Search results

Ok, so as a bilingual: I find that this pops up now and again on these pages. The idea that language is very simple and straightforward. When you only know one language it is hard to distance oneself from the complexity of meaning. If I were to write this post in Swedish and then translate it...

The what now? What are we talking about?

Is this really the way forward though? I don't see what you are trying to accomplish by "fixing" the Bible. Promote good theology instead (which, what you are insisting, is not)

The fact that it's a text in history is reason enough to leave it as is. Edit: 'not' changed to 'to'

If there is bad science If theology is science Then there can be bad theology

That's just straight out false. Sorry for being so harsh but sometimes you just enter pink-glasses land. Have you herd of Pythagoras? I'm not going to list a million things that's still the same in science as 50 years ago. Science dosen't change all the time, it's changes some of the things. And...

Just curious: Over how long a time-period those these documents stretch? Could the community have changed over time? Alternately, could it be that the families mentioned was of the then celibate brothers? If they had families from before they might still feel the obligation to provide or care...

*brain implodes*

Huh, sound like Wil!

Not very well read on the subject, and I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also think that Nietzche alluded to an even "higher" stage of will power where using others would be considered a weakness. But I do think that Nietzches philosophy is very rough and highly problematic in many areas. It...

I see it as very problematic to use a too limited definition of a word and then apply that definition to all instances of the word. Reduction is not always a good thing. I personally just admit defeat when it comes to a perfect understanding of Love in all contexts. I just try to make my own...

To you love is limited to the act and expectation? You don't mention the experience.

I think that's sophistry, I don't have an understanding of the event/process, never-mind the words to express it. I don't think that's an entirely unfair statement. I have zero such discipline, I need to understand and be interested in what I'm reading. But I didn't need it for 'A Tale of Two...

Just feels so strange to assume anything about the event that caused time and space as we know it. Applying any properties to an event when we can't say anything, scientific, about the state that comes before it. The argument doesn't do anything for me.

This is very interesting, but I'm having trouble following the discussion. In what context is the Kalam Argument made? Just pure logic? If the argument doesn't prove anything, what is it actually doing? I can't prove that something came from nothing, but doe's that prove that everything come...

Hold up! You are saying that Gray so precisely captured the nature of atheism that it matches 'the ratio of reality!'? Another question, is Gray an atheist?

I think something like that was the case with me. I lost two grandfathers and a grandmother in me teens. That together with an emotional distance with my father left me very prepared for his death. More prepared than I would have thought. But it's hard to tell, I'm only 35, emotional wounds...

How to build an Ark:

As a non-believer, I definitely agree.

The question sort of assumes that the scientific evidence lead to a religions downfall, I doubt that is true. I hold, like most here, that science and religion is two very different things. The how/why that was alluded to earlier. But the "follower" of each can still get destructively caught up...