What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[Nearly Sane]

How about a FEAR and DREAD CORNER lets look at the facts we go back 5 years,we could go back 10 and we see the same old names every day every week,every year,slapping each other on the back laughing at the bible telling each other how wrong it is,look at the mistakes in the bible,only nutters believe it.And that
really is your daily fix,but deep down you know it is true and you are in fear and dread as the seconds tick away doom laden  seconds that bring you nearer to your maker.No escape as certain as  breathing,And yet each day you kid each other it aint gonna happen. The fool  in his heart says there is no God.

               ~TW~

I forgive you

[~TW~]

Provide the evidence that backs up this ridiculous assertion.

No?

No evidence?

Oh well.

Look in the mirror.What we have is the atheist slap on the back club every day.Nothing goes bang,and all is well. 

 ~TW~

[ippy]

Demonstrating that being scholarly about the Sherlock Holmes books parallels the importance of being scholarly about the contents of the various religious manuals, not that importantt at all really, or that scholarly either.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Demonstrating that being scholarly about the Sherlock Holmes books parallels the importance of being scholarly about the contents of the various religious manuals, not that importantt at all really, or that scholarly either.

ippy

Not a scholarly set of contributions Ippy.
Where are your citations and you don't seem to move beyond assertion.
The writings in the bible and others are of depth psychological, moral, historical and anthropological value. That these great books span countries ,cultures and civilisation are the clue to our common humanity in a way that methodological materialist studies aren't. They show that the premise of humanism, is a religious discovery, since there is nothing in science to suggest human equality under anything.

Finally did you read what Sriram posted recently from the start of his holy book?
Only the hard of heart would fail to be moved by the poetry and philosophy in it.

[Khatru]

Blow a hole in this                                   http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html     your comments are twirpish
~TW~

Unfortunately for your myth, archaeology is no friend to the Bible.

You know archaeologists have found what's left of Troy in the ruins at Ilium?

Using your logic means that this is evidence that the whole pantheon of Greek gods are for real.

[~TW~]

Unfortunately for your myth, archaeology is no friend to the Bible.

You know archaeologists have found what's left of Troy in the ruins at Ilium?

Using your logic means that this is evidence that the whole pantheon of Greek gods are for real.

If YOU say so,but things you say are a bit not true.
~TW~

[floo]

If YOU say so,but things you say are a bit not true.
~TW~

POT and KETTLE, LOL!

[ippy]

Not a scholarly set of contributions Ippy.
Where are your citations and you don't seem to move beyond assertion.
The writings in the bible and others are of depth psychological, moral, historical and anthropological value. That these great books span countries ,cultures and civilisation are the clue to our common humanity in a way that methodological materialist studies aren't. They show that the premise of humanism, is a religious discovery, since there is nothing in science to suggest human equality under anything.

Finally did you read what Sriram posted recently from the start of his holy book?

Only the hard of heart would fail to be moved by the poetry and philosophy in it.

Easy Vlad, there's no evidence that would support the god idea and that's about all I need to say.

I'll have a read of Sriram's post Vlad Where is it?

ippy

[Shaker]

Here, ippy: http://goo.gl/zuzw8N

[Brownie]

Demonstrating that being scholarly about the Sherlock Holmes books parallels the importance of being scholarly about the contents of the various religious manuals, not that importantt at all really, or that scholarly either.

ippy

You don't have to do it if you don't want to Ippy.

Studying anything can be scholarly, Shakespeare and Chaucer for example.   Why not religious works?  They are interesting (if you are interested), full of fascinating characters, lots of big words.  Some bits are difficult to understand which necessitate a reasonable level of Comprehension.  Plenty of 'compare and contrast' questions.
RE used to be a good extra 'O' level too  .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

Studying anything can be scholarly, Shakespeare and Chaucer for example.   Why not religious works?  They are interesting (if you are interested), full of fascinating characters, lots of big words.  Some bits are difficult to understand which necessitate a reasonable level of Comprehension.  Plenty of 'compare and contrast' questions.

RE used to be a good extra 'O' level too  .

All of which is fine and dandy. The problem though comes when some also claim that the central tenets - ie, the divine bits - are also amenable to scholarly study.

If, say, I claimed to have a BMW on my drive and a dragon in the garage, no doubt some degree of study would confirm or otherwise the first part of the claim, but there's no scholarly way to discuss the latter. T(roll)W's "argument" re archaeology is essentially, "see, they've confirmed the BMW therefore the dragon bit must be true too", which is about as far as his reasoning ability extends.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Brownie,

All of which is fine and dandy. The problem though comes when some also claim that the central tenets - ie, the divine bits - are also amenable to scholarly study.

If, say, I claimed to have a BMW on my drive and a dragon in the garage, no doubt some degree of study would confirm or otherwise the first part of the claim, but there's no scholarly way to discuss the latter. T(roll)W's "argument" re archaeology is essentially, "see, they've confirmed the BMW therefore the dragon bit must be true too", which is about as far as his reasoning ability extends.

I disagree since God straddles issues of causation, morality, ontological necessity and a whole host of philosophical issues where as your dragon (how is the old boy?) doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy Vlad, there's no evidence that would support the god idea and that's about all I need to say.

I'll have a read of Sriram's post Vlad Where is it?

ippy

Morality and purpose since any humanist versions of those are arrant arse pull.

[Stranger]

I disagree since God straddles issues of causation, morality, ontological necessity and a whole host of philosophical issues...

All of which you seem totally unable to massage into anything remotely like a case for believing in said "God"...

[Rhiannon]

Morality and purpose since any humanist versions of those are arrant arse pull.

And you base this shameful piece of smug gittery on what, exactly?

[Brownie]

I disagree since God straddles issues of causation, morality, ontological necessity and a whole host of philosophical issues where as your dragon (how is the old boy?) doesn't.

I like the idea of a dragon too, why shouldn't he have one?  May I just say, I have a Porsche.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

And you base this shameful piece of smug gittery on what, exactly?

Ignorance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I like the idea of a dragon too, why shouldn't you have one?  May I just say, I have a Porsche.

Reminds me of the only time I saw the "My other car is a Porsche" bumper sticker and it was funny - because it was on a Porsche.

Trollboy incidentally has just blundered into the reification fallacy - just assume "God" to be real and then discuss what "He" has to say about morality etc. The point though remains: there's no scholarly way to examine the supposed divinity of gods. Ideas in a book about morality etc on the other hand stand or fall on their merit, as do ideas about morality in any other books.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you base this shameful piece of smug gittery on what, exactly?

Less of the smug thank you.......

Er, only about 2500 years worf of filosofy, that's all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Brownie,

Reminds me of the only time I saw the "My other car is a Porsche" bumper sticker and it was funny - because it was on a Porsche.

Trollboy incidentally has just blundered into the reification fallacy - just assume "God" to be real and then discuss what "He" has to say about morality etc. The point though remains: there's no scholarly way to examine the supposed divinity of gods. Ideas in a book about morality etc on the other hand stand or fall on their merit, as do ideas about morality in any other books.

No I'm just saying God pops up in lots of areas of philosophy which we all know troubles any old intellectual totalitarian.

[Shaker]

Less of the smug thank you.......

Er, only about 2500 years worf of filosofy, that's all.

That's a long time for people to add nothing to a discussion save their preferred form of Polyfilla.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

That's a long time for people to add nothing to a discussion save their preferred form of Polyfilla.

It's also untrue - moral philosophy doesn't think it necessary for morality to be universally ordained to be valid (unless that is you're credulous enough actually to think William Lane Craig to be a moral philosopher).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a long time for people to add nothing to a discussion save their preferred form of Polyfilla.

No Polyfilla is someone who couldn't get into a university in the seventies.

[~TW~]

So shall we conclude God is the I AM 6 day creation is good and evolution case not proved.

~TW~

[Shaker]

So shall we conclude God is the I AM 6 day creation is good and evolution case not proved.

~TW~

No.