Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hope's daughter · 10-01-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
hope's daughter,

I would like to clear up some things about the "relevance zone" of our different fora. We actually try to cover about everything about religion plus a lot that anybody wants to talk about like music and politics. Here is the breakdown:

"Philosophy
Philosophical discussions for people who think hard."

Philosophy in the sense that Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Russell did philosophy. This forum overlaps with many others that are more specific--Existence of God(s) for natural theology, for example, and the philosophical merits of proofs of God. Insofar as philosophy is concerned with history and science, it would overlap with the next three, but mostly very abstract discussion of history and science would be posted in Philosophy. Next to EoG, "Moral Foundations and Principles" most frequently overlaps, because ethics is a large subfield of philosophy. "Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy" is for Eastern philosophy mostly. "General Religious Discussions" would include philosophy of religion sometimes. Basically, if it is secular and non-ethical philosophy, it definitely belongs there. Bible quotes discouraged.

Existence of God(s)
Mostly for discussing various ways to prove or disprove various deities. Don't quote the Bible unless you can make a syllogism from that to the existence of God--or for an attribute of BibleGod that you want to disprove.

Biblical Criticism & History
OK, this is my baby. There is a whole subculture of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Western atheists that this forum caters to--they are scholar wanna-bes or just people who are interested in what the professors are saying about the ancient texts. Strictly devotional threads like "how I read the Sermon on the Mount and found out that Jesus loves me and wants me to love everybody else too, isn't that neat" would be frowned upon by me. If you could tell me something about how the Sermon is different in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, how the concepts parallel those in Stoicism or Cynicism or the Old Testament, how the text was read and used by the Church Fathers, what literary devices are employed to make an effective impression, or something like that--then I will be riveted and enthralled. We also talk about all history concerning religion in the West, and Islam too. Biblical quotes are encouraged--but not as something that we all agree upon as God's Literal Plenary-Inspired Word--though this is something you [i]can believe--but for understanding what the men (and women) who wrote it were thinking.

Evolution/Creation
The origins and diversity of life--divine fiat or product of natural forces?--and the sociopolitical ramifications of the answer.

My understanding is that the moderators here don't want Bible quotes--they want science and maybe an understanding of how science disproving Genesis impacts our world. You can argue for Intelligent Design if you are a bio buff.

Science & Skepticism
General discussions of science, skepticism, and how they relate to one another.

Good if you like string theory, the metabolism of cro magnon man, and stuff like that. Bible quotes are usually irrelevant.

Moral Foundations & Principles
Morality, immorality, subjectivism, objectivism, social contracts--what does it all mean? What is the source of morality? Discuss all aspects of secular and theistic moral systems.

If you think the Bible is an absolute guide to morality, people here would be happy to argue with you. But you would have to argue. So the relationship of the Bible to morality can be discussed.

Church�State Separation & Secular Activism
Discuss church-state separation and other topics on secular activism.

We talk about how teachers shouldn't preach from the Bible before class, etc.

Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy
Discuss those worldviews that are based upon a religious and/or philosophical point of view other than a Western, Christian, Islamic, and/or a Jewish one.

You can compare the Bible to the Bhagavad Gita if you like.

General Religious Discussions
Discuss anything about religion, or lack of religion, which doesn't fit within any of our other II forums.

hope's daughter, consider this your new home. This is where you can talk about your personal experience of God, how Christians and infidels compare, how you love a certain bible passage (be prepared for snickering), and basically anything that doesn't fit in our more technical "Upper Forums."

II Formal Debates

You can watch these if you want, or if you have guts go for the glory!

II Secular Community Forums

Bible quotes a no no. This is for atheist-friendly conversation.

Media & Popular Culture
A discussion area for all manner of "popular culture" items, such as books, movies, television, etc.

You understand this.

Political Discussions
Discuss all manner of political things here!

Religion only as it relates to governmental type politics.

Freethought Humor, Jokes, Etc.
Christians and other theists be warned: what we find to be funny may be in extremely bad taste or even very offensive to you!

I think you have a sense of humor, but you don't like foul language, so avoid!

~~Elsewhere~~
This forum is solely for topics moved from other forums due to a lack of serious content. No new threads are allowed.

This is just for threads that get moved. They are moved because (1) they have gotten off the topic for the forum theme (like archaeology in this case) or (2) they have gotten too silly, rancorous, or personal (which may also apply here).

In short, General Religious Discussions are your friend. If you have a hard time understanding/accepting what Joel posted, it may not be your cup of tea to post in BC&H.

best,
Peter Kirby [/B]

Thanks Peter for the low down. I will use this as a guide.

Celsus · 10-01-2003, 05:48 AM

hope's daughter,

Two things: it's not good Internet etiquette to quote an extremely long message adding just a line or two at the bottom as you have done quite regularly in your time here. Secondly, are you going to address any of my points at all, or is my non-existent breath just too smelly?

Joel

hope's daughter · 10-01-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
hope's daughter,

Two things: it's not good Internet etiquette to quote an extremely long message adding just a line or two at the bottom as you have done quite regularly in your time here.

I noticed you avoided this by not quoting me quoting Peter.

Quote:

Secondly, are you going to address any of my points at all, or is my non-existent breath just too smelly?

Joel yes since you made your comments here...well its like you have confidence in me. I definitely will look over your post again and give an answer. It won't be fancy. Or even full of high fullutin' rhetoric but it will be an honest assessment for an amateur.

Also Joel if I don't get my mind off of the recent events of my life and concentrate on what I love...history, science, politics, nature, writing, orthodox theology, not necessarily in that order, then i will just find myself in a bad place and you have just given me a good thing to work with. Thanks.

Also would that be your post of the 27th? I did save it.

Peter Kirby · 10-01-2003, 07:42 AM

hope's daughter, I think we have witnessed in this thread an inappropriate invocation of "the problem of disproving solipsism" as a way to avoid the point under discussion. Let's forget about the historical evidence, for a second, and talk a bit about orthodox theology (we are not in BC&H anymore). One matter that Joel is disputing is the identity of the Khabiri in an Egyptian inscription with the Hebrews in the ancient Middle East. Joel is not claiming to have disproved in his posts to this thread the existence of God, the existence of the Hebrews, the existence of the Moses...and, for the point of the identity of the Egyptian and Hebrew words (behind "Khabiri" and "Hebrew"), not a single iota of the Scriptures is necessarily undermined if the claim you read in _A Response by a Romanian Priest to an Uninformed Atheist_ is disproved. You do not read in the Bible that the "Khabiri" is an identical group to the "Hebrews," nor is it found in any of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries that I have read, nor has it been deduced by a theologian in a systematic exposition of natural or supernatual revelation. God in His conversations with you, auditory or mental, has not said, "my child, know that the Hebrews were identical with the Khabiri in olden days." Why is it important to you then--or do you now see that it is not important, but rather just a niggling detail that is not a dividing line between theists and atheists?

best,
Peter Kirby

hope's daughter · 10-01-2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
hope's daughter, I think we have witnessed in this thread an inappropriate invocation of "the problem of disproving solipsism" as a way to avoid the point under discussion. Let's forget about the historical evidence, for a second, and talk a bit about orthodox theology (we are not in BC&H anymore). One matter that Joel is disputing is the identity of the Khabiri in an Egyptian inscription with the Hebrews in the ancient Middle East. Joel is not claiming to have disproved in his posts to this thread the existence of God, the existence of the Hebrews, the existence of the Moses...and, for the point of the identity of the Egyptian and Hebrew words (behind "Khabiri" and "Hebrew"), not a single iota of the Scriptures is necessarily undermined if the claim you read in _A Response by a Romanian Priest to an Uninformed Atheist_ is disproved. You do not read in the Bible that the "Khabiri" is an identical group to the "Hebrews," nor is it found in any of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries that I have read, nor has it been deduced by a theologian in a systematic exposition of natural or supernatual revelation. God in His conversations with you, auditory or mental, has not said, "my child, know that the Hebrews were identical with the Khabiri in olden days." Why is it important to you then--or do you now see that it is not important, but rather just a niggling detail that is not a dividing line between theists and atheists?

best,
Peter Kirby

Kirby,

Make some sense. I know you guys like to play head games and get inside peoples heads. When you start to make sense then your life will go better for you truly.

Now I am going to write something that should lift your spirits. Have a good day!

Peter Kirby · 10-01-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hope's daughter
Make some sense. I know you guys like to play head games and get inside peoples heads. When you start to make sense then your life will go better for you truly.

At first I thought you said "makes some sense," but then I saw that it was actually the imperative "make some sense." How disappointing. I bet I can find five people, even five Christians if you like, who can make perfect sense of what I wrote.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 10-01-2003, 08:56 AM

hope's daughter, I have started this thread at TheologyWeb to find out if I am making any sense.

You might want to check out TWeb sometime.

best,
Peter Kirby

hope's daughter · 10-01-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
hope's daughter, I think we have witnessed in this thread an inappropriate invocation of "the problem of disproving solipsism" as a way to avoid the point under discussion. Let's forget about the historical evidence, for a second, and talk a bit about orthodox theology (we are not in BC&H anymore). One matter that Joel is disputing is the identity of the Khabiri in an Egyptian inscription with the Hebrews in the ancient Middle East. Joel is not claiming to have disproved in his posts to this thread the existence of God, the existence of the Hebrews, the existence of the Moses...and, for the point of the identity of the Egyptian and Hebrew words (behind "Khabiri" and "Hebrew"), not a single iota of the Scriptures is necessarily undermined if the claim you read in _A Response by a Romanian Priest to an Uninformed Atheist_ is disproved. You do not read in the Bible that the "Khabiri" is an identical group to the "Hebrews," nor is it found in any of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries that I have read, nor has it been deduced by a theologian in a systematic exposition of natural or supernatual revelation. God in His conversations with you, auditory or mental, has not said, "my child, know that the Hebrews were identical with the Khabiri in olden days." Why is it important to you then--or do you now see that it is not important, but rather just a niggling detail that is not a dividing line between theists and atheists?

best,
Peter Kirby

Kirby,

Alot of time people like to show of their sheep skin and post many fancy words and have flowery language when in actuality simplicity is best. When I look at your post, I actually have to re-adjust my eyes

I can't see as well as I used to, as my eye sight as I get older, is going capoot and reading on the internet is different than reading quietly on your sofa from a book. I am only making this a suggetsion. Lets see what I can do to simplify your post if you do not mind:

1st sentence: It seems God was invoked in an effort to avoid the point at hand.

2nd sentence: Forget history lets focus on orthodox theology

3rd sentence: Joel wonders if you got your facts straight and does not believe you

4th sentence: What about this Khabiri 'thing' and why isn't it in the Bible and why don't the church Fathers witness to it?

5th sentence

id God in His conversation with you mention this Khabiri 'thing'

WOOOOOOOO God look at that wide grinned smilie I did not plan that I forgot the space...God must approve of humor guys. It was my mistake by not making a space and God made a wide smile.

Now wasn't that more simple and easy to understand? This is basically what I take away from your post Peter.

hope's daughter · 10-01-2003, 09:52 AM

Kirby,

You honor me too much my man. Gosh did you really think this issue rests soley on this issue? What evidence we be enough for you to believe? See this is the first hurdle that has to be overcome in anything really. God is in this thing and it is a done deal. He is a God of love and forgiveness and listens to your prayers. The evidence? Well what do you want? Him to write book for you? He did. It is called the Bible and it is an amazing book.

livius drusus · 10-01-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hope's daughter
Kirby,

Make some sense. I know you guys like to play head games and get inside peoples heads. When you start to make sense then your life will go better for you truly.

How rude. Just because you can't understand Peter when he writes to you the exact same way he writes to everyone else does not mean he is playing head games. I find your notion of good manners appalling.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2003, 05:48 AM	#122
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	hope's daughter, Two things: it's not good Internet etiquette to quote an extremely long message adding just a line or two at the bottom as you have done quite regularly in your time here. Secondly, are you going to address any of my points at all, or is my non-existent breath just too smelly? Joel

10-01-2003, 07:42 AM	#124
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	hope's daughter, I think we have witnessed in this thread an inappropriate invocation of "the problem of disproving solipsism" as a way to avoid the point under discussion. Let's forget about the historical evidence, for a second, and talk a bit about orthodox theology (we are not in BC&H anymore). One matter that Joel is disputing is the identity of the Khabiri in an Egyptian inscription with the Hebrews in the ancient Middle East. Joel is not claiming to have disproved in his posts to this thread the existence of God, the existence of the Hebrews, the existence of the Moses...and, for the point of the identity of the Egyptian and Hebrew words (behind "Khabiri" and "Hebrew"), not a single iota of the Scriptures is necessarily undermined if the claim you read in _A Response by a Romanian Priest to an Uninformed Atheist_ is disproved. You do not read in the Bible that the "Khabiri" is an identical group to the "Hebrews," nor is it found in any of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries that I have read, nor has it been deduced by a theologian in a systematic exposition of natural or supernatual revelation. God in His conversations with you, auditory or mental, has not said, "my child, know that the Hebrews were identical with the Khabiri in olden days." Why is it important to you then--or do you now see that it is not important, but rather just a niggling detail that is not a dividing line between theists and atheists? best, Peter Kirby

10-01-2003, 08:56 AM	#127
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	hope's daughter, I have started this thread at TheologyWeb to find out if I am making any sense. You might want to check out TWeb sometime. best, Peter Kirby

10-01-2003, 09:52 AM	#129
hope's daughter Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: middle earth Posts: 601	Kirby, You honor me too much my man. Gosh did you really think this issue rests soley on this issue? What evidence we be enough for you to believe? See this is the first hurdle that has to be overcome in anything really. God is in this thing and it is a done deal. He is a God of love and forgiveness and listens to your prayers. The evidence? Well what do you want? Him to write book for you? He did. It is called the Bible and it is an amazing book.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.