Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 05-17-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It wasn't a decree: it was a declaration, an insight into the fundamental truth of existence.

Oh. I get it.

You are inventing the Being bullshit to circumvent the ambiguity of God’s name.

Right?

"God is Love."

Right?

Loomis · 05-17-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Here is quotation from Constantin Brunner's Our Christ, p. 157:

Jahveh ehad, cried Moses: "Hear O Israel, Being is our god, Being is one" (Deut. 6:4).

Yet this quotation provides precisely the historically monstrous example of how Israel hears and how the truth is straightway transformed into superstition in Israel's ears. For this magnificent saying is at once a hymn of exultation and a wrathful protest against idol worship of any kind; but despite this protest, it now signifies—in the conception of Israel, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Israel—the well-enough known, imbecilically wrong translation: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our god is the only God!"

Your source isn't supporting his claims with facts.

(That the truth is straightway transformed into superstition)

At least I can't find any.

Can you point them out?

No Robots · 05-17-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Oh. I get it.

You are inventing the Being bullshit to circumvent the ambiguity of God’s name.

Right?

Wrong. The etymology of "Jahve" is well known. Here is Spinoza (TTP, pt.1) from the 17th century:

Indeed, if any one considers without prejudice the recorded opinions of Moses, he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity as a Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of existence.

Quote:

"God is Love."

Right?

Wrong. Love is God.

No Robots · 05-17-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Your source isn't supporting his claims with facts.

(That the truth is straightway transformed into superstition)

At least I can't find any.

Can you point them out?

Call it an operating hypothesis.

tonan22 · 05-17-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Love is God.

Then we don't need both words, if they're one. Let's call it Lod. Or Gove.

:devil3:

Loomis · 05-17-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Love is God.

Bingo! Told ya!

I'm a fucking prophet.

Where's my prize?

Loomis · 05-17-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Call it an operating hypothesis.

So you are saying that you don’t have to support you claims with facts because you are capable of abstract thought.

Right?

What is decent, good, or honest, about saying my translation of Deut 6:4 is WRONG if you are unwilling to support your claim?

Isn't that unfair?

Isn't that cheating?

Gamera · 05-17-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

Apparently we are. I don't dispute anything you have said in this post except the claim of uniqueness of the Christian ethic. The Jainas of India, who have a history going back thousands of years, are so respectful of life that many of them wear veils to avoid inhaling and hence killing small insects.

Ethn, history is what's recorded, not what is speculated about.

We don't have any early texts of the Jains (which by the way I beleive are a rather late form of Hinduism though I forget). Without a record, you simply cannot claim with any authority that a teaching they have today predated Christianity.

This is all the more true given the influence of Christianity on Indian culture.

Gamera · 05-17-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

No, you are defining the problem away by saying that suffering is only suffering if one is aware of it. And I call bullshit. Using a strange definition isn't exactly an argument. I assume nothing about consciousness - since it has no bearing at all on the question if a live form can suffer or not. It has only a bearing if you invent definitions to fit your argument.

Suffering that isn't felt is a strange definition. So to call something suffering you must first establish that it's felt, i.e, that the sufferer has self-awareness.

Gamera · 05-17-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Gamera: I am still waiting for your scholarship in support of your extremely radical position that the material attributed to Lao Tzu etc. was actually interpolated hundreds of years later. On what do you base this minority position?

I know for a fact that the Hindu and Bhuddist mss you refered to are post-Christian, by a longshot. I'm not familiar with the paleography of the Tao. I'm going to bet that the ms at issue is late. I think the burden is on you to show otherwise. You're claming the Tao predates the gospels, whose mss history we know. Look up the mss history of the Tao, and get back with us with support for your claim.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.