19 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwFascinating. Bullocks, but fascinating. When I was an atheist, it had nothing to do with whether or not I felt accountable to a higher power.
I am convinced, although atheists deny it, they struggles with knowing there is a God. Those who deny the existence of God do so by continually drowning out the knowledge of God that is in them. They have developed all sorts of strategies with which to stifle the voice within, but no matter how much they try, they just can't escape the sound of the truth of ...[text shortened]... that keeps crying out for the love they so desperately need, and know will come from only God.
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloSounds interesting (at least for someone like me who is generally interested in Chinese characters), although this site makes me rather sceptical about the book: http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
To whom is this addressed? What position are you claiming the book strongly supports?
I'm not really sure how any of this is relevant to anything here, but if you are interested in parallels between biblical genesiac account and Chinese characters, you could also refer to a book I am reading at the moment:
The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truth ...[text shortened]... were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language, by Kang and Nelson (Concordia Publishing House).
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by NordlysI think you should be skeptical about this book. I haven't read all of it, but I'm into it a ways and I still cannot figure out what the authors are even trying to say. A lot of the parallels they draw seem very artificial to me; and at the end of the day I don't even know what they are trying to argue for!
Sounds interesting (at least for someone like me who is generally interested in Chinese characters), although this site makes me rather sceptical about the book: http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages/chinchar/chinchar.html
That's one reason why I was wondering what regos was talking about. What position is this stuff supposed to be supporting?
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs far as I understand from the site I linked to, the book (which even the chief author now admits to be inaccurate) argues that some Chinese characters show that the Chinese must have had some knowledge of what's written in Genesis without having read it. I can see how this would be relevant to this thread, as it is an argument for intuitive knowledge about things that you can find in the bible by people who haven't read it.
I think you should be skeptical about this book. I haven't read all of it, but I'm into it a ways and I still cannot figure out what the authors are even trying to say. A lot of the parallels they draw seem very artificial to me; and at the end of the day I don't even know what they are trying to argue for!
That's one reason why I was wondering what regos was talking about. What position is this stuff supposed to be supporting?
19 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Nordlysthat the Chinese must have had some knowledge of what's written in Genesis without having read it.
As far as I understand from the site I linked to, the book (which even the chief author now admits to be inaccurate) argues that some Chinese characters show that the Chinese must have had some knowledge of what's written in Genesis without having read it. I can see how this would be relevant to this thread, as it is an argument for intuitive knowledge about things that you can find in the bible by people who haven't read it.
That is an implication of the argument in the book, but the rest doesn't follow:
it is an argument for intuitive knowledge about things that you can find in the bible by people who haven't read it.
No, they are not arguing for any sort of "intuitive knowledge" (or self-evident awareness of God as josephw claims). Rather, they argue basically the following. They claim (on the basis of really no evidence) that the original Chinese migrated from Mesopotamia and that they "must have had an accurate knowledge of historical events from the beginning of time, which they communicated by word of mouth." Then, they claim that when these people conceived of a written language based on ideograms (or rather logograms), they used as a basis for many of the ideograms this history of ancient beginnings which was common knowledge through oral tradition. Then they go on to show what they claim are all these parallels with Genesis, and the implication I guess is supposed to be that Genesis is thereby likewise based on "accurate knowledge of historical events" (and they claim that the ancient Chinese people held knowledge of the same accounts before the bible ever came to be).
But nowhere is their argument relevant to the subject of "intuitive knowledge" (or self-evidency or properly basic belief) of such things. If anything, they do not recognize such a source of knowledge since they suppose that the knowledge was transmitted faithfully (for at least a certain period of time) through oral tradition.
So I still don't understand how such things are supposed to support the original claims in this thread.
-----
Anyway, the book is mildly interesting to me because I am just starting to learn some Chinese. I would say the argument it makes (although, again, I'm not convinced there is any clear thesis) is very, very poor. But I am learning some characters, which is cool!
19 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI admit no such thing.
So you admit that there was grounds for self defense as in the case of Moab, Midianites, the ammorites and the Cannanites who were after all carrying away and enslaving the Israelites, a small but rather significant admittance! no doubt with further research, the case for Jericho may be well established as well, as it stands these nations were openl ...[text shortened]... le the actions of those hostile nations with frivolous attempts at minimizing their own actions!
Your reasoning is insane. None of those people's had any obligation to allow the Israelites to trespass on their lands. In case you forgot or your knowledge of the OT is deficient, Jehovah gave the Israelites these people's lands and then ordered them to drive them out by violence. And the violence that the Israelites used such as killing every single person (and animal in the case of Jericho) was vastly disproportionate to anything these people had done to the Hebrews.
It's quite clear that the people who wrote the OT were vicious and cruel beyond most other people in the Middle East. After all, they were captured and/or conquered by several different civilizations - the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. - and were not treated as they treated the people of Jericho, the Midianites, etc. etc. To justify their viciousness and cruelty, they created a vicious and cruel God. That you actually worship such a Monster and attempt to justify mass slaughter of even children just shows how terribly warped your "thinking" has become.
You really need to ditch this nonsense and start with a fresh perspective. The Tao-Te Ching might be a good place to start: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
19 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermy dear sir, recourse to food and water, in the east, is a matter of life and death, its not as if they were unwilling to buy from them, and your assertion that God commanded the Israelite to dispossess all is quite false, unfounded and refuted by scripture, for as in the case of the Moabites and the Midianites, the Israelite was commanded not to harass them in anyway, once again, no quarter was given, none therefore could be expected, and no matter how you try to construe this, the facts remain unalterable! plus the rest of your post betrays a lack of knowledge, they did not kill everyone, virgins were preserved alive, nor where they the most cruel, for none have surpassed the Assyrians for their cruelty, war is war, i do not condone it, in fact i loathe it, but if no quarter is given, then none can be expected.
I admit no such thing.
Your reasoning is insane. None of those people's had any obligation to allow the Israelites to trespass on their lands. In case you forgot or your knowledge of the OT is deficient, Jehovah gave the Israelites these people's lands and then ordered them to drive them out by violence. And the violence that the Isra
You really need to ditch this nonsense and start with a fresh perspective.
and my thinking is not warped, consider the countless millions who would have been spared the rigors of war if they had adopted the teachings of the Christ, not to mention the millions of murdered innocents by abortion, all preventable if Gods principles had been upheld, are you prepared also to condemn these atrocities?
consider the case of Korea, 5000 or so Christians to date have been incarcerated because they refused to do military service, how many Buddhists have also been incarcerated, 3! pathetic is it not! you can speak many words number1, but we are willing to walk the walk my friend, not simply talk the talk! for wisdom is proved righteous by its works!
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour deliberate ignorance and stubbornness is noted. EVERY person and animal in Jericho was slaughtered. Keeping virgins alive to rape them is hardly commendable. If the Assyrians were "more cruel" than the Hebrews and your God, how come when they conquered the Northern Kingdom in the 6th century BC, they didn't put everybody to the sword as the Hebrews at the supposed direction of your Monster God did many times?
my dear sir, recourse to food and water, in the east, is a matter of life and death, its not as if they were unwilling to buy from them, and your assertion that God commanded the Israelite to dispossess all is quite false, unfounded and refuted by scripture, for as in the case of the Moabites and the Midianites, the Israelite was commanded not to har ...[text shortened]... i do not condone it, in fact i loathe it, but if no quarter is given, then none can be expected.
You really need to meditate on this as your mind is filled with nonsense. Reading some Zen poetry might help: http://www.wwzc.org/translations/allMistake.htm
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudernow it is your mind that is warped, they were not kept alive to rape them, its nonsence! are you willing to address any of the other points i made or not? for people that live in glass houses should not play with air rifles!
Your deliberate ignorance and stubbornness is noted. EVERY person and animal in Jericho was slaughtered. Keeping virgins alive to rape them is hardly commendable. If the Assyrians were "more cruel" than the Hebrews and your God, how come when they conquered the Northern Kingdom in the 6th century BC, they didn't put everybody to the sword as the Hebrews ...[text shortened]... nonsense. Reading some Zen poetry might help: http://www.wwzc.org/translations/allMistake.htm
i repeat this for your consideration, consider the case of Korea, 5000 or so Christians to date have been incarcerated because they refused to do military service, how many Buddhists have also been incarcerated, 3! pathetic is it not! you can speak many words number1, but we are willing to walk the walk my friend, not simply talk the talk! for wisdom is proved righteous by its works!
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe've dealt with this rubbish before and pacifism is not a component of mainstream Christianity. You yourself are hypocritically defending mass slaughters of entire populations while praising a tiny group of pacifists!🙄
now it is your mind that is warped, they were not kept alive to rape them, its nonsence! are you willing to address any of the other points i made or not? for people that live in glass houses should not play with air rifles!
i repeat this for your consideration, consider the case of Korea, 5000 or so Christians to date have been incarcerated bec ...[text shortened]... walk the walk my friend, not simply talk the talk! for wisdom is proved righteous by its works!
I've dealt with the absurd claims of some Fundies here that when the Hebrew soldiers were given young girls "to use" that meant that they were supposed to do dishes and sweep the floors. See my long ago thread "Sickening Bible Stories": http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20100
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderA good thread, verily so.
I've dealt with the absurd claims of some Fundies here that when the Hebrew soldiers were given young girls "to use" that meant that they were supposed to do dishes and sweep the floors. See my long ago thread "Sickening Bible Stories": http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20100
The Old Testament shows a bloodthirsty god.
The New Testament shows a loving god.
Is it the same god?
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderits not rubbish not to the young men who are incarcerated its not, its a fact of their lives, how many Buddhists, i want to hear you say it, how many? 3, after reading all the Zen philosophy in the world only 3 could be found and you want me to adopt this type of thinking, no thanks, you can keep it! its not a matter of whether its mainstream or not, its a question of being obedient to the sublime teachings of the Christ!
We've dealt with this rubbish before and pacifism is not a component of mainstream Christianity. You yourself are hypocritically defending mass slaughters of entire populations while praising a tiny group of pacifists!🙄
I've dealt with the absurd claims of some Fundies here that when the Hebrew soldiers were given young girls "to us ...[text shortened]... posed to do dishes and sweep the floors. See my long ago thread "Sickening Bible Stories".
i am not defending mass slaughter, they brought it upon themselves as i have scripturally shown, the error was with themselves, if only they had been a little more hospitable!
its not only a tiny group it has happened throughout the earth, even in your own country and continues to this day!
http://www.jw-media.org/region/asia_pacific/south_korea/english/human_rights/kor_e0812.htm
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…oh dear Mr Hamilton, you really are bordering on fantasy, for the principles themselves have been established and documented for almost 2000 years, and yet you remain oblivious to them!
oh dear Mr Hamilton, you really are bordering on fantasy, for the principles themselves have been established and documented for almost 2000 years, and yet you remain oblivious to them! how do you know if they are true or otherwise, after never having considered them, its incredulous!
.…
How do you know that the principles so written correspond to reality?
-The fact that they have been “established and documented for almost 2000 years” is irrelevant to this question -what does how old it is have to do with it?
…how do you know if they are true or otherwise, after never having considered them, its incredulous!
...…
How do you know if they are true? -the fact that you have read it is made irrelevant by the fact that it is not evidence/reason based (unlike, say, a book about a scientific hypothesis with actual supporting evidence/reasoning referenced).
Is the Bible evidence/reason based -answer -no. -and that is all I have to know.
If somebody wrote a book about Santa as if Santa actually existed and it was not evidence/reason based then that is all I have to know to know that its main most fundamental claim/claims are totally unreliable and thus not even worth the bother for me to read -the same with the Bible or any similar book that is not evidence/reason based -I might as well waste my time reading a book of random numbers rather than read the Bible.
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedoes the clay pot say to the potter, who are you to make me, no? does the potter not exercise dominion over the pot, if he finds that it is defective or unfit for an honorable purpose, can he not dash it to pieces as he sees fit?
actually my dear sir, they made themselves enemies of god, for if you read the passages you will realize that all the Israelites wanted to do was get a safe passage through the land, they were prepared to buy food, water and provisions, they were refused and made themselves enemies, the error was their own! does the clay pot say to the potter, who a ...[text shortened]... with me, i am my own pot, be gone with you you pestilent fellow, to think, is absurd, is it not?
Clay pots don't say anything because they have no mentality. Sure, you may dash your clay pot to the ground if you don't fancy it; but there is nothing about this example that really translates to a case in which the created in question has mentality sufficient for, say, consciousness and suffering.
Suppose hypothetically you could create a new person in a lab. You could create this person at will and even specify the properties the person would have. So it would be permissible for you to kill this person you created at any time just because you fancy doing so -- for any old reason at all, as you see fit?