Religions > Atheism > Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother...
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"one that cries out in the wilderness" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2003 02:49:50 PM |
| Object: |
Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone have a great
weekend!
.
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
03 Oct 2003 08:41:15 PM |
|
|
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com:
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Obviously written by a xian who doesn't like losing arguments with
atheists.
The only real mistake most atheists make when discussing religious topics
with xians is that they forget that xians don't think rationally and
logically.
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
Obviously written by a xian who can't win arguments with atheists. Don't
forget the really stupid mistakes like threatening us with hell, or quoting
the bible like we take it seriously, or trying to tell us the we're just
angry with their god...
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone have a great
weekend!
What have they done to deserve my respect?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
03 Oct 2003 06:55:11 PM |
|
|
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com:
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
Mistake #1: "dialog" isn't a verb, dumbass.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
03 Oct 2003 03:59:24 PM |
|
|
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
03 Oct 2003 04:18:30 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Bkudna9SZdF1feCiU-KYvA@io.com...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share
it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone
have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to
everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not
worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I feel compelled to add that while I find it pointless to say
I respect someone's principles when I find them pointless and
silly, as an American I believe strongly in a person's right
to believe in and practice his or her religion or lack
thereof. Even stupid and dangerous ideas must be allowed to
be freely expressed. Often people capable of thought are
quick to see the stupidity and danger and reject it. Attempts
to suppress expression too often contribute a mystic aura to
even the most ridiculous ideas.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
03 Oct 2003 07:05:49 PM |
|
|
"Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote in message
news:0Jlfb.685$8_6.355783741@twister2.starband.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Bkudna9SZdF1feCiU-KYvA@io.com...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share
it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone
have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to
everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not
worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I feel compelled to add that while I find it pointless to say
I respect someone's principles when I find them pointless and
silly, as an American I believe strongly in a person's right
to believe in and practice his or her religion or lack
thereof. Even stupid and dangerous ideas must be allowed to
be freely expressed. Often people capable of thought are
quick to see the stupidity and danger and reject it. Attempts
to suppress expression too often contribute a mystic aura to
even the most ridiculous ideas.
Agreed.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
04 Oct 2003 11:51:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:05:49 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
"Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote in message
news:0Jlfb.685$8_6.355783741@twister2.starband.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Bkudna9SZdF1feCiU-KYvA@io.com...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share
it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone
have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to
everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not
worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I feel compelled to add that while I find it pointless to say I respect
someone's principles when I find them pointless and silly, as an
American I believe strongly in a person's right to believe in and
practice his or her religion or lack thereof. Even stupid and dangerous
ideas must be allowed to be freely expressed. Often people capable of
thought are quick to see the stupidity and danger and reject it.
Attempts to suppress expression too often contribute a mystic aura to
even the most ridiculous ideas.
Agreed.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
It would be fair to say that everyone deserves *courtesy*. Respect can be
more selective. Also, people have many facets, and I find many theists
are worthy of respect for some aspect of their being other than their
religious beliefs.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
04 Oct 2003 02:26:51 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.04.16.51.12.295093@stopspam.net...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:05:49 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
"Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote in message
news:0Jlfb.685$8_6.355783741@twister2.starband.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Bkudna9SZdF1feCiU-KYvA@io.com...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share
it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone
have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to
everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not
worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I feel compelled to add that while I find it pointless to say I respect
someone's principles when I find them pointless and silly, as an
American I believe strongly in a person's right to believe in and
practice his or her religion or lack thereof. Even stupid and
dangerous
ideas must be allowed to be freely expressed. Often people capable of
thought are quick to see the stupidity and danger and reject it.
Attempts to suppress expression too often contribute a mystic aura to
even the most ridiculous ideas.
Agreed.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
It would be fair to say that everyone deserves *courtesy*.
At first. This is true.
Respect can be
more selective. Also, people have many facets, and I find many theists
are worthy of respect for some aspect of their being other than their
religious beliefs.
I'll respect that aspect if I see it. ;-)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 AM |
|
|
In article <H0Wdnb4-RvUogeKiU-KYgg@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.04.16.51.12.295093@stopspam.net...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:05:49 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
"Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> wrote in message
news:0Jlfb.685$8_6.355783741@twister2.starband.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Bkudna9SZdF1feCiU-KYvA@io.com...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share
it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone
have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to
everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not
worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I feel compelled to add that while I find it pointless to say I respect
someone's principles when I find them pointless and silly, as an
American I believe strongly in a person's right to believe in and
practice his or her religion or lack thereof. Even stupid and
dangerous
ideas must be allowed to be freely expressed. Often people capable of
thought are quick to see the stupidity and danger and reject it.
Attempts to suppress expression too often contribute a mystic aura to
even the most ridiculous ideas.
Agreed.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
It would be fair to say that everyone deserves *courtesy*.
At first. This is true.
Respect can be
more selective. Also, people have many facets, and I find many theists
are worthy of respect for some aspect of their being other than their
religious beliefs.
I'll respect that aspect if I see it. ;-)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I'm not looking for unearned respect, just some objectivity, and yes,
courtesy. Having looked over various lists of fallacies, it seems to me
that the same standard needs to apply to both sides. What's good for the
goose and all that.
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning. And a Christian saying that atheists can't
understand because they're not believers isn't going to convince anyone
either.
Anyway, I rather like this link, myself. Though apparently created from
an atheist perspective, it at least speaks to both sides, and gives
examples for both of common fallacies that come up during debates
between the two. I appreciate at least the semblance of balance.
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/debate/fallacies
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing witheachother... |
25 Oct 2003 01:10:39 PM |
|
|
Erica wrote:
[...]
I'm not looking for unearned respect, just some objectivity, and yes,
courtesy. Having looked over various lists of fallacies, it seems to me
that the same standard needs to apply to both sides. What's good for the
goose and all that.
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
It begs the question, yeah. But does he really say this?
I would suspect he just picks the passage from a Bible
version
that he thinks sounds the worst because it does sound the
worst. If so, it would be an example of "card stacking"
which is defined as:
"... the selective distortion of an issue by presenting it
in an unfair, one-sided fashion" - Johannesen, Richard L.
Ethics and Persuasion. First ed., New York: Random House,
1967. p. 7 - 10
He does this a lot.
BTW here is a good link to easily compare passages from
different
Bible versions:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
And a Christian saying that atheists can't
understand because they're not believers isn't going to convince anyone
either.
Anyway, I rather like this link, myself. Though apparently created from
an atheist perspective, it at least speaks to both sides, and gives
examples for both of common fallacies that come up during debates
between the two. I appreciate at least the semblance of balance.
The real thing wouldn't be half bad either.
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/debate/fallacies
Cool, I didn't have this link.
I've been fascinated by, and a student of, informal logic since
my sociology prof introduced our class to the concept of
logical
fallacies way back when. It was a casual and brief
introduction
but I was immediately hooked and still am some 20 years
later.
Here are a couple for you:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/mainpage.html
Ciao
Viscount of alt.atheism Debate Standards and Practices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 AM |
|
|
In article <3F9ABE2D.BDE0CBEC@earthlink.net>,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Erica wrote:
[...]
I'm not looking for unearned respect, just some objectivity, and yes,
courtesy. Having looked over various lists of fallacies, it seems to me
that the same standard needs to apply to both sides. What's good for the
goose and all that.
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
It begs the question, yeah. But does he really say this?
I would suspect he just picks the passage from a Bible
version
that he thinks sounds the worst because it does sound the
worst. If so, it would be an example of "card stacking"
which is defined as:
"... the selective distortion of an issue by presenting it
in an unfair, one-sided fashion" - Johannesen, Richard L.
Ethics and Persuasion. First ed., New York: Random House,
1967. p. 7 - 10
He does this a lot.
Yes he does.
This is what I asked him on the 23rd: "Ya use the Catholic Bible 'cause
it sounds the most nasty, dontcha? Fess up."
To which he answered: "Of course I use whatever translation of the Bible
sounds the most evil. They were all translated by religious people so
many of them are biased to sound less evil. The most evil translation
is most likely closer to the true meaning."
Personally, I'd rather find a bible that translates the nuances of a
foreign language into modern English effectively. I would also like a
bible that uses the oldest manuscripts known to exist. The Douay-Rheims
Bible sounds interesting in that regard.
But back to card-stacking. Just looking at his website, I found myself
wondering if he was trying to convince those who didn't agree with him,
or "preach to the converted" as it were and entertain those who already
do agree with him.
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
BTW here is a good link to easily compare passages from
different
Bible versions:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
And a Christian saying that atheists can't
understand because they're not believers isn't going to convince anyone
either.
Anyway, I rather like this link, myself. Though apparently created from
an atheist perspective, it at least speaks to both sides, and gives
examples for both of common fallacies that come up during debates
between the two. I appreciate at least the semblance of balance.
The real thing wouldn't be half bad either.
No it wouldn't, but I'll take baby steps to start. If you have a strong
agrument, it shouldn't need the extra tilt.
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/debate/fallacies
Cool, I didn't have this link.
I've been fascinated by, and a student of, informal logic since
my sociology prof introduced our class to the concept of
logical
fallacies way back when. It was a casual and brief
introduction
but I was immediately hooked and still am some 20 years
later.
Here are a couple for you:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/mainpage.html
Thanks again! I'm just starting out, so I'm only beginning to get the
hang of identifying fallacies and knowing which fallacy is being used.
Sadly, I'm finding them on both sides of the various issues here.
I haven't looked at logical fallacies since I was (mumble) years old, in
college. But then I don't usually get myself involved in debates. This
is sort of a learning experience for me.
Ciao
Viscount of alt.atheism Debate Standards and Practices.
Nice title.
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
01 Nov 2003 12:41:39 PM |
|
|
I didn't already answer this, did I ?
Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<scribe53151NOSPAM-
A553CB.03463526102003@newshost1.news.tds.net>...
In article <3F9ABE2D.BDE0CBEC@earthlink.net>,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Erica wrote:
[...]
I'm not looking for unearned respect, just some objectivity, and yes,
courtesy. Having looked over various lists of fallacies, it seems to me
that the same standard needs to apply to both sides. What's good for the
goose and all that.
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
It begs the question, yeah. But does he really say this?
I would suspect he just picks the passage from a Bible
version
that he thinks sounds the worst because it does sound the
worst. If so, it would be an example of "card stacking"
which is defined as:
"... the selective distortion of an issue by presenting it
in an unfair, one-sided fashion" - Johannesen, Richard L.
Ethics and Persuasion. First ed., New York: Random House,
1967. p. 7 - 10
He does this a lot.
Yes he does.
This is what I asked him on the 23rd: "Ya use the Catholic Bible 'cause
it sounds the most nasty, dontcha? Fess up."
To which he answered: "Of course I use whatever translation of the Bible
sounds the most evil. They were all translated by religious people so
many of them are biased to sound less evil. The most evil translation
is most likely closer to the true meaning."
You're kidding. Hahahahahahaha! Jeeze, his most
significant character trait appears to be his
exceptionally high threshold for embarrassment. I guess
to be oblivious to ones own absurdity (ridiculousness?)
is a blessing, an undeserved one, to be sure.
Personally, I'd rather find a bible that translates the nuances of a
foreign language into modern English effectively.
Mr. Ed would read this, scratch his pointed dome and
wonder "whut the hell fer?"
I would also like a
bible that uses the oldest manuscripts known to exist. The Douay-Rheims
Bible sounds interesting in that regard.
But back to card-stacking. Just looking at his website, I found myself
wondering if he was trying to convince those who didn't agree with him,
or "preach to the converted" as it were and entertain those who already
do agree with him.
Not that his motive matters, but it is clear to me that
attacking believers is his goal. He reminds me of
someone suffering the "recent convert" syndrome but
without the usually found mitigating qualities such as
good will, some sense of proportion and or humor, and a
few others.
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
A position I'm sure the author of the booklet thinks that God would
agree with if God had all the facts.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
I am perverse enough to find that kind of thing
fascinating. People generally need to see themselves as
intellectually honest. The problems start when someone
has a belief (or a set of them) that he must embrace
for reasons other than purely rational and thus it
conflicts with the self image of intellectual honesty.
What happens when these two conflicting needs collide
is something I find interesting.
[...]
Thanks again! I'm just starting out, so I'm only beginning to get the
hang of identifying fallacies and knowing which fallacy is being used.
It seems like you are well beyond beginning.
Sadly, I'm finding them on both sides of the various issues here.
People commit logical fallacies because they have a
superficial plasability to them (at least when the
commission is unintentional).
What I find sad is when members of group that often
takes credit for rational thinking--and who should know
better--commits them.
I haven't looked at logical fallacies since I was (mumble) years old, in
college. But then I don't usually get myself involved in debates. This
is sort of a learning experience for me.
Like I said, informal logic is a major interest of
mine. If I--or maybe one of my dozen + books on the
subject--can be of assistance, please don't hesitate to
let me know.
Ciao
Viscount of alt.atheism Debate Standards and Practices.
Nice title.
Thanks. Not many of us Viscounts left, ya know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 10:17:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
http://www.fecundity.com/darkdung/
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
27 Oct 2003 02:37:48 AM |
|
|
In article <gprnpv0ss7uhfaff4b4gad54l7tieb6l4r@4ax.com>,
Johnny Bravo <nospam@no.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
http://www.fecundity.com/darkdung/
That was both funny and disturbing. Thanks.
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 05:14:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
<scribe53151NOSPAM-A553CB.03463526102003@newshost1.news.tds.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
In article <3F9ABE2D.BDE0CBEC@earthlink.net>,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
This is what I asked him on the 23rd: "Ya use the Catholic Bible 'cause
it sounds the most nasty, dontcha? Fess up."
To which he answered: "Of course I use whatever translation of the Bible
sounds the most evil. They were all translated by religious people so
many of them are biased to sound less evil. The most evil translation
is most likely closer to the true meaning."
Personally, I'd rather find a bible that translates the nuances of a
foreign language into modern English effectively. I would also like a
bible that uses the oldest manuscripts known to exist. The Douay-Rheims
Bible sounds interesting in that regard.
I don't think such a one exists. Keep in mind language is dynamic.
You've got slang, metaphor, hyperbole, multiple meanings and more. Then
you've got the amplified problems in translation(s).
Here's a fictional example of the problem from an old post of mine:
This also brings up the issue of language drift.
The following example from a work of fiction, imo,
illustrates the point well. It is a bit long, so please
bear with me. I'll shorten it as much as I can.
"Stone of Tears" by Terry Goodkind (book 2 of the series)
Starting at page 768-771.
Scene is in the vaults in the "Palace of the Prophets" and two
characters, one is the archavist(sp) (Warren), are discussing a
tome of prophecy that is written in the language of "High D'Haran."
Warren: "...this is a very old prophecy, perhaps as old as the
palace, maybe older. This is the original prophecy. It's in
High D'Haran, as is everything in this room. Very few people
understand High D'Haran."
Richard: "So people have only read the translations, and there
is reason to believe that those translations may not be accurate."
Warren: "You understand and see the problem. Most don't.
Most think that one thing in a language must mean a certain thing
in another. In order to complete the translation, they settle on an
interpetation that fits their view of the meaning, but in so doing,
they create a conspectus that may or may not be the
meaning of the prophecy."
Richard: "But that doesn't take into account possible different
meanings. So when they translate it, they give it only one version.
They can't translate its ambiguity."
Warren: YES! You have it! That's what they can't understand,
and so they argue over the various translations, as if there is a
right way and a wrong way to do it. But this is High D'Haran..."
Warren's words trailed off. Richard was staring at the page.
The images there were drawing him in. It was almost as if they
were murmuring to him. He had never seen such words before,
but somehow they resonated with something deep within him.
His hand slowly reached out, drawn to one of the words.
His finger came to rest on it.
"This one," Richard whispered as if in a trance.
Warren's white face came up from the book. "Drauka," he
whispered. "That's the word that is the center of the controversy.
Fuer grissa ost drauka-the bringer of death."
Pasha (another character) leaned over, "So what's the controversy?
You mean those words can be translated differently?"
Warren made a vague gesture with his hand. "Well, yes, and no.
That's the literal translation of the words. It's their meaning that
is in dispute."
Richard pulled his hand back. "Death. It has different meanings."
Warren: YES!
Pasha: "Death is as plain as pie."
Warren: "Not in High D'Haran. The weapon the Sisters carry,
the dacra, its name comes from this word. Drauka means death,
as in dead, like if I were to say 'the mirswith (monster) Richard
killed is dead. Drauka. Dead. But is has other meanings too.
Drauka also is a word that represents the souls of the dead."
Pasha leaned forward with a frown. "Are you saying that drauka,
in that sense, can make it mean 'the bringer of souls?'
Richard: "No." He whispered the second meaning. "Spirits.
The bringer of spirits."
Warren: "Yes, that is the second interpetation."
Pasha: "How many different meanings are there?"
"Three", Richard thought.
Warren: "Three."
Richard knew the third. "The underworld," he whispered.
"The place of the dead. That's the third meaning of drauka."
Pale as a spirit, Warren leaned toward him. "But you don't
understand D'Haran?"
Richard slowly shook his head, his eyes fixated on the page.
Warren's tongue darted out to wet his lips. "Please tell me you
don't have D'Haran blood."
"My father was Darken Rahl." Richard said softly. "He was the
wizard who ruled D'Hara, and before him, my grandfather, Paris."
Pasha (female): "Underworld? How can it mean underworld?"
"Because," Warren said, "the underworld is the world of the dead."
Her brow knit tighter. "But how could it mean 'the bringer of the
underworld? How can you bring the underworld?"
Richard stared blankly ahead. "You tear the veil."
The silence echoed around the stone room. Pasha looked from one
face to the other. She finally broke the silence.
"But I was taught that for a foreign word in a prophecy that
had different shades of meaning, you had only to interpet it in
context. It should be a simple matter of seeing how it is used to
decipher its meaning."
Warren lifted an eyebrow. "That's what the argument is about.
You see, in this prophecy, it speaks of things that could pertain
to each of the three possible meanings of the word drauka.
Depending on which meaning was intended, it changes the
meaning of the prophecy. That is why it cannot be interpeted
with surety."
P. 773 (Paha is sealed outside the room)
Warren: ..."Why do you want to know these things?"
Richard studied the other's blue eyes for a long moment. "I am fuer
grissa ost drauka. Warren, I know what it means."
Warren clutched his finger to the sleeve of Richard's red coat.
"You know? You know which is the correct translation?" His fingers
trembled. "Will you tell me?"
"If you promise not to tell anyone else, for now." Warren nodded
eagerly. "No one has been able to figure out which one of the
three is the true translation because in trying to justify one, they
invalidate the whole." Warren frowned.
Richard leaned toward him. "They are all true, Warren."
"What?" he whispered. "How can that be?"
"I have killed people with this sword (sword of truth). I am the
bringer of death in that sense. That is the first meaning of
drauka."
"In order to prevail against otherwise impossible odds, such as
defeating the mriswith, I use the sword's magic to bring forth the
spirits of those who have used it before me. I have called the
dead forth, called the past into the present. In that way, I am
the bringer of spirits. That is the second meaning of drauka."
"As for the third meaning, bringing forth the underworld, I
reason to believe that I may have somehow torn the veil.
That is the third meaning of drauka."
/end
Intriguing, yes?
The 'sword of truth' series by Mr. Goodkind is a damn
good read and highly recommended.
But back to card-stacking. Just looking at his website, I found myself
wondering if he was trying to convince those who didn't agree with him,
or "preach to the converted" as it were and entertain those who already
do agree with him.
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
I used to be a DM. Used to run a LG Monk (under original roll it was my
first character) and a LE Dwarf Theif in tandem. It made for much
mirth.
BTW here is a good link to easily compare passages from
different
Bible versions:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
(snip)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 07:40:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:14:47 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
And almost none of them read any bible but that of their own sect.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
27 Oct 2003 04:43:05 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<artopv0sncqi1l095sjmo7nukujhplbjii@Pern.rk>...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:14:47 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
And almost none of them read any bible but that of their own sect.
And then there's me, but then I'm a nut :)
Let's see-- I have a Serendipity NIV Discussion Bible, a King James, a
Contemporary English Version of the NT, a Berkley Bible, and a Ryrie
NAS Study Bible. Plus a couple of those itty bitty NTs the Gideans
kept throwing at us in college. I think that's it.
Erica
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
27 Oct 2003 09:24:13 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2003 14:43:05 -0800, (Erica) posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<artopv0sncqi1l095sjmo7nukujhplbjii@Pern.rk>...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:14:47 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
And almost none of them read any bible but that of their own sect.
And then there's me, but then I'm a nut :)
Let's see-- I have a Serendipity NIV Discussion Bible, a King James, a
Contemporary English Version of the NT, a Berkley Bible, and a Ryrie
NAS Study Bible. Plus a couple of those itty bitty NTs the Gideans
kept throwing at us in college. I think that's it.
But are you a Christian? If you are, you're a most uncommon one.
(And I meant that in a complimentary way.)
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
28 Oct 2003 02:22:53 AM |
|
|
In article <19orpvk4flomo5f3dgg1kr050avkopg39m@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2003 14:43:05 -0800, (Erica) posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<artopv0sncqi1l095sjmo7nukujhplbjii@Pern.rk>...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:14:47 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
And almost none of them read any bible but that of their own sect.
And then there's me, but then I'm a nut :)
Let's see-- I have a Serendipity NIV Discussion Bible, a King James, a
Contemporary English Version of the NT, a Berkley Bible, and a Ryrie
NAS Study Bible. Plus a couple of those itty bitty NTs the Gideans
kept throwing at us in college. I think that's it.
But are you a Christian? If you are, you're a most uncommon one.
(And I meant that in a complimentary way.)
Yessir, though there are those who'd probably aim a "No True Scotsman"
or two at me.
Thank you. I do try. :)
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
28 Oct 2003 09:32:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 02:22:53 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
<scribe53151NOSPAM-226110.02225328102003@newshost1.news.tds.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
In article <19orpvk4flomo5f3dgg1kr050avkopg39m@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2003 14:43:05 -0800, (Erica) posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<artopv0sncqi1l095sjmo7nukujhplbjii@Pern.rk>...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:14:47 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
And almost none of them read any bible but that of their own sect.
And then there's me, but then I'm a nut :)
Let's see-- I have a Serendipity NIV Discussion Bible, a King James, a
Contemporary English Version of the NT, a Berkley Bible, and a Ryrie
NAS Study Bible. Plus a couple of those itty bitty NTs the Gideans
kept throwing at us in college. I think that's it.
But are you a Christian? If you are, you're a most uncommon one.
(And I meant that in a complimentary way.)
Yessir, though there are those who'd probably aim a "No True Scotsman"
or two at me.
And even more xtians who would call those folks that.
Thank you. I do try. :)
Erica
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
27 Oct 2003 04:02:19 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<fk5opv0ae0pclf3k9jil2vufalstodmibl@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
<scribe53151NOSPAM-A553CB.03463526102003@newshost1.news.tds.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
In article <3F9ABE2D.BDE0CBEC@earthlink.net>,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
This is what I asked him on the 23rd: "Ya use the Catholic Bible 'cause
it sounds the most nasty, dontcha? Fess up."
To which he answered: "Of course I use whatever translation of the Bible
sounds the most evil. They were all translated by religious people so
many of them are biased to sound less evil. The most evil translation
is most likely closer to the true meaning."
Personally, I'd rather find a bible that translates the nuances of a
foreign language into modern English effectively. I would also like a
bible that uses the oldest manuscripts known to exist. The Douay-Rheims
Bible sounds interesting in that regard.
I don't think such a one exists. Keep in mind language is dynamic.
You've got slang, metaphor, hyperbole, multiple meanings and more. Then
you've got the amplified problems in translation(s).
Probably not, and that's what's frustrating to me.
Maybe that's why I was so intrigued by this description of the
Douay-Rheims:
"The Vulgate was put together by St. Jerome around the year 400, from
the original languages. (A somewhat novel concept at the time, for
which St. Jerome was criticized...There are a few things about the
Vulgate that should not be ignored, even when working with the
original languages. Namely, St. Jerome had access to manuscripts that
are no longer extant, his Hebrew and Greek were as fluent as our
English, and he was 1600 years closer to the originals than we are."
Hmmmm.
Here's a fictional example of the problem from an old post of mine:
Intriguing, yes?
Yes, very. And it does highlight the complexities well.
Here's an example that comes from the same post from which I got the
above description of the D-R:
"The publisher (Thomas A. Nelson) [no connection with the Protestant
Bible publisher Thomas Nelson --clh] finds fault with modern Catholic
translations for several reasons, two of which are:
- the use of word meanings that, while generically correct, are not
correct in context.
- the expression of the translator's ideas of what a verse means,
rather
what the original literally says.
And he gives some interesting examples. Here is Luke 1:34 in the
original Greek:
pos (how) estai (shall be done) touto (this) epei (because) andra
(man)
ou (not) ginosko (I know).
The DR has:
How shall this be done, because I know not man?
So far so good, a strictly literal translation. But here's how it
gets
mangled:
How can this be since I do not know man? (New American Bible)
But how can this come about, since I am a virgin? (Jerusalem Bible)
"How can this be?" said Mary, "I am still a virgin." (New English
Bible)
Notice the (significant) change from "shall" to "can", making the
Blessed Virgin Mary appear to doubt the words of the angel who is
appearing to her. Very strange for a Roman Catholic Bible.
Notice also that the JB and the NEB introduce the word "virgin", which
is not in the original. The translators have rather paraphrased than
translated.
Also, the NEB version, by inserting the word "still", suggests that
our
Lady planned to settle down and have children some day."
I am fascinated by this stuff. This is why I resist generalizations
from *anyone*. The whole problem of translation is way more complex
that we can deal with in our little newsgroups, theist or atheist.
The 'sword of truth' series by Mr. Goodkind is a damn
good read and highly recommended.
Thanks. I'll add it to the list of stuff I want to read one of these
days.
But back to card-stacking. Just looking at his website, I found myself
wondering if he was trying to convince those who didn't agree with him,
or "preach to the converted" as it were and entertain those who already
do agree with him.
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
I used to be a DM. Used to run a LG Monk (under original roll it was my
first character) and a LE Dwarf Theif in tandem. It made for much
mirth.
Right now I'm playing a bard who's based on Buster Keaton, and having
a ball. Never could manage an evil character. Most of them turn out
NG, which is probably pretty close to my own alignment.
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
Esp. the OT, I imagine. I suppose I'm doing the same in trying not to
draw conclusions just yet. But then, perhaps that is also a good
thing. As someone once said, "A conclusion is where someone stopped
thinking." Nevertheless, I get the feeling if I thought about this
stuff for too long at any one stretch, my brain would start leaking
out my ears (some say that process has already started :).
Erica
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
28 Oct 2003 09:57:59 AM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2003 14:02:19 -0800, (Erica), Message
ID: <6dfe32b8.0310271402.4cfe89ec@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<fk5opv0ae0pclf3k9jil2vufalstodmibl@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:46:35 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
<scribe53151NOSPAM-A553CB.03463526102003@newshost1.news.tds.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
In article <3F9ABE2D.BDE0CBEC@earthlink.net>,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
This is what I asked him on the 23rd: "Ya use the Catholic Bible 'cause
it sounds the most nasty, dontcha? Fess up."
To which he answered: "Of course I use whatever translation of the Bible
sounds the most evil. They were all translated by religious people so
many of them are biased to sound less evil. The most evil translation
is most likely closer to the true meaning."
Personally, I'd rather find a bible that translates the nuances of a
foreign language into modern English effectively. I would also like a
bible that uses the oldest manuscripts known to exist. The Douay-Rheims
Bible sounds interesting in that regard.
I don't think such a one exists. Keep in mind language is dynamic.
You've got slang, metaphor, hyperbole, multiple meanings and more. Then
you've got the amplified problems in translation(s).
Probably not, and that's what's frustrating to me.
Maybe that's why I was so intrigued by this description of the
Douay-Rheims:
"The Vulgate was put together by St. Jerome around the year 400, from
the original languages. (A somewhat novel concept at the time, for
which St. Jerome was criticized...There are a few things about the
Vulgate that should not be ignored, even when working with the
original languages. Namely, St. Jerome had access to manuscripts that
are no longer extant, his Hebrew and Greek were as fluent as our
English, and he was 1600 years closer to the originals than we are."
Hmmmm.
All good points.
Here's a fictional example of the problem from an old post of mine:
Intriguing, yes?
Yes, very. And it does highlight the complexities well.
Here's an example that comes from the same post from which I got the
above description of the D-R:
"The publisher (Thomas A. Nelson) [no connection with the Protestant
Bible publisher Thomas Nelson --clh] finds fault with modern Catholic
translations for several reasons, two of which are:
- the use of word meanings that, while generically correct, are not
correct in context.
- the expression of the translator's ideas of what a verse means,
rather
what the original literally says.
And he gives some interesting examples. Here is Luke 1:34 in the
original Greek:
pos (how) estai (shall be done) touto (this) epei (because) andra
(man)
ou (not) ginosko (I know).
The DR has:
How shall this be done, because I know not man?
So far so good, a strictly literal translation. But here's how it
gets
mangled:
How can this be since I do not know man? (New American Bible)
But how can this come about, since I am a virgin? (Jerusalem Bible)
"How can this be?" said Mary, "I am still a virgin." (New English
Bible)
Notice the (significant) change from "shall" to "can", making the
Blessed Virgin Mary appear to doubt the words of the angel who is
appearing to her. Very strange for a Roman Catholic Bible.
Strange? Could be, but I don't think so. Confusion or doubt is quite a
human reaction to startling things.
Notice also that the JB and the NEB introduce the word "virgin", which
is not in the original. The translators have rather paraphrased than
translated.
My understanding is the translation says 'young woman' rather than
virgin.
Also, the NEB version, by inserting the word "still", suggests that
our Lady planned to settle down and have children some day."
I am fascinated by this stuff. This is why I resist generalizations
from *anyone*. The whole problem of translation is way more complex
that we can deal with in our little newsgroups, theist or atheist.
Indeed. The problem is amplified since either the original doesn't
exist or hasn't been discovered.
The 'sword of truth' series by Mr. Goodkind is a damn
good read and highly recommended.
Thanks. I'll add it to the list of stuff I want to read one of these
days.
But back to card-stacking. Just looking at his website, I found myself
wondering if he was trying to convince those who didn't agree with him,
or "preach to the converted" as it were and entertain those who already
do agree with him.
I'm reminded of a booklet I read once about Dungeons and Dragons. It
said that it was going to look at the game of DnD objectively and prove
that it was an evil game that shouldn't be played by good Christians.
The word objective needs to be taken out there. In fact, the booklet
turned out to quite SUBjective. It got filed, circularly. And I still
play DnD.
I used to be a DM. Used to run a LG Monk (under original roll it was my
first character) and a LE Dwarf Theif in tandem. It made for much
mirth.
Right now I'm playing a bard who's based on Buster Keaton, and having
a ball. Never could manage an evil character. Most of them turn out
NG, which is probably pretty close to my own alignment.
I still remember the Ravenloft module. That was one wild and hilarious
interaction.
Thanks. It's sort of embarrassing to note that many of the atheists here
have read more of the bible than many Christians.
Many theists only read the 'safe parts' or make excuses for the evil
actions and flip them to good.
Esp. the OT, I imagine. I suppose I'm doing the same in trying not to
draw conclusions just yet. But then, perhaps that is also a good
thing. As someone once said, "A conclusion is where someone stopped
thinking." Nevertheless, I get the feeling if I thought about this
stuff for too long at any one stretch, my brain would start leaking
out my ears (some say that process has already started :).
Heh. However, a conclusion can be where someone stopped thinking, but
doesn't have to be. If one inquires about possible information updates
is one example where the process hasn't terminated.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
25 Oct 2003 07:16:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 -0500, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
But the quotes in his post are pretty accurate translations of the
original.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 03:47:54 AM |
|
|
In article <sd4mpvkapq382q69610f4eb4rie0bnq2k9@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 -0500, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
But the quotes in his post are pretty accurate translations of the
original.
Yes, I've been looking up translations for the last two days. Most sites
I've looked at have respect for the NAB. I don't have a problem with the
translation anymore, just the reason he picked it.
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 07:28:06 AM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151NOSPAM-622CC1.03475426102003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <sd4mpvkapq382q69610f4eb4rie0bnq2k9@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 -0500, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
But the quotes in his post are pretty accurate translations of the
original.
Yes, I've been looking up translations for the last two days. Most sites
I've looked at have respect for the NAB. I don't have a problem with the
translation anymore, just the reason he picked it.
I don't understand your objections. You say you don't have any problem with
the translation of the Bible that I use, you just don't like my reasons for
choosing it. You need to remember that the Bible is translated by theists.
There are often ways to translate words so that they have slightly different
meanings. For example, there is a Hebrew word that could mean either
"slave" or "servant". Many Bibles use "servant" even when they are talking
about buying and selling these people. Most people would agree that "slave"
is more accurate. However most translations still use "servant". It is the
bias of the translators that causes this inaccuracy. The translators will
tend to be biased into making the Bible sound less evil. It is my opinion
that the most evil sounding translation is most likely to be the most
accurate. I don't think that any theist would try to make the Bible sound
worse than it is. Do you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
27 Oct 2003 03:24:08 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<bngi5g$qsa$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
"Erica" <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151NOSPAM-622CC1.03475426102003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <sd4mpvkapq382q69610f4eb4rie0bnq2k9@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 -0500, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
But the quotes in his post are pretty accurate translations of the
original.
Yes, I've been looking up translations for the last two days. Most sites
I've looked at have respect for the NAB. I don't have a problem with the
translation anymore, just the reason he picked it.
I don't understand your objections. You say you don't have any problem with
the translation of the Bible that I use, you just don't like my reasons for
choosing it. You need to remember that the Bible is translated by theists.
There are often ways to translate words so that they have slightly different
meanings. For example, there is a Hebrew word that could mean either
"slave" or "servant". Many Bibles use "servant" even when they are talking
about buying and selling these people. Most people would agree that "slave"
is more accurate. However most translations still use "servant". It is the
bias of the translators that causes this inaccuracy. The translators will
tend to be biased into making the Bible sound less evil. It is my opinion
that the most evil sounding translation is most likely to be the most
accurate. I don't think that any theist would try to make the Bible sound
worse than it is. Do you?
I would hope not. I don't want a tranlation that make the bible sound
any better OR any worse than it actually is.
Meh. I think I want something I can't have, which is a totally
unbiased, objective, accurate translation that isn't filtered through
either an theist or atheist point of view. A neutral translation, but
with, as you say, the "balls" not to use euphemisms, such as servant
instead of slave. A bible that attempts to capture the nuances of a
foreign language in English as nearly as is possible, and gives me a
perspective on what this stuff meant in the context of the time and
Jewish culture and literature.
A bible from footnote hell. A bible I would need a forklift to carry.
:-)
I do find your one example interesting, and I agree that the more
accurate word should be used. I assume you have more than just that
one example of "servant" vs "slave"? Even so, your assumption that the
most evil sounding translation of a passage will yield the most
accurate still bugs me. I can't believe that this would hold true in
ALL cases.
Sooo...I was up until 3am last night digging out several bible
translations, one book on word meanings in the NT (I'll have to seek
the same in OT), and an old text book on the OT as literature). Armed
thus, I will await your daily installments. The next time a word
choice like "doomed" bugs me, I'm going to do a little research. We
shall see.
Erica
(who has more books in her bedroom than she has time to read. Maybe
I'll put them under the mattress and hope for a little osmosis :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
27 Oct 2003 09:22:52 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2003 13:24:08 -0800, (Erica) posted in
alt.atheism:
Meh. I think I want something I can't have, which is a totally
unbiased, objective, accurate translation that isn't filtered through
either an theist or atheist point of view.
That would be one translated by an omniscient machine, since one who
isn't a theist is an atheist.
I do find your one example interesting, and I agree that the more
accurate word should be used. I assume you have more than just that
one example of "servant" vs "slave"? Even so, your assumption that the
most evil sounding translation of a passage will yield the most
accurate still bugs me. I can't believe that this would hold true in
ALL cases.
It would mean that the person doing the translating (just about every
bible translation was done by Christians) wasn't sugar-coating
anything.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 12:07:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:47:54 -0600, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
In article <sd4mpvkapq382q69610f4eb4rie0bnq2k9@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 -0500, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
But the quotes in his post are pretty accurate translations of the
original.
Yes, I've been looking up translations for the last two days. Most sites
I've looked at have respect for the NAB. I don't have a problem with the
translation anymore, just the reason he picked it.
I have a problem with your method, though. All translations claim to
be accurate. The only ones you know the accuracy of are your own
translations.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 02:59:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:07:38 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Yes, I've been looking up translations for the last two days. Most sites
I've looked at have respect for the NAB. I don't have a problem with the
translation anymore, just the reason he picked it.
I have a problem with your method, though. All translations claim to
be accurate. The only ones you know the accuracy of are your own
translations.
Not true, if you made a mistake in translation you would not know
it. Unless you are perfect your work is less accurate than you think
it is, how much less you couldn't tell.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
26 Oct 2003 05:14:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:47:54 -0600, Erica <scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com>,
Message ID:
<scribe53151NOSPAM-622CC1.03475426102003@newshost1.news.tds.net> wrote
in alt.atheism;
In article <sd4mpvkapq382q69610f4eb4rie0bnq2k9@Pern.rk>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:03:26 -0500, Erica
<scribe53151NOSPAM@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I can think of some examples. Evil Editor and his assertion that the
bible is evil, so the most evil sounding bible is the most valid, is
circular reasoning.
But the quotes in his post are pretty accurate translations of the
original.
Yes, I've been looking up translations for the last two days. Most sites
I've looked at have respect for the NAB. I don't have a problem with the
translation anymore, just the reason he picked it.
Why should that matter? They are all advertised as the 'word of god'
and are good for education and correction.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Mistakes Atheists and Christians make when dialoguing with eachother... |
09 Oct 2003 09:09:41 AM |
|
|
On 03 Oct 2003, "Marvin" <marvin2@fogstarband.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:0Jlfb.685$8_6.355783741@twister2.starband.net:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Bkudna9SZdF1feCiU-KYvA@io.com...
"one that cries out in the wilderness" <i.m.@peace> wrote in
message
news:3f7dd0ba$0$35830$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
I thought this was well written and just wanted to share
it with both
Atheists and Christians...
Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians.
http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistmistakes.htm
Mistake Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists
http://www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm
No matter what, we should respect one another. Everyone
have a great
weekend!
No. I do not hold respect so cheaply that I grant it to
everyone. People
must earn my respect.
If they hold to stupid and dangerous ideas, they are not
worthy of respect.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
I feel compelled to add that while I find it pointless to say
I respect someone's principles when I find them pointless and
silly, as an American I believe strongly in a person's right
to believe in and practice his or her religion or lack
thereof. Even stupid and dangerous ideas must be allowed to
be freely expressed. Often people capable of thought are
quick to see the stupidity and danger and reject it. Attempts
to suppress express | | | |
