JL

Woodchuck, I can honestly say I respect your version of Christianity after that last post. <looks around for lurking Southern Baptists ready to pounce> There are elements of Christianity which are worth salvaging.

Perhaps. And perhaps it's enough to just couple all you've said against the church with our version of things. That all the bs and fakeness and smiley glad hands are not just poor or selfishly slanted interpretations of something positive, but actually rest upon a falsehood. That it is this falsehood that perpetuates this mess. Thus our vehemence against the Christian faith as a whole. I'm sure for a lot of us it probably is personal though. We don't live in an atheist vacuum.

Sure there's much here worth saving, but how would you go about seperating the wheat from the chaff if you were an atheist?

You say that like they're mutually exclusive.

NOGO

This is a valid question but I don't want to go off on a tangent here. Usually believers will pull out the cause/effect arguement which goes something like this. Everything has a cause in this world. You had parents and they had parents etc. and rivers are made from rain water etc. So you need a first cause which got the whole thing going and that first cause is God.

Frankly I was not there when it happened so I can say either way. Was there a first cause? However, I do have a problem with the arguement itself. Actually not everything has a cause. In this world we transform matter and energy from one form to another. Nature also transforms matter and enegy from one form to another. In all these transformations the cause and effect rule applies. However, science tells us that in all these transformations energy is never created nor destroyed. Also we know that matter is just another form of energy. So simply put we have never observed the creation nor destruction of the basic material in the universe that we live in. There is therefore no reason to believe (ie no evidence) that energy/matter has a cause.

So where did energy/matter (and with that water) come from?
To this question I have the same answer as you would have for the question
where did God come from?


I believe that mathematics was invented by man but it is based on the nature of the universe.
There is no such thing as a square in nature although the lattice of some crystals may approach something close to what we call a square. Mathematics is a modelling of nature. Mathematics cannot exist outside the human brain. You will claim that it can be put on paper but a square on paper is not a real square it is only approximate. Real squares are only concepts in the human brain. Yes, chemical reactions and neurons firing etc. Again, there is no such thing as a square in nature.

Numbers don't exist in nature either. You can't count apples because there are no two apples that are the same. Counting apples is a concept that occurs only in the brain and only in the brain. Numbers are physical ie neuro-chemical reactions in the brain.


Not everything our brains comes up with is rational. Logic is based on rules and axions that we hold as true. Man invented logic. Logic does not exist in nature. If A is greated than B and B is greater than C then A is greated than C. This is true but it does depend on what is meant by greater. The concept of greater is like the concept of a square it is all in our brains with chemicals reactions and neurons firing.

The key words that you must watch out for is "I find it rational that".
What you are saying basically is that you want to come up with your own logic.
This is like coming up with your own language. It can be done but ...
You will have to come up with rules and they must not contradict etc.
Logic is structured and verifiable and it does model nature a bit like the square does.
We can thus verify that if Woodchuck is taller than John and John is taller than Paul then Woodchuck is taller than Paul. But again the concept is in our brains with chemical reactions and neuron firing and nowhere else.

Is Christianity true? We need to look at the evidence and see if it makes logical sense.
I will not nor will allow you to redefine logic in order to make Christianity true.
Logic starts with simple premises (axioms) whish we hold as true. In order to have a rational discussion we must both agree on the axioms that we hold as true. Then proceed from there following logical rules like "if A>B & B>C then A>C" to get to a conclusion.

So far we discussed Ecclesiastes and Jesus destroying the fig tree. In both cases I have caught you distorting the evidence. This is typical for people who simply do not have a case. I don't believe that we have a problem with logic. I am sure that you accept the logic that has been established by humanity so far. You may believe that it is God given but then you would certainly not question it. So logic is not the problem.


This is a rather strange arguement. You admit that the spoon will affect the mind but you want me to FIND your mind. What you call your mind is a dynamic process within your brain. The fact that you cannot pull it out as a separate object does not mean that it is non-physical. Put another way is this, if you admit that the spoon can affect and actually destroy your mind then the spoon has found your mind. In which other way you want me to find your mind. To me if I can destroy your mind with the spoon then I have found it. In fact I know that if I disconnect your frontal lobes or destroy them then you will be a vegetable. You will be able to walk, breath and feel but wont be able to think. I have, in effect, stopped certain neuro-chemical reactions from taking place within your brain and you mind is history.


Show me evidence for what you are saying. If I can destroy the thoughts that are now going through your brains by disconnecting the frontal lobes then how can you say that your toughts are non-physical. I have in effect proved that your thoughts needed those connection in order to exist. Break the connections and you are a vegetable. Now you show me your evidence.

The fact that I cannot find a specific thought and the fact that a specific thought is not located in a specific place does not make the thought non-physical.

Let me give you an example. I am sure that you have played games on a computer. In particular say we are looking at one of the 3D games that feature a 3D character which I shall call Dave.
Dave and the scenes of the game are stored on a CD in digital form. Once you install the game and start playing it you can see Dave on the screen. If I open the computer and tell you "see if you can find Dave somewhere in there". You would probably think that I am crazy. Dave is a digital pattern in a database. He is read into dynamic memory and then certain operations are done on the data depending on the point of view. He is then place in the scene and sent to the graphic card for rendering. You cannot find Dave in any one place. You cannot find Dave. Dave is like a thought in a human brain. Instead of neurons firing it is transistors that go on an off. Is Dave physical? Yes it is. Dave is a pattern of states of transistors. If you put a spoon in the computer while it is working and you mess around you will cause some short circuits and the computer will stop working and Dave will disappear from the screen. Dave is physical. Dave may or may not represent a real human. Specifically it is the representation that is physical.


In whichever way you may connect from one mind another it will always, ALWAYS be physical.
The characters in this text are physical. As you read this you interpret what you read. You are not reading my mind you are simply interpreting text. Your eyes scan the text, you recognize the letters and then the words and they convey images or thoughts in your brain. In other words they make you neurons fire in a certain way. I, on the other hand, am trying to express my thoughts (neuro-chemical activity) into text. This translation is not very precise and information does get lost. In fact any translation, for example translation into another language, can never be perfect. The text is part of a language which is a set of symbols etc. Tell why you think that this form of communication is not physical.

Granted we cannot "read" your mind directly by connecting to the brain. We do not have the technology. What you are saying is that it cannot be done. Why do you say that. What do you know about the brain that will stop humanity from one day reading your brain directly?


Why do you say "I have a new mind moment by moment". Does you mind depend on the particular atoms that are in your body? Let me give you an example. Take table salt which is NaCl. Sodium Chloride has the properties of salt because of the way it interacts with its environment. Particularly the way it interacts with chemicals on your tongue. Now take a molecule of NaCl, you can replace the "Na" atom with another "Na" atom and still have salt. The nature of the salt does not depend on which particular atom is present in the chemical bond. Any one will do as long as it's a sodium atom. In your car you replace pieces with pieces that do the same job and your cars works as before. Why should this be different with your brain. Yes, you can also replace both the Sodium atom and the Chlorine atom and you still have salt. So if you replace all the atoms in your brain with atoms that are chemically the same and you still have Woodchuck.

Do any of your traits rely on particular atoms rather than their types? No they don't. No more than salt relies on particular atoms of sodium and chlorine to be salt. What this also means is that we can make a copy of you. We may not have the technology now but it is theoretically possible to make a copy by placing the same atoms at the same places. We would then have two Woodchucks. Same memories, same reactions etc. You would each perceive yourself as the real Woodchuck. No, you would not be at two places at once. No, the other Woodchuck would not do exactly the same things that you will do. For one thing he will start at a different place. Just two people which happen to be identical. From that point on you will start to deviate, ie having different experiences.

Non sequitur.
You are saying that because we are totally physical then there is no way to account for choice while if we are not all physical then you can account for choice.
This does not follow. The physical world is not deterministic. Who told you that it was?


Non sequitur.
What does morality have to do with it. If you want to have a debate on morality I can oblige but this debate is about something else. If morality is human then why should I tolerate anything that you may want it to be? Again it does not follow. Let me give you an example. There are speed limits on highways. These are determined by humans. I am sure that you will agree that these were not determined by God and handed down to us poor dumb humans. Then it does not follow that you can decide all by yourself that you are going to do 200 mph on a 80 mph highway.


As I said before it simply does not follow that a totally physical world must be deterministic.
You and J.R. Lucas start on a false premise.
I am actually surprised that you keep talking about a deterministic world and free will. In the Bible we have this notion of prophecy. Now how can God know the future if all humans have free will?

Nobody has ever carved a piece of wood and worshipped it. Bible writers are simply showing their ignorance and prejudices.

NOGO

It seems that I missed one of your posts.
I have never burnt a bible, Woodchuck. The thought would even occur to me. It`s just a book.

I did not say that the bible does not speak of afterlife. What I claim is that in the early books of the OT the belief was in Sheol. Everybody went to Sheol as Ecc 9 says is such a clear and definite way. Job 14 ? (from memory) says about the same thing.

I am not here to quarrel, Woodchuck, I would like to think that all my arguements are for the sake of passing information and you are definitely allowed to disagree. Please do so as often as you want without any restrain.

On that note I would like to know exactly what you think of my answers to all of our (now) four subjects.
a) Jesus and the fig tree
b) the Amalekites
c) Ecc 9 and Sheol
d) the mind and the Brain

Wow, this will soon blow up on us and we will have hundreds of subjects. Hopefully we can close some of these as we go along.

woodchuck

Hello Britinusa, Thanks for the post- and your right, i guess my name isn't so wierd after all.
I thought I'd respond to yah here.
Good Point. I guess I kind of jumped off track on that one as I think you or Mark S pointed out. If I had never met Christ I'd probably be right in here with you guys for many of the reasons I posted last time. Though, I do think that there is both- I think that there are out for a little vengance, but usually you can spot those ones easily because they come off very immature and, just like christians, they have their cliche defenses and snobby remarks. One thing I've loved about being here is the fact that I can be on a site that seems almost violently hostile towrd my beliefs, yet in it I can engage in friendly conversation.

I don't know where you get that it's the most proven scientific theory of all time. It's a theory yes, and it excludes God- so if you don't want God involved it works. But I haven't seen any thing that makes it seem more proveable than creation. I think that if something is a theory then it should be taught as that, and I think that both theories should get taught- as theories. My problem here is that Evolutuion gets taught as fact, and creation is ignored as myth. I don't want my [future] kids to be taught evolution is true just as much as you don't want yours to be taugt creation.

[quote]
Now you talk about your personal relationship with Jesus, could you expand on this a little? Do you mean you're in love with the idea of Jesus? Or the teachings of Jesus? Or do you mean he's a buddy you share a sixpack with while watching Monday Night Football? [QUOTE]

I guess it's closer to the Monday Night football Jesus, except I don't drink beer or watch foot ball- Obviously you'll reject this as me having some kind of hyped up brain spasm and hallucination. Like I said before, Christ is real, I have a relationship with Him- If it was merely an assumption I wouldn't have staked my whole life on it. You asked-

Thanks Mark S- again. I enjoy your posts as well
Here is the point I was trying to make. Christiany is a relationship between Christ and an individual, not a religion. It's not my version, it's my relationship. And I've met others who have this relationship. But by the definition of what Christianity truly is- an institution can't be Christian, it can call itself that, but that's just like a bunch of different people getting together saying "we love Mark S" yet some of them when asked wouldn't even know a thing about the IPU.

The very foundation of Christianity is Christ. When that foundation is removed, it is replaced with greed, and all the things men like to add. I think that what you have a problem with is when people come to Christ without doing a serious investigation first. I honestly still had all my doubts and questions at the moment I met Christ- but when something becomes reality you can't deny it. The thing I dislike about most churches is how they hide from everybody and try to treat other human like they're lower life forms. Most of my objections with the church are the same ones Christ had in the NT. they're still going on today.

I don't think so- it seems to me that Jesus would have been my last choice. Not only did I despise the religion, and passionately disbelieve the bible- Everything I was about, christianity was not. To follow Jesus would have meant giving everything I thought I loved.

Thanks for sharing about your past in the church- that ia interesting. I think it's trajic that kids get raised viewing Jesus as the guy authorizes all the nuns giving the kids ass woopin's.

That would be interesting. That is, if NOGO and i ever make any progress.

I agree (mostly). Though I can't say I don't believe what I've experienced is the absolute truth- I have no authority to condemn any body, and the whole throat shoving method is a pile of crap-o.

Anyay. That was just a quick response, as far as NOGO- fer cryin outloud, I got my work cut out for me. Thanks guys. Keepin' it real Doggy-matic style, givin mad props to Marky Mark and the IPU, Brit-Daddy, and NOGO the agnostic thug from the LBC. Peace out from Wood Chuck

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: woodchuck ]</p>

Ghillie77

I believe Jesus was just a man who enthusiastically opposed the religious establishment of his time. Much like some oppose the religious establishment of today.
Jesus fought with things like Jewish greed and corruption. He was not a religious man, but a man with radical ideas about how the world should be.
And the last thing a man like this would've wanted is for their to be an entire religious establishment founded on his teachings!

He purposely acted out parts of Jewish prophecy to reinforce the belief that he was what they thought he was.
Over the years, these things have been completely misinterpereted and distorted beyond belief. One theory of mine was that the amount of unrest Jesus stirred up, was better squashed by the establishment by incorporating his beliefs into theirs. Otherwise, they run the risk of creating others like him!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not religious, don't believe in god, don't go to church. So I have no love for the religious establishment, and put no stock into insane religious claims or beliefs.
I think with the amount of data available on Jesus, that there must've been something to this story. Through some reading and investigating, this is the best I've come up with.

NOGO

Hi Woodchuck,
I think that we can. There is however a prerequisite. We both must admit when we are wrong. In a debate that is sometimes hard to do but if we are looking for the truth then we must necessarily be able to do that.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that Relativity is a theory. We are talking about scientific theory. The word theory is commonly used to mean hypothesis which is not the same thing at all. Creation is not a scientific theory it is more like an hypothesis without evidence.

Evidence is the key word here.

If you go to Biblical Criticism and Archaeology and in the second page of topics you will find
"Can someone tell me where the OT references a flat earth". Under this topic I have two posts which explains the world that Yahweh has created
according to the bible. See page 3. Please read it and read some of the objections others have. This thread ended because the others did not have any more answers. DavidH promised me answers which never came.

Once you have read that thread please explain why anybody would want this stuff taught in school as fact? You can teach this stuff as religion in a religion class if you want but not as fact.

Let's continue on the following subject, Woodchuck.
Are people responsible for what their parents did?
Who or what has told us that we are not?
Or are we?


What did Jesus think?

So Jesus agrees that sons must bear the guilt of their parents ie "fill up the measure of guilt of their fathers" and go to hell for it.

Note verse 31 which says "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets". Jesus is saying that they, the Pharisees, are testifying against themselves simply because they say that their ancestors murdered prophets.

So Woodchuck, are you responsible for what your father did?
who or what told you this?

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

britinusa

Woodchuck
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you like it here. See! We atheists aren't so bad after all.
You know, I think your name and mine are too normal. I mean, britinusa. Come on! A Brit living in the USA... "brit-in-usa" {{{{yawn!!!}}}.
I wish I'd come up with something more original. I'm thinking of changing it to Archie Bunker Rules, coz I love that show.

I don't want to get into a big evolution debate here. We have an Evolution/Creation forum where you'll find some seriously smart people more able to discuss such a vast topic than I am. But I'll make a couple of comments.
Too many xians seem to have a problem with the word "theory". In everyday language, of course, theory means guesswork. In the scientific world, however, "Theory" is the highest accolade that can be bestowed on a scientific work or idea. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the Copernicus Theory are "just theories", but no-one seriously doubts them.
Too many xians only look at one side of the story (I'm not including you, but I wonder if you've read any Richard Dawkins books or how about the superb The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould). Of course, there are narrow-minded atheists out there, I've just never met one
Every March, My fundie sister-in-law, her fundie husband and two apprentice-fundie kids attend a xian festival called Impact, just down the road in Hershey, PA.
Among other things, they listen to lectures delivered by creationists (no evIL-utionists, god forbid). I suggested to my sister-in-law that if the organizers had told the speakers to talk about "creation science" without once mentioning evolution how long does she think the lectures would have lasted?
Can you picture it?

Hello everyone, thanks for inviting to speak here.

God made everything.

Thank you. You've been a wonderful audience...

Creationists seem to be under the delusion that by simply knocking out evolution, creation wins by default. It ain't that easy. Perhaps there's another explanation that no one has thought of yet.
By all means, teach your kids creationism. It won't take up much of their valuable time.
You may call me biased, but I have little doubt that creationists are deeply dishonest. Check out the SecWeb library and the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">Talk Origins</a> website.
BTW about 40% of American xians accept evolution, and that number is probably the lowest among developed countries, largely because of the power of the xian right in the U.S. The Pope endorsed evIL-ution in 1996, and the U.S. Presbyterian Church (of which my wife is a deacon) passed a resolution in 1982 accepting evolution. I haven't checked out any other churches yet.
Oh, one more thing. In Genesis there are two separate and contradictory creation accounts.

I'm still curious about your relationship with Jesus. I'm not trying to be facetious. We've had many xians here talk about their "personal relationship" with the Big J, but when pressed, become vague.
I'm just curious.
BTW what's your real first name?

Take care

Martin

NOGO

Well put. When creationists say that evolution is just a theory my mind just reels with the irony.
Before an hypothesis becomes scientific theory many thing must come to pass. One of which is that many people will have independantly found evidence to support various parts of the theory or if possible will have tested various parts.
The scientific theory must explain not only the direct evidence found but also account for many other things as well. It must increase our understanding of the world around us in subtle and complex ways. It must sustain criticism and survive.

I understand why believers have trouble with this concept. They treat evolution as a competitor, as another religion. Darwin did not create the church of evolution. He did not say believe or be damned. Doubt is not a sin. Discussion is not suppressed. Discussion centres on evidence.

So evolution is still around today 150 years after Darwin's book. This theory was accepted on evidence and not on faith. More evidence was found and the theory was refined. Scientific theory is never dogmatic.

Believers who critize evolution never bother to try and explain the evidence. Creation does not explain the evidence. For example why are there so many species of insects compared with say the number of species of dogs or monkeys. With evolution that is exactly what you would expect. Insects reproduce far more quickly than dogs and you can therefore expect a greater variety. More generations, more mutations, therefore more species. All creationists can say is that this is just a coincidence or God wanted it this way.

Yes a coincidence, since all creatures which reproduce themselves rapidly have more species than animals which reproduce themselves slowly.

"God wanted it this way" explains nothing.
Why are so many species of insects around?
What is the purpose?

This is but one example where evolution offers evidence which can be examined and discussed while creationism leads to "God did it, end of discussion".

woodchuck

Alright, NOGO- (can I just call you nog for short? ) I’m going to try to wade through all the stuff we’ve surfaced and pick out one of each thing at a time and for now I’ll go back to the Ecclesiastes and Sheol discussion. First off though, I was reading the Agnostic bible in the book of Nog, and found a contradiction!

Nog 3:28 “I will provide evidence that the authors of the bible did not believe in an afterlife.”
And then….
Nog 4:2 “I did not say that the bible does not speak of afterlife. What I claim is that in the early books of the OT the belief was in Sheol.”


This Agnostle Nog just can’t be trusted, such contradictions! (hey, you guys do it to me all the time!)

For one thing- Sheol (in one of its meanings) is an afterlife. I went to many sources for the definition of Sheol (Sheol is the Hebrew, in Greek it is Aides “Hades”), and its meaning basically came don to mean the place of the dead, in many aspects. At times Sheol does merely mean a hole in the ground, a pit or a grave, and at other times it is a place- the actual definition is rather vague and undefined, but one can gather that it was dark and gloomy, but dull and inactive (which still could merely mean the grave) from scripture (for instance what you quoted in Ecclesiastes). But it was also regarded as a place where the soul of a man goes, without distinction, where punishment was suffered, (Deut. 32:22) and also rewards enjoyed (we find much of this in Enoch in intertestamental literature, and in the NT), and even though a man was chillin down in Sheol- God was still with him (psalm 139:8 “…if I make my bed in Sheol you are there”. But whatever Sheol was, it seemed to be viewed as an underground cavernous place that was very lonely. You’re right that the early books of the OT believed in Sheol, but you were wrong in saying this:

The OT did speak of resurrection and deliverance from Sheol, along with future glory. Some examples: Job 19:25 says “I know my redeemer lives… and after my skin has been destroyed, (Or ‘after I awake’) yet in my flesh I will see God. I myself will see him… how my heart yearns within me!” and in Psalm 16:10, “…you will not abandon me to Sheol” also 49:15 “But God will redeem my life from Sheol; He will surely take me to Himself.” And of course good ol’ Daniel 12:2 that says, “Multitudes who live in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life, others to everlasting shame and contempt (after life punishment?)” Sheol is not the end- whether it’s a little hole, a big hole, a butt hole, or a hell hole, Sheol is not the end nog.

Also, When the phrase “gathered to his fathers” was used of Abraham, Moses, Aaron, and David, it could have only been speaking of a conscious afterlife existence and not mere burial, because these guys weren’t buried with there ancestors. (That is, if we give the text only two options, as you often like to do)

We can also gather from the NT that Sheol was split into two parts (here’s where you get all huffy and say that this part doesn’t count, you’re free to disagree nog) when Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus in Hades (Sheol), and their separation- It seemed that in Hades, a large pit divided the righteous and unrighteous.

On to your other Ecclesiastes stuff:

First off, sorry for being a typical believer and asking “did you read it all?” – Obviously you know the bible very well and I didn’t mean to insult your intelligence. I guess a better question would be “did you miss the whole point of the book?”- In which case you and I debate the point of the book. So let’s just drop that one. I’ll try not to act like a typical believer if you promise not to act like the typical agnostic.

When I mentioned chapter 12:13-14, you said that a later judgment does not necessarily mean after death. I guess this one’s also arguable, and in my case I disagree once again, though that doesn’t really matter. Like I said at the start of my last “take” on Ecclesiastes- Under the Sun is the context here (it’s said 28 times so must mean something huh), you seem to want to ignore that, or twist it (as us typical believers always do).

You spoke of Ecc. 8:11-13 speaking of judgment or reward within a man’s lifetime, it said this:

What I see here is the author saying that men do evil because they can’t see the future judgment, which you would argue is all within there lifetime. What about the whole “lengthen his life” thing? It sounds to me like he’s saying that within this life a man can get away with sinning, but later he won’t be so happy about that choice. You’ll probably accuse me of twisting on that one, but honestly it seems more twisted to me to assume that he’s just saying that we’re talking karma here. Your other reference to 7:26 was rather weak grounds to steak your claim that we get judged in this lifetime, you quoted it like this:

That’s judgment? You turn it around to sound like God sicks the adulteresses on the bad people. So if I’m a bad person than I’ll get seduced by some hot chick from hell? That’s my big punishment? No, nog- I disagree, that my friend is a stretch and a half. This is not judgment of God on man; it’s the good judgment of a man who pleases God. If I choose to please God I won’t give in to the “wayward woman’s” ways, because I know that God’s ways are far more rewarding and long lasting. A man who is selfish and does not care to please God will jump right into her trap and be ensnared, and suffer for it. This is a consequence, not judgment.

As much as you love the parts of the book that say “eat, drink, and be merry,” you seem to ignore the conclusion of the matter. Even if you argue that in Ecclesiastes Sheol is our destination, the author continually reminds the reader that all these things are “from the Hand of God”- not to mention the end which I quoted last time in 12 that says “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” All through the book the author speaks of many different pursuits and deems each one “meaningless” or in other translations “vanity” and a “chasing after the wind”

Pursuit of pleasure apart from God (1:1-3)
Pursuit of pleasure-mirth, drinking, building, possession (2:1-11)
Pursuit of wisdom (2:12-17)
Pursuit of wealth (most of 2:18 to 6:12)
Science (1:4-11)
Philosophy (1:12-18)
Music (2:8)

Yet the one thing he did not refer to as meaningless, therefore I’m sure you’ll agree, meaning that the “conclusion” is what is meaning-full: “the whole duty of man.” Fearing God. He tells the young to remember their creator; obviously he’s trying to get them started early, not on wealth and wisdom, but on keeping God’s commands- because he’s come to realize that apart from God this life is “meaningless!” This is exactly what you’re preaching to me nog, meaninglessness, you’re telling me and yourself and all your loved ones that in truth they have no value.

It can not be proven either way within Ecclesiastes if the author speaks of immortality or mortality- I’ll give yah that. But the message remains the same. The rich, the poor, kings, widows, the ignorant, and the learned- they all live in dissatisfaction under the sun. The book of Ecclesiastes points towards the rest of the bible, for it leaves man hopeless and trapped in meaninglessness. Surely this implies that he needs a savior, and also that he is fallen. (You’re welcome to disagree)

You said that you think that the author was a priest, and that he only cares about “praying and getting our money”- then surely after reading a book that rants about the pointlessness and dissatisfaction of money, a priest would defiantly have been the one who wrote the book. The word Ecclesiastes basically means preacher, but could also mean a wise man- but at least someone who gathers people together to speak. If you think the author was just out for money you can think that, but in my opinion, if I was going to try to get people’s money I don’t think I’d preach to them its futility. The author had had his share of money nog; he didn’t want more, he was sick of it.

I think between this post and my last Ecclesiastes post I covered most of what I wanted to say- I know we won’t agree but I did learn some new things about early OT religion, and about Ecclesiastes in the process, so thank you for the challenge, that’s why I’m here. I hadn’t even considered the whole Sheol thing before.

As for the rest, I’ll get to them. The mind, the fig tree, the amalekites- and beyond!!!! Sorry, if I’m not responding as quickly as you- not only am I a two finger typer, but I’ve also never argued any of this stuff before, so go easy on me at first, faith slayer. Thanks for the thought provoking stuff, I’m lovin’ it!

-and Brit, my name’s Ethan, EEf for short. Also JL and Ghilles thanks for the reply. I can’t keep up with everyone but I think I responded to JL for the most part in my response to brit. I’d love to share about my personal relationship with Jesus. And I've got somethinfor Ghilles too!

-EEF, the Jolly Fat Woodchuck representin’ JC

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

JL

I understand woodchuck. You're covering a huge amount of ground with several people. I'll beat you about the head and neck with my razor sharp intellect another day when you're less involved.