Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goliath · 04-08-2004, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can understand a disenchanted person pouring scorn on the trappings of xianity. You feel taken in, hoodwinked at a grand level, aggressed against, hence aggressive. This aggression, though understandable, clouds judgment. It won't help in dealings with xians, who will only see your aggressive state as example of your "fall". You won't communicate in such a state and merely venting will achieve very little other than temporary relief from the feeling of being taken in. If you have the desire to do more, you need to change strategy, become more in control, turn the aggression into mental agility.

spin

Are you directing this at me? Because neither I nor most people that I know in real life consider me to be a very aggressive person.

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin · 04-08-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goliath

Are you directing this at me? Because neither I nor most people that I know in real life consider me to be a very aggressive person.

Would I direct such a statement at you, umm, Goliath?

One of the things that many other languages have is a form for making generic statements that is unambiguous. In English the normal way to do it in English is to use "you" as the subject and hope the reader/listener understands that it is generic . . . I'm a believer of "if the foo shits . . ."

spin

Goliath · 04-08-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Would I direct such a statement at you, umm, Goliath?

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked.

Quote:

One of the things that many other languages have is a form for making generic statements that is unambiguous. In English the normal way to do it in English is to use "you" as the subject and hope the reader/listener understands that it is generic . . . I'm a believer of "if the foo shits . . ."

Ah, so you didn't. Then why did you say it?

Sincerely,

Goliath

spin · 04-08-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goliath

Ah, so you didn't. Then why did you say it?

As a generic statement to those who might rail against the bible instead of the real target of misplaced feelings.

spin

Answerer · 04-09-2004, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammodius

Talk about a primary source: we have evidence that the book of Isaiah hasn't changed in over 2000 years! Want to know what people 2000 years ago considered to be scripture? Read the Old Testament. You don't have to accept or reject its historical accuracy to learn from it something about the people who wrote it and read it. I submit that we have a better idea of the cultural identity of the Hebrew nation than any other people that old. We know what they considered their national history to be, their heritage, their moral code, their cultural heroes, their poetry, and their account of the origin of the world.

The library is a great place to research history. AND any library worth its salt will carry copies of the Bible.

Matt

Yawnz, please stop repeating and rephrasing what others had said. You are just wasting the bandwidth.

And research the Hebrews? Why should I do that? I prefer to 'waste' my time on science and the reading up on other great civilizations and their influence on minority race such as the Hebrew, than research on the Hebrew alone in such a great detail.

pope fiction · 04-12-2004, 03:16 PM

Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also?

PF

spin · 04-12-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pope fiction

Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also?

The bible doesn't have negative effects on society. People who insinuate it where it doesn't belong have negative effects on society. The bible is an ancient religious book and belongs with other ancient religious books, RigVeda, Enuma Elish, Book of the Dead, etc, as valuable reflections of people's attempts to deal with the world in various respects. Society has changed somewhat since they were written, so their social appeal is no longer there, despite the opinions of the people who claim that it should still be the basis of our moral and social life.

Why do you insist on looking at the wrong things? Do you destroy computers because employers prefer them to people for doing calculations and put your father out of work? The best analogy you can make is that the bible is a gun in the hands of monkeys, which means that someone is going to get killed; but the bible is not such a tool. It is merely a cultural artefact (of great complexity), not a weapon; it is along the lines of a teacher who uses Shakespeare as the standard for the English to be spoken in class. There is nothing wrong per se in Shakespeare's literature, but there is in the teacher who is abusing Shakespeare.

spin

pope fiction · 04-12-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The bible doesn't have negative effects on society. People who insinuate it where it doesn't belong have negative effects on society. The bible is an ancient religious book and belongs with other ancient religious books, RigVeda, Enuma Elish, Book of the Dead, etc, as valuable reflections of people's attempts to deal with the world in various respects. Society has changed somewhat since they were written, so their social appeal is no longer there, despite the opinions of the people who claim that it should still be the basis of our moral and social life.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why do you insist on looking at the wrong things? Do you destroy computers because employers prefer them to people for doing calculations and put your father out of work?

WTF is your problem? Did I fart? I believe you're mistaking me for someone else. Please explain the root and nature of this statement, because I'm puzzled as to why you have this degree of haste towards me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The best analogy you can make is that the bible is a gun in the hands of monkeys, which means that someone is going to get killed; but the bible is not such a tool. It is merely a cultural artefact (of great complexity), not a weapon; it is along the lines of a teacher who uses Shakespeare as the standard for the English to be spoken in class. There is nothing wrong per se in Shakespeare's literature, but there is in the teacher who is abusing Shakespeare.

Again, I agree.

PF

Celsus · 04-12-2004, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pope fiction

It is important, yes, only because it has (unfortunately, in IMO) molded our society almost worldwide. It's a big part of history. However, this doesn't mean that what is says is right.

Fortunately, nobody was arguing that "what it says is right."

Quote:

You say the bible is important, and not crap, but you can also say the same thing about Mein Kempf.

You lose. First one to mention the Nazis always loses remember?

Quote:

So what? We're criticizing the accuracy of the bible, not its impact on our society.

And again, no one was defending the accuracy of the Bible.

Joel

Celsus · 04-12-2004, 08:49 PM

Goliath, you forgot to answer this question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Very good. ... Do you see the historical worth of ancient documents yet?

Cheers,
Joel

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

04-12-2004, 03:16 PM	#96
pope fiction Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 598	Ok, spin, so we're discussing the negative effects of the bible on society? If so, are we assuming the stories are crap also? PF

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.