Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your kind words which are readily reciprocated. Appreciate your comments on the Alpha and the Omega.

I think the old thread has only a day or so left. If time permits, I will try for summary of ideas in-closure.

Trust we will have the opportunity discuss OLO issues again in the future.

Sincere regards,

O.

Oliver. That will do for now. Too much to soon will create over-load.

But someone here made a point that has had me thinking for quite some time and I think this needs to be done ASAP for the next generations to come.

Blending science and the bible( some parts of) together and make a hole new book. Its too late for the people that are already born now, but for those that have not been corrupted with this ridiculous concept of heaven and hell.
The new book can start very much the way the old one did.eg "In the beginning there was an all-mighty bang". in stead of god created the universe and so on. More facts of today's world instead the old text and fairy-tails. This new book will help mankind to ween away the old concepts and bring some "up to date" realities about what mankind has found out.
This in my view, would help the up and comings in ways, quite frankly, we today, just couldn't understand.

Just a thought.

EVO

Evo,

Greetings.

" 'In the beginning there was an all-mighty bang"', one hell of bang, there has been nothing like ever since time began after it." Footnote: "This theory is tentatively held open to and invites testing, alternative and criticism, to see if can be disproven or improve."

I have known for a long time the conflict between Science and Theism. I have tried History and more recently, linguistics, to guide Theists to consider the aforementiond. Christians adopt the aproach that Pilate was as if proconsul in 60s, when he was prefect a generation earlier. Heaps happened invoving the more zealous zealots. If adopts the adopts the A.D. calendar when Jesus was born, Herod was dead at the time of said birth.

Research has helped three years ago I though Jesus was a composite. Today I believe he was a real person, upon whom, accretions have been heaped.

I would never claim the moral aspects of are wrong, rather that these matters stand-alone.

Peace.

Philo,

Greetings friend.

From my Five Questions Post post and your excellent comments, fro your perspective, here. I see between Theists and non-Theists a conflict regarding the ontology of proofs, The form derive their gods from expression of their observation [intelligent design] or situation [war gods, agriculture gods etic]; whereas the latter seek tangibility and evidence. The former appears projective and the latter septical and evaluative. Each has different boundaries with regards what can be held upto "further" investigation. Epistemological the form sits perhaps, in the Anglo-West, after the Potestant Reformation, but before The Great Divergence [c.1760], the theory of knowledge evolved.

You might retort stating that the most technologically advanced country, the US, is quite religious. Yet, I posit, a disassociative state. Today, God and work are separated [Sorry Weber]. Moreover, many [no all] of the great thinkers like Gell-Mann are Theists.

Happiness.

Hi Pericles :) u know.. if OLO is good for nothing else, it must be worth something for the humor that is generated!

If you do your 'boaz'isms..I'll do my 'Pericles' ism.. and top of the list will be "Keeping of domestic pets is slavery" :)

On the "scholars" thing... this is a bit 'nuanced' but I know you have the capability to follow it.
Check out my last post to KT in that thread.. where the issue is not so much 'my scholar verses your scholar' but "what did the original source actually say" and the source in this case is the Hadith of Bukhari.

Kaysar claimed that 'the words in brackets are the opion of the translator' so..I went to considerable trouble to show which words were in brackets..which were not, and thus what is left which can be then factored in to the argument.

There are limits to how far I'll go with such debates, and I've pretty much reached that limit on that one. KatieO is doing a great job as Tag team partner :)

Honestly P, your lack of broad understanding of Islamic sources prevents you knowing when you are being given 'spin' by Kaysar.
I see it immediately, because I've done the reading

You might notice that I've pretty much avoided responding to the 'Dreyfus Case ' approach by Kaysar. "Filling the evidence file with useless irrelevant infomation" and I've stuck with the ONE issue I am trying to establish. "Prepubescent marriage"

The only thing which can change that discussion now, would be for Kaysar to show (and me to verify) that the hadith in question, does not say what 3 different Muslim web search sites all DO say.(word for word)

Trust me.. if I don't feel satisfied with the outcome, I'll goto an Arabic speaking secular professor if I have to with the original Bukhari text.

*digs heels in...determined look*

have a great day and WATCH that cofee :)

Are you sure Boaz?

>>If you do your 'boaz'isms..I'll do my 'Pericles' ism.. and top of the list will be "Keeping of domestic pets is slavery" :)<<

I kinda hoped it would have been "when did you stop beating your daughter?"

"You feel up lifted with your experiences of Jesus, and you think that was grand, wait until you throw this -religious monkey- off one's back and feel the real freedom that no god exists." - evolution

I guess James and Jesus would have needed to the same, rhyses, no, rhesus factor. Else, it would have pretty hard to deal with Mary's anti-bodies back in the first century. Come to think of it God, Jesus and Mary would all need to have had common a rhysus factor.

Does God have Hæmolytic Anæmia prevelant in Jewish populations?

O.