Larry N Moore

TL, is this -- http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm -- what you're referring to? The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby

Well, that's fine by me. Obviously, it's much easier for you just to say you disagree then to actually explain why you disagree. Makes for a shorter discussion. Thanks.

No I didn't cman. For you to think so probably is self-projecting. Why would I take offense to an attribute that everyone shares? The term bias is generally perceived as a negative attribute (and it can be) but bias is everything that's been filtered and processed through your mind making you who you are. How deep does one have to consider something before that "light-bulb" turns on and they see the light as you see the light? *sigh* You assume that I DON'T or haven't consider what others say "deeply." Now THAT I find mildly offensive. Mildly because you aren't the first one who I've seen make such assumptions. :) You silly guy. Try "deeply" thinking about what you're saying. Are you a mind-reader? You don't know what I think about what people here have dealt with. You certainly don't know what I have dealt with. You might just be surprised at how easily I can get along with people if they give me a chance. That's a two-way street, my friend. Have I "attacked" viewpoints? Sure. Some people aren't comfortable having their viewpoints challenged and resort to an defensive position of attacking a person's personality. Somehow, I don't think you'll be able to see the difference.

That's so sweet of you. Thanks. Goes without saying that the old adage "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." is false. Of course you did. I knew that. I suppose I could have waited patiently for someone else to come along and partake of your delicious muffins but damn -- I was hungry. Already did. Didn't you notice? I'm wondering -- do you write a lot of poetry, as well as specialize in concocting tasty morsels of food for the benefit of our mental health? That's "No shlt Sherlock!" to be more precise. But you probably knew that. ;)

Try sitting somewhere else. Your perspective might change. *sigh* Seriously Danny, anyone (who is being honest) could easily see that I wasn't the one who initially derailed the topic or started the trading of insults. Of course that's just my perspective as seen from the seat I'm sitting on. I imagine there are some people here who have developed some bonds with each other (good for them) -- that doesn't make for a very objective opinion of matters such as this. So, try going back through the thread and quote exactly where you think I started the side-tracking and if I was the first to "cast a stone". Here's a hint for you -- look to page three and at cmas' posts and my responses to them.

sirguessalot (btw -- love your choice of user ID) can't we simply just get on with having discussions without trying to analyze and/or dictate how we should have them? I've never taken myself so seriously that it upsets me whenever a discussion isn't going the way I think it should go. Or a question I've asked or a point I've made isn't answered or addressed. Should I have answered your question from the other thread (of which this current one is obviously based)? I generally side-step posts which I deem irrelevant to the subject unless I'm in the mood to be accommodating or I sense someone is trying to be a smart-a$$. Generally. :)

Yea, well, I never knew you were intelligent but, that's the beauty of the Internet -- you can pretend to be something you're not. You don't have to be a doctor to recommend someone, who has a headache, take some aspirin to alleviate their pain. Now, I wonder how far down this path we'll go before someone gets it back on track.

Have you considered taking medication for your condition?

I was under the impression that this is a discussion board, not a pulpit. Although I can see where I may be wrong based on some of the posts I've seen.

Hogwash! Take a simple thing like subjectivism. I don't have to understand it and yet I can reject it because there are other alternatives. Whatever. You just got done telling me I can't reject something I do not understand (according to you) and now you think I have a choice. I think you're right about one thing -- we don't speak the same language.

You assume too much. It's not a perspective I don't understand -- it's a perspective I reject. Why I do is something you're obviously not interested in learning. Your loss.

As YOU understand it, perhaps I did. Have you so soon forgot what you told me? We all get from it what we need. If you had a point to make, other than -- Here's a interesting fellow you should read -- then that point I got. My point was -- if this is the sort of crap the man has to offer I'll pass.

Yes, and there are some who believe the Holocaust never happened. If you think it away it's as if it never occurred. Such is the power of the mind.

Thanks Jean. It was. Got some wonderful memories and some awesome pictures to help me remember.

*SIGH*

*SIGH*

True, but it's not as if we can arbitrarily define them. If we cannot agree to definitions then no communication is possible. We might as well be speaking to a wall whenever we open our mouths. If there is no such thing as evil then to what would we compare good to? The word becomes meaningless if everything is defined as being good. Would you call the murder of an innocent child good or evil?

TL are you aware that the same argument can be made for much more than just the Pauline letters? Some scholars have made some very good arguments for the non-existence of Jesus Christ. I suppose it comes down to a matter of "faith" -- as they say.

Where are my manners? Hi back at ya sirguessalot! I suppose Wittgenstein would have a "field day" with your philosophical logic. :) Am I correct in assuming that you don't believe the Bible is God's (assuming you believe in the Christian God) communication to mankind? Even if one does not accept that, I would think most would accept that words are used to communicate concepts and usually we don't have that much difficulty agreeing to definition of words. Even when they are re-defined it's not that difficult to discover their etymology.

It was originally called WOO. I was a member of its first wave sent to a town called Bucyrus. After that it might have been changed.

sirguessalot, how could you possibly not see the contradiction in your philosophy? If God did not consider anything evil then why would He call a tree "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?" Iniquity is synonym for evil and one will find many references in the Old Testament where this term is used in reference to people and things -- Lucifer himself is said to have been cast out of heaven because of the iniquity that was found in him.

I think I'll take the position of arguing with you, although I prefer calling it "challenging" your thinking. I've shared some "theories" of my own with others and it's been my experience that being "challenged" has helped me re-think and/or refine them. No disrespect intended but, your theory happens to be one of the most bizarre that I've come across. I can't imagine where you came up with the notion that "Jesus freed the people from the law." This doctrine comes only from Paul's teachings which is one of the reasons why Paul allegedly had some face to face confrontations with the leaders of the early Church. But we only know this from the book of Acts which was written by the Apostle Luke -- the author of the gospel of the same name. Which brings up a number of points. The same author that chronicled the ministry of Paul did likewise with the ministry of Jesus. If Luke's witness and/or testimony of Paul is questionable then so too is his testimony of Jesus. How could it be said that God inspired Luke to write the gospel of the same name but, didn't inspire him to write Acts? Clearly the latter is a testimony to Paul's devotion to Jesus Christ. The book of Acts was finalized after Paul had already written most of his "letters." Letters which are safe to assume Luke read. Was Luke duped by Paul? Or was he part of the conspiracy to dupe the believers? Additionally the concept of "mark and avoid" was not Paul's "invention." This concept predates him by hundreds of years. And if one is to believe what Luke writes (in Acts) it was a practice which many of the early leaders – Peter being a prime example – followed. Remember the record of Peter's vision on the roof? You can even find examples of this practice in the Gospels. Looking at the Old Testament you'll find where even God essentially told His "people" to "mark and avoid" non-believers. I'll leave off here and wait to see where this one will go.

Ahh . . . yep. Do you honestly think God never taught Adam and Eve anything? Never told them what was good and what was evil? Pride. Because God had to create us with the ability to think even though it might mean we think we know better than God concerning what is good and what is evil. Ahh . . . yep. Probably 'cause God thought a tree would look good in the midst of the Garden. Just joking. ;) As long as the "tree" is taken literally it won't make much sense -- at least to me.

If the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is what made it possible for Adam & Eve to gain knowledge of what is good and evil then a logical question would be -- "How would it be possible for them to know God was good if they needed to eat from that tree?" One could assume that God would want them to know that He was good otherwise they would probably be indifferent to Him. For me that tree is symbolic of man taking it upon himself to decide for himself what was good and what was evil even if it contradicted what God said was good and evil thus putting them in the position of being god-like in "knowing" what constitutes good and evil. This sin is akin to what got Lucifer in trouble. He wanted to usurp the "throne" of God. A throne represents authority.

TL, you latest post got me thinking. If "the wages of sin are death" and animals cannot sin then why do they die? Any thoughts?