| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2007 02:38:41 PM |
| Object: |
Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos
Avalos' new book, "The End of Bible Studies", is due out in July 2007.
Here's the blurb: "In this radical critique of his own academic
speciality, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to
biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for
this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has
clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilisation that
produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose
of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views
of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs
and concerns of contemporary human beings. Second, Avalos criticises
his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious
techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still
relevant in today's world. In effect, he accuses his profession of
being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an
honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith
communities. Dividing his study into two parts, Avalos first examines
the principal sub-disciplines of biblical studies (textual criticism,
archaeology, historical criticism, literary criticism, biblical
theology, and translations) in order to show how these fields are
still influenced by religiously motivated agendas despite claims to
independence from religious premises. In the second part, he focuses
on the infrastructure that supports academic biblical studies to
maintain the value of the profession and the Bible. This
infrastructure includes academia (public and private universities and
colleges), churches, the media-publishing complex, and professional
organisations such as the Society of Biblical Literature. In a
controversial conclusion, Avalos argues that our world is best served
by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilisation instead of
the "living" document most religionist scholars believe it should be.
He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader
society to recognise the irrelevance and even violent effects of the
Bible in modern life."
This follows on from his article last year on SBL:
Hector Avalos on SBL
Avalos, PhD Harvard 1991, was a fundamentalist child evangelist. Now
he's a militant atheist, the faculty adviser to the Iowa State
University Atheist and Agnostic Society. He's executive director of a
group affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism that seeks to
debunk religion. He was a fundamentalist Christian and now he's a
fundamentalist atheist. He preached and practiced faith healing from
age 7 to 17 and became an atheist in college.
.
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:44:20 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 10:13 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
Let's rephrase this. Murder results in the loss of a person's life.
Suicide results in the loss of a person's life. There's no such thing
as murder because all deaths are suicide. QED
You are redefining words to suit yourself. Just as murder requires
one person to act to the harm of another, infanticide requires a living,
breathing infant to be killed. 90% - 95% of abortions, probably more,
occur in the first trimester, when there's barely a fetus at all, and
certainly nothing that is capable of living if it were to suddenly be
forced out of the womb.
Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
statement? I've looked and I must have missed it working it out. His
effort is logically invalid. I can't work it out, the truth tree
equation says the rape statement is invalid. Help me out here.
It's been pointed out to you several times, by more than one person,
that your efforts at redefining the words infanticide and abortion are
exactly the same as redefining rape and lovemaking. Mr. Klein chose
very well. Calling an abortion infanticide is no more correct than
calling rape lovemaking, or singing cooking.
The analogy is disusting but did not escape me, I just wondered
why the logic escaped him.
You're the one lying about the meaning of words and claiming your
personal definitions as truth, not Mr. Klein. His choice of example was
very apt.
--
L. Raymond- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement, while you nor anyone else can make a logical
statement from Al's rape example. Those are not just my personal
definitions, that is why we employ logic in these matters. I didn't
see a rebuttal here, just more name calingg, boy, you guys really like
to call people names. We don't do that here, we may say you are
"mistaken in your beliefs", but liar here means a dishonest person.
If you believe what you are saying, (and I do), than I am not a liar,
as I'm not attempting to mislead anyone. Liar. Don't care much to be
called that with no justification other than a difference of opinion.
That was rude, and Al's example was illogical. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
20 Aug 2007 07:22:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
20 Aug 2007 11:57:40 PM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby. Lovemaking with a consenual person and forcing someone to
have intercourse. There is no relationship at all. You quote above:
Abortion: Infanticide::lovemaking:rape, that is not a syllogism. That
is not a logic construction. You don't know how to make a simple two
premises and conclusion. I have studied logic most of my life,
someone here has no knowledge of logic, but is isn't me here. Try and
work out a logic equation on your statement, you can't. Buy a book on
logic, find out how it works. It doesn't work like that, take out the
emotion. And I'm tired of teaching logic here, so I'll leave it at
that. You guys get a life. Ken
--
"Truth does not give a damn what we conceive. We survive or perish
according to our ability to discern the truth correctly and act upon
it." - Ken www.veritasnovel.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
21 Aug 2007 03:54:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
Lovemaking with a consenual person and forcing someone to
have intercourse.
Abortion with the consent of the woman and killing a person (albeit a
very young one) without that person's consent.
Whatever detail you choose, I can use it to demolish your argument, so
give it up. You can not prove that the two aren't equivalent.
Abortion: Infanticide::lovemaking:rape, that is not a syllogism.
It is by every detail YOU'VE come up with yet.
You don't know how to make a simple two premises and conclusion.
Keep thinking that. I've TAUGHT advanced logic to smarter kids than
you.
I have studied logic most of my life
Then you have a terrible teacher.
someone here has no knowledge of logic, but is isn't me here.
That proves that it IS you. Not only no true understanding of
syllogistic reasoning, but not that capable of seeing what's in front
of your eyes.
Abortion = Infanticide is only true for the specific reasons you
choose. For every one of those constructs, lovemaking is the same as
rape.
Try and work out a logic equation on your statement, you can't.
How many more times do you want me to post the diagrams?
And I'm tired of teaching logic
Difficult to teach what you don't understand. I know. I've seen many
fools try it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:53:13 PM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 3:54 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
Lovemaking with a consenual person and forcing someone to
have intercourse.
Abortion with the consent of the woman and killing a person (albeit a
very young one) without that person's consent.
Whatever detail you choose, I can use it to demolish your argument, so
give it up. You can not prove that the two aren't equivalent.
Abortion: Infanticide::lovemaking:rape, that is not a syllogism.
It is by every detail YOU'VE come up with yet.
You don't know how to make a simple two premises and conclusion.
Keep thinking that. I've TAUGHT advanced logic to smarter kids than
you.
I have studied logic most of my life
Then you have a terrible teacher.
someone here has no knowledge of logic, but is isn't me here.
That proves that it IS you. Not only no true understanding of
syllogistic reasoning, but not that capable of seeing what's in front
of your eyes.
Abortion = Infanticide is only true for the specific reasons you
choose. For every one of those constructs, lovemaking is the same as
rape.
Try and work out a logic equation on your statement, you can't.
How many more times do you want me to post the diagrams?
And I'm tired of teaching logic
Difficult to teach what you don't understand. I know. I've seen many
fools try it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 08:36:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 08:57:58 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 8:36 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
I am well educated. You just made a bad comparison, and when it was
proved wrong, rather than say, OK, here is another, you just kept on.
By not backing down, you just looked more and more foolish. And you
said I was arrogant! You are as arrogant as any I have met.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 03:39:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:57:58 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:36 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
I am well educated.
There's a difference between quantity and quality. You deserve a
refund, unless you opted for "a quantity education".
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 07:08:58 PM |
|
|
On Aug 23, 3:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:57:58 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:36 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
I am well educated.
There's a difference between quantity and quality. You deserve a
refund, unless you opted for "a quantity education".
Al, when I say that abortion is being used as infanticide and two
bioethicist testify before the Britsh Parliment's Commons Science and
Technology Committee to the same thing and more,who you do you think
deserves the "quality education" here? Not me. Check your facts
before running your mouth. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 09:09:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:08:58 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, when I say that abortion is being used as infanticide
I disagree with you.
and two bioethicist testify before the Britsh Parliment's Commons Science and
Technology Committee to the same thing and more
I disagree with them also.
,who you do you think deserves the "quality education" here?
Oh, right, the Nine Wise Men are uneducated louts, who never heard the
word "ethics".
Check your facts before running your mouth.
Check your mouth before running it. You have no facts to check.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 02:51:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo52p@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
³Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?³ - Cary Kittrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:37:09 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, =
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using=
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
=B3Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?=B3 - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted te=
xt -
- Show quoted text -
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything, but you are also so stupid to even
have those thoughts. Any of them. Your argument is so stupid, it's
not worth explaining the supidity of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 08:22:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 09:00:06 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except I can make a metaphoric joke out of
what someone says.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 03:39:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:00:06 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except that I'm a metaphoric joke.
IFYPFY
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 07:10:08 PM |
|
|
On Aug 23, 3:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:00:06 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except that I'm a metaphoric joke.
IFYPFY
But my statement and logic is still correct even if you are a
metaphoric joke. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 09:10:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:10:08 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 23, 3:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:00:06 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except that I'm a metaphoric joke.
IFYPFY
But my statement and logic is still correct
It most certainly is - you're a jerk who's a joke, and I'm done with
you. Where did you say you came from? A turnip truck? You must be
one of the turnips.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 03:57:40 AM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, =
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using=
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
=B3Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?=B3 - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted te=
xt -
- Show quoted text -
abstinence would never occur to me. I see it did you. You don't like
to get messy or something else? Going to the moon alone would do it
to. You are the moron, you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Read my last post, idiot, I don't know where you came from, but go
back under your rock and practice abstinence. The world could use you
to go extinct. Even Michael can do better than that prissy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:34:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:57:40 -0500, veritas wrote
(in article <1187773060.667852.16720@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic,
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
³Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?³ - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
abstinence would never occur to me. I see it did you. You don't like
to get messy or something else? Going to the moon alone would do it
to. You are the moron, you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Read my last post, idiot, I don't know where you came from, but go
back under your rock and practice abstinence. The world could use you
to go extinct. Even Michael can do better than that prissy.
I don't do abstinence. It is your argument that connects
abortion/Infanticide/abstinence. All are methods "to ensure there is no baby.
It really must suck to be you.
As for my "extinction," that will happen shortly, as it will to all of us.
Nobody gets out of here alive.
--
Harry F. Leopold
"The space time you are trying to reach has been disconnected..." Stony
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:51:08 AM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 4:34 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:57:40 -0500, veritas wrote
(in article <1187773060.667852.16...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogi=
c,
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that us=
ing
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
=B3Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight wit=
hout
capital letters and exclamation marks?=B3 - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted=
text -
- Show quoted text -
abstinence would never occur to me. I see it did you. You don't like
to get messy or something else? Going to the moon alone would do it
to. You are the moron, you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Read my last post, idiot, I don't know where you came from, but go
back under your rock and practice abstinence. The world could use you
to go extinct. Even Michael can do better than that prissy.
I don't do abstinence. It is your argument that connects
abortion/Infanticide/abstinence. All are methods "to ensure there is no b=
aby.
It really must suck to be you.
As for my "extinction," that will happen shortly, as it will to all of us.
Nobody gets out of here alive.
--
Harry F. Leopold
"The space time you are trying to reach has been disconnected..." Stony- =
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I leave my children, so figure it out. Absinence, you are so far out
of it, stay out while the getting is good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 05:05:08 AM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 4:34 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:57:40 -0500, veritas wrote
(in article <1187773060.667852.16...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogi=
c,
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that us=
ing
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
=B3Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight wit=
hout
capital letters and exclamation marks?=B3 - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted=
text -
- Show quoted text -
abstinence would never occur to me. I see it did you. You don't like
to get messy or something else? Going to the moon alone would do it
to. You are the moron, you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Read my last post, idiot, I don't know where you came from, but go
back under your rock and practice abstinence. The world could use you
to go extinct. Even Michael can do better than that prissy.
I don't do abstinence. It is your argument that connects
abortion/Infanticide/abstinence. All are methods "to ensure there is no b=
aby.
It really must suck to be you.
As for my "extinction," that will happen shortly, as it will to all of us.
Nobody gets out of here alive.
--
Harry F. Leopold
"The space time you are trying to reach has been disconnected..." Stony- =
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My children will be here, figure it out genius. No one thinks of
absinence but you. If you like absinence, fine, more for the real men.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 05:15:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:51:07 -0500, Harry F. Leopold
<hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo52p@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
Using his argument you can prove that not having sex is infanticide,
so it's illegal to abstain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
20 Aug 2007 03:21:13 PM |
|
|
veritas wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
veritas wrote:
In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
Let's rephrase this. Murder results in the loss of a person's life.
Suicide results in the loss of a person's life. There's no such thing
as murder because all deaths are suicide. QED
You are redefining words to suit yourself. Just as murder requires
one person to act to the harm of another, infanticide requires a living,
breathing infant to be killed. 90% - 95% of abortions, probably more,
occur in the first trimester, when there's barely a fetus at all, and
certainly nothing that is capable of living if it were to suddenly be
forced out of the womb.
You're the one lying about the meaning of words and claiming your
personal definitions as truth, not Mr. Klein. His choice of example was
very apt.
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement, while you nor anyone else can make a logical
statement from Al's rape example.
Your statements have *nothing* whatsoever to do with logic. Why is this
so hard for you to understand?
Do you know the meaning of the word "infanticide"? If so, you know it
requires a living, breathing infant to be killed.
Do you know the meaning of the word "abortion"? If so, you know it
doesn't involve a viable fetus, much less a baby.
Claiming abortion = infanticide is linguistically the same as claiming
rape = lovemaking, and it is functionally the same as claiming suicide =
murder.
You are utterly without logic. You claim to have no opinion about
infanticide & abortion, then you express your opinion. You claim to be
completely logical and you resort of arguments from numbers. You claim
to be intelligent, but you are incapable of comprehending why redefining
words doesn't make an argument.
Those are not just my personal
definitions, that is why we employ logic in these matters.
Yes, abortion as infanticide *is* your personal definition. It is
utterly and completely incorrect to redefine words like that, and to
then claim you've proven something other than your own ignorance simply
compounds your error.
I didn't
see a rebuttal here, just more name calingg
Then you need to read the posts. Several of us have pointed out your
linguistic fallacy. What point you *think* you may have made doesn't
need to be addressed, given that you never actually made one.
If you believe what you are saying, (and I do), than I am not a liar,
as I'm not attempting to mislead anyone.
It's possible to lie through ignorance. However, you are lying because
you claim to be logical, to be familiar with the process of formal
logic, but you very clearly have no idea what it means to argue
logically. The first time you made that claim you could have been
ignorant, but one you were corrected further claims of your logical
ability are lies.
Liar. Don't care much to be
called that with no justification other than a difference of opinion.
Here you're redefining words again. "Abortion" isn't synonymous with
"infanticide", and "lying about words' meanings" isn't the same as a
little "difference of opinion".
That was rude, and Al's example was illogical.
So there. Guess you showed us.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
21 Aug 2007 12:07:04 AM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 3:21 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
veritas wrote:
In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
Let's rephrase this. Murder results in the loss of a person's life.
Suicide results in the loss of a person's life. There's no such thing
as murder because all deaths are suicide. QED
You are redefining words to suit yourself. Just as murder requires
one person to act to the harm of another, infanticide requires a living,
breathing infant to be killed. 90% - 95% of abortions, probably more,
occur in the first trimester, when there's barely a fetus at all, and
certainly nothing that is capable of living if it were to suddenly be
forced out of the womb.
You're the one lying about the meaning of words and claiming your
personal definitions as truth, not Mr. Klein. His choice of example was
very apt.
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement, while you nor anyone else can make a logical
statement from Al's rape example.
Your statements have *nothing* whatsoever to do with logic. Why is this
so hard for you to understand?
Do you know the meaning of the word "infanticide"? If so, you know it
requires a living, breathing infant to be killed.
Do you know the meaning of the word "abortion"? If so, you know it
doesn't involve a viable fetus, much less a baby.
Claiming abortion = infanticide is linguistically the same as claiming
rape = lovemaking, and it is functionally the same as claiming suicide =
murder.
You are utterly without logic. You claim to have no opinion about
infanticide & abortion, then you express your opinion. You claim to be
completely logical and you resort of arguments from numbers. You claim
to be intelligent, but you are incapable of comprehending why redefining
words doesn't make an argument.
Those are not just my personal
definitions, that is why we employ logic in these matters.
Yes, abortion as infanticide *is* your personal definition. It is
utterly and completely incorrect to redefine words like that, and to
then claim you've proven something other than your own ignorance simply
compounds your error.
I didn't
see a rebuttal here, just more name calingg
Then you need to read the posts. Several of us have pointed out your
linguistic fallacy. What point you *think* you may have made doesn't
need to be addressed, given that you never actually made one.
If you believe what you are saying, (and I do), than I am not a liar,
as I'm not attempting to mislead anyone.
It's possible to lie through ignorance. However, you are lying because
you claim to be logical, to be familiar with the process of formal
logic, but you very clearly have no idea what it means to argue
logically. The first time you made that claim you could have been
ignorant, but one you were corrected further claims of your logical
ability are lies.
Liar. Don't care much to be
called that with no justification other than a difference of opinion.
Here you're redefining words again. "Abortion" isn't synonymous with
"infanticide", and "lying about words' meanings" isn't the same as a
little "difference of opinion".
That was rude, and Al's example was illogical.
So there. Guess you showed us.
--
L. Raymond- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Abortion and infanticide is synonymous. You just get there earlier.
The result is the same. As suicide is murder. By killing yourself,
do you not believe that you have taken the life of a person? In your
case it may be justifiable homicide, but other than that, it is
considered murder. The police will disagree with you, the courts,
logic teachers, philosophers, anyone who practices logic at any level
will tell you that is murder. So, again, your thinking is skewered.
Try reading a book on logic, I'm telling you it really helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
21 Aug 2007 06:32:31 PM |
|
|
veritas wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
veritas wrote:
It's possible to lie through ignorance. However, you are lying because
you claim to be logical, to be familiar with the process of formal
logic, but you very clearly have no idea what it means to argue
logically. The first time you made that claim you could have been
ignorant, but one you were corrected further claims of your logical
ability are lies.
Liar. Don't care much to be
called that with no justification other than a difference of opinion.
Here you're redefining words again. "Abortion" isn't synonymous with
"infanticide", and "lying about words' meanings" isn't the same as a
little "difference of opinion".
That was rude, and Al's example was illogical.
So there. Guess you showed us.
Abortion and infanticide is synonymous. You just get there earlier.
Repeating it doesn't make it so. One requires a living baby, the other
involves a non-living fetus. Is an apple the same as a leather chair?
It is, if you define it as a being a leather chair. That would be
wrong, stupid and ignorant, but that is exactly what you're doing.
The result is the same. As suicide is murder. By killing yourself,
do you not believe that you have taken the life of a person?
Obviously not, since murder is the taking of a life without the
soon-to-be dead person's consent, while suicide is someone deciding to
give up (not take) his own life.
So you believe suicide and murder are completely synonymous? Would you
be willing to test that in a court of law?
In your
case it may be justifiable homicide, but other than that, it is
considered murder.
So my death would be justified? At least you didn't call me a liar, so
I guess you're still morally superior.
The police will disagree with you, the courts,
logic teachers, philosophers, anyone who practices logic at any level
will tell you that is murder.
Murder is a legal term, so it doesn't matter squat what philosophers may
think.
Try reading a book on logic, I'm telling you it really helps.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:47:38 PM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 6:32 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
veritas wrote:
It's possible to lie through ignorance. However, you are lying because
you claim to be logical, to be familiar with the process of formal
logic, but you very clearly have no idea what it means to argue
logically. The first time you made that claim you could have been
ignorant, but one you were corrected further claims of your logical
ability are lies.
Liar. Don't care much to be
called that with no justification other than a difference of opinion.
Here you're redefining words again. "Abortion" isn't synonymous with
"infanticide", and "lying about words' meanings" isn't the same as a
little "difference of opinion".
That was rude, and Al's example was illogical.
So there. Guess you showed us.
Abortion and infanticide is synonymous. You just get there earlier.
Repeating it doesn't make it so. One requires a living baby, the other
involves a non-living fetus. Is an apple the same as a leather chair?
It is, if you define it as a being a leather chair. That would be
wrong, stupid and ignorant, but that is exactly what you're doing.
The result is the same. As suicide is murder. By killing yourself,
do you not believe that you have taken the life of a person?
Obviously not, since murder is the taking of a life without the
soon-to-be dead person's consent, while suicide is someone deciding to
give up (not take) his own life.
So you believe suicide and murder are completely synonymous? Would you
be willing to test that in a court of law?
In your
case it may be justifiable homicide, but other than that, it is
considered murder.
So my death would be justified? At least you didn't call me a liar, so
I guess you're still morally superior.
The police will disagree with you, the courts,
logic teachers, philosophers, anyone who practices logic at any level
will tell you that is murder.
Murder is a legal term, so it doesn't matter squat what philosophers may
think.
Try reading a book on logic, I'm telling you it really helps.
Physician, heal thyself.
--
L. Raymond- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Where do you think the laws came down to us from? Truck Drivers? How
bad does it hurt to be wrong all the time. You haven't got one right
yet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:50:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:14:13 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!
Quite.
Perhaps she chose to hide behind this moniker out of delusional
wishful thinking.
She has succeeded in prostituting the Latin.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Davej" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 05:08:48 PM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 2:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies
[...]
Why would they want to stop the gravytrain? Christianity is big
business.
---
"Jesus is dead because of his inability to convince"
Dead Word Ministries
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:06:23 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 5:08 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 15, 2:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies
[...]
Why would they want to stop the gravytrain? Christianity is big
business.
---
"Jesus is dead because of his inability to convince"
Dead Word Ministries
I don't really care, I just don't want the gravy to be coming out of
my bowl. I think their profit margin needs trimming. Tighten their
belts a little. At least that's my theory. Market correction
needed. Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
15 Aug 2007 02:57:35 PM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 3:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos
Avalos' new book, "The End of Bible Studies", is due out in July 2007.
Here's the blurb: "In this radical critique of his own academic
speciality, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to
biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for
this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has
clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilisation that
produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose
of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views
of modern society.
"END AS WE KNOW THEM" DOES NOT EQUAL "END"
Bible studies, as in anthropology of the myth structure of past
western civilization, is a good idea....bible studies as a blueprint
of reality....like they are taught today...is an insane impediment to
progress.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
16 Aug 2007 08:18:39 AM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 8:38 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos
Detailed study of the bible does tend to lead to atheism. Stick to
selected passages chosen for you by the church if you want to keep
your faith - even better, just listen to what other people tell you
and don't question anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
