Biblical inerrantists? And you seen to have not trouble believing every other thing in the Bible that breaks natural laws like the Earth stopping its rotation during the Battle of Jericho. Or Noah's Ark.



But you either didn't read all of mine before responding or else you chose to conveniently ignore what Christ himself: "In my Father's house there are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." You can't explain that one away with your 'natural laws' argument.


-Kerry O.

So what is it exactly that you believe about the bible?



In other words the "God" of your Christianity was/is incapable of chosing men who could get His message right? Can this God do anything?

Voil;

You realize of course that your post on "Christianity being man made" could be applied to Evolution with the same reasoning and logic.

Well Eljay, the formulation of the theory of evolution is attributed to Charles Darwin. Although he has earned tremendous respect over the years, and occupies an important place in history, he is very much human. So yes, 'evolution', as we understand it, is 100% man made.

Unless you Eljay were to treat 'evolution' as a religion, or doctrine of belief, which it is not, and consider Darwin as some sort of Jesus/God, whch I think might be blasphemous to say the least, 'evolution' along with all the science that it is founded upon, is of course 100% 'man thought' and 'man made'. There is no question about that.

Unlike religion, science does not impose on the whole world, as 'delusional fundies' do with the 'word of the bible', this preposteropus lie that 'IT' is the absolute truth of all thruts, straight from a particular and specific imaginary 'being', as god of all gods. Science, as religion, is 100% man-thought, and man-made. The only difference being, there are no 'fundie' scientists, as there are religious 'fundies' to argue the delusional lie, that they own the absolute and definitive truth about everything.

The neo-cortex isn't pissed off with science, since it respects the nature of the brain: it doesn't pretend to have found the 'definitive answer', which would make the neo-cortex, along with being human, obsolete.

It is howewver, piss off with 'fundies', because they attack intelligence square on, by insisting on a delusional and false definitive answer to everything.

Kerry O.,

Mansions is better translated as 'rooms'.

Much as 1 Cor. 13:13 "And now abideth faith, hope,charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." wherein the word ' charity' is best translated as ' compassion and/or sympathy' . The word ' agape ' used here is a breathed form of action denoting helpful and communicative intervention.

It was subsequently translated as ' love' but still misses the mark as the current use of these words, charity and love, have come to mean many different things in our culture.

It could be argued that charity, in the mind of God, would mean supporting various non- profit organizations which promote anything but selfless love and thus negate any logical or rational coherence about God and the pursuit of God's will, and therefore by extension support the concept that Christianity is a man-made distraction for the weak of heart.

Conclusion: Quick overviews of The written record of the life and message of Jesus Christ are susceptible to inherently wrongful and convenient excuses for capitulating one's personal responsibility for diligent comprehension of the record as currently and offhandedly dismissed as it is.

The whole of this book, a collection of books, is an assemblage of all that pertains to Jesus Christ, ultimately, preserved for future generations to contemplate.

PS: I've singled out only one particular excuse, which quite fortuitously happenes to be one of yours, only as a point of reference to a more important concern.
That concern would be the difference between excuses and reasons. Excuses offer the lazy a scapegoat for a lack of due diligence, whereas reason offers opportunities to accomplish a positve outcome of endeavor.

Peace, out!

Voila,

I see in the second paragraph of your rebuttal to Eljay, that you suggest that Evolution as taught may infer that its theoretical observation of creation's genesis is potentially blasphemous.
To be argued that evoltion as taught is blasphemous of God in your arguement is to suggest that you actually believe that is so, regarding evolution as taught.

Relying on such a supposition in defence of your position on the intractability of the neo-cortex would, in summation, negate any validity of your contention that the neo-cortex is a viable observation about the condition of man.
A double minded and irrational string of thought does not make your point cohesive or credible as opined.

Unless, of course, that is your contention.

What Voile actually said:

Unless you Eljay were to treat 'evolution' as a religion, or doctrine of belief, which it is not, and consider Darwin as some sort of Jesus/God, whch I think might be blasphemous to say the least...


AND CONSIDER DARWIN AS SOME SORT OF JESUS/GOD


Considering DARWIN as a Jesus/God might be blasphemous

THAT is what I read...

Creativesoul,

YES!!! I agree.

But referencing that in defence of neo-cortexism is subjective and conclusory, without the benefit of supporting criteria and independent analysis.

Disengenuous, if ne0-cortexism is to be contemplated as a rational thought.

JMO!!!

wouldee,

Chosing one's battle is the definitive choice any of us have to make.

To fabricate a battle you have convinced yourself you seem to be having with me, much like 'Don Quichotte' with 'windmills', clouds your otherwise sound sound sense of observation and ensuing insights and views wouldee.

I wish I could address your post more directly, since my name appears at the top, but your are simply not writing to what I wrote. I'm afraid you are wrestling with your own windmills wouldee, and maybe I occur as one, from your vantage point. I certainly can't do much about that.

That being said, I have no battle with you wouldee; on the contrary, and will simply chuck your comments to the 'wrong address' syndrome, and leave at that.

Voila,

Your wit and humor is indeed intact.

I will rest in your euphimism and leave it to others to contemplate the depth of your observation.

I am amused, and not offended!!

Kerry O.,

Mansions is better translated as 'rooms'.

Much as 1 Cor. 13:13 "And now abideth faith, hope,charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." wherein the word ' charity' is best translated as ' compassion and/or sympathy' . The word ' agape ' used here is a breathed form of action denoting helpful and communicative intervention.

It was subsequently translated as ' love' but still misses the mark as the current use of these words, charity and love, have come to mean many different things in our culture.

It could be argued that charity, in the mind of God, would mean supporting various non- profit organizations which promote anything but selfless love and thus negate any logical or rational coherence about God and the pursuit of God's will, and therefore by extension support the concept that Christianity is a man-made distraction for the weak of heart.

Conclusion: Quick overviews of The written record of the life and message of Jesus Christ are susceptible to inherently wrongful and convenient excuses for capitulating one's personal responsibility for diligent comprehension of the record as currently and offhandedly dismissed as it is.

The whole of this book, a collection of books, is an assemblage of all that pertains to Jesus Christ, ultimately, preserved for future generations to contemplate.

PS: I've singled out only one particular excuse, which quite fortuitously happenes to be one of yours, only as a point of reference to a more important concern.
That concern would be the difference between excuses and reasons. Excuses offer the lazy a scapegoat for a lack of due diligence, whereas reason offers opportunities to accomplish a positve outcome of endeavor.



Ok, then my question to you is why can't an omnipotent being who influenced the writing of the book similarly influence the translators to get it right the first time?

Or more to your point, am I personally responsible for his negligence on that point, or should I have not spent so much time studying stupid things like calculus, physics and science and devoted myself instead to translating Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew?

See, almost every time I point out inconsistencies and outright contradiction in the Bible, I get this type of (non) answer. To me, that rationalizes past the fact that if this is true, one can make the Bible appear to say just about whatever one wants. It's like they are just so sure they have the only truth with god as their omnipotent enforcer.

-Kerry O.

KerryO,

Well, you know now. It apparently is insufficient for you to have benefitted from what today has brought you, in that your substitutionary whining about your scientific studies and the inherently ineptness of man as a whole is indefensible and without recourse.

Rather rash and prejudicially callous disregard for revelations of clarity seem not to be in the forefront of your attention, or at the heart of your personal responsibilities to exercise logic and reason concerning your accountability for your own choices as is the free will of all to embrace.

Perhaps your energies are better spent on careful study of your positions and opinions before you attempt to wield your insights in a public forum where one would realistically possess the expectation that any post ggiven falls under scrutiny of the reader.

Perhaps you have anticipated that no one would notice your ill-conceived choice of hasty reference to support a rather indefensable and emotionally charged comment.

Or perhaps you actually prefer to sit on the sidelines and monday morning quarterback this thing we call our life.

Excuse me for having offered you an opportunity to recognize something that has been, until this day, void of your view.

Excuse me further for having used one of your comments to correct a common misconception for others to peruse as well.

I had not anticipated the shallowness of your emotions as being a concern to be mindful of as I attempted to draw attention away from errors and place some attention on the need for all of us to inform ourselves more diligently of the things around us that affect our daily lives.

I assure you that it shall happen again quite unapologetically in the future.

Actually Kerry, I rather enjoy your observations on posts. You obviously are quite familiar with the bible and are quick to notice inconsistancies with interpretations. You tend not to blurt out unsupported statements and then state them as fact.

As to God not having controlled the translations - I tend to think He did, but that still wouldn't stop the interpretations to run adrift. It is the purpose for sending the Holy Spirit.
But here again, the Holy Spirit only leads one to truth - there's no guarentee they're gonna follow.

Woldee,

All I see in your reply is a bunch of arrogant ad hominem attacks, no answers to any of the questions I posed. What enlightment have you demonstrated by such attacks other than an attempt to shunt the questions out of the attention of your readers with the voracity of you rhetoric.

As someone who has faced their mortality on the table, I see nothing to recommend you as my teacher in anything. You puff up rather nicely, but when solid reasoning hits the cold reality of the road, you're no more proxy for omnipotence than I. Stop pretending you are and answer the damn questions if you're up to it.

Otherwise, turn off the loud noise. I'm not impressed.



-Kerry O.

Well Eljay, I appreciate that. And allow me to return the compliment-- your posts and ideas seem to be those of a scrupulously honest disputant which I have no qualms 'running' on my wetware without an anti-virus program running in the background.

Remember that patch some Vietnam vets used to have on the back of their civvies in the 70s that said "When I die, I'm going to heaven because I've already been to hell." That's how I feel about certain subjects based on my experiences and those with whom I'm close. We share bonds forged in the fires of finite existences, and the temper of our steel is pretty fierce. But, we wear it as chainmail, we don't wield it as a blade unless we are obliged to defend ourselves.



-Kerry O.

Wouldee,

You're not debating, you're trash talking. Just about all your rebuttal has been an attempt to make this a personal pissing match. How rare and beautiful a thing is that to behold on the internet? Especially knowing that even if you win, you're still a d*ck. You've not even one idea offered other than what you think of me for have the audacity to not see things as you do.

But by all means, do keep it up. It's such a testament to that touchy-feely Christian Love thang. I mean, I can sure Feel the Love.

-Kerry O.

Answers were provided that you chose to ignore in your hasty retreat from being involved in the perceptibly negative light of your comments that elicited a response from me.

My response is not to rut with KerryO., but rather to clear up the notion that mansions means what you and others would like to interpret as such.

If in fact that hinders the credibility of other superficial complaints about the Bible is not germaine to the issue.

Further , I gave a subsequent example of how words and their respective uses over time have changed the intended easy to read intended nature of Biblical passages.

And once again, you choose to display rash and thoughtless disregard of that endeavor, that had you been attentive to, would have gotten your personal involvement in the cited example refuge from criticism, as any one reading my response, intelligently, could surmise that there exist no personal attack against KerryO., but rather, the benefit of the doubt to another thinker without sufficient knowledge of a particular passage of ancient origin.

Furthermore, you made the response personal when you chose to instigate derogatory comments toward my person for proferring a rebuttal, to which you displayed comments thaat betray your epitaphs, in that your epitaphs insinuate that you did not read the whole of my response to your criticism of my original related response. Can you follow this?

To further attempt to insult me bears no cause, and is unmeitorious to me.

What others may glean from our conversation is what it is.

It bears no relevant distinction to me. Your understanding does.

I stand in doubt of your understanding and find continual cause to believe that you have alterior motives for not speaking plainly and responding with complete and careful deliberation about my comments, replies, relevant answers and attempts to afford you graceful relief from perceived embarrassment.

In the end, I expect much shallower splashing from you, and don't have a realistic expectation that you will re-apply yourself to the continuity of our dialog in a civil and adult manner.

If, in the end, you continue to view this as a battle over audacious control of ideas, perhaps you can satisfy yourself in whatever you choose to post next.

I give you the last word of any interaction with me. I am at an end of going in endless circles with you.

Peace, out!

If I ignored them and beat a hasty retreat as you contend, what did you have to percieve as negative?

No, anyone that wants to can see my rebuttal, the gist of which is "Is it reasonable to blame the reader for errors in the text, especially given the Bible's reputation for being divinely inspired."

You had your answer, you just couldn't let it stand, so instead of answering with reasoned debate, you started left-handed name-calling by referring to me with variations of the verb 'whine'. Multiple times, I might add. So when you claim::



...it's obvious you are being intellectually dishonest. You claim your rebuttals are both on-topic and salient-- what's so salient to the debate about expressing your opinion that a scholar of the physical sciences is 'whiney'. The fact that you referred to me, as your elder, as 'son' is yet more proof that you indeed want to lock horns in a rut you're just soooo sure as the bigger-sized buck you'll win handily and trot away with all the does drooling over you.

Funny thing is, I run across bucks like you all the time. It usually takes the form of engineer bashing-- you know, 'those dumbass engineers don't know what they are doing' sort of thing?

Yet, to whom do they invariably come with hats in hand when they can't figure something out on their own?


You have yet to field a logical rebuttal, and it's my contention you felt you could cowe me into submission with ad hominems. That's the way these hootenannies usually go. And the way they usually end is that the Wouldees don't hand around long. A pissing contest ensues when their intended targets don't acquiese to their estimable selves and they are either gone or are removed when their rhetoric becomes too exteme.





I can point to a stack of Bibles that says 'mansions'. And it again begs the question "If that's what God wanted in an allegedly immaculately written and transcribed holy book, why, hundreds of years later does it *still* say 'mansion.'

I think it's _very_ germane to an understanding of what's meant to ask this question. Because there is corroborating text in Revelations that also infers great opulence by its discriptions of streets paved in gold and precious gems everywhere. Yet, when this is pointed out, it gets explained away as being obviously not-to-be-taken-literally.

Literally by whom? How is the honest researcher to judge, especially given the fact that the people who make the claim equivocate by saying the Bible is inerrant and to be taken literally most of the time?

I think what many of us have resigned ourselves to is that it's not the intent of the Bible that counts, it's rather a question of dogma and how much flack you're going to get for challenging dogma cobbled together from its often ambiguous statements and descriptions. And that you're going to get exactly what people like Wouldee are throwing at you every time you do.



Give the readers a friggin break, Wouldee. When you use the word 'whine' you ARE making a personal attack. You're trying to impeach the source as unworthy to address the forum by suggesting they are just a common species of nut.

I don't care if you word-lawyer your way into next year, your motives are hardly as pure as the driven snow.

So again, just answer the damn questions.

-Kerry O.

KerryO,

You have accomplished to improve your discourse and have put a bit more effort into your continuum.

The only question I see is based on cursory perusals of various translations still contending the use of mansions in the sky.
The relevance of that question ignores my comment that not all things Biblical were, are, will be literal in their interpretable scope of presented imagery, and yet you continue to posit that the contradictions exist unanswerably lacking credibility, continuity, clarity,authenticity and trustworthiness.
The fact remains that there is more than meets the eye at first glance, that it is intellectually dishonest to chime a parroted echo in defence of endless debate over nuances that afford the deceitfulness of man opportunity to abdicate personal responsibility for investigative research of the subject within the parameters of the discipline understanding beforehand that the imagery is representative and inclusive of an intended and necessary submission to the guidance and communication of a spiritual truth.

As far as ad hominum diatribe and rhetorical evasiveness
intended to justify a precognizant position as authoritative and germaine to the topic and the divisions between the particpants in this debate is concerned, I can only choose to
remain adversarial to the inconclusiveness of your will to successful inquiry into the consistencies remaning elusive to you with regards to this subject so long as your personal sovereignty is guardedly sequestered from exposure to spiritual truths that risk tendering moot one's validity and purpose.

Assuming that scientific investigation has been your life long pursuit, observation of nature's mechanics can only glean knowledge of the physical world. Assuming that your soul and spirit require physical observations to understand the mechanics of spiritual properties, one can only reason that insufficient will and determination is present to intelligently
engage in any further discussion of the merits relevant to the topic at hand, as pertaining to any benefit to you other than the incessant whining and tantric machinations being embraced.

As far as the omnipotence that's required of you to learn from me, in your own words, I profer that the omniscience of a supreme deity reguires relationship and fellowship to comprehend such a thing and that is a responsible decision yet to be made between you and God; as far as ignorance is concerned, willful entertainment of necessity is warranted before you can begin any spiritual embarkations; and as far as nescience is concerned, you have yet to display a cohesive understanding in your posts in defence of your parroted agrandisements.

Good day to you, sir. WOULDEE