of course it's in the bible, what point are you making?
why do we blank out the word god?
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
of course it's in the bible, what point are you making?
you lack experience with biblical and chrsitian texts and idea's, what else is it?
Yes it does, as demonstrated earlier in the thread.
You told me earlier in the thread that the bible was in no way metaphorical. You appear to be changing your answers to suit - yet another thing symptomatic of a religious zealot.
Do I really? It seems I know more than you do. I know that there is no way everything in the bible could be factual, and most of it is metaphor and allegory. You do not know this. I know that there are very relevant texts been left out of the bible - yet before this thread you did not.
However, even if I was lacking in experience with certain texts, that is not naievety. It is lack of experience in one subject. I did ask you earlier to look up naive.
![[PTG]shogun](/styles/overclockers/avatars/2.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 147
- Location
- running from 8igdave
yeah the romans nicked the greek religion though
just remanded it all 
actually reading the stories of the greek religion is like a bad soap opera, theres bestiality, lots of incest, backstabbing that sort of thing really.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 147
- Location
- running from 8igdave
evidence is never worthless and nor can evidence be wrong. merely our interpretation of it.
a piece of biased evidence, say a document written about the success of an Egyptian pharo, will obviously show him in good light but it can be used to show the power and manipulation they had of the Egyptian people.
and yes LOTR could be used as evidence that orcs existed, take LOTR and many other books show a strong running theme in folk law/mythology, which could be used to base an argument (be it a poor one) that something simlar either existed or was mistaken to exist historically (could have been big hairy mountian men which hid away some where o0)
I like playing devils advocate, anyone got the guys number, i might apply for a job
a piece of biased evidence, say a document written about the success of an Egyptian pharo, will obviously show him in good light but it can be used to show the power and manipulation they had of the Egyptian people.
and yes LOTR could be used as evidence that orcs existed, take LOTR and many other books show a strong running theme in folk law/mythology, which could be used to base an argument (be it a poor one) that something simlar either existed or was mistaken to exist historically (could have been big hairy mountian men which hid away some where o0)
I like playing devils advocate, anyone got the guys number, i might apply for a job
you asked me to look up asumption actually.
I did know that books were left out, but they are not critical as stated already.
it wasn't a case of books being "left out" but a case of having lots of writings that needed to be compiled into a smallish book.
Last edited:
[PTG]shogun;10826820 said:evidence is never worthless and nor can evidence be wrong. merely our interpretation of it.
a piece of biased evidence, say a document written about the success of an Egyptian pharo, will obviously show him in good light but it can be used to show the power and manipulation they had of the Egyptian people.
and yes LOTR could be used as evidence that orcs existed, take LOTR and many other books show a strong running theme in folk law/mythology, which could be used to base an argument (be it a poor one) that something simlar either existed or was mistaken to exist historically (could have been big hairy mountian men which hid away some where o0)
I like playing devils advocate, anyone got the guys number, i might apply for a job
no because the author of lord of the rings, the guy h#who made it up, Tolkien, would tell you it was made up.
although I am aware that he did not make up orcs etc...
you like twisting words.
i did not say that, i said that it MIGHT not be metaphorical but theres no PROOF that it can't be.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
He wouldn't be able to tell you anything of the sort sadly since he is dead, much the same situation as everyone who contributed to the Bible. Is it now your contention that if no-one admits to making it up then it could be true?
I know he's dead, but it was intended as a fictional piece of writing.
Plus Tolkien was a Christian bleive it or not towards the end of his life, so I doubt he believed it to be some kind of religion. He may however of thought it was Historically acurate.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Ok then, we accept that Lord Of The Rings is fictional, Tolkien would have confirmed it as being so. What makes you think the Bible is different? A book (or collection of them) compiled from various people who are all long dead and therefore cannot either confirm or deny the truth of it. You cannot state with certainty that they weren't playing a game of "add the next paragraph to this story" and it was all also fictional but somewhere along the line it became a religion.
And hey presto, you get the situation we are moving towards now. Most people are afraid to say anything to anyone, so all they talk about is the bloody weather.
Most people will, at some time, find me offensive. It's not that I'm a nasty horrible person, it's just that I speak my mind, and swear a lot (Yes, as part of my normal vocabulary, and no, it's not limited because of it). I will inevitably say something a religious person would find offensive, but that's fine.
I find closed minded people saying "it just is!!!" in a religious fervor highly offensive, but I don't ask for an apology. I pity them for needing a crutch to stand on instead of just dealing with it.
That offensive to you? Be honest...
If it is, then rest secure in the knowledge that although I don't really care if it is, it wasn't intended. It's just my opinion. With regards to religion, neither side can prove definitively they are right, (For the record I am an Atheist, not Agnostic).
Ah hell, i have no idea where this is going... started off on a anti-PC rant, and devolves into a small debate on religion... I'll end it here apart from this.
Not saying something because it might offend is just plain stupid. As long as the Intention is not to offend, then a simple apology should suffice. I don't need a law to tell me what I can and can not say.
yantorsen. Fair play at having a crack at us lot here. Aint gonna get you anywhere, but I suspect you know that.
[PTG]shogun;10826820 said:evidence is never worthless and nor can evidence be wrong. merely our interpretation of it.
a piece of biased evidence, say a document written about the success of an Egyptian pharo, will obviously show him in good light but it can be used to show the power and manipulation they had of the Egyptian people.
and yes LOTR could be used as evidence that orcs existed, take LOTR and many other books show a strong running theme in folk law/mythology, which could be used to base an argument (be it a poor one) that something simlar either existed or was mistaken to exist historically (could have been big hairy mountian men which hid away some where o0)
I like playing devils advocate, anyone got the guys number, i might apply for a job
That's why I said worthless really and not worthless.
I also didn't say that LOTR couldn't be used as evidence of orcs. I said that it was equivalent to the statement that the bible is evidence of the Christian God.
And I corrected you on this point already.
No it wasn't it was a case of being left out. They were left out because they didn't agree with the message required.
I quote this "another one of your opinions. largely based on incorrect naive asumption."
This was in response to me saying the bible held allegory and metaphor. You said it didn't, you later said it may be poetic, and now you're saying it is metaphor. Make your mind up.
I was not hoping to get anywhere from this no.
the difference is that blaspheme and swearing in general convosation do not help anything, and mean nothing to little, except add emphysis which can be done in other ways.
I have no problem people speaking there minds if the vocabulary used is relevent to there point.
that's because im saying I don't know what it is. I have no more evidence for one way over another.
but i don't belive it is relevent.
I cannot prove for definate based of objecte evidence no, I can prove it is unlikely to be a game that you stated because you said yourself that it is largely historically acurate, so It would see a funny game to play "add the next part of the historical acount", but by all means it could have been a popular game, as i have no evidence either way.
Whether you know what it is or not is irrelevant. The meaning doesn't change through your lack of knowledge.
It is very relevant. On the one hand you could be following a book that is stories and is deemed so, but worth following anyway (to you), and on the other you could be blindly following what is stories believing it to be absolute truth. Which is it?
Yes, I did. You can't have it both ways.
Absolutely. You do not believe the first disciple and partner of the central person in your religion is critical to the religion you follow. How you arrive at that I have no idea whatsoever. Fair play to you though, if that works for you. It never could for me. Well done on admitting it