Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:42 am

<< Week of September 29, 2016 >>
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday
29 Day Month

30 Day Month

1 Day Month

2 Day Month

3 Day Month

4 Day Month

5 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
My Thoughts 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 467
Thanks: 25
Thanked: 29 times in 28 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.


Wright has a strongly hermeneutical approach to the Bible. Balancing the text against historical archaeological evidence provides a real basis for speculation and interpretation. Ignoring the evidence leaves the reader in thrall to delusory traditional fantasies. It makes far more sense for Wright to analyse the evolution of the Abrahamic religions against a scientific archaeological framework, than for traditional theology to stick to the deposit of faith. Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.


You have to be kidding. Wright exemplifies precisely what one should not do when using a hermeneutical approach to study anything. The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary. In other words, when the Bible refers to bread and fish, barring a COMPELLING reason to think otherwise, it is referring to bread and fish. As pointed out before by me, Genesis contains a straight-forward explanation for the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Abraham underwent. Wright totally ignores the story. Odd since it involves two thirds of the Book of Genesis.

As for faith vs evidence, I suggest that you visit the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.


Quote:
Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.


Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....



Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:29 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4993
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1628
Thanked: 1626 times in 1229 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Star Burst wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.

Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....

Are you suggesting that I make claims that are not backed by evidence? Examples?



Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:57 am
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5546
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1395
Thanked: 1402 times in 1095 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
The Genesis discussion got bogged down with arguments about day 4.

Since you insist on taking that as astronomically true, what surprise is there to this? You miss out on the beauty and deeper meaning of this story by having to defend it as fact.
Quote:
The attempt to discuss Evil Bible stories got bogged down with an argument about the population of the ancient world. Why? The point of the Evil designation of the story had nothing to do with the population but it instantly was siezed on as a means of reinforcing the bedrock position that the Bible is wrong.

You're so extremely defensive about any statement in the Bible not being taken literally--even if it might lead to a richer meaning--that you see only intent to prove the Bible "wrong." Why didn't you just say in the first place that you didn't care about the question of population accuracy, that it was irrelevant to the larger meaning of these chapters? Then the discussion would have stayed more focused. My only reason for bringing that up was that it related to the perspective and bias of the writers of that part of the Bible. I've just brought up again with that last sentence why discussion between people who are so far apart on the basic assumptions is pointless.


_________________
No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live as we dream--alone.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness


Last edited by DWill on Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:20 am, edited 2 times in total.



Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Robert Tulip wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary.

Truly Stahrwe, you make me laugh. Hermeneutics takes its name from the God Hermes, messenger of Zeus and Apollo. Like the planet Mercury, Hermes flits quickly between sun and earth, as god of communication and language. Put simply, hermeneutics is interpretation, providing the basis to find meaning in texts. As we read the Bible, we ask what the authors really meant by their statements. Jesus Christ instructs us to read parables as pointers to hidden wisdom. So your suggestion that Bible interpretation can be exhausted by a literal reading is absurd. But, granted, you have to posit this absurd argument to be consistent with your creationist fantasies.


I did not say that a literal interpretation exhausts the wisdom of the Bible. The rule I cited was just one of many tools included in a hermeneutic approach.

Quote:
the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.


robert tulip wrote:
Interbane has been remarkably patient in drawing out your ability to ignore rational argument. This "trainwreck" comment is a further example of you re-writing the facts in line with your agenda. But then, literal faith needs blind confidence in order to believe objective falsity, such as the claim that Bible passages make plain sense.


This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion. This is a common tactic and is a total diversion. It is intended to put the defenders of faith off balance and claim a higher ground. I showed that for what it was and introduced evidence, including evidence external to the Bible which, among other things demostrated that the Bible had things right. Instead of discussing the points, Interbane insisted on attempting in post after post to discredit the Bible. He never provided any evidence in support of his dismissal, just vague claims that the Bible had been revised so much it couldn't be trusted. It turns out that the Bible was accurate in the examples I provided but again, instead of discussing same it was post after tedious post of the same thing by Interbane. But the truly laughable thing is that after he impedes the discussion, and stuffs the thread with repetitious criticisms, I am the one who is accused of being dogmatic. This reminds me of the reaction the Pharisees had to Lazarus.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:29 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Rhodes Scholar

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4025
Location: NC
Thanks: 1549
Thanked: 1632 times in 1246 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:

This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion. This is a common tactic and is a total diversion. It is intended to put the defenders of faith off balance and claim a higher ground. . . .


Stahrwe, are you saying that yours is a faith-based position?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6866
Location: California
Thanks: 1015
Thanked: 1945 times in 1572 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Quote:
This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion.


Parroting the DK effect does not mean you aren't guilty of it. Truly, you are.

For the record, I never 'insisted on attempting to discredit' the bible. What I insisted was that you support it. Which you flailed about unable to do like an octopus with cerebral palsy.

Here's what you fail to understand; there is no argument needed to discredit the bible. Epistemically, the burden is first upon the person to support it. You hadn't filled that burden to begin with, which means the bible 'has no credit' which must be discredited. Using the Talmud, which is itself unsupported, does not fill the burden either. It's a case of tweedledee vouching for tweedledum. Here is a link.



Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion.


Parroting the DK effect does not mean you aren't guilty of it. Truly, you are.

For the record, I never 'insisted on attempting to discredit' the bible. What I insisted was that you support it. Which you flailed about unable to do like an octopus with cerebral palsy.


In fact, I have cited specific evidence which supports the Bible, evidence which you have not been able to refute. Your sole rebuttal is to claim that the Bible is inadmissable based on self pertpetuating, non-supported claims within the atheistic community that the Bible has been revised to the point where it is no longer credible. Well, if that is the case, how can the prophecy about the restoration of Israel, predicted to the day in the OT have been so precise and correct? Oh, I remember, the Texas Sloppyshooter Fallacy.

As far as the DK effect goes, what is so amusing about it is how applicable it is to those who cite it as a disparragment of believers.

interbane wrote:
Here's what you fail to understand; there is no argument needed to discredit the bible. Epistemically, the burden is first upon the person to support it. You hadn't filled that burden to begin with, which means the bible 'has no credit' which must be discredited. Using the Talmud, which is itself unsupported, does not fill the burden either. It's a case of tweedledee vouching for tweedledum. Here is a link.


In the next few days, I will post a summary of the unrefuted evidence provided in the Epistemology discussion as a benchmark before continuing on.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:47 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Rhodes Scholar

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4025
Location: NC
Thanks: 1549
Thanked: 1632 times in 1246 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
. . . In the next few days, I will post a summary of the unrefuted evidence provided in the Epistemology discussion as a benchmark before continuing on.


'Round and 'round it goes. Where it stops no one knows.

Just please start a new thread because this has nothing to do with Wright's book. In fact, I'd suggest that Chris remove this thread from the Wright topic altogether.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Robert Tulip wrote:
Star Burst wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.

Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....

Are you suggesting that I make claims that are not backed by evidence? Examples?


Yes,
The loaves and fishes.

The Cross in Revelation you had using the wrong consellation and claiming that Aquilla was a stand in for Scorpio because Scorpio couldn't be seen from the Northern Hemisphere*

*or something like that. From memory I did not go back and check.

The whole astrotheology thing is composed of surmise, suppostion, scripture sifting and directed assumption.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:33 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 467
Thanks: 25
Thanked: 29 times in 28 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Yeah right! Just like your Babble is composed of just that babble! False prophecy, lies, children killing, rape, murder should I go on...if this is the type of moron you worship you need to find another one...God killed roughly over 2 million people in the Babble, Satan killed what about 16..all Gods are based on star worship the Babble is no different....no wonder all politicians go to church its where they learn to twist words "depends on what you mean by sex"...............Bill Clinton



Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:18 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 467
Thanks: 25
Thanked: 29 times in 28 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
. . . In the next few days, I will post a summary of the unrefuted evidence provided in the Epistemology discussion as a benchmark before continuing on.


'Round and 'round it goes. Where it stops no one knows.

Just please start a new thread because this has nothing to do with Wright's book. In fact, I'd suggest that Chris remove this thread from the Wright topic altogether.


Yeah a good idea and remove my post above this one as well....this theological mythology don't belong on this thread or anywhere else for that matter...trash heap would be the nest place for it! :twisted:



Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• Resources related to Uncle Tom's Cabin
Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:28 pm



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank