A challenge: debate the issue of religion with yours truly

Post Reply New Topic

They were also referring to an actual exchange between two different bodies of water. Specifically, they are referring to an exchange between a body of saltwater and a body of freshwater. It has a double-meaning.

A sudden disappearance of readily accessible freshwater would have been devastating.

I don't think that anyone is sure of what the literacy rates were in Ancient Sumer.

I don't think that the Enuma Elish says anything about a serpent. Tiamat represents the sea. Apsu represents underground reservoirs.

And it is the same story as the war between the Olympians and the Titans. Snowmelt. It's as simple as that. The large body of fresh water the ancients used to have access to went sour, but the ancients figured out that snowmelt off of mountains could provide plenty of potable water. The Sumerians resolved the issue by tapping into underground reservoirs...Apsu.

It was their history. However, the more ornamental, sexually appealing version of it had more staying power. That's just how it is. That's what people remember. However, when we talk about these myths, we are talking about the historical record of an ancient people. It is very serious. I think it's disrespectful to regard it as inherently bogus. It might not mean a lot to us, but it meant a lot to them. As silly as it sounds on the surface, they considered it to be gravely serious. They might not have understood at times why they thought it was important, but it was a reflection of a memory that had been etched deep into the psyche of their culture.

It's not my theory. It's very well supported, though.

No we could not, it missing the point entirely.

Dear, AG probably finds you more humorous than offensive. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he has made that into a macro.

Anyway, I have actually managed to impress esteemed historians with my own ability to connect disparate ideas in a rational manner, and I actually consider myself to be more than equal to discussing this issue with you with the kind of depth that you are looking for. Therefore, let me try again to get your attention. However, pardon me, please, if I am slow to respond. I am helping someone convalesce from a leg injury, and it is to the credit of his good nature that he is understanding enough to give me time to pursue my hobby.

First, please try to explain to me what your religious views are. I have given you a bit of background on how I think about the subject of religion, so please share with me your own ideas.

What about your idea of perfection? Based on what you say we are living in the 'best possible world'? You are the one who begins uttering nonsense gibberish.

Honestly, I just stopped paying attention to him awhile back. I actually have a way of blocking posters with my browser, and I use that whenever I find a particular poster not worth additional effort. I tend to feel that way about apologists most of the time actually.

In any case, I am not really upset by Lukecash12 dismissing me. I dismissed him awhile ago, so he's just catching up. I did decide to read the last thing he wrote, and given the quality of that, I am not actually missing much as nothing he's written actually deserves a rebuttal. Lukecash12 is simply quibbling on minutiae. I don't know why you even try to feed him any scraps, as his temperament is obvious throughout the thread, and frankly, I'm pretty sure it clashes with both of our temperaments.

You know if more non theists in the world thought like this then the theists and non theists could get along better and have civil debates about their diffrent beliefs and political views.

I've been planning to get to your material. Time has been an issue, friend.

As for AG, what he thinks is irrelevant. The guy lacks character, respect, maturity, and rationality. The rebuke wasn't for him. It was for the readers. As for his last post, I read it. I don't think I'm too cool to read a post in one of my own threads. A few more empty claims, nothing unexpected right? But let's not dwell on him any more. He had his opportunity, and apparently he didn't want that opportunity.

I am familiar with the things that you mentioned, and am interested in discussing them.

Based on his last response to me, I'm also kind of wondering why I bother.

It came across as more comical than anything, though. I half-expected you to add, "your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries."

Okay...but it would be kind of nice to know more about your own views. I'm really not entirely sure where you are coming from, so I don't really have much to work with.

This is an interesting thread. It's too bad I don't have enough knowledge to join in the discussion myself.

I'd like to hear you go into more detail on this, for curiosity's sake.

Do you know if any Anatolian writings on shamanistic peoples, specifically followers of Tengri, survive from around the time of Paul the Apostle?

What would have been key elements in the education of a Pharisee? Particularly one who lived in Tarsus, which was a hip college town at the time.

What were the functions of a Pharisee in Jewish culture?

How do you think Pagan Rome's relationship with the Parthians might have affected the formative years of Christianity? Do you see Zoroastrian influences in Christianity?

I'm an amateur scholar, but I think I do fairly well. We could start with the Gospel of Mark if you wish.

1. I think the word "perfection" is too non-descript on it's own to express anything. Given the proper context, though, I would say that depending on the type of expression (you know: allegory, colloquialism, etc.), it can mean that something fits perfectly with the ideal(s) of the beholder, that it is an exact or near exact fit with some pattern, or maybe perfection is a Platonic Form? If you're familiar with the Forms, you might see how apt of a label that could be, depending on how one understands "perfection".

Suffice to say, that unless you care to hash the issue out, I emphasize that I was critiquing my interlocutor, mr. AG. He made some references to perfection when it comes to God's design, and didn't establish his view of perfection and what about those examples he mentioned, happens to relate to perfection.

2. "Based on what"? Based on this: If it happens to be true, that there is a tri-omni God like that of orthodox Christendom, then it is necessarily true that this (the universe, or version of the universe, that we are experiencing) is the best possible scenario, as regards the relationship between evil and good, suffering and joy, etc. Let me restate it in a different, more explanatory way: if it happens to be the case that there is a tri-omni God, then of course our state of affairs must be compatible with it. Of all the possible permutations, combinations, and imaginations, it would seem that we are experiencing the best possible scenario, that is: if there is a tri-omni God.

3. As for your last sentence there, I'm not sure what you mean. Modal arguments, if used correctly and with strict form, couldn't be more clear. Unless some definitions are misunderstood, which can often be the case, a modal argument is just as clear as a simple algebraic equation.

Luke, if you are wondering why I am asking about Anatolian writings, from the time of Paul, pertaining to shamanistic cultures related Gok Tanri, I have this theory that Paul's outlook on Christianity might have been influenced by the beliefs and mores of these ancient Turkic religions. However, if pharisees of the time period were being taught a prejudicial or negative outlook on them, this might not hold water as well as I had thought. I am assuming that a law/divinity student, during this time period, would have been educated at least somewhat in religions that were observed in neighboring cultures.

And I assume that you know more about this sort of thing than I do, since it sounds like you are a bit of a divinity student. Presumably, you have access to resources that I wouldn't know how to look for.

Please don't think that I'm hostile. I do try to make a point of being nice about religion because I've been trying to overcome a history of bitter relations with my father. He's affiliated with a UMC Methodist church, and he and my mother are very active members of the congregation. It helps our relations significantly for me to be to be tolerant of their religion. Therefore, I don't have a particularly antagonistic or nasty outlook on religion, compared to some people.

@Mr. Delaney:

I'm very sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you. I've limited access to the internet this week, while I visit with and babysit for a family member this week, out of town. If I had access to my lexicons and translinear text rendering software, as well as my books and online publications, I would answer all of your material. The issues that you raised are issues that I am very interested in.

But, to at least give you some of my opinions for the time being:

1. As regards the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis, I don't find such mental gymnastics necessary. That is because I don't find the notion that the whole world was flooded, to be a notion supported by the text.

2. That there are stories similar to that found in Genesis, does not necessarily suggest syncretism to me. It suggests Semitic thinking, is all. That they share in Semitic thinking, does not mean that their theology is the same. I would assert that all three accounts are different. As for them sharing some common traditional roots, I think that is definitely plausible, even positively indicated.

None of this is problematic for me, in terms of Christian belief. That being because I view Genesis in strictly theological terms. Because yom (Hebrew for a day cycle) appears before there is even a yom to be had, and because of some other such considerations, I don't see anything of a scientific intent in the Creation account. It seems neither natural to the text, nor natural to Semitic thinking, to make a scientific account of creation. I'll be elaborating on Semitic thought and the text in Hebrew, next week.

3. I'd be interested in seeing the hypothesis once you've finished it. As for now, I don't know what to think. Not much to go off of there.

4. For starters, that Paul was tormented by a "thorn" is much too vague to support the idea of a recurring migraine ailment. Migraines don't really account for a vision/hallucination either, unless you've seen such a case corroborated in a medical journal. I might also ask how this all fits in with the fact that Paul was previously opposed to Christian belief.

5. Yes, I would tend to agree with you there, when it comes to which groups were the most dynamic, and culturally promulgating. From the Christian point of view, Israel is extremely important when it comes to theology, and theology being expressed through history. But that's just the Judeo-Christian view of history. When it comes to who the big historical players were, Israel was kind of a blip.

6. Right. The people of Israel lived under an actual, working legal system. It wasn't just smoke and mirrors.

7. So do I.

8. In your statements there at the end, I wonder if what you mean to say, is that maybe I think the resurrection is a matter of design? As in, part of the original act of Creation? While I do think, in the UOD of Christian thinking, that there may be theological implications there in the Creation event, the view I support of the resurrection is that it was a divine intervention, not a divine design (and I mean "design" in the aforementioned sense of Creation).

William, Looking at the Pauline writings in the Bible I see a little bit of influence from the stoics and they in turn my have been influenced by Hermeticsm. We know a lot of greek philosophers were in what is now Turkey, and that was Paul spent a lot of time there. Why do you think he was influenced by Gok Tanri?

I once found a paper which showed that the first half of Romans Ch.6 is almost identical to part of the Stoic Senaca's writing. Unfortunately I cannot find it again.

Luke, sorry if this is leading off topic.

I haven't found you very antagonistic, Mr. Delaney. Trust me, in that I'm used to some pretty antagonistic people, because of my work in apologetics.

As for Paul's views of other religions around him: Pharisaic Judaism was the precursory sect to Rabbinic Judaism (as in: Talmuddic Judaism). Read the Tannaitic tract of the Talmud (the earliest tract which represents this period, as well as later times), which is publicly available, and I'm sure you'll find enough examples of exclusivist thinking from this group that it will become evident that it would have been reprehensible to Paul to adopt ideas from neighboring religions.