zedvictor4

Considering the context of the discussion, I never chose to specify anything....BLM was already on the table.

I was just being realistic.

Watch the news and another few hundred covid related deaths is just another statistic....Your Mum or Dad dies and you are devastated....Doesn't matter what colour anyone is.

Doesn't stop one being respectful.

It's a fact of life...You care more about your family, than you do about you next door neighbour.

But always read posts in context, rather than picking out the juicy bits.

I would suggest that you already have a fixed opinion, on a great many things.

I don't think it's answers that you are looking for.

What?

You will need to be more specific.

Yes I fully understand that you attempt to interpret a variously translated and re-interpreted narrative...But you interpret a specific narrative (your chosen version), with a specific intention, and therefore not necessarily with an open mind.

As for the author/authors/compilers....Well, there's another can of 2000 year old worms.

Do you think that it will make a difference?

And what have you been practicing for?

Objectivity is a subjective assumption.....In my opinion.

And if we dispute the meaning of words, then anything might or might not mean anything....Take morality for example.

You have presented an interpretation of what is an unverifiable series, of what might or might not be, actual events.

As far as I am concerned, in this particular instance, Stephen has done the same. 

Which is my ongoing issue with yours and Stephens discourse.

Though the extent to which you will exaggerate interpretation to suit, varies according to how literally Stephen presents text.

I support Stephen because he shows the bible for what it is.......Maybe based upon real people and real places, though events are variously interpreted and sometimes contradictory.... Events are often embellished with fantasy, for the purposes of explanation, when knowledge and logic has been exhausted.

In short folklore or myth.......Woven into what is an already common and well established, basic GOD principle/creation hypothesis.

My interpretation:

The heavens and the Earth were created by a mystical man....And our specific representative of the mystical man,  just happens to be the 2 years old,  illegitimate son of an itinerant carpenter, who currently resides down the road in Bethlehem....But they're off to Egypt tomorrow because an angel told them to go.....(95% fiction, 5% fact and 100% up to you and anyone else, to make of it what you or they will)

Oh and his 2 and a bit years old mate John or Yohanan or whatever, is currently hiding in the hills with his mum...Because Herod and his soldiers are a bit stupid and a bit lacking and will give up in no time, as they are underfunded and do not have the manpower or resources to be able to deal with every speeding family on a donkey.

Typical underfunding of the Police....(Now where have I heard that before).

And interestingly at 2 and a bit, he's already J the B...No, not John the baby...The baptist...Amazing kid is little John....Especially as "baptist" is a relatively modern expression.

So confusing.

Which movie is that from?

And maybe I'm too moderate to understand the homo stuff.

And perhaps you think not.... But you rile easily....So take it from me, Bro D knows full well how to wield his schtick to best effect.

Always does.

Just made me think about the film, In Time....Good movie...Interesting concept.

Schtick does as schtick intends....And Bro D's schtick always seems to stimulate your G spot.

The most amusing satirical sketch I've seen in a long time...How do they keep a straight face...Brilliant actor in military uniform....LOL.

Mutual bafflement is the ongoing contention....Nothing really baffling about that.

Hi Tarik.

I don't like labels, but I am aware of them....And I'm also aware of their definition.

It's going in the right direction I suppose....And as a staging post might be a good move....But as an overspill for humanity, it's perhaps not such a good idea....That's more of a case of, we've messed things up here, now let's go and make a mess of Mars.

An atheist would say, I don't know.

I am an atheist because I do not know if a GOD does or does not exist.....Some might refer to this as agnosticism...But by definition agnostics believe/have faith...Whereas atheists  lack belief/have no faith....Atheists are not "convicted".

I think that you might be confusing Atheism and Agnosticism.

And you base a lot on definition...And so I would therefore suggest that "convicted" is wholly inappropriate....Unless you are suggesting that all theists and atheists have been found guilty of something.

See above for theistic back patting.

Though be careful....Mr E was admonished and temporarily cast into the wilderness for making such inappropriate suggestions.

Be certain of Stephens proclivities, before you start butt patting him.

True....But when the answer is unknowable, it's good to maintain a balance.

It might be suggested, that it wouldn't make any difference if everyone did agree about everything...But I personally think, that such a proposal doesn't take evolution and progress into consideration.

Yin and Yang.....Agreement and disagreement....Universal progress.

Trouble is...My Dad always told me to trust no one.

Well.... Planetary orbit and motion is dictated by universal laws...Which can be regarded as both natural design and reality, from which ever viewpoint you might adopt.

Fair enough.

And it's nice to think that other civilisations might be sending us signals.

Life in Wales is just fine.

Never see a Policeman.....Only sheep and the odd Syrian Jihadist.

Hi Trade.

Well, above you have just given a perfect example, of an exaggerated, personal interpretation.

Stephen just points out the literal discrepancies.

Whereas you take the literal discrepancies and turn them into something completely different to suit your theistic condition.

Kiss and discipline hey....I'm sure that there's a name for people, who are so inclined.

What do you get up to in the basement?

I think that it's fair to suggest that the words "Slavery" and "Voluntary" are not synonymous.

Mr E is easily impressed.

I would suggest, just the same old, same old difference of opinion and interpretation.

Hey....Am I spoiling the theists pat on the back party.

Allow me to pat you on the back Stephen.

Hopefully the majority of Americans are Tankmen and Tankwomen.

Yin and Yang is a good atheist principle....And also a good all round principle.

Not putting all ones eggs into one basket....And realising that there are always two sides to an argument.

Atheists do not deny a GOD principle, they simply are not conditioned to accept without unequivocal proof, a specific GOD hypothesis, such as the Christian version.

It just so happens that on this site most theists tend to have a Christian bent....Or hadn't you noticed?

Deconversion...Nice word...Though pre-set ideas tend to be what they became, rather than a deliberate alteration.  And the ritual splashing of water on a babies head is meaningless unless you back it up with ritual brainwashing........Sorry......I mean education.

Where is your actual proof that signals from the Proxima region are something other than interference.....Though it would be nice to think so, one would suggest that such mystical interpretations are a tad speculative....It might just be a microwave oven on the blink again.

And 982 is what it is not, and 33 is also what it is not, and the coccyx is debateable....And we usually only have 24 ribs.

And Kabbalah is also what it is not.

And we are either alone or we are not....It would depend a lot on whether life was a freak evolutionary event, or an inevitability dictated by natural law...I too, prefer to think the latter.

What you are saying, is that they all tell the story differently.

So you are actually agreeing with Stephen and I.

Arguing the toss over inconsistent details, just emphasises the point.

Nope...Read the question and it tells you the answer.

Yep, I understand and enjoy the concept.

But I always wonder why, as it is everywhere, is it referred to as "background"?

It is either current and here, or somewhere else in the background.

Good statement.

And are you referring to particle physics?

When you take everything down to a subatomic level...Everything is mostly nothing.....Sort of, the absurdity of matter.

Well, I personally love the fact that you exist...It currently brightens my winter mornings.

And at least you admit that you deny the truth, just fine.

And it would seem that all Adolph has left...sorry did I say Adolph....Slip of the tongue....All that Donald has left, is his Nazi hoodlums.

God bless America hey?

Obviously...A test is a test.

Me too.

Same old interpretation issues.

As written, but not as read.

And the short sighted soldiers were unable to spot the high speed donkey.....Whoooooooosh!.....It's just like a Road Runner cartoon, Wile E.

And barren is as barren does.....And all probably seduced and f**ked by the same smooth talking, vigorously bespermed,  wealthy wise man,  just passing through....Well that's my interpretation......I bet they thought that he was a GOD.

It can only be an accurate test if the testee gives accurate answers....Which is generally not the case....A. Because they do not know and B. Because they do not want to.

Though maybe the MBTI test builds this into its analysis....Which nonetheless, would still indicate a certain level of guesswork, and therefore inaccuracy.

Just another example of labelling really.

In respect of Job applicants....It is reckoned that most unsuccessful interviewees are subliminally rejected within 60 seconds of the commencement of an interview, irrespective of accompanying data.

Basically, whether or not a face fits the conditioned expectancies/bias of the interviewer/s.....Though it might be suggested that this is as good a test as any other....If not better.

So where is the "BACKGROUND"?

I always find this sort of theory interesting.

So 75 years ago, approximately 185,000 Americans had given up their lives in the fight against Nazism.

And now the Black Shirts prepare to march on Washington D.C.

Whose a PROUD BOY then?

There's certainty for you.

Things are only precise and accurate if you invent a system that makes things precise and accurate....But things are never perfectly accurate...Only reasonably so.

And so we pick up on things that are reasonably accurate and disregard everything else that isn't....If one wishes to make a point, one therefore needs to be selective.

Though, one is not disputing physical laws....Physical laws either are or are not.

Everybody is special,  apart from everybody.

Best to hide somewhere quiet and remote....You never know who actually thinks that you are an arsehole.

Grigory Rasputin.

Quite obviously, the contention that you and Stephen cannot resolve.

You might be certain that you can resolve it, but Stephen is certain that you cannot.

Because the text allows for more than one interpretation and therefore more than one outcome.

Short of you burning Stephen at the stake for heresy, I would suggest that agreed disagreement is the better option, as neither is going to convert the other.

Nice ontology

My continued position is that any interpretation of the bible is valid, given the uncertain nature of it's compilation and  contents.

Nonetheless a literal acceptance of the bible, throws up obvious contradictions, which Stephen is keen to point out.

So you and Stephen come to  differing conclusions, for differing reasons and neither of you is right and neither of you is wrong.

Better to agree to disagree and then move on to the next challenge....As this issue is clearly unresolvable.

Nope. An ardent puzzler would have instantly recognised a random set of numbers all with a value of less than 27....As I said you just do not understand basic puzzles, simply because you have not learned the methodology.

Which was what my original contention with I.Q. was all about....You either know something or you don't.

The second puzzle is so simple...Just ask a Greek.