Okay...let's see...where was I...

Frank,

Your logic is infallible. You are completely right -asserting something doesn't exist is quite different than there is no evidence to support somethings existence.

However, I have a very hard time even taking into consideration the possibility of entities whose existence has no evidence to support; a fairy, for example, is a most likely conceptual and imaginary entity.

I have never observed one, nor have I ever seen evidence supporting the existence of such a being - so why even take into consideration its existence?

Why cloud my judgement with a proposition that has absolutely no factual bearing on reality whatsoever (under the current sum of human knowledge)?

I am curious (since certainity has always been a personal interest of mine) what your positions on scientific certainity are, and the nature of an arbitrary argument. Should arbitrary arguments be dismissed outright, or should one take them into consideration as "possibilities", even though there is no evidence to even suggest that they are possible?

I'm pretty flexible when adequately bribed. Atheists have no morals.

Real life . . .

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


HAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAW . . .


. . . oh god . . .


okbye

Frank,

You claim to be agnostic and stating your position...I don't know if there is a God..I don't know if there are no gods..and I don't see enough unambigious evidence in either direction to make a meaningful guess.

But I've also read in several places you say something to the effect...but I do have enogh evidence to make a meaningful guess about the god described in the bible.

Aren't you leaving the arena of agnosticism when you say...if there is a god my guess is IT is nothing like the comic book god described in the bible.

Are you not claiming to be athiest when it comes to that god ?

In short...I am saying that I look at the Bible....and after reading what it has to say....I am convinced that it makes more sense to suppose (guess) that it is a book which contains the rather self-serving early history of the Hebrew people....and that it has an almost comical mythology interspersed.

I think the people who invented the god....and who put their morals and sensibilities into its mouth...did a marvelous (and probably necessary) job of it.

I commend them....and stand in awe of their work.

I think it is beyond reason that anyone still regards it as divine.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In short...I am saying that I look at the Bible....and after reading what it has to say....I am convinced that it makes more sense to suppose (guess) that it is a book which contains the rather self-serving early history of the Hebrew people....and that it has an almost comical mythology interspersed.

I think the people who invented the god....and who put their morals and sensibilities into its mouth...did a marvelous (and probably necessary) job of it.

I commend them....and stand in awe of their work.

I think it is beyond reason that anyone still regards it as divine.

Read it again.

How could you suppose that Hebrews would write a history of their people with the intention of being "self serving" that continually puts them in a bad light (to be charitable about it).

They are constantly described by God as faithless, selfish, rebellious, sinful in every way, weak willed, compromising, divided, bickering..... and the list could go on.

In short , it accurately describes a group of humans with all of the human failings included.

Does that sound like a self serving history written to flatter the family?

Read it again.

How could you suppose that Hebrews would write a history of their people with the intention of being "self serving" that continually puts them in a bad light (to be charitable about it).

They are constantly described by God as faithless, selfish, rebellious, sinful in every way, weak willed, compromising, divided, bickering..... and the list could go on.

In short , it accurately describes a group of humans with all of the human failings included.

Does that sound like a self serving history written to flatter the family?

Yeah...but, in a self-serving way, it always has them kicking the shyt out of anyone who screws with them.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah...but, in a self-serving way, it always has them kicking the shyt out of anyone who screws with them.

Let's see. It has them in slavery for 400 years in Egypt. That's not exactly whoopin' up on those who mess with them.

They escape from Egypt and the whole generation of triumphant escapees dies in the wilderness because of their spinelessness.

They finally enter Canaan and promptly lose control of it.

They establish a kingship and the best king (David) murders a man to steal his wife. This is not a self serving martyrdom story, always under ordeal type stuff. This is " the best we had was a slimy character" type stuff.

The majority of kings afterward , with a very few exceptions are portrayed as conniving or bumblers or worse.

They are conquered and become exiles.

Back into the land, they are nonetheless subservient to pagans.

These events transpire over a 1500 year time span, so your conspiracy theory would necessitate that successive writers all wished to portray their people in the same fashion and carried on the "self serving" tradition (which is anything but) without a hitch for that period of time.

Not only did the writers of all these generations all toe the same line, but they were able to convince successive generations of Jews under various circumstances and among various dominant cultures that they should accept their country's history the way that it was written for alleged "self serving" purposes. Each generation along the way would have known that their history was being misrepresented, if it was.

Does anyone really think that this collection of history was written by a group of men to be "self serving" and that a proud ethnocentric group maintained this focus for 1500 years, accepting it as their legitimate history while knowing it to be false?

Your Theory of the Self Serving Writers is just too far fetched , Frank.

By the way....there really doesn't seem to be any corroboration for the myth outlined in Exodus.

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way....there really doesn't seem to be any corroboration for the myth outlined in Exodus.

You know me. I can think of only one or two things at a time.

Now, where was I? (OH, go back and read the quote.)

What sort of corroboration would you like, Frank? Do you think the Egyptian historians would have dared to record the defeat of Pharaoh, their god? Those fellows were much less forthcoming than Jewish writers. It was a personal safety issue, you know.

Verification or lack thereof proves nothing. It is interesting to not that shortly after this 'myth' is said to occur, the Israelites themselves began to rebel. So much for good intentions.

real life wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah...but, in a self-serving way, it always has them kicking the shyt out of anyone who screws with them.

Let's see. It has them in slavery for 400 years in Egypt. That's not exactly whoopin' up on those who mess with them.

They escape from Egypt and the whole generation of triumphant escapees dies in the wilderness because of their spinelessness.

They finally enter Canaan and promptly lose control of it.

They establish a kingship and the best king (David) murders a man to steal his wife. This is not a self serving martyrdom story, always under ordeal type stuff. This is " the best we had was a slimy character" type stuff.

The majority of kings afterward , with a very few exceptions are portrayed as conniving or bumblers or worse.

They are conquered and become exiles.

Back into the land, they are nonetheless subservient to pagans.

These events transpire over a 1500 year time span, so your conspiracy theory would necessitate that successive writers all wished to portray their people in the same fashion and carried on the "self serving" tradition (which is anything but) without a hitch for that period of time.

Not only did the writers of all these generations all toe the same line, but they were able to convince successive generations of Jews under various circumstances and among various dominant cultures that they should accept their country's history the way that it was written for alleged "self serving" purposes. Each generation along the way would have known that their history was being misrepresented, if it was.

Does anyone really think that this collection of history was written by a group of men to be "self serving" and that a proud ethnocentric group maintained this focus for 1500 years, accepting it as their legitimate history while knowing it to be false?

Yes. Almost anyone with a functioning brain would.

Quote:

Your Theory of the Self Serving Writers is just too far fetched , Frank.

Only for folks who do not fall into that category I just mentioned.



By the way....there really doesn't seem to be any corroboration for the myth outlined in Exodus.

Do I think the Egyptians would dare to record the defeat of their god, the Pharaoh?

Yeah.

Are you suggesting they never did?

Frank Apisa wrote:

real life wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah...but, in a self-serving way, it always has them kicking the shyt out of anyone who screws with them.

Let's see. It has them in slavery for 400 years in Egypt. That's not exactly whoopin' up on those who mess with them.

They escape from Egypt and the whole generation of triumphant escapees dies in the wilderness because of their spinelessness.

They finally enter Canaan and promptly lose control of it.

They establish a kingship and the best king (David) murders a man to steal his wife. This is not a self serving martyrdom story, always under ordeal type stuff. This is " the best we had was a slimy character" type stuff.

The majority of kings afterward , with a very few exceptions are portrayed as conniving or bumblers or worse.

They are conquered and become exiles.

Back into the land, they are nonetheless subservient to pagans.

These events transpire over a 1500 year time span, so your conspiracy theory would necessitate that successive writers all wished to portray their people in the same fashion and carried on the "self serving" tradition (which is anything but) without a hitch for that period of time.

Not only did the writers of all these generations all toe the same line, but they were able to convince successive generations of Jews under various circumstances and among various dominant cultures that they should accept their country's history the way that it was written for alleged "self serving" purposes. Each generation along the way would have known that their history was being misrepresented, if it was.

Does anyone really think that this collection of history was written by a group of men to be "self serving" and that a proud ethnocentric group maintained this focus for 1500 years, accepting it as their legitimate history while knowing it to be false?

Yes. Almost anyone with a functioning brain would.

Quote:

Your Theory of the Self Serving Writers is just too far fetched , Frank.

Only for folks who do not fall into that category I just mentioned.



By the way....there really doesn't seem to be any corroboration for the myth outlined in Exodus.

Then Frank you have to add another conspiracy theory to your already outlandish conspiracy theory.

It would be like someone coming to America today and selling us on the idea that our TRUE history was something completely different from anything that anyone here had ever heard of, filled with supernatural happenings........ and that the history of our people that we and our parents all grew up learning about never happened.

Then, the SECOND CONSPIRACY, these inventors of the new American history myth would also have to foist upon us HUNDREDS OF UNUSUAL LAWS that we had never heard of and convince us that these had been our laws for hundreds of years.

This is what you are supposing happened to the Jewish people. Someone or group of conspiring someones over hundreds of years collaborated to invent a new history and new laws for the Jews and were successful in convincing them that these had actually been their laws all along, and that the history they thought they knew was actually not true at all but these other events had really been their history AND THAT SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS HAD ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED IT EACH STEP ALONG THE WAY.

Sorry Frank. I don't buy your 1500 year conspiracy theories (now plural).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do I think the Egyptians would dare to record the defeat of their god, the Pharaoh?

Yeah.

Are you suggesting they never did?

If they had, that would be corroboration, right?

Just asking.