Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've often thought that the bible -- particularly the OT, but to some extent the NT, as well -- is very Cecil-B-DeMille-ish. And of course, old Cecil tackled the bible at least 4 times. To say he was a drama queen is an understatement. And I have long thought that the people who wrote the bible had a great deal of drama queen in them, as well. Sometimes "high drama" sells tickets, and I have a feeling the bible writers followed that map, especially since now we hear (including this past week right on this forum) that so many of these events in the bible never really happened, that they were just tricks to get attention. Personally, I think that all too often the tales in the bible -- at least in today's world -- overshadow the lessons that they were attempting to teach. Instead, the debate will center on 'did that really happen' or 'was that really possible', instead of triggering a useful discussion about the wisdom of the teaching.
You present very differently depending on the topic, Phet. I do not know what to think about you and your views. This is insightful and cogent. Your DM to me was also clarifying. You may not be as uncompromising as you otherwise seem to be.
You present very differently depending on the topic, Phet. I do not know what to think about you and your views. This is insightful and cogent. Your DM to me was also clarifying. You may not be as uncompromising as you otherwise seem to be.
Thank you. I think. I appreciate that you noticed.
We have one species of arthropod here who intentionally lies about my positions.
For example, I have never said the people should not have the freedom to believe in whatever religion they wish. What I have said is that when one practices their religioous beliefs, they should not in any way interfere with the beliefs (or non beliefs) of others. Within reason, what a religious person does in their minds is thier business. What they do in their homes is their business. What they do in their places of worship is their business. Even in some public settings (such as a church having a picnic at a local park), no probelm.
I'm not a fan of rituals unless one truly knows what the ritual is. For example, when a catholic goes to a rosary service, participates, but then can't explain what it is all about...that's foolish. When a Methodist sings "Are ye able said the master to be crucified with me? Yea, the sturdy dreamers answered, to the death we follow thee"...but when asked admit don't take that literally...that's foolish. When a Thai Buddish bows to a statue to Ganesh, but doesn't know anything about Ganesh...that's foolish.
And, trying to win an argument over what in the bible is literal versus figurative, is far less important than thinking about and discussing why (or why not) something in the bible is wise.
Thank you. I think. I appreciate that you noticed.
We have one species of arthropod here who intentionally lies about my positions.
For example, I have never said the people should not have the freedom to believe in whatever religion they wish. What I have said is that when one practices their religioous beliefs, they should not in any way interfere with the beliefs (or non beliefs) of others. Within reason, what a religious person does in their minds is thier business. What they do in their homes is their business. What they do in their places of worship is their business. Even in some public settings (such as a church having a picnic at a local park), no probelm.
I'm not a fan of rituals unless one truly knows what the ritual is. For example, when a catholic goes to a rosary service, participates, but then can't explain what it is all about...that's foolish. When a Methodist sings "Are ye able said the master to be crucified with me? Yea, the sturdy dreamers answered, to the death we follow thee"...but when asked admit don't take that literally...that's foolish. When a Thai Buddish bows to a statue to Ganesh, but doesn't know anything about Ganesh...that's foolish.
And, trying to win an argument over what in the bible is literal versus figurative, is far less important than thinking about and discussing why (or why not) something in the bible is wise.
***yawn***
Back to bashing and hyper focused on bad religion.
lmao ..,.while believing that you had a past life ...lmao ...too funny ... walked around a city and banged into a church means you where guided.
Lucky for you, people don't care about hypocrites when they join the fight against religion.
You present very differently depending on the topic, Phet. I do not know what to think about you and your views. This is insightful and cogent. Your DM to me was also clarifying. You may not be as uncompromising as you otherwise seem to be.
its easy ... he is hyper focused on fight religion ... that is the primary goal here.
sometimes he slips and thinks "maybe I should look at what has a mechanism, makes reputable predictions, and is consistent with observation." then he will catch himself and get back to "fight religion in the united states is the primary goal"!!!
I'm going to say this once again. This nonsense that you continually spout about various posters who don't agree with you running away...none of us has run away. I'm here everyday. There are times that I choose to not respond to your posts. Sometimes it's because you don't have the cortesy to create posts that are readable, and that's disrespectful to other posters. Some of your posts are just inane, something we are all guilty of from time to time, although some posters have a higher batting average on that. Often I don't respond to your posts because they're essentially two very repetetive themes -- either they're about this huge living system you talk about adnauseum, or you want to make a list. I've already responded to those recurrent posts dozens of times over the past few years; no need to keep responding to them. I'll just say ditto what I said many times before.
As far as posting where I think religionists are wrong, how is that so tremendously different than your repetitive pro-religion posts where you state why I am wrong?
What does a proselytizer often do when they approach a person. They'll often ask if they are a believer, and if one says no, they'll often start telling the person why that's wrong.
But I'm going to make a suggestion: if my posts bother you so much, there's another alternative you have. Put me on ignore. Please put me on ignore. Please please put me on ignore.
Nope ...
Your position is dangerous to people around you. In the north east united states your thinking puts us in more danger than the religious south. Just look at the recent rise in gang violence in philly.
My position: lets look at each claim to see what is more consistent with observation. lets see where "lack belief" and "past lives" fit when we apply the scientific method.
versus your position of "we [you and the gang] are here to fight religion".
its easy ... he is hyper focused on fight religion ... that is the primary goal here.
sometimes he slips and thinks "maybe I should look at what has a mechanism, makes reputable predictions, and is consistent with observation." then he will catch himself and get back to "fight religion in the united states is the primary goal"!!!
Nope. Just the lie you keep telling. Just another of your mindless attacks.
Your position is dangerous to people around you. In the north east united states your thinking puts us in more danger than the religious south. Just look at the recent rise in gang violence in philly.
My position: lets look at each claim to see what is more consistent with observation. lets see where "lack belief" and "past lives" fit when we apply the scientific method.
versus your position of "we [you and the gang] are here to fight religion".
Now I'm affiliated with gangs. That's just plain dumb.
I've often thought that the bible -- particularly the OT, but to some extent the NT, as well -- is very Cecil-B-DeMille-ish. And of course, old Cecil tackled the bible at least 4 times. To say he was a drama queen is an understatement. And I have long thought that the people who wrote the bible had a great deal of drama queen in them, as well. Sometimes "high drama" sells tickets, and I have a feeling the bible writers followed that map, especially since now we hear (including this past week right on this forum) that so many of these events in the bible never really happened, that they were just tricks to get attention. Personally, I think that all too often the tales in the bible -- at least in today's world -- overshadow the lessons that they were attempting to teach. Instead, the debate will center on 'did that really happen' or 'was that really possible', instead of triggering a useful discussion about the wisdom of the teaching.
Yes, I agree. Been saying that for years.
I have that issue now in the Christianity forum when people claim that because Jesus mentioned, say, Adam or Noah, why then that means those characters and the tales in which they appear were actual people and events. There's no discussion about what those stories could have meant or represented.
I just don't know how to respond. They couldn't just be cultural references that everyone understood? Unkind thoughts about intellectual capabilities arise in my mind.
I have that issue now in the Christianity forum when people claim that because Jesus mentioned, say, Adam or Noah, why then that means those characters and the tales in which they appear were actual people and events. There's no discussion about what those stories could have meant or represented.
I just don't know how to respond. They couldn't just be cultural references that everyone understood? Unkind thoughts about intellectual capabilities arise in my mind.
People use references that are recognizable by their audience all the time. They don't have to be true. They just have to be [basically] universally understood. When someone mentions "Camelot," we all know the reference in to the King Arthur legend even though Arthur's existence is not known to be a fact. If we reference "playing Robin Hood," even when talking about taxes or economics, we all know we are talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Whether Adam or Noah even existed isn't the point Jesus was making with his references. His audience understood what he meant.
I have that issue now in the Christianity forum when people claim that because Jesus mentioned, say, Adam or Noah, why then that means those characters and the tales in which they appear were actual people and events. There's no discussion about what those stories could have meant or represented.
I just don't know how to respond. They couldn't just be cultural references that everyone understood? Unkind thoughts about intellectual capabilities arise in my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
People use references that are recognizable by their audience all the time. They don't have to be true. They just have to be [basically] universally understood. When someone mentions "Camelot," we all know the reference in to the King Arthur legend even though Arthur's existence is not known to be a fact. If we reference "playing Robin Hood," even when talking about taxes or economics, we all know we are talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Whether Adam or Noah even existed isn't the point Jesus was making with his references. His audience understood what he meant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
