Revelation Chapter 1
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2012, 06:34 AM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2012 05:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(23-10-2012 11:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  As no one knows who wrote the book of Revelations, and we know that the men who compiled the bible were liars and fabricators of history, why, oh why, would you bother to take it seriously? Is it not only for one or some of the following reasons?

- a lot of other people believe too (argumentum ad numerum),
- or authoritative people believe (argumentum ad verecundiam),
- or it is a very popular belief (argumentum ad populum)
- or it is a very old belief (argumentum ad antiquitatem),
- or the belief has been repeated often (argumentum ad nauseam),
- or they are afraid of the consequences of not believing (argumentum ad baculum)
- or they think it has not yet been proven false (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

None of these reasons are based on a rational examination of facts.

Give me one solid rational reason why the book is not bullshit before you start boasting about its contents.

Mark,
As you can see, by the use of the double negative here,

"There is nothing that I could say to you that wouldn't do anything"

this sentence is actually agreeing with you. This is yet another piece of evidence, that this poster is ignorant, not only of the subject of which he posts, but also common correct English usage, As a highly educated man, and a writer, I'm sure you winced reading that sentence. Anyone who cannot even construct a correct English sentence obviously has no personal authority to say anything of a convincing nature, to educated people.

The premise of the OP rests on many fallacious notions :
1.. That the Bible texts have any inherent authority. That has not been demonstrated here. This is just more mental masturbation by someone who wishes to appear knowledgeable about a subject of which he has no real knowledge,
2. That human beings need some sort of "salvific" action, or that that could be possible,
3. That human nature could be somehow changed by a blood sacrifice to an ancient pissed off deity,
4. That what Jeebus was all about was doing that, (we know the salvation paradigm was invented by Saul of Tarsus), as we have discussed many times. The salvation paradigm is absent in the first gospel, thus we know that the Jewish adherents of the Way cult, (Christians), did not accept this, or have any conception of it, until it was placed there by Saul.
5. Personal purification, vs the Jewish concept of atonement is yet another proof that Saul took his message from Zoroastrianism, via Mithraism,
6. Apocalypticsm, was rampant in the ancient Near East at the time of Yeshua, and was proven wrong, again and again, especially after the bar Kochba Revolt, after the turn of the First Century,
7. That a timeless deity, could or would need an offering, done in time, and yet remain a timeless deity. Salvation refutes "eternal", in Logic, Physics, and Theology.
8. there was no concept of "immortal souls" in Hebrew culture, thus we know that when Genesis says it's in famous "memento mori" statement, "For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return", they actually meat what they were saying.

I have demonstrated in your "Paul" thread that immortality was uniquely absent in Hebrew culture, as "immortal souls" were considered a threat, in a polytheistic culture, to their deity, as seen when the Witch of Endor conjured the shade of Samuel, and she says she sees a "divine" being. Hebrew culture thought immortality was granted by family, and the having of a succeeding generation of male heirs.

This OP also takes literally that which was meant allegorically, and metaphorically. Modern American Fundamentalists have a very hard time with this sort of thing for many reasons. Among them are their ignorance of literature in general, and how literature authentically employs literary devices such as metaphor, and allegory. They are literalists, as their simplistic childishness, cannot accept anything other than what is written as literal, as authentic. Any scholar knows that is simply not true of Bible texts.

Last, but actually most important, the salvation paradigm rests on the fallacy that the Garden myth, in Genesis, is about sin and disobedience. We know that is not true, and Torah scholars, and scholars of the Talmud, such as Martin Buber have pointed out this fallacy. It was taken from the Sumerian Chaos myths, and the "eating"Tree of the Knowledge of BOTH good and evil was an allegorical use to say that "encompassing opposites" was impossible for humans, and that humans must make moral choices.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-10-2012, 06:39 AM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 05:44 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(24-10-2012 05:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Btw, if you want to tell us who has been filling your head with all this stuff, we'll sort them out for you, if you know what I mean.

Thanks DLJ, but I'm done here. I'm just going to move on.

Was it something I said?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2012, 06:47 AM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 05:03 AM)DLJ Wrote:  It feels like I'm reading a review of a review of XP and Vista when Windows 7 (the Quran) has been in operation successfully for some time.
Hmmm, I'd probably go something more like...
He's reviewing DOS 2.0 (the Bible) while DOS 3.31 (the Quran) is more recent, but while the current version of Windows (science) is 7 with 8 soon to be released.

[Image: 33xy6me.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LostLocke's post
24-10-2012, 07:03 AM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 06:47 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Hmmm, I'd probably go something more like...
He's reviewing DOS 2.0 (the Bible) while DOS 3.31 (the Quran) is more recent, but while the current version of Windows (science) is 7 with 8 soon to be released.

Yup, that's sounds more accurate.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2012, 07:50 AM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 05:44 AM)The Theist Wrote:  
(24-10-2012 05:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Btw, if you want to tell us who has been filling your head with all this stuff, we'll sort them out for you, if you know what I mean.

Thanks DLJ, but I'm done here. I'm just going to move on.

[Image: Atrapitis.gif]

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
24-10-2012, 05:20 PM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 06:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-10-2012 11:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  As no one knows who wrote the book of Revelations, and we know that the men who compiled the bible were liars and fabricators of history, why, oh why, would you bother to take it seriously? Is it not only for one or some of the following reasons?

- a lot of other people believe too (argumentum ad numerum),
- or authoritative people believe (argumentum ad verecundiam),
- or it is a very popular belief (argumentum ad populum)
- or it is a very old belief (argumentum ad antiquitatem),
- or the belief has been repeated often (argumentum ad nauseam),
- or they are afraid of the consequences of not believing (argumentum ad baculum)
- or they think it has not yet been proven false (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

None of these reasons are based on a rational examination of facts.

Give me one solid rational reason why the book is not bullshit before you start boasting about its contents.

Mark,
As you can see, by the use of the double negative here,

"There is nothing that I could say to you that wouldn't do anything"

this sentence is actually agreeing with you. This is yet another piece of evidence, that this poster is ignorant, not only of the subject of which he posts, but also common correct English usage, As a highly educated man, and a writer, I'm sure you winced reading that sentence. Anyone who cannot even construct a correct English sentence obviously has no personal authority to say anything of a convincing nature, to educated people.

The premise of the OP rests on many fallacious notions :
1.. That the Bible texts have any inherent authority. That has not been demonstrated here. This is just more mental masturbation by someone who wishes to appear knowledgeable about a subject of which he has no real knowledge,
2. That human beings need some sort of "salvific" action, or that that could be possible,
3. That human nature could be somehow changed by a blood sacrifice to an ancient pissed off deity,
4. That what Jeebus was all about was doing that, (we know the salvation paradigm was invented by Saul of Tarsus), as we have discussed many times. The salvation paradigm is absent in the first gospel, thus we know that the Jewish adherents of the Way cult, (Christians), did not accept this, or have any conception of it, until it was placed there by Saul.
5. Personal purification, vs the Jewish concept of atonement is yet another proof that Saul took his message from Zoroastrianism, via Mithraism,
6. Apocalypticsm, was rampant in the ancient Near East at the time of Yeshua, and was proven wrong, again and again, especially after the bar Kochba Revolt, after the turn of the First Century,
7. That a timeless deity, could or would need an offering, done in time, and yet remain a timeless deity. Salvation refutes "eternal", in Logic, Physics, and Theology.
8. there was no concept of "immortal souls" in Hebrew culture, thus we know that when Genesis says it's in famous "memento mori" statement, "For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return", they actually meat what they were saying.

I have demonstrated in your "Paul" thread that immortality was uniquely absent in Hebrew culture, as "immortal souls" were considered a threat, in a polytheistic culture, to their deity, as seen when the Witch of Endor conjured the shade of Samuel, and she says she sees a "divine" being. Hebrew culture thought immortality was granted by family, and the having of a succeeding generation of male heirs.

This OP also takes literally that which was meant allegorically, and metaphorically. Modern American Fundamentalists have a very hard time with this sort of thing for many reasons. Among them are their ignorance of literature in general, and how literature authentically employs literary devices such as metaphor, and allegory. They are literalists, as their simplistic childishness, cannot accept anything other than what is written as literal, as authentic. Any scholar knows that is simply not true of Bible texts.

Last, but actually most important, the salvation paradigm rests on the fallacy that the Garden myth, in Genesis, is about sin and disobedience. We know that is not true, and Torah scholars, and scholars of the Talmud, such as Martin Buber have pointed out this fallacy. It was taken from the Sumerian Chaos myths, and the "eating"Tree of the Knowledge of BOTH good and evil was an allegorical use to say that "encompassing opposites" was impossible for humans, and that humans must make moral choices.

Thanks for all this Bucky. It really is interesting that the ancient jews, and, i assume, modern jews, didn't and don't believe in immortality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the book of Daniel, the last to be written, hint at the existence of heaven?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 06:47 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(24-10-2012 05:03 AM)DLJ Wrote:  It feels like I'm reading a review of a review of XP and Vista when Windows 7 (the Quran) has been in operation successfully for some time.
Hmmm, I'd probably go something more like...
He's reviewing DOS 2.0 (the Bible) while DOS 3.31 (the Quran) is more recent, but while the current version of Windows (science) is 7 with 8 soon to be released.

Please don't use MS Windows as an analog to science again. Please?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
24-10-2012, 05:38 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2012 07:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
(24-10-2012 05:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-10-2012 06:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Mark,
As you can see, by the use of the double negative here,

"There is nothing that I could say to you that wouldn't do anything"

this sentence is actually agreeing with you. This is yet another piece of evidence, that this poster is ignorant, not only of the subject of which he posts, but also common correct English usage, As a highly educated man, and a writer, I'm sure you winced reading that sentence. Anyone who cannot even construct a correct English sentence obviously has no personal authority to say anything of a convincing nature, to educated people.

The premise of the OP rests on many fallacious notions :
1.. That the Bible texts have any inherent authority. That has not been demonstrated here. This is just more mental masturbation by someone who wishes to appear knowledgeable about a subject of which he has no real knowledge,
2. That human beings need some sort of "salvific" action, or that that could be possible,
3. That human nature could be somehow changed by a blood sacrifice to an ancient pissed off deity,
4. That what Jeebus was all about was doing that, (we know the salvation paradigm was invented by Saul of Tarsus), as we have discussed many times. The salvation paradigm is absent in the first gospel, thus we know that the Jewish adherents of the Way cult, (Christians), did not accept this, or have any conception of it, until it was placed there by Saul.
5. Personal purification, vs the Jewish concept of atonement is yet another proof that Saul took his message from Zoroastrianism, via Mithraism,
6. Apocalypticsm, was rampant in the ancient Near East at the time of Yeshua, and was proven wrong, again and again, especially after the bar Kochba Revolt, after the turn of the First Century,
7. That a timeless deity, could or would need an offering, done in time, and yet remain a timeless deity. Salvation refutes "eternal", in Logic, Physics, and Theology.
8. there was no concept of "immortal souls" in Hebrew culture, thus we know that when Genesis says it's in famous "memento mori" statement, "For dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return", they actually meat what they were saying.

I have demonstrated in your "Paul" thread that immortality was uniquely absent in Hebrew culture, as "immortal souls" were considered a threat, in a polytheistic culture, to their deity, as seen when the Witch of Endor conjured the shade of Samuel, and she says she sees a "divine" being. Hebrew culture thought immortality was granted by family, and the having of a succeeding generation of male heirs.

This OP also takes literally that which was meant allegorically, and metaphorically. Modern American Fundamentalists have a very hard time with this sort of thing for many reasons. Among them are their ignorance of literature in general, and how literature authentically employs literary devices such as metaphor, and allegory. They are literalists, as their simplistic childishness, cannot accept anything other than what is written as literal, as authentic. Any scholar knows that is simply not true of Bible texts.

Last, but actually most important, the salvation paradigm rests on the fallacy that the Garden myth, in Genesis, is about sin and disobedience. We know that is not true, and Torah scholars, and scholars of the Talmud, such as Martin Buber have pointed out this fallacy. It was taken from the Sumerian Chaos myths, and the "eating"Tree of the Knowledge of BOTH good and evil was an allegorical use to say that "encompassing opposites" was impossible for humans, and that humans must make moral choices.

Thanks for all this Bucky. It really is interesting that the ancient jews, and, i assume, modern jews, didn't and don't believe in immortality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the book of Daniel, the last to be written, hint at the existence of heaven?

Yes. You're correct. See my long thread in your Paul thread. I've been revising parts of it, and have a long way to go. (I may make a PDF file, and do an attachment.) It developed, during and post Exile. I'm still doing the Paul stuff, but I will get to this. Daniel 1st, and then 1st Isaiah, during the post Exilic period, introduced it, but only for some, (just as Paul said). It then grew further during the Maccabeean period, with the introduction of the "martyr" idea. There are a number of ideas about why it happened. I agree with those who think it happened because post-Exile, the long prior (stable) units of family structure and "ancestor" based social units were disrupted during the Exile. Post Exile, with the rise of the importance of "individualism", (as opposed to value and meaning being granted by family ties), the previous idea that "immortality" being granted by "family" changed to "individual" immortality.

When the Witch of Endor, (in Judges), conjures the "shade" of Samuel, Saul asks her what she saw. She said "I see a divine being". That explains why they did NOT approve of the concept. Divine beings, in a polytheistic system are a threat to Yahweh. It also is another clue about how they actually *thought* of Yahweh. If a human "shade" is a "divine being", THAT is not "super-natural". Its "other-than" natural. It's a subtle point, but apparently "divine" was "other", and had no hierarchical component, to the Hebrews. We think of "god" as "super" because that image is so imbued in our culture, mostly from art, (such as the Sistine ceiling).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-10-2012, 07:20 PM
RE: Revelation Chapter 1
Since you've checked out the SA Bible, have you browsed the SA Book of Mormon? You don't even have to go far into the first book to find the impossible. Let me recap it, and then I'll explain why it's relevant to you (a non-mormon)...

We're told the story about Nephi arming himself with a sword of steel in a story that takes place in 600 BCE, 2000 years before the invention of steel. Even if God "magicked" a steel sword into being, there's no way that Joseph Smith could have translated the word "steel" off of the alleged plates he read from because it was allegedly in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and those hieroglyphs would have no word for steel (because it didn't exist yet).

That, by itself, is a powerful case against the truth of the Mormon bible. And yet there are still Mormons. Why hasn't this (along with the many other impossibilities of the Mormon bible that have been exposed) ended the Mormon church? Faith, of course. Mormons assume that their bible is true, and when exposed to challenges, they simply rationalize their silly beliefs and move on.

Here's why it's relevant to you: despite the fact that the SAB has come up with literally hundreds of contradictions and scientific impossibilities, believers continue to rationalize because their assumptions won't allow them to do otherwise. This, of course, includes you. You can explain why you think the SAB is full of crap and doesn't actually tear apart your holy book, but in doing so you excuse believers of other religions to do the same when confronted with the silliness in their own holy books, ones that you also believe (as we do) are works of man and not gods. Isn't it possible that your bias has made you just like them?

I was an evangelical Christian in my youth, but I saw the bible for what it is -- non-inspired, contradictory, and useless even as a moral guide. I can only hope you are someday as lucky as I am and get past it. I'm an atheist and my only regret is that it took me 20 years to get here.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: