Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Odinn wrote:

On 10/12/2005 10:15 PM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the
following:

Odinn wrote:

SNIP

Umm, but Christianity accepts the existance of other religions.

First commandment - Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before
me.

There is the admittance of other gods, namely the Roman, Greek, and
Teutonic gods, right there in the bible.


You desparate need a good history book. The Ten Commandments
were written considerably *before* any Roman, Greek, or Teutonic
(Fritz, The God Of Pretzels?) came upon the scene ... About
4-6 *thousand* years before depending on whose dating you accept.



I think you better check again on your timeline. Moses was the one
who supposedly wrote Exodus, which contains the commandments, and that
would have been approx 1500 BCE, which is barely 3500 years ago, so it
could


Sez you. The dating of the ancient Hebrew texts is in some considerable
dispute. Moreover there is a gap in the dating of the *events* described
and the actual writing of the documents (at least some hold that it is
a *big* gap). But in any case, whosever dates you accept, it well
precedes the Greek, Roman, and Teutonic gods.


I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Right, the commandment is noteworthy specifically because it is the
first recording of monotheism. But to your original comment, early
Judaism
(not Christianity) did *not* stipulate that there were other gods but more
specifically that the other gods were false. You get this from a reading
not just of the commandment you cited but the larger body of Hebrew
Biblical literature. By the time Christianity showed up, this monotheism
was assumed.

Well, it's a case of faith versus reference again. If you accept that
"pharaoh" is Rameses, 1500 is the proper time. Of course, the books
themselves were written down considerably later, in an attempt to
consolidate and codify legend and practice.

Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple in
the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities ....

Polytheistic religions propitiate many gods one at a time in an attempt to
gain a better harvest, freedom from disease, male offspring, or an erection.
These gods apparently do not exchange information, so as to gain a larger
share of the total service. Monotheistic religions feature a universal code
of behavior - laws - which, if followed, will release the soul to a paradise
which has everything, rather than just "consciousness", or in some of the
Christian sects, salvation by words or "grace", not deeds.

Why study them? Because each, though different, has either shaped a culture
or been shaped by a culture to serve the universal need of the creature. The
creature strives to do or be better, and collect a reward for it, rather
than live in a cold mathematically-governed universe in which there is no
beginning or end, and life, which means so much to the one living it, is in
reality meaningless, because nothing so/he says or does can influence the
end.

Tim Daneliuk writes:

a) The presumption that every discipline is best investigated in total
isolation to most or all others is suspect. Philosophy affects
epistemology which affects everything. Failing to have a discussion about
first propositions because "it's just not Science" (for example) is
a deadly way of thinking.


Fine. But many arguments for ID are done by theologists who pose
as scientists, and use pseudo-science to defend their theology, in such a
manner that people are DECEIVED to belive this is real science.

c) The fear that we are going to transform a particular field to more
resemble another one is bogus. Honest people seek better and better
approximations of Truth. They let their observations and rational
faculties lead them to shape the disciplines in question. They do
not cling to some orthodox fundamentalism in the face of new data
or contrary evidence. Say a credible case for "turtles all the way down"
could be made. Then this should reshape Science. Say macro-evolution
is demonstrated beyond any shadow of any doubt. Then the people who
hold to literal 6day creation stories should reinterpet them accordingly.

Why should scientists bother? Creationists are just going to IGNORE
science and find new pseudo-science to distort facts and deceive
people.

First creationists claimed there was no proof of evolution.
Proof was pointed out to them and they backpedaled.

Then they claimed there was no proof of evolution into a new species.
Proof was pointed out to them and they backpedaled.

Now they claim there is no proof of macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is not a scientific term. PubMed shows FIVE references
to this term out of 11 million articles.

Macro-evolution is defined to be "something that evidence hasn't proved".
It's pseudo-science by definition.

Use theology to argue theology, and science to argue science, but
DON'T use theology to argue science.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

George wrote:


Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple in
the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities ....


First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many
times in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.

And I was including both mono and poly religions. Sounds like a disease
and a (diseased) finish :-).

writes:


The Catholic Church today aknowledges the doctrine of ecumenism,
that persons of all faiths may achieve slavation through adherence

Man that has got to be one of the best freudians I've seen in a while.

scott

to their faith, even if their creed is 'flawed'.

Dunno about the others.

The only formal excomunication of the 20th century was of the
French Archbishop Lefevre, who ****ed off the Pope by rejecting
the reforms of the Vatican II conference, including the doctrine
of ecumenism.

--

FF

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
George wrote:


Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple
in the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities
....


First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many times
in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.


If there is a true religion in your estimation, you should be out searching
and serving, not expressing doubt. Confuses people when you are a deist and
can't recognize god....

George wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
George wrote:


Monotheism, and monotheistic bias even among atheists like Larry is your
mental stumbling block in considering other "religions." Lay you two to
one that Taoism and Confucianism, which really have no gods, are a couple
in the 20 not cited, and Hinduism and Shinto have so many possibilities
....


First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many times
in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.


If there is a true religion in your estimation, you should be out searching
and serving, not expressing doubt. Confuses people when you are a deist and
can't recognize god....

How does not claiming to know God's form and every desire confuse
people?

George wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...


First of all, I'm not an atheist. I've said "I don't know" so many times
in this thread I'd have thought you'd have seen it.


If there is a true religion in your estimation, you should be out searching
and serving, not expressing doubt. Confuses people when you are a deist and
can't recognize god....


I'm not a deist either - can you say "agnostic?"

You seem determined to (incorrectly) categorize me - or are you just
trolling?

Wow, this ****ant thread has gone on far too long.



On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:01:19 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:

It's always helpful to take an argument to the point of absurdity to
test it.

All the time and energy that has been wasted on the explication,
elucidation and defense of the Intelligent Design Theory, insofar as
demanding that it be taught in Science Classes, in parallel with other
scientific theories, is horse****.

It is not a scientific theory - it is a religious theory.

Science demands a hypothetical which is testable by observation and
the extension of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.

Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.






Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.


1500 BC is around the time of Amenhotep who advocated monotheism
in Egypt and is also around the time of Zoraster (though last I
heard THAT was in dispute). So it appears the idea enjoyed
widespread popularity.

--

FF

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.



1500 BC is around the time of Amenhotep who advocated monotheism
in Egypt and is also around the time of Zoraster (though last I
heard THAT was in dispute). So it appears the idea enjoyed
widespread popularity.


Well ... if you accept that idea that the Pentateuch records
events that well-precede 1500 BCE then it is recording the
first known instance of declared monotheism...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

I just did some digging and I was wrong. The dating of the writing of
the Pentateuch *is* generally conceded to be 1500 BCE or so as you
suggested. However, the events it *records* are considered (by some) to
be much older, and *that's* what's in dispute - the exact age/duration
of the ancient Hebrews as an entity.



1500 BC is around the time of Amenhotep who advocated monotheism
in Egypt and is also around the time of Zoraster (though last I
heard THAT was in dispute). So it appears the idea enjoyed
widespread popularity.


Well ... if you accept that idea that the Pentateuch records
events that well-precede 1500 BCE then it is recording the
first known instance of declared monotheism...


You would also have to assume that the Pentateuch is accurate
on that issue, with respect to whatever preceded it, lost
writings or oral traditions. Revisionism is not a new
concept.

--

FF