Seismic activity as a sign of the last days

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because as the originator of life, life belongs to him.

A mother gives life to her child. Does this therefore mean that child's life belongs to her to do with as she wishes?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A mother gives life to her child. Does this therefore mean that child's life belongs to her to do with as she wishes?

Sigh its like a verdant garden of atheistic saplings all springing up like weeds in summer rain! When we trace the source of life from a Biblical perspective its traced back to God the originator of life, therefore logically, reasonably and rationally life does not originate with any human but originates with God. I am sure I do not need to explain the implications of this as it relates to your question, or do I?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes I understand your petty gripe concerning the rather silly argument that a paradox exists when the saying of Epimenides is uttered by a Cretan but as I've pointed out, its nonsense, why?

1. because its a proverbial utterance and not intended to be literal and logically, ( I use the word with some trepidation knowing your failure to grasp most ...[text shortened]... e find the tone control and turn it all the way up, as far as you can go, there's a good fellow.

You really have missed the point haven't you. The liar paradox in its modern form is a sentence such as: "This sentence is false.". So is the sentence true? Clearly not because it asserts that it is false. But it cannot be false, because it asserts its own falseness and that would make it true. It is a paradox. The statement, by a Cretan, "All Cretans always lie." is the ancient version of that paradox. One could just about make the argument that it is false as the Cretan speaks for other Cretans, but St. Paul says what they said is true. So he missed the point, as, it would appear, have you.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You really have missed the point haven't you. The liar paradox in its modern form is a sentence such as: "This sentence is false.". So is the sentence true? Clearly not because it asserts that it is false. But it cannot be false, because it asserts its own falseness and that would make it true. It is a paradox. The statement, by a Cretan, "All Cret ...[text shortened]... t. Paul says what they said is true[/i]. So he missed the point, as, it would appear, have you.

It seems that you are still blissfully unaware of just why Paul utilised the term. I suspect this is the reason that you need to fabricate plastic arguments. Also noteworthy is your slight of hand, the text does not contain the term, ALL Cretans, you simply made it up to fit your plastic argument. Furthermore Paul understood that not all Cretans were liars and gluttons and lazy, a point that you have failed not only to account for but even address, I suspect in your ardour to substantiate your plastic argument.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It seems that you are still blissfully unaware of just why Paul utilised the term. I suspect this is the reason that you need to fabricate plastic arguments. Also noteworthy is your slight of hand, the text does not contain the term, ALL Cretans, you simply made it up to fit your plastic argument. Furthermore Paul understood that not all Cretans we ...[text shortened]... to account for but even address, I suspect in your ardour to substantiate your plastic argument.

The text says: "The Cretians are alway liars...", this implies all of them. In any case Paul is quoting someone he describes as: "even a prophet of their own", this would be Epimenides. Epimenides formulation was "All Cretans are liars". Since I was referring to the ancient formulation of the Liar Paradox I'm entitled to use Epimenides formulation and not Paul's. Epimenides formulation of his paradox did not say anything about "evil beasts, slow bellies", that is irrelevant to the paradox and further evidence of Paul's and apparently your failure to understand it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The text says: "The Cretians are alway liars...", this implies all of them. In any case Paul is quoting someone he describes as: "even a prophet of their own", this would be Epimenides. Epimenides formulation was "All Cretans are liars". Since I was referring to the ancient formulation of the Liar Paradox I'm entitled to use Epimenides formulation and ...[text shortened]... vant to the paradox and further evidence of Paul's and apparently your failure to understand it.

Paul was not using the Epimenides text to establish a point of logic and its simply absurd to fabricate a plastic argument on the basis that he was or that he failed to grasp the so called liar paradox. Infact its one of the most plastic arguments I think I have ever heard, totally artificial for it fails to acknowledge why he utilised the text at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that Christians are warned against engaging in arguments of this type, rather interestingly in the same book, Titus chapter 3, 'But have nothing to do with foolish arguments. . . for they are unprofitable and futile'

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Paul was not using the Epimenides text to establish a point of logic and its simply absurd to fabricate a plastic argument on the basis that he was or that he failed to grasp the so called liar paradox. Infact its one of the most plastic arguments I think I have ever heard, totally artificial for it fails to acknowledge why he utilised the text at a ...[text shortened]... ter 3, 'But have nothing to do with foolish arguments. . . for they are unprofitable and futile'

What I was getting at was that he had missed the point of logic. Actually I have to withdraw my statement about St. Paul adding the words "evil beasts, slow bellies". The words are Epimenides' and from a poem asserting the immortality of Zeus. In Crete it was widely believed that Zeus was mortal and so they built a tomb for him. Epimenides disagreed with this and produced this poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

Although that makes it even more bizarre that Paul would agree with it as the poem is addressed to Zeus.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Another infamous Finnegan opinion piece which betrays at its core an extreme lack of understanding of just how the Jewish system of things relates to the Christian. Thankfully for us those 'childish' writings of Paul explain it. I suggest that you find a copy of Alfred Edersheims book, 'The life and time of Jesus the Messiah', and read it.

Ch ...[text shortened]... the Messiah. A teaching so dynamic that not even Rome itself could grapple and contend with it.

You seem to be claiming that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire, which is what Gibbons claimed in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Historical research has moved on an awful lot since his time.

The idea that Christianity allows for the free exercise of conscience is unhistorical in the extreme. So too is the idea that it is not merely concerned with empty rituel. You are falling into the #NotAllChristians trap. Christians have taken diverse lines regarding free will and predestination for example, and the relative importance of faith versus good works.

I think a key problem is your reference to "Christianity as it was intended." The general tack of identifying one Christian sect (naturally your own) as the only valid one, and regarding the rest as mistaken and frequently plain evil, has been characteristic throughout Christian history and drove the Emperor Constantine potty, which is why he demanded that Christians convene the first Council of Nicea to hammer out a coherent set of beliefs. After a mess of political skulduggery, bribery and direct violence, one band of Church Fathers proclaimed they were the only true Christians and the rest were satanically inspired heretics. Anyone claiming to be Christian in Europe since then owes their creed to a political scam. Christians have been burning each other cheerfully ever since they got hold of the political power to do that. I particularly enjoy accounts of the martyrdom of Cranmer, who conceded that he was condemned to die for holding one side of a theological dispute about transubstantiation which to his mind neither he nor any other theologican even understood. Even he conceded this was only fair as he had ordered the burning of so many heretics for disagreeing with him on the subject. He even thought it was a good idea to have a Protestant martyr to set against all the Catholic ones he had created.

For profundity, the trite opinons of indoctrinated Christians are not terribly impressive. There have been great Christian philosophers - though most of their ideas were anticipated by philosophers in other traditions, in China, India and the Islamic world. Europe emerged from theocratic tyranny when it started to borrow philosophy from the Muslims and through them, to recover the philosophy of the Greeks which they had actively set about destroying in the fourth century. The main discovery is that Christianity is really just a confection of Greek (NeoPlatonic) philosophy anyway. The claimed Jewish inheritance is not really sustainable but makes a great back story. I suspect that for profundity, Christians could learn a lot from Judaism - not least a different way to read the Torah / Bible. Sadly, Zionism seems to be wiping out centuries of Jewish tradition in this regard and indeed, many Orthodox Jews object to Zionism for that very reason. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Paul was not using the Epimenides text to establish a point of logic and its simply absurd to fabricate a plastic argument on the basis that he was or that he failed to grasp the so called liar paradox. Infact its one of the most plastic arguments I think I have ever heard, totally artificial for it fails to acknowledge why he utilised the text at a ...[text shortened]... ter 3, 'But have nothing to do with foolish arguments. . . for they are unprofitable and futile'

'But have nothing to do with foolish arguments. . . for they are unprofitable and futile'
Blimey - are you trying to close down the Spirituality Forum entirely?

Everyone knows the Greeks - especially in Athens - were deeply unimpressed by Paul and that Christians dealt with their philosophically trained enemies by persecuting them and closing down their academies. Even so, the richest traditions of creative thinking in early Christianity were in the Hellenistic regions of the Eastern Meidterranean; Western Europe was pretty barren. Christian theology was hammered out thanks to the critiques and the contributions of Hellenistic philosophers. Where else would you find ideas like "In the beginning was the word..." ?

Originally posted by finnegan
You seem to be claiming that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire, which is what Gibbons claimed in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Historical research has moved on an awful lot since his time.

The idea that Christianity allows for the free exercise of conscience is unhistorical in the extreme. So too is the idea that it is not merely ...[text shortened]... Jews object to Zionism for that very reason. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism

It's really great to see established narratives get trashed and trampled by the agenda of biased trolls on the intarwebz. Especially the politics of wikipedia.

Not.

It used to be that these types could get shouted down and refuted. Not any more. "If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true."

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's really great to see established narratives get trashed and trampled by the agenda of biased trolls on the intarwebz. Especially the politics of wikipedia. Not. It used to be that these types could get shouted down and refuted. Not any more. "If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true."

Do you believe that this is a satisfactory and effective response (for you, let's say) to Finnegan's post?

Originally posted by finnegan
You seem to be claiming that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire, which is what Gibbons claimed in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Historical research has moved on an awful lot since his time.

The idea that Christianity allows for the free exercise of conscience is unhistorical in the extreme. So too is the idea that it is not merely ...[text shortened]... Jews object to Zionism for that very reason. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism

You seem to be claiming that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire

No I have claimed nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What I was getting at was that he had missed the point of logic. Actually I have to withdraw my statement about St. Paul adding the words "evil beasts, slow bellies". The words are Epimenides' and from a poem asserting the immortality of Zeus. In Crete it was widely believed that Zeus was mortal and so they built a tomb for him. Epimenides disagreed ...[text shortened]... that makes it even more bizarre that Paul would agree with it as the poem is addressed to Zeus.

Although that makes it even more bizarre that Paul would agree with it as the poem is addressed to Zeus - DeepThought

The point about whether Paul actually agreed with it has already been addressed possibly three times and as anyone who knows anything about the Bible will tell you, Paul was not averse to utilising elements of other religions or cultures in order to establish common ground. For example, we read at Acts 17:23,

For instance, while passing along and carefully observing your objects of veneration, I found even an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’ Therefore, what you are unknowingly worshipping, this I am declaring to you.

and in the same chapter, he quotes the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus when he states,

For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’ - Acts 17:28

Now why this approach should be bizarre I cannot say for when one is building on an old mine shaft it pays not to remove the lintels and support beams completely less the roof caves down on top of your head.

http://spindleworks.com/library/rfaber/aratus.htm

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's really great to see established narratives get trashed and trampled by the agenda of biased trolls on the intarwebz. Especially the politics of wikipedia.

Not.

It used to be that these types could get shouted down and refuted. Not any more. "If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true."

That a narrative is established does not imply that it is not total bunk and that someone is referencing Wikipedia does not imply that they are relying on it. The main reason for referencing Wikipedia is that it's there. The difficulty with referencing a more learned work is that in general they aren't available on the internet and the publishers charge a small fortune for them. I don't think finnegan's posting style is that of a troll. It's interesting that you equate "shouting down" with "refuting".

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's really great to see established narratives get trashed and trampled by the agenda of biased trolls on the intarwebz. Especially the politics of wikipedia.

Not.

It used to be that these types could get shouted down and refuted. Not any more. "If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true."

My bookshelves are not replicated in every home and so it is hard to build an internet argument around them. Wikipedia ia a common resource available to all of us (since we are all on the net) and for this reason I do refer to that when it is relevant and when I agree with what it says. This enables me to provide support for some of my statements and it is of course open to challenge if you wish to refute anything it says. I have myself challenged Wikpedia and. more importantly, I have sometimes challenged the misuse of Wikipedia to make weak arguments.