Imperefct God

[Belinda]

That is a straightforward reply, IC. If you provided some scholarly Biblical research I'd like your Biblical interpretations better.

"Biblical research," B? What can be better than direct quotations? They're original-source research.

They are also the ultimate compliment, because offering them shows that the speaker believes in the capacity of the reader to look them up, see the context, consider them for herself, and freely judge what is true.

What can some other man's opinion add to that, that is not inferior?

Some people are better than others at applying scientific rules to researching.The Bible is a primary source insofar as it is assumed to be a set of books with human authors and editors. The Bible is not history as modern people know history. Modern use of The Bible in church worship is properly devotional , not scientific.

[Belinda]

This world's cry for justice will be answered.

Cries for justice are heard by people not gods. There is no magical Deity Who intervenes to save people, and it is a cop out from responsibilities to believe on magical intervention.

Mr Can Can't is forever stuck in his own self inflicted la la land, believing he has a mummy and a daddy, who will cater for his every need, he projects that neediness onto a 'higher entity' that lies beyond the living flesh, then hopelessly and desperately believes that 'higher entity' needed him...

But back in the real world, reality needs nothing, it's already complete and whole just as it is, hogwarts and all..







Needy people are just a blight. Their high maintenance stance is just not workable and is why nature will do everything in her power to kill off any surplas to requirements.






.

Your Freudian description of IC's motives may be true, or partly true.
Most people are at least sometimes ,when they are in acute danger for instance, stuck in that need for a Heavenly Father to save them. Others are convinced that the Heavenly Providence exists. I think you are right to describe these as "needy".

It is not easy to consign wishful thinking to the scrapheap and some are bolder than others. Teachers know it is an uphill struggle to teach people who love their world -view to the exclusion of all others. Therefore we have to accept there are such people and deal with them because they, like the poor, are always with us.

[Dontaskme]

Cries for justice are heard by people not gods. There is no magical Deity Who intervenes to save people, and it is a cop out from responsibilities to believe on magical intervention.

Mr Can Can't is forever stuck in his own self inflicted la la land, believing he has a mummy and a daddy, who will cater for his every need, he projects that neediness onto a 'higher entity' that lies beyond the living flesh, then hopelessly and desperately believes that 'higher entity' needed him...

But back in the real world, reality needs nothing, it's already complete and whole just as it is, hogwarts and all..







Needy people are just a blight. Their high maintenance stance is just not workable and is why nature will do everything in her power to kill off any surplas to requirements.






.

Your Freudian description of IC's motives may be true, or partly true.
Most people are at least sometimes ,when they are in acute danger for instance, stuck in that need for a Heavenly Father to save them. Others are convinced that the Heavenly Providence exists. I think you are right to describe these as "needy".

It is not easy to consign wishful thinking to the scrapheap and some are bolder than others. Teachers know it is an uphill struggle to teach people who love their world -view to the exclusion of all others. Therefore we have to accept there are such people and deal with them because they, like the poor, are always with us.

Very well said, I agree...we're all in the same one lifeboat here.

[Immanuel Can]

The Bible is a primary source insofar as it is assumed to be a set of books with human authors and editors.

It's the primary source for all statements about the Bible. No assumption about its authorship or origins is even required for that to be the case.

And what else did you ask me about?

[Dontaskme]

The Bible is a primary source insofar as it is assumed to be a set of books with human authors and editors.

It's the primary source for all statements about the Bible. No assumption about its authorship or origins is even required for that to be the case.

And what else did you ask me about?

Sorry Mr Can can't, a book and it's contents share the same exact same source, the story and the book go together, like peas in a pod. A book and the contents of a book are inseparably one.

Who wrote the very first book?

''No assumption about its authorship or origins is even required for that to be the case.''
What you mean like this >



You really do come up with the most ridiculous statements, don't you?

You cannot separate a book from it's contents.

Stay tuned for IC's next hoax.

[Immanuel Can]

The Bible is a primary source insofar as it is assumed to be a set of books with human authors and editors.

It's the primary source for all statements about the Bible. No assumption about its authorship or origins is even required for that to be the case.

And what else did you ask me about?

Sorry Mr Can...

I wasn't asking you.

[Greatest I am]

Atheists are more sane than theists.

Prove me wrong by argument.

It's not something I have any interest in doing, but the general form of argument that some 'analytic philosopher' might present would start with a definition of insanity. It could very well include a bit of Pascal's Wager, according to which the rewards for believing in god, if he exists, vastly outweigh the minor inconvenience of being a dreary fuckwit all your life. Therefore you have to be insane not to believe in god.

Not according to the intelligentsia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSe4Ff ... r_embedded

Define fuckwit please.

Is that the Christians who honor a genocidal p**** of a god and follows his vile homophobic and misogynous ways?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Define, "supernatural"
.

An imaginary realm that only really stupid people will believe is real.

The rest of your poor post is not intelligible.

Regards
DL

[attofishpi]

Define, "supernatural"

An imaginary realm that only really stupid people will believe is real.

Precisely, you brought the term "SUPERNATURAL" in relation to God, so define it AND define GOD as this thing "SUPERNATURAL"

The rest of your poor post is not intelligible.

Y are you not intelligent?

[Dontaskme]

It's the primary source for all statements about the Bible. No assumption about its authorship or origins is even required for that to be the case.

And what else did you ask me about?

Sorry Mr Can...

I wasn't asking you.

I wasn’t answering you, I was reporting on some misinformation for all the forum readers.
You speak in riddles like that dumb twat Walker and Atto.
Why make this always about you, are you that vain?

This is the internet, it’s an open place where opinions are voiced and read by anyone.
If you’re going to misinform people then you’re Bs will be subjected to the overwrite treatment…it’ll be flushed down the loo.

There’s more than two people discussing this topic, just so you know. I know you like to think your BS is more superior and or is worthy of being dominant…you absolute control freak.
.

[uwot]

Therefore you have to be insane not to believe in god.

Not according to the intelligentsia.

Nor me. Yeah, Professor Salpolsky makes some compelling points.

Define fuckwit please.

Is that the Christians who honor a genocidal p**** of a god and follows his vile homophobic and misogynous ways?

It's a bit broader than that, but certainly they could be included.

[Belinda]

The Bible is a primary source insofar as it is assumed to be a set of books with human authors and editors.

It's the primary source for all statements about the Bible. No assumption about its authorship or origins is even required for that to be the case.

And what else did you ask me about?

You would not be an efficient detective if you interpreted a crime without reference to the perpetrator's motives. The writers and editors of The Bible were real men who intended The Bible to be for purposes such as explaining for instance why anything exists , or why Jesus was Christ. To scientifically interpret any human creation you need to know the creator's motives. This goes for not only archeologists but also Biblical interpretation.

True, some of The Bible can be read as poetry i.e. expressive of feelings, and this is conveyed to the readers. The psalms of David are like this. The 23rd psalm could be criticised for its metaphysical meaning, but the same critic could love it because it expresses real feelings of fear, faith, and hope. For instance I am fond of one well known hymn that expresses a long-outmoded scientific notion because the words and music well express a feeling for me, but the author of the lyric no doubt believed the science too.

Biblical testimony purports to be about truths. However The Bible also contains unwitting testimony about its authors, editors, and the cultures of belief they inhabited.

[Immanuel Can]

To scientifically interpret any human creation you need to know the creator's motives.

Secular scientists would be astonished to hear you say this.

However, I would agree: you need to know the Creator to understand the Creation fully...particular its moral and teleological dimensions. However, secular scientists would be appalled at your suggestion. They would insist all one needs is an empirical test.

True, some of The Bible can be read as poetry.

Yes. It has several literary modes: wisdom literature, poetry, epistle, prophecy...and each book has to be understood in light of its intention. But this has never presented any sort of difficulty to any serious exegete.

Biblical testimony purports to be about truths. However The Bible also contains unwitting testimony about its authors, editors, and the cultures of belief they inhabited.

Those are two different issues. To say that a text has cultural elements is a claim about form; to say it has truth-value is about content. And while these two have some interchange, they are also importantly distinct.

One can couch something factually true in cultural language without doing it any violence. One example from Western culture would be the phrase "the four corners of the Earth." In literal terms, we might cavil that the earth is a globe, and so has no "corners." But anybody with even a modicum of cultural wit realizes that the old idiom refers to north, south, east and west, and so does not suggest that 17th Century Western mariners thought they were going to fall off the edge of the world. So we have to read sensibly, intelligently, in a well-informed way. By contrast, there is a kind of cynicism that is itself entirely naive.

A sensible reader can make sense of cultural expressions. A naive reader cannot, perhaps, but that's a fault of the reader, not of the text.

[uwot]

True, some of The Bible can be read as poetry.

Yes. It has several literary modes: wisdom literature, poetry, epistle, prophecy...and each book has to be understood in light of its intention. But this has never presented any sort of difficulty to any serious exegete.

That's what the catholic church said, and that's why there was the reformation. Every biblical 'expert' will tell you their exegesis is the correct one; yours is just one of many Mr Can.

[Greatest I am]

Define, "supernatural"

An imaginary realm that only really stupid people will believe is real.

Precisely, you brought the term "SUPERNATURAL" in relation to God, so define it AND define GOD as this thing "SUPERNATURAL"

The rest of your poor post is not intelligible.

Y are you not intelligent?

I can use a dictionary while you are too stupid to do so.

Regards
DL