scripture, insects have for legs??? - Page 15

LOL! 

Those  details are too hard to think about, so they are never appreciated here. To my continued dismay! 

What was controlling about my post beetree?  Have you taken philosophy courses?  It's not quite as simple as you're supposing and you'll never get deep answers on a dog forum, even off topic, LOL.

"I would like to hear about this though, since you offered!"   LOL, be careful what you wish for!  If you think it's pertinent, let me know, it's quite a long and winding tale.  I don't know that I'd have time to put it all down in one day!  If that's really what you want, I will, but...

Travels I really do not see why Bee needs to know that kind of detail
about you (although she frequently asks for it).  WTH does anyone's
individual upbringing - religious or the opposite - 'prove' anyway ?

Bee, you have stated your opinions, you still haven't proved anything.
You think it likely that actual paper (printed OR written on, presumably)
was valued too highly for anybody to 'waste' it jotting down something 
they knew to be a fairy story.  HHhhmmmmmM !   How do you know
WHAT value was placed on that story at that time ?  If somebody was
cold-bloodedly considering 'selling' the story believed it would increase or consolidate
their own position of power, they might well decide it was worth the expense.
And that does not include other methods: the oral tradition;  writing on papyrus;
carving on slates and stones;  hell, even painting on cave walls.  Many methods
have been used to convey 'stories',  before and after the printing process was
invented.  And paper itself was created independently in more than one place
and time, sometimes from cheaper & more readily available sources than others.

Vk is on 3 different threds:  so ?  Seems to me Carlin and Shtal are always
right on each of them with him.

•  You are attempting to go all the way back to deepest question and discuss it philosophically, but it never ends that way. 
•  It's not too deep to understand that it must remain in the philosophical realm, because it's opinion at the innermost depths of ourselves.  We should remain more on the surface and choose our own circles in our personal lives.
• Your approach will solve nothing, beyond your own curiosity, which speaks more to your doubts than others'. 
• Read some philosophy books instead.

Travels, each of the above statements is about you thinking to tell me how I am motivated to discuss my chosen topic, the way I do! Besides the fact that you are not accurate in your predictions, which by the way is what they are, your final advice is just a feeble attempt to redirect with a dash of condescension thrown in for good measure. I would project that is you trying to establish some kind of cerebral authority over me. Tsk. Tsk. Such presumption takes well, gall, previously described by myself as having those dinosaur sized swinging sacs!

I already rose to your previous challenge, which you have not had the manners to acknowledge as of yet, where I outline specifically my intentions and how I was carrying them about. You have absolutely misjudged the why! 

---

I would love to hear your story, still. Guessing as to why, is more or less a futile endeavor for some, so I would just suggest those folks not bother!



 

Hundmutter, 

You have to remain within the known, factual historical timeline and use some good old fashioned reasoning on economics, for starters, to begin to puzzle out some of your questions. If you do that, it will start the weeding process for you; it is not arbitrary at all.

beetree, what I was trying to explain is that the philosophy falls by the wayside when religion enters the equation.  There is no open-mindedness in the dogmatic approach to a supreme being.  Once that dogma is ingrained, all else will be simply washed away.  That's why I said what I said and it's why I still find it pointless.  It will only attract argument, which is exactly why I steer away from "my own beliefs", if you will.  It's moot, it doesn't matter to anyone but me, it's personal and not up for debate, period.  Other than the fact that some of it would surprise you, I'm sure in other ways, you wouldn't be surprised at all.  But what will either of us gain by my sharing it with anyone?  I've pretty much stated that without evidence, I don't accept much and no, the evidence isn't up for debate.  I'll take any kind of evidence that could be used in a court of law and that's about it.  Cold, hard facts is what will change my mind in any direction and so far, I haven't see one iota.

But the bible says there is an earth and there is one, evidence?

This is getting surreal. I admit, my patience for humoring the wayward drift of this conversation is wearing thin. Travels, I can appreciate you have a personal code about how you feel about the subject of philosophy and religion. I don't know why you are doing that, it hasn't a place in what I am asking about. I just am going to refuse to repost for the third time, exactly and again, what I hoped to explore: a critique of the writing of the first Bibles, using the criteria of a historical, fact-only-based atheist POV to draw upon; What would that look like? 

(So far, it can not be a fairytale. There has to be more. IMHO)

Why does it then, become impossible to stay within the rules that have been spouted about as superior to all others, all of a sudden? Or rather, is it really, just because when I agreed to humor you and Hund, and vk4, etc., with your own rules— your baseless suspicions overflow, the same way as your baseless assertions do in your arguments. That seems to be what is becoming the most interesting, telling thing about this thread.

 

Bee, they have blinders on...they cannot see that they are guilty of what they accuse others of...intolerance.

The 3 stooges for sure; GSDtravels, VK4 and Hundmutter. IMO...