Hmm...

Originally posted by twhitehead

If the Bible is absolutely true then I am mad, because my current mind tells me that it would be illogical for the Bible to be absolutely true.
For a start, such a claim ignores some very basic problems:

1. 'the Bible' doesn't exist as an object with a single message. It refers to a whole collection of books whose various copies and translations ...[text shortened]... t as fiction then it is presumably true - if such a word still holds meaning at that point.

"... my current mind tells me that it would be illogical for the Bible to be absolutely true.
What does your 'current mind' tell you about a far lesser topic... your chess prowess?


"Language is inherently imprecise..."
Yes, we agree. English and some other contemporary languages are pitifully inadequate.
Koine Greek an extraordinary exception, and not by accident, i.e., 'in the fulness of time'.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'll quit posting here for a month if you agree to do the same. If that works, the period can be extended for longer. Reply with 'I agree' and it's on.

Why offer to exit the fray, Bosse?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

This is what you come up with in summary? That I am anti-education? On the basis of what, again?

Well the basis is in your post. "You arrogantly assume to declare that ..... You are a rube of the lowest order, using your education as a shield and weapon, wielding it against the unsuspecting

This appears on face value to accuse me of arrogance in the way I use my education and suggests that I do so at the unfair disadvantage of my unsuspecting targets. Attacking the person rather than any argument is a feature of your posts which I have taken to protesting about.

I wrote Is it also the case that people of your mind set...; you replied:
What do you mean "you people?" Your condescending tone is so cute. Can you try it in a British accent?

I refer here to "people of your mindset", not to "you people," which invalidates your remark. I'm Irish, not British, which undermines your witticism. As I live in Britain it may be that I could employ some of the Anglo Saxon terminology that fits the situation so well, but alas the site has some standards about things like that.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'll quit posting here for a month if you agree to do the same. If that works, the period can be extended for longer. Reply with 'I agree' and it's on.

Not sure what you're attempting to accomplish?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What does your 'current mind' tell you about a far lesser topic... your chess prowess?

I could be a lot better if I took more time to move or time to study the game more, but I cant be bothered to do either.
Is that what you were looking for?

Yes, we agree. English and some other contemporary languages are pitifully inadequate.
Koine Greek an extraordinary exception, and not by accident, i.e., 'in the fulness of time'.
Not only do I dispute that, but how is it relevant? Or are you claiming that 'the Bible' is in Koine Greek?

Besides, you are yet to address my charge that 'the Bible' either refers to a collection of various books with clear and obvious contradictions, or it refers to a non-existent entity. If you are not happy with this, then please define what you mean by 'the Bible' as there is no point discussing whether something is 'absolutely true' if we do not understand what that something is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What it would take to construct the cohesion viewed within Scripture, establish a nation, inspire countless millions of people to follow--- and et cetera--- brings the necessity of its one premise, i.e., that the God to which it all points actually exists, to the forefront of all options.

.... Then there's Mao Tse Tung and his little red book of course. That points to the validity of the Marxist Leninist ideology and the inherent necessity that the working class will triumph after a necessary interlude of the dictatorship of the proletariat, providing gainful employment to Lenin, Stalin, Mao,... Even when, as in China, there was a slightly anachronistic absence of a working class as such. But when you live by the book, all can be made to fit with sufficient ingenuity. Or perhaps you would advocate going back to the original teachings of Karl Marx? I know I do. That would establish how they have been totally misrepresented though the past century, how they retain validity as a work of their time and place, and how they are also rather restricted in their scope. Important, significant, still relevant but not a blueprint for the future and not incapable of refutation.

Why does that sound like your mistake with the Bible?

Originally posted by finnegan
.... Then there's Mao Tse Tung and his little red book of course. That points to the validity of the Marxist Leninist ideology and the inherent necessity that the working class will triumph after a necessary interlude of the dictatorship of the proletariat, providing gainful employment to Lenin, Stalin, Mao,... Even when, as in China, there was a slightly a ...[text shortened]... ture and not incapable of refutation.

Why does that sound like your mistake with the Bible?

Do tell.

Greatest challenge in learning (virtually any cluster of practical information or categories of knowledge built upon knowledge) is the unlearning involved. We all begin as objective, teachable tabula rasa children with the objectivity and humility to accept relevant authority. Something happens on the way to the forum. Pride is a negative dynamic. Letting go is painful.