Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17085)	4/15/2004 2:26:58 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

6. Ancient historians had a purpose for writing, and for including or excluding certain material. Ankerberg: All right, now, talk about the methodology of writers in ancient history as well as the New Testament writers, how did they go about organizing their material? In other words, Matthew seemed to be writing to a certain crowd; Luke seemed to be writing to a different crowd; John seemed to be writing to a different crowd. Is that bad? Does that automatically knock one writer out versus another? How did people in ancient history write? Evans: Well, that’s how they wrote. And the whole idea in writing a story was, there was a moral to it. There was something about it. It taught the youths something. It conveyed and passed on values. That was the whole purpose. And so there was always a slant to how one wrote. But the Gospels, what are interesting about them in comparison to other biographies an antiquity, you have this very old, very archaic material that survives. Sometimes even though the Greek gets bumpy because of the underlying Hebrew or Aramaic, and it smacks of antiquity and originality, authenticity. You don’t just have real smooth, polished Greek speeches the way you usually do in the Greco-Roman sources. But you get a little bit of this...you know you read and you think, "This is kind of funny. It sounds a little better in Hebrew or Aramaic." And I think that’s a sign of the originality and antiquity that we see at work in the Gospels. 7. Jesus probably spoke predominately in Aramaic. Ankerberg: What language do you think Jesus spoke? Evans: Well, I think He predominantly spoke Aramaic, but linguistic study in late antiquity in Israel—and by that I mean inscriptions that we find. We find inscriptions of graves, on ossuaries, bone boxes; the manuscripts that we have found and so on—you can’t rule out Greek and even Hebrew. I think in Judea itself and in Jerusalem the language spoken there was probably more Hebrew than it was Aramaic. You go up into Galilee where Jesus ministered and where He was raised, and it’s more Aramaic than it is Hebrew. And yet you’ve got Greek everywhere. And so I think it’s distinctly possible that when Jesus was speaking, for example, to the Syro-Phoenician woman He may very well have been speaking to her in Greek. When He was being interrogated by Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, that conversation may very well have taken place in Greek.

To: Greg or e who wrote (17085)	4/19/2004 12:09:55 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

LOL!! Your last several posts reminded me of those infomercials where the "host" pretends to feed spontaneous questions to the con-man! HOST: Well, I never would have thought that 80 years of wrinkles could be dissolved by eating your specially formulated secret lab ingredients mixed with Peruvian herbs, but I can't argue with your evidence. But what about weight?! My listeners are going to ask it, so this is why I'm asking it. Everywhere we turn we find some new fad for losing fat: Low carbs, high carbs; high protein, low protein. How are we supposed to know? Your special formula uses fatty oils. Surely that must show up on the scales? APOLOGIST: (chuckling and leaning forward with elbows on knees)... THAT is a REALLY good question! When I first discovered the secret that cannot be revealed but which can be put together by the simple ingredients likely in your own cupboard at this very time but unknown to you, I was concerned at how it might affect obesity (which as you know may lead to diabetes, heart attack and even strokes). The wonderful thing I found after endless research with the finest universities (as well as in my basement where I am secretly developing a time machine which I will only hint at) is that my 5 ZXP run around the block compound actually LOSES calories because people run twice as far and twice as fast! And believe me.You are talking to a skeptic. I was born in Ohio during... I must remember that I am trying to hold a rational conversation with people who believe that God is a pompous Child-Ass who plays with kindergarten blocks and who tops off His Divine Words of righteous insanity with the threat and the promise of eternal torture and gnashing of teeth! If there truly existed such a pompous, arrogant, cruel, and psychotic bastard, you would join His team rather than opposing Him and attempting to destroy Him?? Why do people like you embrace such insanity? Why do you embrace literature which pisses contradiction, cruelty, and outright mental illness?? It is a profound question. Mr. Asimov goes some little way in supplying the answer: Apparently, this is not on the internet, so I will just type enough to give the flavor of the matter. Mr. Asimov lists six BASIC SECURITY BELIEFS: "1). There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into protecting mankind. Here is the essence of superstition. When a primitive hunting society is faced with the fact that game is sometimes plentiful and sometimes not, and when a primitive agricultural society watches drought come one year and floods the next, it seems natural to assume, in default of anything better, that some more-than-human force is arranging things in this way. Since Nature is capricious, it would seem that the various gods, spirits, demons, (whatever you wish to call them) are themselves capricious. In one way or another they must be induced or made to subordinate their wild impulses to the needs of humanity. Who says this is easy? Obviously, it calls for all the skills of the wisest and most experience men of the society. So there developed a special class of spirit manipulators, a priesthood, to use that term in its broadest sense. 2). There is no such thing really, as death. A comparatively sensible way of denying death is to suppose that it is a family that is the real living entity and that the individual does not truly die while the family lives. 3). There is some purpose to the universe. After all, if you're going to have a whole battery of spirits and demons running the Universe, you can't really have them doing it all for nothing. Surely it is those who find their own lives essentially meaningless who most strive to impose meaning on the Universe as a way of making up for the personal lack. 4). Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something for nothing. In a way, Science has fulfilled the fairy tales. The jet plane goes far faster and farther than the flying horse and the seven-league boots of the fable-writers of yore. We have rockets which seek out their target like Thor's Hammer, and do far more damage. But these do not represent something for nothing. They are not awarded through supernatural agency and don't act capriciously. They are the hard-earned products of the generalizations concerning the Universe built up by a Science that denies most or all of the Security Beliefs. 5). you are better than the next fellow. Naturally this fades off into racism and it is not at all surprising that the more lowly the social, economic, or personal; position of an individual, the more likely he is to fall prey to the racist temptation. 6). If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault. When the Security Believers are stung by the explosion of the hoaxes and follies that deceive them, what is their last, best defense? Why, that there is a conspiracy of scientist against them!! (The Jesus Seminar and the ignorant Solons of the world!) :-)