charter.rights Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Many of the statements in the Bible do archeologically verify. Are you saying that the people who wrote it were committing a Bernie Madoff-ian fraud? Maybe not those who originally wrote it but those who re-wrote it certainly were trying to change it in a fraudulent way. I mean were are the missing books today, but in the scribes' garbage collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Maybe not those who originally wrote it but those who re-wrote it certainly were trying to change it in a fraudulent way. I mean were are the missing books today, but in the scribes' garbage collection. Send me a PDF of the missing books in the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 jbg Do you have sources to show that the people in the region were not brutal and violent? You're playing a rookie's game, and one that most MLWs have seen before. Namely, you come on here, and make a claim, and when somebody asks you for your real evidence, your response is to tell me to prove otherwise. You are the positive claimant, therefore it's on you to prove that these people are violent and then (if you intend so) what the cause is. Of course, as I mentioned we've had similar arguments with the anti-Muslim types with regards to that religion so you might want to flash forward by reviewing some of those. Again, I don't know why you come to a discussion board if you have no intention to really discuss anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Michael, for one thing, on a Canadian board, a proof is a proof. For another you come to make baseless personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 jbg, For another you come to make baseless personal attacks. Excuse me ? Show me where I made a personal attack. I have nothing personal against you, but I would like to have a real discussion with you. I do feel that you're capable of one, but that you don't understand that this is the point of a discussion board. This is the basis of my comments - your argument, or lack of it so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Send me a PDF of the missing books in the Bible. http://www.google.ca/search?q=lost+books+bible&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 This is the basis of my comments - your argument, or lack of it so far.It is late, and I am too tired to make a full response. Here's a partial one.I am Jewish. As such basically I do believe in the Old Testament. I am advised, admittedly by secondary literature, that many of the events in the Bible either verify archeologically or through other oral histories. Ultimately, religious beliefs do spring from a divine, unprovable and un-falseifiable (sp) basis. That being said, there would be no motive to spend the kind of time and energy creating manually caligraphed Torahs if the oral histories did not make sense at the time. I am willing to believe that much of the Bible is, in fact true. As far as the nature of the surrounding people, the resemblence of their current behavior to ancient behavior is too strong to be coincidental. Like my son's red hair and my former red hair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 jbg, You're clearly too intelligent to articulate such things, and yet expect that you can have a discussion whose purpose is to prove the violence of a group of people based on your holy book. Why do you insist on playing about so ? You're wasting the opportunity for a good discussion, IMO. Instead, we're having a discussion about discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Why do you insist on playing about so ? You're wasting the opportunity for a good discussion, IMO. Instead, we're having a discussion about discussing. I'll take this up after work tomorrow. I'm not going to pretend having the requisite energy level now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 It is late, and I am too tired to make a full response. Here's a partial one. I am Jewish. As such basically I do believe in the Old Testament. I am advised, admittedly by secondary literature, that many of the events in the Bible either verify archeologically or through other oral histories. Ultimately, religious beliefs do spring from a divine, unprovable and un-falseifiable (sp) basis. That being said, there would be no motive to spend the kind of time and energy creating manually caligraphed Torahs if the oral histories did not make sense at the time. I am willing to believe that much of the Bible is, in fact true. As far as the nature of the surrounding people, the resemblence of their current behavior to ancient behavior is too strong to be coincidental. Like my son's red hair and my former red hair. It is just as likely that the modern interpretations of the Bible are wrong and out of context. Plus add to that centuries of duplication and edification the oral histories suffered from the telephone game syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 "Certain Peoples Enjoy Living Like Animals Over 5000 Year Period" Dan Brown's books provide data that can be verified archaeologically, but they are considered fiction. The Bible is not "oral history" because oral history is spoken or sung. The Bible is printed and read. While the Bible may have been the result of recording ancient oral stories, it has also become the subject of many revisions for a variety of political, social and cultural reasons. Like any other "history" in the world. Making a statement on selective hearsay evidence that may have been modified to address political or cultural bias will likely result in a highly innacurate statement. Your citation of biblical passages appear to me to be more of a statement of your bias than any useful cultural information. It would seem the only thing up for discussion is the nature of your bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 (edited) I'm going to express my disgust here. The obvious point of the thread was to demonstrate that the Middle East's hatreds and violence go back millenia. It didn't start with Bush, Netanyahu or Cheney. Instead, the thread got nitpicked on how much of the Bible is literally true. The consensus seems to be that anyone who believes that it's a written recordation of an oral history is either a Stockwell Day type believer in dinosaurs or otherwise an idiot. It is easy to denigrate a work of literature or a theory. Providing an alternative explanation, or more importantly providing a substitute for the moral and ethical lessons of the Bible is far more difficult. I defy anyone here to do that. Edited November 10, 2009 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm going to express my disgust here. The obvious point of the thread was to demonstrate that the Middle East's hatreds and violence go back millenia. It didn't start with Bush, Netanyahu or Cheney. Instead, the thread got nitpicked on how much of the Bible is literally true. The consensus seems to be that anyone who believes that it's a written recordation of an oral history is either a Stockwell Day type believer in dinosaurs or otherwise an idiot. It is easy to denigrate a work of literature or a theory. Providing an alternative explanation, or more importantly providing a substitute for the moral and ethical lessons of the Bible is far more difficult. I defy anyone here to do that. Here's a better place to get your morals, use your freaking conscience. As for providing alternate explanations well everything was not created in 7 days it took several billion years to get to something that even closely resembles our universe. There was no global flood although there was a lot of local ones. The bible is wrong on so many occasions that when it is used it is instantly cast into doubt. As for how Violent the ME was guess what back then everyone was violent if you weren't you ended up dead and geuss what the ones that were the most violent usually did the best. Look at the most violent and racist civilization in the wolrd, the British empire they conquered most of the world and spread there bigotry everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm going to express my disgust here. The obvious point of the thread was to demonstrate that the Middle East's hatreds and violence go back millenia. It didn't start with Bush, Netanyahu or Cheney. Instead, the thread got nitpicked on how much of the Bible is literally true. The consensus seems to be that anyone who believes that it's a written recordation of an oral history is either a Stockwell Day type believer in dinosaurs or otherwise an idiot. It is easy to denigrate a work of literature or a theory. Providing an alternative explanation, or more importantly providing a substitute for the moral and ethical lessons of the Bible is far more difficult. I defy anyone here to do that. Actually you started the drift by trying to use the Bible as proof. Your source has within a reasonable belief been proven unreliable. I certainly hope you do better than this in your practice. I mean most judges have little patience for the kind of whining I just saw demonstrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 To add to what TM and CR said - you also made a point of excluding the Israeli people from your bible-based generalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 "or more importantly providing a substitute for the moral and ethical lessons of the Bible is far more difficult. I defy anyone here to do that." Based on this statement, I am going to choose the "otherwise an idiot" designation. Sorry. Every single religion and culture on this planet throughout all time and history has provided 'moral and ethical lessons' to their populace. There is no need to "substitute for" but colonialism, emperialism and nationalism imposed Biblical based views on indigenous populations at great peril and loss in the past two centuries. If you can't see this, then you are as blind as any radical Islamist. Secondly, the Old Testament hasn't been added to in quite sometime and is therefore a record of a time in antiquity. To associate a record from a limited period of the great past with current events while conveniently ignoring the thousands of intervening years is dishonest, disingenuous and deceiving. If you want to really get into recorded oral history according to the Bible, why not bring up the New Testament and see who the villians are in those stories? No? I didn't think so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 No. A small part of the Bible is the creation story. It is important to note that the Bible does not quantify the length of the earlier days. And I have yet to see a "scientific" explanation for the origin of life that doesn't involve some sort of a miracle. A miracle is an event of supernatural causation. I openly challenge you to provide a single citation in peer reviewed or primary scientific literature where abiogenesis is referred to in this way. Unless, of course, you're simply dishonestly trying to alter the meaning of a word, which makes a complete lie of the next part of your post... That being said I am not a creationist. I have an open mind on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm going to express my disgust here. The obvious point of the thread was to demonstrate that the Middle East's hatreds and violence go back millenia. It didn't start with Bush, Netanyahu or Cheney. Instead, the thread got nitpicked on how much of the Bible is literally true. The consensus seems to be that anyone who believes that it's a written recordation of an oral history is either a Stockwell Day type believer in dinosaurs or otherwise an idiot. I got your point right away! I thought you had been very explicit. There must be some reason why this particular area of the world has spent thousands of years in hatred and primitive, irrational violence. I would suggest it is culture. The way the people who have lived there see the world and how it works has been and continues to be violent and primitive. They've managed to blow even Ireland's record out of the water for time spent holding grudges! When people continue to kill each other for millennium after millennium, the only possible explanation is that they prefer to do such! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 WB I would suggest it is culture. The way the people who have lived there see the world and how it works has been and continues to be violent and primitive. They've managed to blow even Ireland's record out of the water for time spent holding grudges!When people continue to kill each other for millennium after millennium, the only possible explanation is that they prefer to do such! Culture isn't a root cause, WB. Why do they prefer to do as much when others dont' ? Are you saying it's biological ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm going to express my disgust here. The obvious point of the thread was to demonstrate that the Middle East's hatreds and violence go back millenia. It didn't start with Bush, Netanyahu or Cheney. I thought the point was to show that violence is an intrinsic element of "certain peoples" (your own primitive predecessors excluded, natch.) The notion that violence was exclusively the domain of one ethnic or racial group would be laughable on its own, but using the Bible as evidence is even more ridiculous when you consider the accounts of the bloodlust and atrocities of your Chosen People that it contains. Then, as now, the Israelites are not without blood on their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 BD The notion that violence was exclusively the domain of one ethnic or racial group would be laughable on its own, but using the Bible as evidence is even more ridiculous when you consider the accounts of the bloodlust and atrocities of your Chosen People that it contains. Then, as now, the Israelites are not without blood on their hands. And again I point out that you can't attribute a particular group's religion as a cause here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 (edited) BD And again I point out that you can't attribute a particular group's religion as a cause here. I wasn't trying to. And I don't think jbg is either. No, he's doing something far more insidious in suggesting that "certain peoples" are intrinsically, fundamentally and, presumably, irredeemably violent savages at heart. I find that just a wee bit problematic. In case he decides to do some editing, here's the money quote: I'm not sure that a problem over 5600 years old is soluble. There is a certain element in that area (and I do not tie it to Islam necessarily since it long predates Islam) that enjoys the thrill of blood flowing from a human body. Edited November 10, 2009 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 BD, True but he excluded Israel too, I think. So he means... Palestine ? Hard to say.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) Culture isn't a root cause, WB. Why do they prefer to do as much when others dont' ? Are you saying it's biological ? Biological? NO! That would be unscientific rubbish. All races of Man seem able to be equally stupid in such matters. Adopt a baby from a violent culture and raise him in the west and you end up with a western culture adult and not a suicide bomber, no matter what his race. Vice versa, sadly. Why do you disagree that culture is not a root cause? Culture is what makes a people prone to violence, or not! One of the greatest gifts to our culture was the medieval concept that justice belonged to the King or State instead of just individual feuds, vendettas and revenge. It would appear that many peoples of the middle east have never adopted that concept. Culture by its very definition explains why one society values life so highly that it will not execute even serial child killers (ours, for e.g.) and another will cheerfully blow up innocents for some nebulous political goal (middle east)! Or are you suggesting that ALL cultures are equally positive in all their aspects? Edited November 11, 2009 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 "Culture by its very definition..." Then how do you determine who is right or who is wrong or, put better, which culture is better and which culture is worse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.