfort.
As we read through Genesis, we discover that it comprises at least four
different accounts, and that those accounts are woven together to
present a rough chronological consistentency of story line. We can now
turn to scholarly evaluation to see what they made of this, and use
their determinations. There are four discernable sources: 1) That of
the Yahvehists, denoted by the letter 'J'. 2) That of the Elohists,
denoted by the letter 'E'. 3) That of the priests, denoted by the
letter 'P'. 4) That of the Deuteronomists (teachers), denoted by the
letter 'D'.
Now, we note, the movement is towards a consolidation of these sources.
Whatever else that accomplishes, it homogenizes the text, further
corrupting it in translation by interpretive recension. We can
reasonably gather from this that the corruption we originally noted is
not accidental, but deliberate.
And so we must bring our investigation to a halt. Something else is
going on here, and we will not reach it in this way.
And that is the end of the first presented argument.
For references, read the standard literature, the listing of which is
easily obtainable. The references to Ancient History are from two
disciplines: Assyriology and Egyptology. Adequate introductory texts are
available in both.
For the earth sciences, google for the issues raised here and enough
citations will be found to pursue them.
The Ugarit texts are specific and identified.
Biblical analysis is abundantly available, and almost all references
will mention, if not expound upon, the different narrative streams
encountered in Genesis.
Note that we have not considered any interpretive material, and have
looked at only the bare structure of analytical findings. I claim that
with the immediate findings of textual corruption, we cannot proceed
until we understand the historical and cultural context in which these
texts were developed. Only then will we be able to evaluate what we
find.
Your turn.
Longfellow
David Fritzinger
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Longfellow:
>
> It is Sunday, August 21st, 2005 about 4:00 pm California time and I
> have just finished reading your latest message.
>
> Because of its length and depth, and because my time for posting is
> very limited between now and Wednesdays, these scheduling realities
> will prevent me from posting my reply until Thursday or Friday.
>
> In my just concluded one-on-one debate with Darwinist Richard Clayton,
> it was well known that my posting days are Thursday, Friday, Saturdays,
> but I may be able to post sooner.
>
> I just wanted you to know this and I hope this doesn't ruin the flow of
> the debate.
>
> It would take me about 2 uninterrupted hours to respond to your latest
> message that I do not have today, and like I said, probably not until
> Thursday the earliest.
>
> ***smiles***BTW, your head will join Richard's on my belt when this is
> over***smiles***
>
> Ray Martinez
Ray, you have just demonstrated that you are delusional. In no way,
shape or form did you beat Richard in your supposed debate. Calling
someone an atheist just doesn't win debates about scientific matters.
But, I guess if it floats your boat...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Pfusand
couldn't even use, since I didn't even see your silly demand until
10:21), a reasonable person would have thought that you would reply
promptly. Or at least reply eventually.
Why people think the Exodus is real is a mystery to me. (1) There is
no evidence of proto-Israelites in Egypt at any time during the Bronze
Age (Early, Middle, or Late). (2) There is every evidence of
proto-Israelites in the Judean Hills at all times during the Bronze
Age. (3) There is no evidence of any large group on the Sinai Peninsula
at any time before (roughly) the twentieth century. (4) Thutmose III
is not a pharaoh to be halted by the Red Sea; he entered the Levant
with his armies FOURTEEN times during his reign.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
shane
> Gee, Ray, after giving me a pointless two hour time limit (which I
> couldn't even use, since I didn't even see your silly demand until
> 10:21), a reasonable person would have thought that you would reply
> promptly. Or at least reply eventually.
<snip>
And check out this from Ray's response to Longfellow elsewhere in this
thread for the true greatness of his double standard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Longfellow:
It is Sunday, August 21st, 2005 about 4:00 pm California time and I
have just finished reading your latest message.
Because of its length and depth, and because my time for posting is
very limited between now and Wednesdays, these scheduling realities
will prevent me from posting my reply until Thursday or Friday.
In my just concluded one-on-one debate with Darwinist Richard Clayton,
it was well known that my posting days are Thursday, Friday, Saturdays,
but I may be able to post sooner.
I just wanted you to know this and I hope this doesn't ruin the flow of
the debate.
It would take me about 2 uninterrupted hours to respond to your latest
message that I do not have today, and like I said, probably not until
Thursday the earliest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You gotta wonder at the bare faced effrontery of people like Ray
sometimes, and wonder also whether they act this way knowingly, or are
completely oblivious to how they appear to those watching.
shane
Tristan Miller
In article <1124665625.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
> It is Sunday, August 21st, 2005 about 4:00 pm California time and I
> have just finished reading your latest message.
>
> Because of its length and depth, and because my time for posting is
> very limited between now and Wednesdays, these scheduling realities
> will prevent me from posting my reply until Thursday or Friday.
>
> In my just concluded one-on-one debate with Darwinist Richard Clayton,
> it was well known that my posting days are Thursday, Friday, Saturdays,
> but I may be able to post sooner.
>
> I just wanted you to know this and I hope this doesn't ruin the flow of
> the debate.
>
> It would take me about 2 uninterrupted hours to respond to your latest
> message that I do not have today, and like I said, probably not until
> Thursday the earliest.
Oh, so we're supposed to allow you five days to respond, yet you demand
others respond to your remarks in a mere two hours?
In article <1124411515.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
> What physical evidence places Thutmose III in the 15th century ?
>
> I'll give you 2 hours to respond.
Martin Hutton
On 21-Aug-2005, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***smiles***BTW, your head will join Richard's on my belt when this is
> over***smiles***
Here you go again: claiming victory while wallowing in the ashes of
defeat.
Once more your clock has been cleaned (the fact that your "responses"
were totally irrelevant didn't help you one bit).
--
Martin Hutton
"The truths of religion are never so well understood as
by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
...Voltaire, "Philosophical Dictionary" 1764
Hyper...@gmail.com
Bereshith Elohim.... oops, we have an immediate flag here.
We look to see what is referenced, and we find that Ancient History has
direct evidence that is immediately relevant. From the Ugarit texts of
the early 2nd millennium BCE, we find that the Elohim are a family of
deities. The English version implies from the grammar that God is a
single entity, but the Hebrew version references a family of deities.
Presented with this sort of conflicting evidence, any good researcher
will stop and see what has happened, and so shall we. From our
contextual knowledge of this material, we understand that the deity in
question, God in English and Elohim in Hebrew, is the main focus of
interest. We have, almost before we start, a profound disagreement
about the essential nature of this essential aspect. "
This is in error. "Elohim" is, as you state, a plural form, as Hebrew
plural forms use the suffix -im or -ot depending on the word. However,
the term "Elohim" is not meant to be interpreted at plural in this
case. Further reading of the passage implies fairly concretely that it
is referring to a single deity. The plural in this situation is used
for two reasons: One is that the plural form often signifies a certain
level of greatness or royalty, or a state of being everywhere at once,
the second is that it is thought to refer to the heavenly host, that
is, the combination of G_d and his many angels. Very few Hebrew
scholars would assert that the use of "Elohim" implies multiple
deities. Oh, and incidentally, it's not "Bereshit Elohim," it's
"Bereshit barah Elohim."
That being said, the creation story in Bereshit/Genesis does parallel
the creation stories of other mythologies, especially the parallels
between Eve being created from Adam's rib and the Flood coming from
specific Sumerian myths, Nin-ti and Utnapishtim, respectively.
Longfellow
> have just finished reading your latest message.
>
> Because of its length and depth, and because my time for posting is
> very limited between now and Wednesdays, these scheduling realities
> will prevent me from posting my reply until Thursday or Friday.
>
> In my just concluded one-on-one debate with Darwinist Richard Clayton,
> it was well known that my posting days are Thursday, Friday, Saturdays,
> but I may be able to post sooner.
>
> I just wanted you to know this and I hope this doesn't ruin the flow of
> the debate.
>
> It would take me about 2 uninterrupted hours to respond to your latest
> message that I do not have today, and like I said, probably not until
> Thursday the earliest.
>
> over***smiles***
>
Very well.
My head has always remained very firmly where it is, as does that of Mr.
Clayton, I suspect. I would be *very* careful, if I were you. I would
remind you that I have deliberately allowed nothing but primary material
on the part of canonical scripture. Proposals of any other type of
material in this debate until the question of textual corruption is
settled will have, therefore, no basis. The only question before us at
the moment is the use of a name/title that is defined by previous usage,
but with improper conjugation. The word is plural, but the usage in the
text assumes the singular.
If further analysis shows that the matter is trivial, we shall continue.
I think we already know that the matter is not only non-trivial, but
lies at the very heart of the difficulties in the current debates
between science and religion. I believe that I shall show as much.
In short, the opportunity to blunder badly surrounds you. Proceed with
caution.
Longfellow
Darrell Stec
Hyper...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry but Hebrew didn't have the Royal We. Plural is Plural. Early Hebrew
theology accepted the polytheism of their neighbors. Incidentally, among
scholars (not bible school teachers though) it is almost universally
accepted that Elohim implies multiple gods. One need only read The Anchor
Bible or the Interpreters Bible to see that.
And angels were a much later addition to the heavenly cosmos. There are too
many hints in scripture that Elohim meant gods plural. Sometimes to
obfuscate the matter, Elohim is translated variously as messengers, angels,
or judges when Elohim is so far beyond doubt that it refers to plural gods.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Longfellow
<snip>
> Sorry but Hebrew didn't have the Royal We. Plural is Plural. Early Hebrew
> theology accepted the polytheism of their neighbors. Incidentally, among
> scholars (not bible school teachers though) it is almost universally
> accepted that Elohim implies multiple gods. One need only read The Anchor
> Bible or the Interpreters Bible to see that.
>
> And angels were a much later addition to the heavenly cosmos. There are too
> many hints in scripture that Elohim meant gods plural. Sometimes to
> obfuscate the matter, Elohim is translated variously as messengers, angels,
> or judges when Elohim is so far beyond doubt that it refers to plural gods.
Exactly so.
I specifically mandated that no interpretive material be included, and
the notion that "..im" denotes divine plentitude is a Massoretic
addition, which follows the origin of the text of interest by at least a
century, I think.
Longfellow
Pfusand
> And check out this from Ray's response to Longfellow elsewhere in this
> thread for the true greatness of his double standard.
(Martinez wrote:)
>> In my just concluded one-on-one debate with Darwinist Richard Clayton,
>> it was well known that my posting days are Thursday, Friday, Saturdays,
>> but I may be able to post sooner.
Oh, yes. That's what triggered my eventual response.
Everyone: Thanks for noticing.
Hyper...@gmail.com
I didn't say that it did. I was making a generalized comparison to
English. As for early Hebrew theology being polytheistic, this would
have to be pre-Abrahamic theology. While the actual word "Elohim" does
appear, there is nothing aside from this plural form that implies
polytheism...in fact, had you read a little bit further, you would have
noticed that many other passages do not refer to G_d as "Elohim" or
"Adonai Elohim," but by a proper name, YHVH. This is, of course, a
major point for the multiple authorship theory, which I personally
agree with, but it also really throws a wrench into the whole
polytheism thing. Incidentally, we do know that by the time that the
original stories were finally written down shortly after the Babylonian
exile, Judaic theology was most certainly monotheistic. Given this,
why would they have left it as "Elohim," if they felt that it would
imply polytheism, a concept which is specifically prohibited under
Judaic law. If the Redactor had believed that "Elohim" had
polytheistic connotations, why wouldn't he or them simply amend it as
"Eloheinu," meaning "our G_d," or simply "El," which does appear
elsewhere?
The problem here is that you make the same mistake that many
creationists make. You look at one specific point of evidence, in this
case the tense of a single word, and use it to build up a case which
completely ignores any and all other evidence, all of which happens to
point to a completely different conclusion.
"I specifically mandated that no interpretive material be included, and
the notion that "..im" denotes divine plentitude is a Massoretic
addition, which follows the origin of the text of interest by at least
a
century, I think. "
Ok, so are you implying that Jews following the original text were
polytheistic, even though later points in that very same text, it
specifically says "I am the Lord your G_d, you shall have no other G_ds
before me?" And that it was only this later interpretation, in the 2nd
century BCE, that turned it into a monotheistic religion? I do hope
that I have misread your post, because such an assertion is hilariously
misguided. Wow.
Look, this is really a pointless and irrelevent side-topic to the
original posts, but I really just wanted to point out that even someone
who has only studied Hebrew for six years, which really isn't that long
when you consider how complicated a language it is, understands why
"Elohim" doesn't refer to polytheism. This is really almost at the
level of quotemining.
Hyper...@gmail.com
identification of Jesus of Nazraeth, to fulfill O.T. Messianic
prophetic shadows is inescapably factual."
Well, there are a few problems with this, starting with the fact that
the original Messianic prophecies say absolutely nothing about divine
origin, virgin birth, son of G_d, or anything else of that nature
regarding the Messiah. Why? Because such assertions would be
heretical in Judaism. Furthermore, the prophecies did say that the
Messiah would be of the "line of King David," and that he would gather
lion and lamb, and bring a millenium of peace. Now, the period of
history from ca 33 CE to 1000 CE is not my area of expertise, but I
seem to remember at least a few wars during this period...not to
mention, wasn't a decent portion of this era known as the "Dark Ages?"
Look, I have no problem with Christians claiming that their Prophet has
fulfilled their prophetic beliefs in their texts, but please do not
make claims regarding the texts and prophecies of other religions
without at least a cursory understanding of those religions. I would
not make assertions about the divinity of Vishnu, or the proper path to
acheive Nirvana, as I recognize that followers of Hinduism and Buddhism
probably know more about their religious traditions than I do,
likewise, please do not attempt to alter other religions' theologies to
support your religious beliefs. You just come across sounding
ignorant, just like when you try to alter or dismiss valid scientific
observations because they conflict with your religious beliefs.
Tristan Miller
In article <1124764707.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
>>
>> I cite the LXX as it appears to be the benchmark against which both the
>> Christian and Jewish Bibles have been developed. The Christians bought
>> it pretty much as is, with the rejection of certain texts that did not
>> serve their purpose. Same with the Jews, of course.
>>
>
> This commentary is snide and betrays the first signs of overt secular
> bias appointing itself referee.
I have nothing to add to this discussion; I just want to say this:
THANK YOU FOR FINALLY LEARNING HOW TO QUOTE!!!
stew dean
Ray Martinez wrote:
> From:
>
> Ray Martinez
>
> To:
>
> Any Atheist, Darwinist, or secularist.
Ray,
There have been a number of formalised debates where both sides have
set the rules in this group. The 'crationists' have lost ever time,
often by breaking their own rules.
You are part of an ongoing debate here and appear to be loosing each
and every argument.
The requres for debate will no doubt be lept upon but remember to stick
to the agreed rules and also I urge you to read up on what is
acceptable in a debate, personal attacks are out!
Stew Dean
Darrell Stec
Hyper...@gmail.com wrote:
> Look, this is really a pointless and irrelevent side-topic to the
> original posts, but I really just wanted to point out that even someone
> who has only studied Hebrew for six years, which really isn't that long
> when you consider how complicated a language it is, understands why
> "Elohim" doesn't refer to polytheism. This is really almost at the
> level of quotemining.
Were you sleeping during 5 3/4 of those 6 years? You surely do not seem to
understand much about the Documentary Hypothesis either. I also presume
your study was limited to the Masoretic Texts. And one more note: You
cannot learn Hebrew in a vacuum. You must keep abreast of archaeology too.
Archaeology in fact tells us Yahweh had a Mrs. god as far as the Canaanites
were concerned.
Darrell Stec
pyram...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I cite the LXX as it appears to be the benchmark against which both the
>> Christian and Jewish Bibles have been developed. The Christians bought
>> it pretty much as is, with the rejection of certain texts that did not
>> serve their purpose. Same with the Jews, of course.
>>
>
> This commentary is snide and betrays the first signs of overt secular
> bias appointing itself referee.
>
> The LXX was produced 300 to 100 BC by Jewish scribes and scholars of
> Ezralitish origin, please note dating is prior to the birth of Christ -
> obviously, so its production cannot contain any post-Pentecost
> Christological considerations or bias. Any such endeavors, that is the
> identification of Jesus of Nazraeth, to fulfill O.T. Messianic
> prophetic shadows is inescapably factual.
>
Only the Pentateuch was written in Greek as late as 94 CE. The other books
followed during the second and third centuries CE. They either just
preceded the New Testament in Greek or parts were contemporaneous with it.
Christianity is seems had great influence in translating parts of the
Septuagint.
> The perceived takeover of the LXX by the schismatics was the very
> irritation that provoked the Masoretes to embark on their journey to
> procure a Holy Text that predictibly reflected their "his blood be on
> us" [Matthew 27:25] defiance.
>
>> In any case, I'm looking at the Torah, which is the core of the Hebrew
>> canon, both for the Christian Old Testament and the Judaic Tanahk. It
>> is my custom to look first at the oldest evidence, as later evidence
>> seems always influenced by earlier evidence. What I wish to avoid in
>> any case is any interpretive material, which is always of later origin.
>
> Everything needs interpretation Longfellow.
>
>>
>>This basic protocol is pretty much standard in any scholarship, and is
>> mandatory in science. I understand why: look at the evidence itself
>> and the objective reality it presents is most clearly expressed. Then
>> look at the most recent interpretive data to get a handle on what is the
>> current thinking. Finally, examine a representative cross-section of
>> the historical interpretive commentary to see how the evidence itself
>> was perceived down through history, and how that interpretation changed
>> over time.
>>
>> That is a decent first scan protocol. After that, a full study has some
>> structure of context to serve as a representation of the objective
>> reality of interest, here: the origins of the canonical sources of the
>> Hebrew religious stream; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>
>> Now, you have specified an inclusion of Ancient History as a rational
>> base. So we will hold the evidence of Ancient History as a reference
>> and benchmark for our investigation.
>
> Whatever is said above seems to be a long-winded way of asserting
> yourself objective.
>
> "There is no such thing as an objective historian....history truly is
> his story, that is the historian's....everyone has an axe to grind,
> objective persons state their bias up-front so when it creeps into
> their conclusions the audience will know it" [source: Dr. Gene Scott
> Ph.D. Stanford University]
>
> My bias:
>
> Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, I am as such because of the evidence.
>
>
> I expect you to state your bias up-front in your next post.
>
> DO NOT CLAIM AGNOSTICISM.
>
> Dr. Scott, talking about the absurdity of agnosticism:
>
> "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an
> opinion."
>
> My next post will address the meat of your argument.
>
> Ray Martinez
stew dean
Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Well, it turns out that the Elohim is a family of deities of the
> > Canaanite culture, which is directly related to the Phoenician culture.
> > It was also located in the very area where this all started, and it
> > appears to have had a legacy that predates that of the Hebrew itself.
> > Therefore, we can tentatively conclude that the Hebrew use of the name
> > 'Elohim' indicates an understanding and acceptance of the earlier usage.
> > Why? If not, another name would be used!
> >
> > So it turns out that our protocols cannot be used, as the material
> > itself is suspect and possibly corrupted. We have no choice but to turn
> > to the evidence of Ancient History and use it as a direct guide and
> > interpretation of the text of interest. Otherwise the evident
> > corruption makes it useless for our purposes.
> >
>
>
> Genesis 1:1 states a fact:
<bzzzzt>
If the bible where a factual text book then a lot of science is wrong.
Facts and the bible do not go together. As a book of meaning then it
stands up, it has many good human stories, some of which are parables.
There was not global flood yet the story of the flood has a message
and, if you look back in history, you can see that one persons world
could have been flooded and he put two of all his animals on a boat.
Just as the verbal tradition passed it on the sorry got a bit bigger
(the one that got away). Most of the old testament is like that, and
the further back you go the bigger the exageration.
Like I said, trying to convince Atheists of anything using the bible is
like using the complete works of shakespeare to fight a fire.
Stew Dean
>
> GodS created the heavens and the Earth.
>
> English versions cannot accept the polytheism declaration and have
> ignored the plurality.
>
> Text without context is error.
>
> There are 3 Gods revealed in the Bible: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
>
> The introduction of the Spirit is immediate in Genesis. The N.T.
> informs us that Christ had an eternal pre-existence. The Colossians
> epistle informs us that when God spoke the universe into existence
> Christ was the speaking agent, hence the 3 Gods of Genesis 1:1.
>
> Social evolutionists predicted ancient history would end up proving the
> origins of mankind's religious beliefs to be multi-idolatrous. They
> were correct. In response, theist archaeologists predicted that
> previous to these polytheistic origins all of mankind believed in one
> universal deity.
> They were correct. The subsequent departure into polytheistic idolatry
> marks the introduction of Satan into these histories.
>
> All ancient civilizations claim God is found and related to upon a
> mountain. The Torah says Moses received the law on Mt. Sinai. Jesus was
> transfigured on a mount.
>
> The point is that mankind began worshipping one universal deity
> revealed in many ancient cultures as Elohim = proof that the theist
> archaeologists were correct. As Satan asserted himself per the events
> in the Garden of Eden - he corrupted mankind into idolatry.
>
> Don't believe in Satan ?
>
> The evidence of the Bible says he is a fact just as much as God, Moses,
> Elijah, or Jesus.
>
> His invisible presence is seen via the effects of his doings much like
> science who accepts the reality of invisible particles based on the
> effects of their presence.
>
>
> > Ancient history is generally regarded as beginning in the Mesopotamian
> > Plain, now Iraq. The date appears to be somewhere in the very early 4th
> > millennium BCE, or late 5th. Evidence of much older civil architecture
> > exists in surrounding areas, but no written evidence appears to have
> > survived, and after all, history is about written evidence that can be
> > shown authentic.
> >
> > In virtually all the most ancient texts, we find the assertion that a
> > family of deities is responsible for the origin and continuing welfare
> > of mankind. The names change with the change in languages, but the
> > functions remain mostly the same, the deities are responsible for
> > mankind, if obviously not responsible *to* mankind.
> >
>
> Ray Martinez
Rick Merrill
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>>Well, it turns out that the Elohim is a family of deities of the
>>>Canaanite culture, which is directly related to the Phoenician culture.
>>>It was also located in the very area where this all started, and it
>>>appears to have had a legacy that predates that of the Hebrew itself.
>>>Therefore, we can tentatively conclude that the Hebrew use of the name
>>>'Elohim' indicates an understanding and acceptance of the earlier usage.
>>>Why? If not, another name would be used!
>>>
>>>So it turns out that our protocols cannot be used, as the material
>>>itself is suspect and possibly corrupted. We have no choice but to turn
>>>to the evidence of Ancient History and use it as a direct guide and
>>>interpretation of the text of interest. Otherwise the evident
>>>corruption makes it useless for our purposes.
>>>
>>
>>Why are you assuming a corruption ?
>>
>>Genesis 1:1 states a fact:
>
>
> <bzzzzt>
>
There's a fly in your keyboard?
> If the bible where a factual text book then a lot of science is wrong.
Some bible "translations" are poor (e.g. the "Good News Bible" uses a
total vocabulary of 800 words), AND some "science" will be proven wrong
(c.f. "conservation of Mass" circa 1950's).
> Facts and the bible do not go together. As a book of meaning then it
> stands up, it has many good human stories, some of which are parables.
Separation of Science and Religion seems like a better idea every day!-)
> There was not global flood yet the story of the flood has a message
> and, if you look back in history, you can see that one persons world
> could have been flooded and he put two of all his animals on a boat.
The "known world" in Noah's day consisted of asia minor in toto!
> Just as the verbal tradition passed it on the sorry got a bit bigger
> (the one that got away). Most of the old testament is like that, and
> the further back you go the bigger the exageration.
To the eyes of "modern man" indeed it does.
> Like I said, trying to convince Atheists of anything using the bible is
> like using the complete works of shakespeare to fight a fire.
Sweet!
> Stew Dean
>
>
>
>>GodS created the heavens and the Earth.
>>
>>English versions cannot accept the polytheism declaration and have
>>ignored the plurality.
Darn that translation problem!
>>Text without context is error.
>>
>>There are 3 Gods revealed in the Bible: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
>>
>>The introduction of the Spirit is immediate in Genesis. The N.T.
>>informs us that Christ had an eternal pre-existence. The Colossians
>>epistle informs us that when God spoke the universe into existence
>>Christ was the speaking agent, hence the 3 Gods of Genesis 1:1.
>>
>>Social evolutionists predicted ancient history would end up proving the
>>origins of mankind's religious beliefs to be multi-idolatrous. They
>>were correct. In response, theist archaeologists predicted that
>>previous to these polytheistic origins all of mankind believed in one
>>universal deity.
>>They were correct. The subsequent departure into polytheistic idolatry
>>marks the introduction of Satan into these histories.
Ayup, where is this going?
>>All ancient civilizations claim God is found and related to upon a
>>mountain. The Torah says Moses received the law on Mt. Sinai. Jesus was
>>transfigured on a mount.
And famously crucified on a mount, if I'm not mistaken.
[snip, sorry Ray]