Boaz J *hugs*! I’m good yes. I saw R0bert still comments too. Hoping you & he are well and defending your home-stones… Looks like you are. Now please excuse me as I toss yours back into the ring for anther kick around in the name of what ever it is this time. Lol.

Examinator, Ok, yes, I read the thread… I read you basically mean keep it civil and that my condoning of DavidFs right to express his disgust is encouraging his personal issues with Christianity into a public stand on it? A bit like how getting overly emotional over something can dull ones stand and/or take the vigour from debate in general? Is that correct? If so I agree.

If it is any more complex it’s to much for me to bother to take in, or adjust too.. same with TRTL‘s preferences for a certain style of communication… I’m just here to talk, swap ideas. I loath jargon and modes. I like laymen terms as much as possible. It’s like the painters painting, only other painters get it. It’s abstraction and subtlety while maybe glorious is lost on everyone else… In a sense it’s elitist or so remote that it is intellectual masturbation and always meaningless to the majority.

However I do agree with keeping it civil and I didn’t mean to seem to support DavidF’s right to be *abusive* to Christians. I don’t support abuse. I’m more against suppression.

I believe for DavidF to have to suppress such obvious disgust is a violation of free speech. I actually believe we all need the right we have to stand up and say “I think this or that is utterly vile” protected.

I get to see what is under the façade of the ideal the person is offering, be it humanist Christian, which ever. Ex: If I had to choose out of everyone here to baby-sit my kid or run my lobby group… I want to know what in the person inspires their stand on life and less censorship lets me see this information.

Polycarp wrote:

Dear David...nothing quite warms my heart than when you make stuch beautiful statements as :

"My people wrote the Bible"

Indeed they did. But when you say they incorporated 'tribal legends'...well we diverge there.

Dear Polycarp,

Maybe you're right. We got Saul Bellow, Franz Kafka, Isaac Azimov and a lot of other imaginative writers. Maybe the stories in the Bible aren't tribal legends. Maybe those Jews way back then could write science fiction and fantasy as skillfully as they can today.

Meredith,
I find your comments intelligent and have something of value to say. Like you I like to read and swap ideas, I tend to favour conversations that have a basis in fact/logic and some direction (real meat.)
You are right in your interpretation of my post.
I was indeed saying play nice but also to say that if the topic is on public policy then personal biases have no place in the debate for all the reasons you listed.
I was giving my basis for that position. Some times the conclusion is meaningless without the reasoning that formed it.
Other wise it is a bit like I say my piece you say yours and neither of us have advanced understanding or had worthwhile dialogue.
I am not intending to be in it for intellectual gymnastics but for genuine understanding. I am like ‘Johnny 5’ in short circuit …input more input.
I am a predigious and eclectic reader for that purpose.

Dear Examinator,

Thanks very much. I really appreciate that… You kinda *kept calm* I noticed in a recent firey thread we both were in and I liked that about you.

What I find interesting (in genuine people) is that such opposite POV’s, opposite results etc, often have sprung from the same decent intention…

I'm still thinking Poly Carp hit it on head for this string when he asked *which set of biases do we give our kids minds too

"OLY....I'm aware of your view of history :) we disagree but that's ok. Rock sharpens Rock right?" - Polycarp

Dear Poly,

Yes, I believe the exchange of ideas and interpretations is valuable.

Herein, I have read the Bible. Just the same, the Dead Sea Scrolls, writers in the early centuries, later general historians (Gibbon), Toynbee, Wells & Quigley) and more specialists writers, such as Theiring, Mack and Armstong, present intersting plausible alternatives, surely. I don't think I am misinterpreting these historians visa~a~vis the theologian's posit. What do you see as flawed in history's history?

What concerns me is that Chistrian theists often appear at to focus on the Bible at the excusion of many seemingly valid sources. Yet, is there common ground for instance that Heli (Jacob in the Bible) is the grandfather of Jesus and that Jesus was trying extend OT teachings to the Gentiles, without the Gentiles having to adopt Jewish rites?

Would you consider as an alternaive Bible, the just the Septugint and the Gospels of Mark & Thomas only? This case would reflect the mission on selected OT teaching to the (lower ranked) Gentiles, and reflect the earliest gospels, albeit Thomas is not a true narrative. Catch is for theiests, inclusion of Thomas, would have the reader question the divinity of Jesus. Relatedly, Christ, means appointed to a royal house.

Hope else can I say it? Let try this approach: Remember, Water (Hydrogen & Oxygen) and electrolysis? I am trying to suggest Christian theists need to separate the first century CE and the events leading to the fourth century CE. Its all been heaped together.

Cheers,

Ol

Poly,

-Above-

1. Annointed, of course, not appointed :). But guest one can follow the other.

2. In recent weeks, I heard Cardinal Pell speak. What he had to say was interesting and highly relevant and excellent advice on how to live a good life. However, the humanism/morality of the Cardinal's message, I thought, stood alone, without the need of a God.

Oly.