Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[Meltdarok]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:27 PM:

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 11:07 AM:

On 1/4/08 11:41 PM, in article lwGfj.17018$8Z1.8562@trnddc05, "Meltdarok"

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 PM:
On 1/4/08 10:58 AM, in article Ilvfj.11$Z61.4@trnddc07, "Meltdarok"

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.

You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?
It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.
It's still safer.
I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?
When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.

No, it didn't, but when I consider that you are offering the terms monism
and pantheistic to explain the lineage of your process, it alters nothing.
The terms don't justify your smug ugly view of what God wants.

Tell me what my smug ugly view of what God wants is please.

I can only extrapolate from what you say. Re read some of what you have
said.

Hmmm, I said, "I guess the words Panentheistic Monist doesn't occur to you."

You said of yourself: ...I don't tend to reject "sinners" when they're not
"pushy" about it....

Does God want you to be judgmental about people?
Naw.

How do you know?

She told me.

 

[Meltdarok]

Tom wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:56 PM:

The term "oxymoron" does, though.

Hi Tom.
Hi Tom.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:

A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,

It may well be.

and apparently
an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.

But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
covers *thousands* of years.

 

[Don Bowey]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:27 PM:
(snip)


Hmmm, I said, "I guess the words Panentheistic Monist doesn't occur to you."

Already asked and answered.

(snip)

 

[Don Bowey]

No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:


It may well be.


But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
covers *thousands* of years.

What "data?"

 

[Meltdarok]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/6/2008 11:29 AM:

What "data?"

The records of the ancients as they tried to describe cosmology
in terms that they could understand, without the equipment that
we tend to take for granted today.

 

[vernon O]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:27 PM:

It means not knowing the complexity of the universe from space to atomic to
field level.

Yes many Christians don't know 2+2, but it is for certain atheists are not
educated.

 

[Don Bowey]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/6/2008 11:29 AM:

The records of the ancients as they tried to describe cosmology
in terms that they could understand, without the equipment that
we tend to take for granted today.

Probably good reading, but not relevant to anything, in contrast to modern
science insight.

 

[Don Bowey]

It means not knowing the complexity of the universe from space to atomic to
field level.

Yes many Christians don't know 2+2, but it is for certain atheists are not
educated.

I think we've reached the point where you should think about wearing an
aluminum hat.

fin.

 

[Tom]

Tom wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:56 PM:

Hi Tom.
Hi Tom.

And hi to both of you, too.

 

[Tom]

Probably good reading, but not relevant to anything, in contrast to modern
science insight.

Relevance is, as one might expect, relative.

Those "ancient" folks focussed mainly on what went on inside their heads and
regarded what went on outside them as an expression of some inward process.
We "modern science" folks focus on what's going on outside our heads and, on
the rare occasions when we do pay attention to the inside of our heads, we
use it mainly to express some external process. Same phenomena, different
approaches.

Whatever we believe seems right to us.

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:


It may well be.


But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
covers *thousands* of years.

ROTFLMAO. We have data about the structure of the universe that
covers *billions* of years, and not at all consistent with your
opinions.

 

[Meltdarok]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/6/2008 12:15 PM:

Probably good reading, but not relevant to anything, in contrast to modern
science insight.

One scientist was quoted in Astronomy magazine (May 1987) as saying that
in the future, the scientists will probably consider today's ideas the
same way we do now of ancient Egypt's cosmology.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:

ROTFLMAO. We have data about the structure of the universe that
covers *billions* of years, and not at all consistent with your
opinions.

The research is ongoing. Heh.

 

[No One]

Relevance is, as one might expect, relative.

Those "ancient" folks focussed mainly on what went on inside their heads and
regarded what went on outside them as an expression of some inward process.
We "modern science" folks focus on what's going on outside our heads and, on
the rare occasions when we do pay attention to the inside of our heads, we
use it mainly to express some external process. Same phenomena, different
approaches.

Whatever we believe seems right to us.

Except that we test our beliefs with measurements and experiments that
in some cases are accurate to over 10 significant figures (e.g., the
value of the fine structure constant, gyromagnetic ratio, etc.). It's
kind of hard to argue with 10 significant figures when the alternative
is some touchy-feelly subjective experience.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:

ROTFLMAO. We have data about the structure of the universe that
covers *billions* of years, and not at all consistent with your
opinions.

You don't seem to mind that the data hasn't been collected for
*billions* of years though.

 

[vernon O]

I think we've reached the point where you should think about wearing an
aluminum hat.

fin.

Argue with Einstein.

 

[vernon O]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/6/2008 12:15 PM:

One scientist was quoted in Astronomy magazine (May 1987) as saying that
in the future, the scientists will probably consider today's ideas the
same way we do now of ancient Egypt's cosmology.

With wonderment?

Many many scientists today are amazed at ancient Egypt.

 

[donald]

No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:


You don't seem to mind that the data hasn't been collected for
*billions* of years though.

Yes, they have.

The records of carbon dating, the chemical remnants of past events.

You have the word of someone that was written just a few hundred years ago.

Make believe is make believe no matter how much time passes.

But the Gnostic bibles are not in your vocabulary.

Just in case you wish to expand your mind:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gnostics.html


But I doubt it.


donald

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:

The research is ongoing. Heh.

Being "ongoing" (which means researchers are actively trying to
disprove their theories and hypotheses) is why we've made so much
progress.