tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2713958684337568547..comments2024-03-28T08:35:59.048-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Philosocial Profundity and the BibleJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-76555592104889903822009-12-20T09:14:20.078-08:002009-12-20T09:14:20.078-08:00you really need to pump up your knowledge base Lor...you really need to pump up your knowledge base Loren. If you can't accept hat I know what I'm talking about go talk some courses and come up to speed. I know what I'm talking about it, it common knowledge.<br /><br />learn something.<br /><br />As for the Zoroastrian thing, what influenced did Zoroastrianism have on Western Civilization? Did you not read the word "Western" whichI corrected you on twice.<br /><br />the WEst<br /> in he West<br />western understand? we don't live Persia.<br /><br />Toynbee is a an authority do look him up.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27764540925587695102009-12-19T14:36:13.706-08:002009-12-19T14:36:13.706-08:00From that Wikipedia article,
Frashokereti (frašō....From that Wikipedia article,<br /><br /><i>Frashokereti (frašō.kərəti) is the Avestan language term for the Zoroastrian doctrine of a final renovation of the universe, when evil will be destroyed, and everything else will be then in perfect unity with Ahura Mazda. The term probably means "making wonderful, excellent".</i><br /><br />Not exactly eternal recurrence, it must be said.<br /><br />Furthermore, your yelling "Common knowledge!" about dubious propositions suggests intellectual laziness.<br /><br />One could equally well argue that the Bible supports eternal recurrence. Eccl 1:9 states<br /><br /><i>What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.</i><br /><br />One can then interpret the Bible's creation stories and eschatology as parts of the great cycle.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54178215585683258162009-12-19T11:22:11.360-08:002009-12-19T11:22:11.360-08:00Metacrock, waving around the Septuagint without an...Metacrock, waving around the Septuagint without analyzing the original Hebrew is translation-shopping.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's crazy. you don't know how shit about histoircal critical methods do you? do you? do yOU? the Hebverw I said is the wrod for God = beign. did not you figure that out?<br /><br />stop your unscholarly pathetic little undergraduate slang terms for ignorance and face the fact that I know more than you do. I know more than you!<br /><br />you don't know this, I do!<br /><br />The Hebrwe translates I am that I am and that obviously has to do with being. I' am and to be are the same concept.</b><br /><br />Furthermore, the most straightforward translation of the Septuagint's Greek (ho ôn) is "the being", definite article and all. Meaning that God is a discrete entity, like everything else.<br /><br /><b>Obviously you do not know Greek. you do not know that. I studied Greek three and a half years with a prof form yale. you dnl't know this I do.<br /><br />even so the way you read it fits my argument fine I could argue it that way. you know nothing. you are not even thinking about what the words mean are you?</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Furthermore, Metacrock, what gives you the idea that all non-Christians had believed in eternal recurrence of everything?<br /><br /><br /><b>that is just plain fucking stupidity. if you don't know that. that's just common knowledge Obviously you have never read Nietzsche. You have never Champbell or Eliade have you?<br /><br />anyone with a decent amount of liberal arts past the sophomore level should know this.</b><br /><br /><br />The Zoroastrians had imagined an end of the world long before Jesus Christ was born: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frashokereti<br /><br /><b>they weren't in the West where they? Toybee was talking about Western civlization right?<br /><br />besides you are wrong about it. the did have an eternal return. they had end of the world but it was not eschatology. It was part of the return.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49208243865652297122009-12-19T11:16:10.685-08:002009-12-19T11:16:10.685-08:00i seem to have lost someone's comment. I appre...i seem to have lost someone's comment. I appreved it but it's not here. so I don't know. He was named bossmanham.<br /><br />well he doesn't know Greek. He was saying the the definite article should make it "the being" but if he knew Greek better he would know that the definite article often conveys the idea of a quality. so "the being" would be awkward interlinear way but "being itself" or "being" would be the elegant sophisticated way.<br /><br />the term "translation shopping" is used by ignorant people who have not studied history or languages. I said it's indication of the ideas of the translators. that's exactly hat it is.<br /><br />I also said the original Hebrew word for God convnyes the idea of being that's an argument that's based upon any particular translation.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16849049964162103082009-12-18T22:18:13.617-08:002009-12-18T22:18:13.617-08:00Metacrock, waving around the Septuagint without an...Metacrock, waving around the Septuagint without analyzing the original Hebrew is translation-shopping.<br /><br />Furthermore, the most straightforward translation of the Septuagint's Greek (ho ôn) is "the being", definite article and all. Meaning that God is a discrete entity, like everything else.<br /><br />Furthermore, Metacrock, what gives you the idea that all non-Christians had believed in eternal recurrence of everything?<br /><br />The Zoroastrians had imagined an end of the world long before Jesus Christ was born: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrashokeretiLorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25613820511632164712009-12-18T18:22:39.086-08:002009-12-18T18:22:39.086-08:00Adren@line is right - there isn't much much ph...Adren@line is right - there isn't much much philosophical depth in most of the Bible, though the opening of the Gospel of John does get a bit metaphysical.<br /><br /><b>No, you are ignorant like he is. I just demonstrated three prfundies and that's just the tip of the ice berg. you don't know what profound is because you don't the history of ideas or philosohpy. You are not well read, like most atheists.</b><br /><br />Metacrock, your interpretation of Exodus 3:18 would make a fundie proud -- an inverted pyramid of inference from some translation-shopping.<br /><br /><br /><b>you are really quite dense. Translators are humans. We see their view point from their translations. That the interdepartmental guys translated that in that way means they understood it that way.<br /><br />I did not say that's the original reading, although since the word for God is being it stands to reason the original authors did see it that way.</b><br /><br />I'm not familiar with Arnold Toynbee's theories of historical cycles, but I've seen him criticized for projecting his theories onto history.<br /><br /><b>since you don't know anything about him you didn't know what they are referring to. To just bland out everything say merely some idiotic made a criticism that you don't even understand is sheer stupidity. I also covered that in my article didn't I? yea.</b><br /><br />In any case, Xianity did *not* invent the idea of progress. It's a modern idea, a result of progress becoming glaringly evident as it speeded up over the last few centuries. Metacrock, you seem so accustomed to the idea that truth is some sort of revelation that you don't really seem to accept that important truths can be derived empirically.<br /><br /><br /><b>did I say Christianity invented progress? what did I say? I said it makes it possible didn't I? who did invent it sweetie an you tell me that? when did they invent it? where did they get the idea?</b><br /><br />I recall from somewhere that most premodern histories fit a pattern of (1) gods and creation, (2) heroes, and (3) ordinary people, without any clear dividing line between them. The idea of lowly origins is a modern one, just like the idea of progress. One can find that in Chinese, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman traditional histories -- and in the Bible.<br /><br /><br /><b>now what did I say Christian eschatology frees us from? ;God's and heros and the same things happening all the time, remember something like that?</b><br /><br />Finally, Metacrock, do you honestly think that you could have gotten away with denying Hell back in those supposed Good Old Days, Middle Ages?<br /><br /><br /><b>can you ever try to argue fairly? what possible difference could that make to the facts of the text actually tells us? hmmm? why do atheists always think argument from popularity is true when it contraindicates a christain to be a fundie? </b><br /><br /> Or with disrespecting saints or with considering the Pope an impostor or ...<br /><br /><br /><b>why don't you prove your ignorant prattle for a change. document to me how many people were actually killed for not believing the bible, how me the docs?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19612774853354637232009-12-18T09:01:37.637-08:002009-12-18T09:01:37.637-08:00Adren@line is right - there isn't much much ph...Adren@line is right - there isn't much much philosophical depth in most of the Bible, though the opening of the Gospel of John does get a bit metaphysical.<br /><br />Metacrock, your interpretation of Exodus 3:18 would make a fundie proud -- an inverted pyramid of inference from some translation-shopping.<br /><br />I'm not familiar with Arnold Toynbee's theories of historical cycles, but I've seen him criticized for projecting his theories onto history.<br /><br />In any case, Xianity did *not* invent the idea of progress. It's a modern idea, a result of progress becoming glaringly evident as it speeded up over the last few centuries. Metacrock, you seem so accustomed to the idea that truth is some sort of revelation that you don't really seem to accept that important truths can be derived empirically.<br /><br />I recall from somewhere that most premodern histories fit a pattern of (1) gods and creation, (2) heroes, and (3) ordinary people, without any clear dividing line between them. The idea of lowly origins is a modern one, just like the idea of progress. One can find that in Chinese, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman traditional histories -- and in the Bible.<br /><br />Finally, Metacrock, do you honestly think that you could have gotten away with denying Hell back in those supposed Good Old Days, Middle Ages? Or with disrespecting saints or with considering the Pope an impostor or ...Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14635344316271961232009-12-17T07:48:52.329-08:002009-12-17T07:48:52.329-08:00That's a very good point. Really I have my dou...That's a very good point. Really I have my doubt that that guy I quoted at the top would know profound if he saw it. I don't believe he's a Hindu either, he doesn't think like any Hindu I know. His knowledge of it is like someone getting answers on Wikipedia. But he does claim to be a Hindu. He probably doesn't have the background in philosophy to know what's profound in philosophy anyway.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63746431174486649842009-12-16T23:29:16.596-08:002009-12-16T23:29:16.596-08:00Fascinating as always, Metacrock.
Isn't it in...Fascinating as always, Metacrock.<br /><br />Isn't it interesting how people can be so blinded by contempt that they will seek to turn something to be proud of (like the Church's active preservation of ancient manuscripts and the scholarship of Thomas Aquinas) into a point of disgrace?<br /><br />Tragic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com