WILLOWTREE

Edit

Anyone who has listened to Dr. Scott knows what I said is true.

Your Stanford link page is not from the 1950's Edit.

I am sorry that the deceased Dr. Scott and his eminent Bible scholar of the world position has enraged you.

Edit

That is invulnerable common sense.

WT

yummyfur

You actually made the assumption that I was an atheist, I'm actually a theist.

WILLOWTREE

Fundy theist or atheist = no difference = the same business on the other side of the street.

WT

Jobar

Don't get your panties in such a wad, WT. Why should it so disturb you that we question things you hold as- to use the precise word- gospel? If hearing us talk about this non-canonical book upsets you so, I'm surprised that you don't bust a blood vessel when we talk about the ahistoricity of Jesus or Moses! You've said that you find us unbelievers less likely to censor you than the theistic boards you've posted on- let me suggest that you try to reply in kind, and return our tolerance for you with tolerance for us.

In the link I posted earlier to a previous discussion, it was noted that 'Jasher' may be a mistranslation, and should instead be 'Book of songs'. This is made plausible by the second reference in the OT, in Samuel; it would seem that might be talking about a song, and certainly it makes sense that the Israelites would have made a song about a victory where God caused the sun to stand still, the Joshua reference.

It may well be that there are Jewish scholars who've attempted to separate the truly ancient parts of the 12 century Jasher from additions made at that time. I must admit I'm not interested enough in this topic to seek them out, though!

WILLOWTREE

I read your post.

WT

Jobar

Well, good.

What I'm suggesting is that you follow the Silver Rule, and do not unto others that which you would not have done to you.

This doesn't mean that you shouldn't disagree with us- we disagree with you, loudly and often! It means that when you do disagree, you try to not do it in ways that would offend you, if we mirrored your words. We don't mind disagreement if it is backed up with good reasons and fair arguments. We think that if we are wrong, it's a good thing to find that out! And you should try to cultivate that same outlook, even for the ideas and beliefs you hold most dear.

We don't try to convince you of something just because "Isaac Asimov (or Bertrand Russell, or Robert Ingersoll, or whoever) said so!". You should avoid arguing that just because it's in the Bible (or said by someone you consider infallible or nearly so) that we are wicked or lying to dispute it. Always keep in mind that we don't consider anything unquestionable. That's what 'freethinker' means, you know.
Jobar.

WILLOWTREE

The starting presuppositions of ToE are not on the table for questioning.

The same goes for the starting presupps of Biblical theism.

Call yourself whatever you like - but you are what you believe and we only know what you believe by what you say.

WT

Jobar

Nonsense. WT, anything can be questioned on II. Oh, you have to do it with a minimum of politeness and sensibility, and if you fall below that minimum you'll get edited, warned, and eventually banned if you don't improve. But on the intellectual level, anything goes. If you want to question the starting presupps of ToE, go to the E/C forum, say what you think those presupps are, and question away.

Nonsense again. I've done that myself, ad nauseam, back in the days when I modded the EoG forum. Presuppositionalism/transcendentalism are constant topics there.

Well, I won't call that nonsense- but I will disagree somewhat. I think that we are what we do. Actions speak louder than words, and all that. What we believe shapes our actions, true.

And we can judge your beliefs by your actions, and you can judge us the same way.