Dear Boaz

I fear that I have been badly explaining myself. I'm alleging that cliff wilson privileges his own point of view. That is he demands more evidence from others who hold an alternate opinion than he would think fair if they demanded it of him. I've seen this before, people who demand 100% proof before they'll accept that their wrong but argue for their position on the basis that SOME evidence supports it.

On your point about some scholars not being totally honest, I couldn't agree more. Although this is not restricted solely to scholars. For instance see the Answers in Genesis group who quite regularly create whatever evidence is required.

Now because of your generous admission here's one from myself. While most traditionalist biblical scholars would agree that evidence for the invasion of Israel by Joshua is sorely lacking they would argue that some invasions left little to no evidence of the event (e.g. the Norman invasion of England). They would also use the phrase that was pounded into my head by my lecturers "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence). And they look forward to the day that evidence will come to light that will support the biblical account.

To me however & a large number of archaeologists, some of whom have made working at sites like Ai & Jericho their life's work, this is an exercise in futility. I compare it to this: at one point the Roman Catholic Church held that the sun went round the Earth. In Gallilleo's trial they even quoted scripture. I'm sure that when it became more & more certain that the Sun, not the Earth, was the centre of the solar system some clerics looked forward to the day when evidence would be found that proved their view of scipture right. It didn't happen & now most christians would interpret verses that speak of the sun going round the Earth in a poetic manner.

I wish you well Boaz
Bosk

Boazdavid you have missed the point in your haste to share your feelings about my posts.

BIGOTRY
There are plenty of people who possess thoroughly obnoxious, absurdly off-the-mark negative stereotypical views about others (other races, cultures, religion, gender, sexuality, lifestyle; other other other). Fortunately some have been touched by enough good manners, civility, respect-for-privacy or plain old self-preserving don't-offend-lest-they-offend-back insight - to resist the impulse to impose their opinions on others.

I have opinions and beliefs I expect some others would find odious. Unlike some, I don't demand they conform with my lifestyle or agree with me and accept as truth the books I may choose to nominate as revealing some kind of truth.

It is not difference of opinion or the expression of views to which I take offense. Read my posts instead of kneejerking with cheap, childish, sarcastic shots boazdavid - it is the IMPOSITION of opinions, laws, moral and culture wars with the intention of enforcing a strict lifestyle code - that I find deeply offensive.

Like for instance, people, who imagine their entitlement and then seek (eg. through influencing law making) to prevent particular combinations and kinds of people from marrying, migrating, having (or not having) children, etc. I call that bigotry.

BEING RIGID
Boaz, you of all post-ers comment on my "noticably rigid position"..... <pause here for mirthless chuckle>

I have a commitment to such principles as live-and-let-live and do-no-harm and respecting the autonomy of individuals. A pretty rigid commitment to those things too, I hope. And nothing I have read here has influenced me to think that I should instead accept the imposition of some people's allegedly biblically based positions on various issues (albeit that there's disagreement as to interpretation anyway), or influenced me to assume I am just as entitled to be an imposer as impose-ee..... I won't even pretend I was amenable to trading my values when I first posted here bd. Did you? Rigid? For failing to agree with you? OK, then yep, call me rigid.

EARTHWORMS?
Don't know much about them bd, but I understand they're very good with bullsh**

Bosk,

I too have an Honurs in logic and a Masters in Biblical Studies and Theology. I can read the original texts in both Hebrew and Greek. I can also struggle through most Latin texts. My studies in the original texts have led me to my conclusions not "fundie" textbooks. I put it to you that your views are simply regurgitations of "liberal" textbooks. For example, your comments regarding the destruction of Jericho & AI are the standard liberal objections to Biblical history. However, you must know that such objection are based on a disputed and problematic chronology resulting from the inherent difficulties of constructing a Hebrew chronology based on Egyptian chronologies. You should check out Ken Kitchen's (Emeritus Professor of Egyptology and Archaeology, University of Liverpool) book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".

I agree with Pez - your argue is siply that "fundies" are always wrong and "liberals" are always right.

You were foolish enough to uncritically accept everything "fundies" told you before, and now you uncritically accept everything liberals tell you.

Oliver,

Not entirely sure what you are getting at. The Greeks philosophers rejected relativistic teaching. They held to the correspondence view, or to paraphrase Aristotle: "If you say it is and it is, or if you say it isn't and it isn't - thats true. If you say it is and it isn't, or if you say it isn't and it is - thats false."
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Any "contradictions" in Scripture are only "apparent" ones and can be easily resolved if you bother to do your homework. There are no actual contradictions.

Why should I believe anything Abelard says?

Fiona dear.... Look at bosk, and learn :)
See how well we are getting along in our differences ? No name calling, no 'forcing', not 'turn or burn', no "your Infantile" just a steady working through issues.

What you miss also, in the field of culture, law and society is that the existence of a law, then the repealing of that law, thru political activism, is quite ok for you, (when its a law you don't like) but the RE-imposition of such laws by the SAME democratic means is suddenly anathema to you and those members of the community driving that agenda who well may be a majority, are now in your mind "bigoted, narrow minded, infantile etc etc etc". The fairness of this somehow escapes me.

I think if we did a word analysis of your posts and mine, (Calling TIMKINS)we would discover a considerable number of ad hominims and personal attacks from you to me, but from me its pretty much the issues. I never did like to play the man in footy. I think the most forceful I've used is "you are rigid" which seems reasonable to me based on the evidence.

I'm rigid too, and entitled to be. I dont recall any of my posts saying YOU MUST follow this or that. I have explained the claims of Christ, but not DEMANDED you obey them. So, where is all this 'you want to impose, you demand, you want to force" coming from ? perhaps in your own mind ? :) With the exception of course, to any reference to legislative change for which I democratically do not apologise.

BOSK as for Cliff, I know he is human :) and fallable. I'll avoid getting into a 'my scholar can kick your scholar's butt' thing. In fact he always calls me by my COUSIN'S name, but I'm getting him trained ..gradually.

FIONA again, wait till I get started on the 'autonomy of women' and what they should wear .. if I irritate you now, I'll send u off the deep end with my views there :)

[Post deleted for flaming. Poster has been suspended for 24 hours]

Aslan,

Thanks for your reply and reference, which I will read with interest.

You asked, consider this statement: “ ‘It is always wrong to torture babies for fun’ ”. Is the sentence a “true statement” or “a construct”?

I would say it is a statement of opinion, with which, many people including me would agree. A psychopath might hold the statement to be false. Right and wrong are very spurious for the creation of refutable constructs.

I was referring to one particular style of Greek dialogue, as previously described. It you have a copy of Conjectures and Refutations (Karl Popper) on your bookshelf, have a look at Chapter 14, the dialogue between Theaetetus and Socrates. The naïve learner is “lead’ by the master. I feel Abelard took issue with this form of construction, because the learner is too passive in the process of learning. Instead, we should always question.

You shouldn’t believe Abelard or the writers of the gospels. You should question all. Thus, ironically and paradoxically, Abelard’s advice would apply to himself. Here, we are left with the situation, wherein, we build propositions, walls, if you like. Having built the wall, we, ourselves, test for the loose brick. Here, Nobel Laureate, Sir John Carew Eccles, states, “I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success”