MM -
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Of course, I don't know how you feel.

But you said -
This seems to indicate that denying Him bothers you in that an "excuse" is required to do so.

But please, help me understand - Why do you feel compelled to prove his existance to others? If he's real to you, isn't that enough? You've convinced me that you have a personal relationship with your God. Good! Why do you care that I don't? Why does "excuse" enter the discussion? Why isn't it a "choice" instead? - or are you insecure in your beliefs and need the reinforcement that like-minded folks would supply?

I think this gets to the core of much of the friction between, for example, your version of religion and mine. I'm completely content to be aware that others have a version of faith that differs from mine. To the contrary, some - not necessarily MM - are compelled to convince others like me that we're wrong. We have "no excuse". Why can't we live in religious liberty as our founding fathers intended without some imposing their version of religion on everyone else? Isn't it obvious where that leads?

I really think it's scary and foolish to try to "prove" God exists - just as it is to attempt to prove He doesn't exist. Confirming the Ark claim is really the "Ark" will no more prove God exists than confirming God doesn't exist if the claim is a hoax.

JMHO

WAT

mkeverydaycnt said:


A retort, yes. A substantive answer, no. You in no way disproved my points, because you failed to address them.

I even summarized the issue for you: "Bottom line: Martin claims that the Temple was built upon Mount Zion (the location of the City of David), whereas the Bible clearly states that it was built upon Mount Moriah. -- 2 Chronicles 3:1." Where is your retort to the fact that Martin's argument (and by extension, yours) contradicts the Bible?


I don't need an audience on this forum. I'm here by request.


So you say. Where are your words to back it up?

Readers will note that you, like so many other Fundamentalists, immediately resort to infantile ad hominems when you know, deep down in the reptile part of your brain, that you're on shaky ground, as your next words illustrate:


I'm going to save your response for future reference on other forums, as a classic rejoinder by a typical Fundamentalist.

What is particularly sad about your rhetoric is that it is exactly the same sort of thing engaged in by the many Jehovah's Witness apologists I've debated with over the years.


To anyname you said:


This illustrates how grossly defective your "reasoning" is. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant to the topics I brought up. You wanted to know them for one and only one reason: to be able to engage in the usual character attacks so beloved of Fundamentalists, so as to avoid addressing the actual facts.

AlanF

smur said:


My present tone is a direct result of being attacked. I do not find you similarly addressing my attackers.

Perhaps you did not read the posts, so let me remind you.

To my very first post on this forum, on page 14 of this thread (#3046203 - 06/28/06 12:26 AM), bigkahuna said:


My post was entirely objective and contained nothing by way of objectionable tone. What the Fundamentalist attackers found objectionable was the content, and they responded first with ad hominems.

Similarly, ForeverHers' very first comments about my postings (the 2nd is "#3046234 - 06/28/06 01:35 AM" on page 15 of this thread, and is completely objective) contained nothing but virulent personal attacks and nothing by way of actual information:


Even after I pointed out the hypocrisy of such attacks, the best that bigkahuna could muster was "Bwhahahahahaha".

And of course, mkeverydaycnt's very first response to me was to try to set up for the many ad hominems with which he has followed on:


So, smur, will you address these attackers as you've addressed me?

AlanF

rs0522 said:


But I've shown why your argument, which your rightly call a "quibble", is incorrect. Here are the main points we've discussed:


Your argument consists simply of "it is possible to argue otherwise". That is not actually an argument. You continued:


It is not me, but Christian Fundamentalists who argue that Jesus' was not speaking figuratively. I'm simply agreeing with them. This creates a serious problem for them either way.

Here is the point:


Jesus is said to have spoken the words in question while standing upon the Mount of Olives and telling his disciples to look over to the Temple complex. The locations are on the order of a mile apart, and are separated by the Kidron Valley. Here again is the Bible passage:


I suggest that you take a look at the links I gave in my post about Ernest Martin's claims. They contain photos, maps and diagrams that help put the geography in perspective.

We know that the Temple was not just one building, but a complex of buildings all surrounded by a single large wall. Indeed, the Temple complex was built so as to serve as a fort. When Jesus and his disciples viewed the whole structure from the Mount of Olives, it is quite obvious that the reference to "its buildings" (plural) and to "all these things" was not just to a single building, but to the entire complex. To argue different is not merely quibbling, but making excuses. And excuses are not arguments.


I disagree, as shown above. The devil is in the details, which your illustration of a quibbling argument (an excuse, actually) so nicely shows, since the quibble expressly ignores the exact wording of the Biblical passage.

AlanF

"This illustrates how grossly defective your "reasoning" is. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant to the topics I brought up. You wanted to know them for one and only one reason: to be able to engage in the usual character attacks so beloved of Fundamentalists, so as to avoid addressing the actual facts."



Alan... you are obviously a bright man... but you are still missing the point... the questions asked about why you were here are appropriate... this is a forum dedicated to recovery from infidelity. It does not matter that this post was about another topic.... it was important to understand what brought you here in the first place. You wouldn't walk into an AA meeting and debate this stuff without others questioning what you were doing there. And when you FAILED to answer the initial questions about why you were there... YOU opened the door to assumption. So save your bs response to the questions. Make sure that when you use my reply to show the typical response from a FC that you let them know that you came here without stating your reasons for being here. You are a bright man with no common sense... and in my eyes... the eyes of someone that has seen so much more of the "real" world that you could ever hope to encounter behind university walls... that makes you a little man using his intellect in a vain attempt to understand his surroundings. An is just using you as a tool to further her agenda discrediting all organized religion.
You posts have shown me nothing that would undermine the information provided.

Not in my opinion.


Again, not as far as I can tell. The antecedent reference is to the buildings, thus it is safe to assume that when Jesus referred to "all these things" He meant "all these buildings". If He had meant "the whole Temple Mount will be destroyed" He is more likely to have referred to it in the singular.

The Temple Mount, in other words, is singular. The buildings are plural, and are referred to in the plural. The Gospel writer even makes it clear that the disciples are drawing Jesus' attention, not to the whole complex, but to the buildings.

Otherwise the passage would run more like this:


Jesus' disciples draw His attention to one set of features of the Temple Mount, namely the buildings. Jesus then prophesies (quite correctly) that those buildings will be destroyed. There is nowhere where Jesus extends the reference to the whole Temple Mount; the fact that He continues to use the plural reference shows that He is making His prophecy only in reference to those features which His disciples pointed out, and not the whole thing.

:shrugs:

Doesn't have a lot to do with creationism, so perhaps we can agree to disagree.

Regards,
rs0522

Since we now have ad hominem attacks on both sides, everyone is hereby disqualified from debate. Please return to your corners and contemplate your navels. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I don't consider my posts as "attacks."

Just straightforward, obvious questions.

If they feel like attackes, that is interesting and telling information.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
WAT

Hi Wat,

Gotta preface this by the disclaimer: I don't know what this thread is really about.

I just saw your post and wanted to stop by and send my aloha. Every time I see a yatch (sp???. I think of you standing on board with your captain's hat bellowing orders from the helm. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Figured you wouldn't post on the thread I had been posting on re: breast implants. LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> r u blushing? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Have a nice weekend.

Aloha,
L.

And while we're OT on this OT thread, WAT, look for me to post an update on my poor sodden house on that thread where we talked about the icemaker. To bring it back to just OT, let me just say that I think that Neptune is pissed off at me. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

JJ,

U got flooded?

Btw, Neptune as in planet, person or washing machine. LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

L.

L - we got quite the rain here last week. I imagine J's Neptune comment is associated with that. Speaking of planets, just remember men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and lawyers are from Uranus. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

Heh. Yes, I got flooded. Four times in one week is a bit much for anyone, I would say. None of it awful like you see in the papers, but it's still a bit overwhelming. Now where did we put that thread about the home repairs....

Once your area gets declared a disaster area......keep checking the fema.gov website so you can apply for relief assistance. That might not fix it all but every little bit helps.

take care,
L.

mkeverydaycnt said:


No, they were not, in context. If various posters such as yourself, bigkahuna and ForeverHers FIRST dealt honestly and forthrightly with the CONTENT of my posts, and then asked for personal information about me as an addendum or as a side point, that would have been fine. But you guys SUBSTITUTED attacks on me personally for appropriate answers, and that is all you provided (except that you did provide a link to an argument by Ernest Martin, which I subsequently refuted). The other two guys have given nothing but excuses as to why they should not answer my challenges. Thus, the other two have engaged exclusively in ad hominems, and you have engaged mostly in ad hominems.


I'm well aware of that. But because ForeverHers branched out into an unrelated topic dear to him, you cannot logically complain when others follow suit. Unless, of course, you think that gross double standards are ok.


Of course it does, you moron! Are you so stupid that you don't know about staying on topic within a thread?


Only to you and your silly ilk, and only for the reasons I stated above -- to engage in irrelevant ad hominems.


If I were invited by a regular member, to deal with certain issues unrelated to AA, of course I would. And my response to their inquiries would depend entirely on their responses to what I said, exactly as I have done here.


This is so stereotypical of Fundamentalist "reasoning", whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or whatever, it's beyond amusing. It's appalling.

Once again you seem to think that the personal circumstances of whoever advances an argument necessarily has anything to with the content of the argument. I'll leave that to you to figure out why that's an assinine assumption.


When you DEMONSTRATE that I've given a BS response, you'll have a leg to stand on. So far, you're just blowing wind. And you know it.


Once again we see a pure ad hominem response.


Actually, all you've shown here is your gross stupidity by way of your amazing ability to jump to ridiculous conclusions.

I have never been an academic, except in my college days as an undergraduate, and later while getting a Masters Degree in my chosen field while I worked for a company that paid for my continuing education. Since then, more than 20 years later, I've worked in "the real world" exclusively. Indeed, these days, having advanced fairly well in my chosen field, the products I design go into numerous everyday devices such as computers, cell phones, computer hard drives, video games -- you name it, something that I or my colleagues design is there. And we all live quite ordinary everyday lives in the real world, which is quite different from the La-La-Lands inhabited by Fundamentalists of various flavors.


I'm sure you think that is a postive statement. I dare say you would say the same thing if confronted by the dreaded Round-Earth Theory.

Nevertheless, the fact that you can actually dismiss the fact that the argument given by the guy you gave a link to rejects simple biblical facts proves your hypocrisy -- you want to claim the Bible as your guide except where the Bible contradicts your preconceived notions. As a good Christian friend of mine has often said, Jehovah's Witnesses and most Christian Fundamentalists are pups from the same b i t c h.

AlanF

rs0522 said:


Ok, but I will demonstrate that various scholars disagree with your opinion.


Precisely my point! I have repeatedly spoken of the Temple complex, which obviously means not the Temple as a single building, but as a collection of buildings. One cannot read the New or Old Testaments, or other sources such as Josephus, and not understand this -- unless one is not thinking. A Handbook On The Gospel of Matthew (by Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine, UBS Handbook Series, United Bible Societies, New York, 1988, p. 730) states with regard to Matthew 24:1:


That the Temple was generally recognized as being, not just a single building, but an entire complex, including various inner and outer courtyards, is shown by the following information (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, 1910-1911, Volume XXVI, pp. 607-609):


In the same vein, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol. 3, Editor: Colin Brown, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, pp. 788-9) states:


Again in line with the above quotations, the respected Bible commentary Barnes' Notes (Matthew and Mark, 1884-85, p. 250) comments:


Finally I will present the words of Mark 13:1,2 (NIV):


This description is clearly in line with the above quotations, which show that what Jesus had in mind was not simply the one building of the inner temple, but the various buildings that comprised the entire Temple complex.


Not at all. As shown above, various commentators, based on the accounts in Matthew and Mark, agree that Jesus spoke of buildings (plural) rather than just one building (the inner temple), so that Jesus' words must include the entire Temple complex.


Precisely the point! A group of buildings is a complex, and therefore cannot refer to the one building that comprised the inner Temple.


An interesting speculation, but not one supported by the facts or the comments of Bible scholars.


Obviously you disagree with the scholars I've quoted above. It would be a good exercise for you to find scholarly support for your quibble.


No problem with that, except that I'm right. :-)

AlanF

::::::AN... thanks for the reply. I called Alan little man because he refused to say why he was here. You didn't say you invited him until later (and if you did I missed it).

MEDC, I didn't volunteer the information because it didn't seem relevent. Plus I had ceased posting - so I felt awkward to post again after I had left. It was only that this thread was about evolution and I am interested in the subject.

::::And frankly... any person that wants to come on here with the attitude that he has displayed (and An if you don't see it that is only because you are very anti religion due to your experience with the JW's) deserved to be knocked down a rung or two on his perch.

Well I wish Alan had penned his reply in soft tones for ya'll, then maybe you would have addressed what he said more. I would think there are some who enjoyed the exchanges though.

::::Alan seems to express that his views are the correct ones. Just because he says that the response to his insulting assessments about Christ were inaccurate does not make them so. There are people in this world a lot brighter than Alan who may not own 4000 books...and yet believe in God and creation.

No they are not brighter than Alan IMO. But I admit that there are very bright people who believe in creation. Same deal as bright people cheating on their spouse and rationalising it. Sometimes IQ is irrelevent when there's an emotional pay off. And that goes either way. It's really up to the individual to work out what they want to believe and try to be honest with themselves about whether they are shutting off to the facts in order to accommodate an emotional need.

:::I do not feel lucky to have him here due to his disrespectful tone and approach to this entire topic....frankly AN, and I have always appreciated your posts... but I feel you brought what you consider to be a "ringer" to this discussion to further your agenda against religion. That is my opinion.

Sure. I've talked with FH's many times in the past and felt pathetic in comparison to his knowledge of evolution. So I thought to myself; how good is FH's? I don't have the knowledge to judge whether what he is saying is reasonable - but I know of someone who does. I happen to trust Alan - and one thing particularly impressed me - the work he did dissecting the JWs book on Evolution - a doctorate in its own right! So I thought there would be no harm in asking Alan to take a look in here.

I've only got my intuition and experiences to guide me. I've done a great deal of travel, and met some really fascinating people. I lived in Hong Kong for 15 yrs where academics visited from all over the world on a regular basis. After a while you get pretty cagey about who you think's got it and who ain't. Alan is one of the most impressive people I've met.

:::::There are other things that lead to incredible ignorance too... such as placing a bit too much credibility in someone that has spent their life in academic pursuits... hiding behind university walls while becoming oh so brilliant....

Absolutely. As I said, I've observed academics for many years and I've come to realise that too many of them are what we now call wankademics, "down under". There's even that saying "those who can, do. those who can't, teach". I learned to be skeptical of everything as a result of my spell in the cult. That's not to say that there are not some brilliant people amongst academics - there most certainly are but too many of them are "also rans".

:::::or placing too much emphasis on ones own experience in a cult and using that to fuel an agenda in a disrespectful fashion. JMHO.

Well it's kinda impossible to remain objective after a life changing experience. try as we may, we are designed to learn from our mistakes - otherwise we wouldn't survive life's upheavals.

I can't quite see why you accuse me of fueling an agenda in a disrespectful fashion though. This thread invited a discussion about evolution. I invited a long time friend whom I believed could throw some light on an opposing POV. Obviously if I believed in creation I would not have invited him to comment. You seem to be saying that only people who believe in creation should be posting to this thread. And certainly they are the only one's allowed to be disrespectful.

One thing to ponder. Alan and my husband gave public talks, as Jehovah's Witnesses, promoting creation. My husband told me he could just as easily have given a talk in favor of evolution because even as a JW he knew he was ignoring facts that didn't fit the JW view on creation. Interesting to see how we can ignore information if it suits us.

AN

Worthatry, Im son of anyname. I started a post but it evolved into a book which Ill probably try and publish one day if theres a relavent market in a few years. What I will say is that I was misquoted by my mother. God bless her.

Worthatry I did say to you that I didn't understand what my son had said but it sounded like what you were saying. (no wonder there are so many religions - as people get mixed up)

:::::God bless her.

Cringe!

AN

To those of you who pray:

MB has a forum for Prayer Requests. I used to post there quite frequently, but my relationship with Christ has been ... uh... up and down... and I didn't always feel that I belonged... and lately, well... I hardly go there. But this morning, I did.

While ya'll have been debating about evolution vs. creationism, some PEOPLE have been hurting over on the Prayer board -- and some have received ZERO responses to their requests for prayer.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?