tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1312248747597147754..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Morality without God? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36901235079234641082013-03-22T20:29:50.748-07:002013-03-22T20:29:50.748-07:00@im-skepticl
Don't bore the crap out of me wi...@im-skepticl<br /><br />Don't bore the crap out of me with your Positivism.<br /><br />ie "How do I prove threw empirical science Actuality, Potency, Form and Matter..etc"<br /><br />You remind me of Protestant Evangelicals I've debated who believe doctrine is based on Scripture Alone(not Scripture, Tradition and Church like we Catholics believe).<br /><br />Yeh I get it 99% of their objections to Catholic doctrine begin with the words "That is not in the Bible". But I have always pounded back "Where does Scripture teach it alone is the sole rule of faith?".<br /><br />Comedy insures as they avoid answering that question(the answer is it doesn't) & repeat their nonsense.<br /><br />Well guess what even if I deny God tomorrow I still reject Positivism & no objection based on it will ever get off the ground with me. (If you really read the links I gave you then you would know why)<br /><br />So in the future come up with something original.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5862943841812576592013-03-22T20:07:08.258-07:002013-03-22T20:07:08.258-07:00@Im-skepticl
>Ben, do you recall a few months a...@Im-skepticl<br />>Ben, do you recall a few months ago when a commenter here was berated by you in your usual manner, called a Gnu among other things - and then Victor mentioned that he knew some philosophy? Your whole attitude toward him immediately changed, and you started treating him with respect0<br /><br />Your memory is terrible.<br /><br />Angra Mangru(named after the Zoroastrian Devil) was his name & I didn't believe Victor till AM pounded me with superior argument & showed I had wronged him personally. He brought the pain. So confronted with the fact I was acting like a common Gnu (except with God Belief) I could do nothing but apologize and eat crow. He was very gracious about it. Some of usual Gnus suspects twisted the knife of course but what do you expect from gnus?<br /><br />> So, it's not a matter of how intelligent people really are or what they say. It doesn't even matter if a person is a philosopher. <br /><br />It matters if they are going to deal straight with you & argue in good faith. If they are not going to do so then they can smog off. Or they can bring the pain. I wasn't in the end impressed with Angra's attempts to show what parts of the Bible where literal or not but I respect his good will & I am sorry I doubted it.<br /><br />You OTOH have been slipping big time. I've been watching your discussions with grod & his has grown impatient with your anti-intellectualism. So I have lost trust in you. You have to argue or your atheism doesn't interest me.<br /><br />>It only matters if you think they are a philosopher, and apparently you will think that if they express Thomist ideas, or if someone tells you.<br /><br />I respect rational argument over base appeals too emotion. AM defended himself rationally and dealt with my overzealous misguided stupid attacks on his character with the deftness of Crude, grod or TheOflynn or Atheist Philosopher Jesse Parish when dealing with chuckleheads like Paps.<br /><br />Accept in that case I was the chucklehead.<br /><br />um-skeptical unless you give me rational argument we have little to talk about & you are not going to persuade me to be civil to known Gnus or gnu wannabes. At best I will be more careful not to mistake an Angra Manu for a Gnu. But that is it.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74071921943532638272013-03-22T19:28:21.291-07:002013-03-22T19:28:21.291-07:00"Plus they know some philosophy which by defi..."Plus they know some philosophy which by definition makes them cool."<br /><br />"OTOH you lost credibility pronouncing Paps intelligent."<br /><br />"I wish you would actually show evidence of having read the essays you claim to have read by addressing their arguments instead of repeating the same tedious Positivist objections one finds among mere Gnus."<br /><br />Ben, do you recall a few months ago when a commenter here was berated by you in your usual manner, called a Gnu among other things - and then Victor mentioned that he knew some philosophy? Your whole attitude toward him immediately changed, and you started treating him with respect. So, it's not a matter of how intelligent people really are or what they say. It doesn't even matter if a person is a philosopher. It only matters if you think they are a philosopher, and apparently you will think that if they express Thomist ideas, or if someone tells you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40272699309185170952013-03-22T18:55:46.464-07:002013-03-22T18:55:46.464-07:00@Paps
Your left-wing politics bore me to tears. ...@Paps<br /><br />Your left-wing politics bore me to tears. First of all one can be a right wing Atheist or a left wing liberal Theist (like my good friend Bob).<br /><br />Again would it kill ya to learn just some philosophy?<br /><br />Just a little?<br /><br />>But I am confident naturalist, realist enlightenment will emerge from the dark labyrinthine cloisters of religious thought.<br /><br />Since when where proponents of the enlightenment realists? Conceptionalists & or nominalists of course but realists.<br /><br />Sorry only Platonists or Aristotelians are realists. But if you would have studied philosophy you would no that Peggy Hill.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29533167866083739132013-03-22T18:46:25.862-07:002013-03-22T18:46:25.862-07:00@Moon
>You're just ignorant, you just don&...@Moon<br /><br />>You're just ignorant, you just don't know what is an atheist,<br /><br />Wow someone whose grammar & syntax is worse then mine. Marvelous!<br /><br />An Atheist literally means "not a Theist". In the Classic Sense used by the Greek and Roman Pagans an Atheist was anybody who denied the existence of any specific god. Thus Jews and Christians where "Atheists" for denying the existence of the pagan divinities. OTOH philosophical Atheists(my favorite kind) are persons who postulate there are no gods or God they are related to Positive Atheists persons like oh Harlan Elison who state positively "I am not some wishy washy Agnostic I say there is no God!"<br />Plus they know some philosophy which by definition makes them cool.<br /><br />Then there are Practical Atheists persons who live their lives without reference to God. They are related to the so called Negative Atheists or persons "lack god belief". Russell would have merely called them Agnostics who are afraid to own the name.<br /><br /> This later type is nothing more then a gutless venture into sophistry. Largely by intellectually lazy and philosophically inept Gnu Atheist types. Who take this view so as to not have to defend any positive belief but shift the burden entirely on a Theistic opponent. I could pull the same rabbit out of the hat by arbitrarily Ad Hoc defining "Theism" negatively as simply "lacking no god belief" then challenge my opponent to prove there is no god(s).<br />It's silly.<br /><br />Sadly this later type is nothing more then a fundamentalist who happens to "lack god-belief" and about as tedious as his religious counter part. <br /><br /><br />> but you think that the first letter should be capitalized.<br /><br />If you wish to give me advice on grammar you should at least have a better command of it them moi. My grammar and spekking suck & I make no pretense to be good at it or improving.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"I just read your about your inane defense of your religious "base" and I wanted to puke."<br /><br />Wow that was worthy of me. <br /><br />OH FYI that is not a good thing. OTOH you lost credibility pronouncing Paps intelligent. <br /><br />Of course and JP Holding is pleasant tempered. <br /><br />Go do some reading then come back & talk to me & maybe I will grace you with my attention for something more then mere amusement.<br /><br /> Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34147505705012774982013-03-22T16:42:52.672-07:002013-03-22T16:42:52.672-07:00Fellas, there is precious little else left in Ben&...Fellas, there is precious little else left in Ben's handy grab-bag of woomeisterism, resulting in many ad homs and personal sleights to fill in the wide blanks of his runny verbiage. His last line of defense comprise Aquinas and Feser. It is a testament to the moribund stasis of religion as humanity ventures into the 21st Century and beyond. Religion is a terrestrially-bound and endemic disorder of the mind, one that is slowly responding to remediation as our knowledge base and understanding increases.<br /><br />The myriad of perfectly natural events that were once unimaginably inexplicable, and subsequently attributed to God, becomes not only less and less frequent as our understanding of natural phenomena grows, but so too does the need for religious superstition and claims of supernaturalism as an explanatory tool diminish. <br /><br />So too will God's apparent laws and today's litany of religious sins, homosexuality, selective discrimination on the basis of religious belief, same-sex marriage, condom use and contraception, pro-choice, will finally all go the way of thunder and lightning once explained as God's wrath, or the Plague as God's punishment for disobedience, etc etc. It simply seems so ludicrous, and embarrassing that apparently intelligent, mature adults still subscribe to primitive superstition and antiquated shamanic practices in the modern era; such as the central tenet of drinking human blood and eating human flesh in some arcane cannibalistic ritual is supposed to infuse one with the strength and wisdom of the eaten warrior [for those of you practitioners who find it difficult to understand and identify this primitive practice within a contemporary setting, I will spell it out. It is commonly called the Eucharist] <br /><br />The pathology of this unquestioning acquiescence to our most primeval and unsophisticated base instincts is a clear indicator that we, as a species, have yet a way to go to slough off the skin of barbarism and superstition.<br /><br />But I am confident naturalist, realist enlightenment will emerge from the dark labyrinthine cloisters of religious thought.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28304651704822834362013-03-22T16:36:50.715-07:002013-03-22T16:36:50.715-07:00No ben, I did not want any attention from your hal...No ben, I did not want any attention from your half brain concocted insults.<br /><br />I just read your about your inane defense of your religious "base" and I wanted to puke.<br /><br />Sorry for calling you moron for capitalizing "atheist" word. You're just ignorant, you just don't know what is an atheist, but you think that the first letter should be capitalized.<br /><br />What exactly offends you when I say that god is a big universal clown that cries like an idiot, and you can see that in the theists and apologist writings? <br /><br />I can say something intelligent, but everything intelligent is offensive to you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13368959381137918064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4313614530163364682013-03-22T11:06:18.353-07:002013-03-22T11:06:18.353-07:00@Moon shine
Since you have been begging for my at...@Moon shine<br /><br />Since you have been begging for my attention like a lapping puppy. I shall condescend to address you. <br /><br />you wrote:<br />>The fact that ben yachov punctuates every sentence with an ad hominem, shows how infantile his views are.<br /><br />But earlier you wrote:<br /><br />>The most pathetic way to insult an atheist. You are a moron for capitalizing "A"theism. <br /><br />>God is a big universal clown that cries like an idiot... see theists and apologists.<br /><br />Hypocrite much?<br /><br />What was your sole question to me?<br /><br />>Why did god get this thing going<br />with the Jews?<br />Why didn't he create Christians right from the get-go<br />instead of a bunch of red sea pedestrians"<br /><br />This is a child's question. Can't you ask something intelligent? <br /><br />It's not hard?<br /><br />@im-skeptical<br /><br />I wish you would actually show evidence of having read the essays you claim to have read by addressing their arguments instead of repeating the same tedious Positivist objections one finds among mere Gnus.<br /><br />I had such hope you could be another dguller. Instead you are a more polite Paps.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7467199867388849332013-03-22T10:32:07.742-07:002013-03-22T10:32:07.742-07:00"Don't waste you time on this blog if ben..."Don't waste you time on this blog if ben continues with his inane attacks. You'd better go back and post on Debunking Christianity."<br /><br />I agree with your sentiments in general, but if skeptics limits their comments to Debunking Christianity, people like Ben would never have an opportunity to hear any opposing viewpoint, and the same would apply to the skeptics there. This forum would simply be an echo chamber. I, for one, am appreciative of Ben and other folks here, but I wish he'd be more willing to talk about things and drop the angry attitude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4065219826336979642013-03-22T09:54:57.965-07:002013-03-22T09:54:57.965-07:00Papalinton,
You are very articulate in your argu...Papalinton, <br /><br />You are very articulate in your arguments. <br /><br />Don't mind the ad hominems from a guy whose "godful" universe purpose and intentionality is the mind of ben yachov. <br /><br />The fact that ben yachov punctuates every sentence with an ad hominem, shows how infantile his views are.<br /><br />Don't waste you time on this blog if ben continues with his inane attacks. You'd better go back and post on Debunking Christianity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13368959381137918064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72811782790850494032013-03-22T08:44:16.490-07:002013-03-22T08:44:16.490-07:00>You seem to have great difficulty following a ...>You seem to have great difficulty following a cogent line of argument, Ben. Of course Jews believed in an anthropomorphized God.]<br /><br />Of course your so coherent Peggy Hill.<br /><br />So now you are back to that? By the next post if you think you can make a shallow argument against the incarnation with the ancient Jewish view of a Transcendent God you will.<br /><br />Paps you have no intelligent coherent arguments & you never will because you reject learning & you reject philosophy.<br /><br />>Yahweh was the original Jewish Warrior God or God of War:“Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as warrior-gods”.<br /><br />Well actually there was a Canaanite deity named Yahu(i.e.YH) who some scholars identified as a precursor to YHWH but that is about it. It is all speculation without any hard evidence & it is entirely possible if one takes a purely naturalist view of the Bible YHWH was an original creation by the authors of the OT.<br /><br />This is complicated by the fact the Canaanites had a chief deity named EL who in the Northern Kingdom of Israel was sometimes identified with YHWH during periods of religious syncretism condemned by the later Prophets.<br /><br />But that is unremarkable when Antiochas Epiphaneus tried to conqueror Israel during the time of the Maccabees he tried to make an association between Zeus & YHWH. The Israelites of course didn't buy it.<br /><br />You have amused me enough Paps with your freaky tin-foiled hat contradictory paranoia of religion being an evil force in a godless universe with no purpose or intentionality.<br /><br />In Space nobody can hear you Smeg.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89210412483470572412013-03-22T06:10:07.957-07:002013-03-22T06:10:07.957-07:00Ben
"Make up your mind Paps. Either the Jews ...Ben<br /><i>"Make up your mind Paps. Either the Jews believed in an anthropomorphic God who was a being alongside other beings or they didn't."</i><br /><br />You seem to have great difficulty following a cogent line of argument, Ben. Of course Jews believed in an anthropomorphized God. <br />You seem to be shamelessly obscurantist, Ben, when it comes to understanding the transition of the Jewish God which is the very same Christian God:<br /><br />Yahweh was the original Jewish Warrior God or God of War:<br /><br /><i>"Prof. Mark S. Smith notes on p.144 of The Origins of Biblical Monotheism that Yahweh was introduced to the Israelites as a “divine warrior [god] from the south.” Indeed, “Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as warrior-gods” (Ibid., p.33). This motif continued in the Israelite tradition: the tribal warrior-god Yahweh went to war against competing gods and nations on behalf of Israel.<br />Although Yahweh, the God the Israelites adopted, would one day become the supreme God of the land and eliminate his competition, initially he was just one of many competing “war and storm-gods;” as Prof. Erhard S. Gerstenberger writes on p.151 of Theologies of the Old Testament (emphasis added):<br />Yahweh was not always God in Israel and at every social level. Rather, initially he belongs only to the storm and war gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, Resheph and Chemosh…His original homeland was the southern regions of present-day Palestine and Jordan. Thus the regional and functional, cultural and social limitations of Yahweh should be beyond all doubt. The elaboration of ideas about Yahweh, e.g. as a guarantor of fertility, personal good fortune, head of a pantheon, creator of the world, judge of the world, etc. is gradual and only fully unfolds in the exilic/post-exilic age, always in connection with social and historical changes."</i><br /><br />See <a href="http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-bibles-yahweh-a-war-god-called-lord-of-armies-over-280-times-in-the-bible-and-lord-of-peace-just-once-i/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> at the aptly titled 'Loonwatch' site which reviews and places the Judaic-Christian God into its correct historical perspective and context. The Judaic-Christian god is a cultural artefact through-and-through, an anthropological contrivance that has acted as a place-marker in the absence of knowledge, the level of ignorance, and the rampant supernaturalist superstition of earlier peoples of the bronze-iron age period. That level of superstition and shamanic practices continues to this very day, not because of its reality or fact, but because of the indoctrinating parental child-rearing practices that perpetuate the continuation of this stagnant mythos. No amount of hard praying, squeezing the eyes closed, hand wringing and a plenitude of inner witnesses of the holy spirit [let alone a goodly dose of Southern Comfort or Jim Bean] is going to make an imagined entity any the truer or real.<br /><br />Those that believe in these supernatural entities subscribe to nothing less than shambolic nonsense, and it is increasingly embarrassing and rather cringeworthy to observe supposedly mature adults puerilely supplicating to an ethereal no-thing. <br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72457320331404584362013-03-21T16:26:10.178-07:002013-03-21T16:26:10.178-07:00Dan,
Thank you. I'll have a look.
As you ha...Dan,<br /><br />Thank you. I'll have a look.<br /><br />As you have probably noticed, my own knowledge of philosophy is still very basic. I became interested in it only within the past year. Since I'm still employed full time, the number of books I've read has been limited. The majority of my reading has been articles and essays, just trying to learn about topics as I encounter them. All this is a long way of saying I don't really have a list of formative books at this point. But maybe in a few years I'll have a better answer for that.<br /><br />By the way, the one I referred to earlier in this thread - E. A. Burtt-The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science - just happens to be one of the few that I have read. It describes how metaphysical understanding evolved with renaissance thinkers such as Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Newton. Very readable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1063174287027702782013-03-21T16:17:10.108-07:002013-03-21T16:17:10.108-07:00Why don't read like: "Life is a tragedy a...Why don't read like: "Life is a tragedy and like all good tragedy has a comedy beneath it"<br /><br />God is a big universal clown that cries like an idiot... see theists and apologists.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13368959381137918064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62416783786042525542013-03-21T15:05:35.912-07:002013-03-21T15:05:35.912-07:00im-skeptical,
Here are some books that have staye...im-skeptical,<br /><br />Here are some books that have stayed with me:<br /><i>The Bondage of the Will</i> by Martin Luther (not only is this still the best book around on the topic of free will, but Luther is also uproariously funny.)<br /><i>The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy</i> by Stanley Cavell<br /><i>Philosophical Investigations</i> by Ludwig Wittgenstein<br /><i>Mind and World</i> by John McDowell (if you read McDowell, be prepared to hunker through it ver-r-r-ry slowly; McDowell is an incredibly cryptic writer.)<br /><i>A Secular Age</i> by Charles Taylor<br /><i>Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat</i> by Bill Watterson<br /><br />How about you? What are the books that have stayed with you?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7108824872451896532013-03-21T12:09:58.400-07:002013-03-21T12:09:58.400-07:00"Life is a comedy and like all good comedy ha..."Life is a comedy and like all good comedy has a tragedy beneath it."<br />QUEEN OF THE SWORDS by Michael Moorcock.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18403542292619386422013-03-21T12:02:27.346-07:002013-03-21T12:02:27.346-07:00>benyachov: "Philo was a Jew & was bor...>benyachov: "Philo was a Jew & was born before Christianity and he taught a transcendent God"<br />========<br /><br />Why did god get this thing going <br />with the Jews? <br />Why didn't he create Christians right from the get-go <br />instead of a bunch of red sea pedestrians"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13368959381137918064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48577046433125311352013-03-21T08:28:29.726-07:002013-03-21T08:28:29.726-07:00>And then, BAM!!!! suddenly he becomes anthropo...<br />>And then, BAM!!!! suddenly he becomes anthropomorphic.<br /><br />No Paps Philo was a Jew & was born before Christianity and he taught a transcendent God. BTW Philo is also the earliest known interpreter of Genesis One which he takes allegorically.<br /><br />>From the very get-go the Jews were never sucked in by the anthropomorphic nonsense that jesus was a God.<br /><br />Moving the goalpost again eh? Like that is not a predictable move on your part.<br /><br />Make up your mind Paps. Either the Jews believed in an anthropomorphic God who was a being alongside other beings or they didn't.<br /><br />First you are one way then another.<br /><br />Yes I get it you aren't interesting in serious intelligent argument. <b>You are an Atheist Apologist not an Atheist Philosopher.</b> You are only concerned with picking up the next ball of mud to throw too see what sticks.<br /><br />Trouble is even those Theists here who might (by my standards at least) be seen as "fundamentalists" are way too sophisticated for your Dawkinistic crap. <br /><br />Your a D-lister. You must accept it & the tragedy of you is not so much that you deny gods but that you refuse to learn or use your intelligence.<br /><br />Tragically there is a lot of that going around these days. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36498122595066695582013-03-21T08:09:41.068-07:002013-03-21T08:09:41.068-07:00>Well, here's a clue: mentions Plato and Ar...>Well, here's a clue: mentions Plato and Aristotle rather briefly, but nothing about Thomism. But you haven't read it, have you?<br /><br />Yet you make no reference to the content of the arguments presented in the links I give you.<br /><br />So I am still skeptical you actually read them vs skim them. When you actually argue against the specific points made my skepticism will end.<br /><br />Till then it remains.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37246882870357558682013-03-20T23:32:33.373-07:002013-03-20T23:32:33.373-07:00Ben
"Actually Philo of Alexandra taught the t...Ben<br /><i>"Actually Philo of Alexandra taught the transcendence of God and said he was not understood to be anthropomorphic before the birth of Christ."</i><br /><br />And then, BAM!!!! suddenly he becomes anthropomorphic.<br /><br />'The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit'.<br />Two out three ain't too bad for clear evidence of the anthropomorphizing of an apparent entity that is supposed to be all one and the same, Ipsum Esse Subsistens. <br /><br /> <i>"The Rabbis taught the transcendence of God as well that was one of the reasons they reacted negatively to Christianity because God Becoming man seemed impossible to them."</i><br /><br />Therein lies the monumental irony of christian apologetics. From the very get-go the Jews were never sucked in by the anthropomorphic nonsense that jesus was a God. From the very get-go Jews eschewed all the hyperbole that constituted the cult of christianity. Their skepticism from the very outset simply puts a lie to any evidence that jesus was a god. They didn't buy it then. And they sure as hell don't buy it now. <br /><br />The whole sorry saga of christianity seems a ludicrous contrivance by which even God failed to convince the Jews that jesus was, The Man! And boy do they get pissed when Christians try to tell them how to read their own sacred book, the Jewish Scriptures, the pejoratively called Old Testament. As far as Judaism is concerned, the New Testament is just superstitious malarkey, not unlike the Book of mormon, or L Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics".<br /><br />Now that the flush of christianity is over, history and facts now come to the fore once again, to place christianity in its appropriate historical context, an ultimately failed social experiment that advanced and sophisticated cultures and societies no longer rely on or regard as central to promoting social good within the public square. It has reached its 'use-by' date.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13889411579210159072013-03-20T21:39:18.311-07:002013-03-20T21:39:18.311-07:00"Your Atheism is unsophisticated & for th..."Your Atheism is unsophisticated & for the underachiever. Don't get ideas above your station."<br /><br />The most pathetic way to insult an atheist. You are a moron for capitalizing "A"theism. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13368959381137918064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11029960948999461592013-03-20T19:31:49.320-07:002013-03-20T19:31:49.320-07:00"I am literally skeptical of this claim."..."I am literally skeptical of this claim."<br /><br />Well, here's a clue: mentions Plato and Aristotle rather briefly, but nothing about Thomism. But you haven't read it, have you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58273139561421591242013-03-20T19:28:29.952-07:002013-03-20T19:28:29.952-07:00Normally I ignore you Paps since you are an idiot ...Normally I ignore you Paps since you are an idiot universally recognized as such by both Atheists and Theists alike. But I couldn't resist.<br /><br />>So when God says, taken directly from the Bible:<br /><br />You quote an English translation and assume it's clear? Hysterical!<br /><br />">And The Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." (Numbers 15:32,35 RSV) and<br /><br />Means they all get togather to throw him off a ledge onto the stones they gathered from outside the camp.<br />Why is that a problem? Go read the Talmud and or the Mishna yourself.<br /><br />>"13 Then the Lord said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. ..." (Leviticus 24:13-16 (NIV),<br /><br />>from your perspective this is really just a bit of imaginary hogwash written by the early authors particularly the OT writers, not much more than a folkloric phantasy, because as you say "God is not a being that exists alongside other beings" ... , and is indeed, 'being itself'?……..And it wasn't until Aquinas came along, a thousand years later, to re conceptualize that god as "not a being that exists alongside other beings" ... , and is indeed, 'being itself', that humans finally understood what God was like, an amorphous, non-personal, impersonal, ineffable no-thing, an Ipsum Esse Subsistens.<br /><br />Actually Philo of Alexandra taught the transcendence of God and said he was not understood to be anthropomorphic before the birth of Christ. The Rabbis taught the transcendence of God as well that was one of the reasons they reacted negatively to Christianity because God Becoming man seemed impossible to them. <br /><br />Paps your crap still reads like the rantings of a YEC with a 5th grader's understanding of biology trying to tell Richard Dawkins evolution is bogus because he has seen a monkey in a zoo give birth to another monkey not a human baby.<br /><br />Give it a rest. Your Atheism is unsophisticated & for the underachiever. Don't get ideas above your station. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83394973617557104952013-03-20T19:06:16.905-07:002013-03-20T19:06:16.905-07:00>Not only that, but I read the book he quoted f...>Not only that, but I read the book he quoted from.<br /><br />I am literally skeptical of this claim.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85201558599999535102013-03-20T18:31:30.354-07:002013-03-20T18:31:30.354-07:00Dan,
I wouldn't mind checking out some of the...Dan,<br /><br />I wouldn't mind checking out some of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com