Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

If you trace the word back through Middle French théorie, to the Late Latin theōria, back to the Ancient Greek θεωρία ‎(theōría, “contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at”), and earlier θεωρέω ‎(theōréō, “I look at, view, consider, examine”), originally θεωρός ‎(theōrós, “spectator”), from θέα ‎(théa, “a view”) + ὁράω ‎(horáō, “I see,look”). But one may hardly expect a barbarian (βάρβαρος, bárbaros, '"non-Greek speaking, also foreign or strange”) like yourself to know this.

So I am a barbarian now...?

"A barbarian is a human who is perceived to be either uncivilized or primitive. The designation is usually applied as generalization based on a popular stereotype; barbarians can be any member of a nation judged by some to be less civilised or orderly (such as a tribal society), but may also be part of a certain "primitive" cultural group (such as nomads) or social class (such as bandits) both within and outside one's own nation." (Wiki)

Nice. What is it that they say about those who have to elevate themselves by putting others down?
I think your comment says way more about you than it does about me.

I liked this added bit off Wiki too......

"Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, (how convenient) if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. (or interpretation of evidence that gives the impression that it is strong) For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. (or even impossible....like science cannot prove what happened 30 billion years ago, so it will speculate and act as if it's interpretation of "evidence" is indisputable) As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." (or "distinct possibilities" given the interpretations they give to their evidence) These predictions can be tested at a later time, (in the hope that people will forget that science could not test them at present and probably never will) and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory." (But in the meantime scientists will bluster about the fact that it must all be true because they say so)

Yeah, we know about theories. They start off as hypotheses.....but magically turn into "scientific theories" if enough notable people misinterpret the evidence and get the masses to believe it purely by the power of suggestion.

You guys.......

 

[Darkstorn]

If you go back to your first responses to me.....all I detected was hostility. Nothing new, just more of the same stuff that has already been rehashed to death. I have no desire to respond to more bad attitudes on this thread than I am already dealing with.
It wasn't personal, just overkill....ya know.

Again, in English: You think i'm acting with hostility, so you decide to ignore all the actual points and arguments i make in favor of focusing on the meaningless parts of my posts?

I hold your attitude negative.

No negativity huh? If all I post is drivel, then why bother commenting as if these points haven't already been covered ad nauseum?

I said "this drivel". Not all you post is drivel. Even though i do think that all you post is essentially drivel.

You're STILL ignoring ALL the points i made. You're now arguing about my debating methods, and accusing me of being negative. You are not attacking my argument at all, you are trying to attack me...

My smileys are my body language. They add emotions that words can't. They lighten things up. I love them.

In a post where you call me negative, you use your "body language" to give me the finger: You just said there they are your body language. You made a post accusing me of being negative, and you topped it off with a smiley that's giving me the finger.

I just think it's hypocritical.

know they annoy the heck out of some people.....they'll just have to get over it.

I actually think they lower the quality of your posts. Traditionally smileys are used to distinguish sarcasm / jokes from actual serious posts... So the first thought in my head when i see you spam them: You're not able to make a coherent, serious point.

Sorry that you take things way too personally. No one with delicate sensitivities should be posting on these forums.
I address things as they take my fancy or as I see a need to respond. Again...it isn't personal.

I told you that i'm sorry for what I did, not that i'm bothered by your posts. I'm not sure you get my "delicate sensitivities" from. You are not able to actually make me even mildly annoyed with this level of debating.

Do you view the conversations and debates this forum as a contest then? I see it as a place to voice an opinion. If it gets personal, then it all just melts down to egos and bad attitudes, neither of which accomplishes much at all IMO.

I'll let others make the judgement on this one: You're trying to get into personalities with this post. Not one of your words actually answer to any of the points i make on my previous posts. ALL you do is talk about me.

The readers here can make up their own minds.

I know. Exactly why i don't have much confidence in your ability to convince anyone... Your points are barely even complete, coherent points. Most of the time they're based on willful ignorance of the reality around you, or simply willful ignorance of the posts you are quoting.

But yes, the readers can make up their own minds. That's what i did tell you, yes. I agree. The posts will speak for themselves, yes?

/E: It would be more honest for you to actually reply to the actual arguments i made. Claiming that they are negative doesn't really remove this fact: You failed to reply to them, so it looks a bit like you failing to reply to them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you hear yourself? If there is an all powerful Creator who can manipulate energy to create matter and then to form all life from the same basic raw materials, what would we expect to see?

We would not expect to see anything in particular.

An omniscient, omnipotent creator would not be constrained in any way. The organisms could be hollow. They would not need to be water based, or to seek nutrition.

But if they arose naturalistically through abiogenesis and biological evolution, we would expect to find commonalities and nested hierarchies throughout the tree of life.

Creationism allows for an essentially unlimited number of arrangements of physical reality, but naturalistic alternatives are constrained to specific presentations that are actually found in nature. The stratification of fossils as we find them would be a second such example.

That's a powerful argument for naturalistic explanations. It says that if idea A is correct, which allows for countless realities that we might discover, and that if idea B is correct, which allows for only one configuration to be discovered, and we keep finding the one required by idea B, we are justified in considering idea B more likely correct.

In fact, if idea A is correct, which in this case is creationism, we can conclude that the intelligent designer involved intended to make it appear to us as if life arose and diversified naturalistically.

 

[Jose Fly]

I just love it when you guys resort to these tactics.....it just shows how empty your arsenal really is.

Emotional blackmail from you now?

......attempts to imply that I am some poor pathetic, ignorant soul held prisoner by my beliefs?

Deeje, that sort of thing isn't something we have to "resort to" or "imply". You told us those things yourself.

You told us that if you were to compromise on this issue your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses would treat you like "rotten fruit" and someone who was "spreading poison". You told us how that would cause you to lose all meaning and purpose to your life.

Did you seriously expect everyone to just forget all that and act like it's not a major factor in this debate? I mean, I don't care what the subject is, as soon as someone indicates that changing their mind would lead to all those social and emotional consequences, nothing else really matters in the discussion, does it?

You're basically telling us "My entire life would fall apart and I would lose most of my friends and family if I were to ever recognize your position as valid. But that's no big deal. I can debate the subject objectively and rationally."

Come on Deeje......don't insult our intelligence here.

 

[Jose Fly]

A lot bigger than you think. (1 John 5:19)

Exactly.....for you this about religion and all that comes with it. You associate evolution with "the dark one" (Satan), which means you certainly don't want to be on that side.

And it also means that any discussion of evolution with you that doesn't start by addressing your religion is bound to be a waste of time.

 

[savagewind]

Exactly.....for you this about religion and all that comes with it. You associate evolution with "the dark one" (Satan), which means you certainly don't want to be on that side.

And it also means that any discussion of evolution with you that doesn't start by addressing your religion is bound to be a waste of time.

Perfect irony. I have liked your posts on this thread best.
People might think that there are so many views at the thread because they are interested in deciding about it all.
I shall say, and I might be wrong, that the views are to witness your common sense. In a world gone stark raving mad, it is refreshing to see that common sense has not died.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, all from the same stuff ... "all powerful Creator

So I am a barbarian now...?

"A barbarian is a human who is perceived to be either uncivilized or primitive. The designation is usually applied as generalization based on a popular stereotype; barbarians can be any member of a nation judged by some to be less civilised or orderly (such as a tribal society), but may also be part of a certain "primitive" cultural group (such as nomads) or social class (such as bandits) both within and outside one's own nation." (Wiki)

Nice. What is it that they say about those who have to elevate themselves by putting others down?
I think your comment says way more about you than it does about me.

I liked this added bit off Wiki too......

"Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, (how convenient) if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. (or interpretation of evidence that gives the impression that it is strong) For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. (or even impossible....like science cannot prove what happened 30 billion years ago, so it will speculate and act as if it's interpretation of "evidence" is indisputable) As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." (or "distinct possibilities" given the interpretations they give to their evidence) These predictions can be tested at a later time, (in the hope that people will forget that science could not test them at present and probably never will) and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory." (But in the meantime scientists will bluster about the fact that it must all be true because they say so)

Yeah, we know about theories. They start off as hypotheses.....but magically turn into "scientific theories" if enough notable people misinterpret the evidence and get the masses to believe it purely by the power of suggestion.

You guys.......

Once again your lack of education (and reading comprehension) comes to the fore.

"Barbarian" (in Ancient Greek) means (as I indicated) "one who does not speak Greek."

Now, it is clear that you do not read Greek or understand Greek roots, since, if you did you'd not be having the trouble with "theory" that you are.

So yes ... you are, in point of fact, according to the original definition of "barbarian," a barbarian.

I find it amazing that as a barbarian you can hold forth as an expert on the Bible, as you are wont to do.

But then, you keep telling us how very proud you are of how little you know, yet you are willing to make sweeping claims without access to the real evidence. Don't you ever tire of leading with ignorance and being surprised when no one applauds? Or, does that just feed a persecution complex?

Do learn, at least, to read Greek, for the first time you will understand the New Testament for what it is.

 

[savagewind]

Do learn, at least, to read Greek, for the first time you will understand the New Testament for what it is.

For what it is according to the Greek.

 

[gnostic]

Do learn, at least, to read Greek, for the first time you will understand the New Testament for what it is.

For what it is according to the Greek.

The oldest fragments of the gospels were originally written in Greek, savagewind.

The whole region, from the Levant to parts of Mesopotamia, were largely bilingual, because Aramaic and Greek were the languages of trades. Greek were used in Asia Minor (modern Anatolian Turkey) and Egypt.

So it is no surprise that the gospels and letters were written in Greek.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls (from about 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE) were written in Hebrew, some fragments found in certain caves were shown to contain scrolls written in Greek and Aramaic.

Like Sapiens said the original meaning to barbarian was a person who couldn't read or speak Greek.

So, unless Deeje could read, write and speak Greek, so by the original definition, she would be considered a "barbarian", if she cannot read Greek.

And if Deeje claimed that she know and understand the gospels or letters so well, then she should be able to at the very least read and understand Greek...but clearly she doesn't.

And if she truly understood the gospels then she could understand any ancient contexts found in the original language, that don't translate well into English, just as some contexts when people translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek (e.g. The Septuagint) or from Hebrew to English, might lose their original meanings during translation.

But since she is a JW Christian, the core belief as with any Christian sect, is the New Testament, namely the gospels and epistles, which were all originally written in Greek.

Sapiens made it quite clear, which definition of barbarian, he was using, even provided the origin of the word, as used by the ancient Greeks for non-Greek speaking foreigners. And even providing that definition and origin of the word, Deeje chose to ignore them, and chose the more modern definition, to indicate "uncivilised" barbarian. So Deeje is cherrypicking and taking Sapiens' reply out-of-context.

But that's what Deeje do all day at the forums, she cherry-pick, and take things out-of-context, not just with other members replying to her, because she does the same things with science and with the bible.

I cannot read or write Greek, so I am also a barbarian; all my reliance on understanding the Bible, come from English translations. I love Greek mythology, and yet, I cannot read texts written in Greek that contain literature of Greek myths.

 

[savagewind]

The oldest fragments of the gospels were originally written in Greek, savagewind.

The whole region, from the Levant to parts of Mesopotamia, were largely bilingual, because Aramaic and Greek were the languages of trades. Greek were used in Asia Minor (modern Anatolian Turkey) and Egypt.

So it is no surprise that the gospels and letters were written in Greek.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls (from about 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE) were written in Hebrew, some fragments found in certain caves were shown to contain scrolls written in Greek and Aramaic.

Like Sapiens said the original meaning to barbarian was a person who couldn't read or speak Greek.

So, unless Deeje could read, write and speak Greek, so by the original definition, she would be considered a "barbarian", if she cannot read Greek.

And if Deeje claimed that she know and understand the gospels or letters so well, then she should be able to at the very least read and understand Greek...but clearly she doesn't.

And if she truly understood the gospels then she could understand any ancient contexts found in the original language, that don't translate well into English, just as some contexts when people translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek (e.g. The Septuagint) or from Hebrew to English, might lose their original meanings during translation.

But since she is a JW Christian, the core belief as with any Christian sect, is the New Testament, namely the gospels and epistles, which were all originally written in Greek.

Sapiens made it quite clear, which definition of barbarian, he was using, even provided the origin of the word, as used by the ancient Greeks for non-Greek speaking foreigners. And even providing that definition and origin of the word, Deeje chose to ignore them, and chose the more modern definition, to indicate "uncivilised" barbarian. So Deeje is cherrypicking and taking Sapiens' reply out-of-context.

But that's what Deeje do all day at the forums, she cherry-pick, and take things out-of-context, not just with other members replying to her, because she does the same things with science and with the bible.

I cannot read or write Greek, so I am also a barbarian; all my reliance on understanding the Bible, come from English translations. I love Greek mythology, and yet, I cannot read texts written in Greek that contain literature of Greek myths.

Sigh. There is a difference between what something actually is and what it is according to something.
You had said,"You will understand the New Testament for what it is ( if you learn Greek)".
Knowing Greek isn't all a person needs to know what it says. John 16:13 when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.

 

[Sapiens]

Sigh. There is a difference between what something actually is and what it is according to something.
You had said,"You will understand the New Testament for what it is ( if you learn Greek)".
Knowing Greek isn't all a person needs to know what it says. John 16:13 when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.

I'd be inclined to say that you'd understand a whole lot more than even the most fevered barbarian believer.

 

[savagewind]

I'd be inclined to say that you'd understand a whole lot more than even the most fevered barbarian believer.

Is that sentence missing, if..........?

 

[Sapiens]

"if you read Greek" is assumed by context.

Knowing Greek isn't all a person needs to know what it says. John 16:13 when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.

You are suggesting turning to the nonexistent and the illiterate for guidance. Why is it that so many theists champion the cause of the less academically prepared but seem never attempt to help them through honest education?

If you want to begin to understand the issue, without extensive study, just look to the many different translations and interpretations of John 16:13 ... you can find perhaps twenty, with a single click. I suspect that a systematic and exhaustive search will yield hundreds, maybe thousands.

 

[gnostic]

Sigh. There is a difference between what something actually is and what it is according to something.
You had said,"You will understand the New Testament for what it is ( if you learn Greek)".
Knowing Greek isn't all a person needs to know what it says. John 16:13 when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.

My main point in that reply to you, is that Deeje took what sapiens wrote (about "barbarian") OUT-OF-CONTEXT.

She is a barbarian if she can't read or speak Greek, but so what, savagewind?!

Neither can I, so that make me a barbarian too.

I know my limitations in that regards. The only language I speak, read and write is English, and even then I know my English, is below average.

As to John 16...

You are a Christian, not me, savagewind.

You quoting me from John, about this "spirit of truth" is irrelevant to understanding texts before you and I.

I know that the gospel referred that "spirit" to the Holy Spirit, and it is "supposedly" one of Godheads, which "supposedly" bestow inspired guidance and wisdom to believers.

But to me, divine or inspired wisdom are just more belief in superstition.

Think about it, savagewind.

People used to believe that the Sun, moon, mountains, seas, rivers, lakes, woods, crops, etc, that nature were either spirits and gods. And then there are those who believe in more abstract things were the spirits of their gods, such as law, order, prosperity or wealth, luck, wisdom, etc.

If (the Holy Spirit) that was true and truly exist, then why are there are so many Christians so lost, misguided and mistaken?

Where is the inspired divine wisdom, if these Christians continued to make the wrong choice in life?

If the Holy Spirit exist, and that spirit can inpire and guide a person in the right path, then why are Christians not on the same side?

Christians are not only fighting against non-Christians, but also among themselves. You have sect squabbling with other sects, church separating from other churches.

They squabble over politics, policies and privileges. They argue over contexts and interpretations of scriptures, church teachings, customs and traditions.

New sects popped up, trying to replace the old, but they have the same failing and flaws as the older churches.

The only Jehovah's Witnesses people I know, are only know from here, and other similar forums (I had joined other forums before this one). And I found that the JW to be no more special than the Orthodox, Catholic, and the various brands of Protestant.

You could claim that these Christians are not "True Christians" or that they don't follow the "True Church", but I have only heard such claim by people who are arrogant and weak of faith.

You could say that others are weak because of influences by the Devil, but that argument is pathetically weak, and again resorting to superstition, and that holds no credibility.

When people say "God made me do it", or "the Devil made me do it", or "I did it for Jesus", they are not only resorting to superstition, they are denying one's own responsibility for their judgement and action, good or bad.

I find no credibility in you quoting John 16:13 in understanding the scriptures.

Tell me, how many Christians you know can say that they understand everything in the bible, without interpreting it, without modifying to fit the modern audience?

And how many do you think got it "wrong"?

Do you think understand exactly what Revelation and other obscure passages from revelations and prophecies of OT prophets?

Have you ever thought, maybe, just maybe, those revelations are for the time of contemporary readers or audience, and not for modern readers?

Perhaps, if Christians trying to fit modern interpretations into ancient texts, they might understand the scriptures better.

 

[savagewind]

@gnostic Those are good thinking questions and so I shall not attempt to answer them all.
I agree with you that Revelation was written for the people at that time.
It is obvious to me that most believing people have gone with these who were prophesied.
Matthew 24:24

They either worship the written word or they put their trust in the people who worship it.
That is a fact.

It is written that The God is Jealous. Nobody likes to feel jealous so God leaves them to their own device.

 

[savagewind]

"if you read Greek" is assumed by context.

You are suggesting turning to the nonexistent and the illiterate for guidance. Why is it that so many theists champion the cause of the less academically prepared but seem never attempt to help them through honest education?

If you want to begin to understand the issue, without extensive study, just look to the many different translations and interpretations of John 16:13 ... you can find perhaps twenty, with a single click. I suspect that a systematic and exhaustive search will yield hundreds, maybe thousands.

I think the errors were put in (on purpose or by accident) in the Greek, so then, even being an expert at ancient Greek (I am assuming it has changed some) won't tell a person what it "actually is".

 

[Sapiens]

I think the errors were put in (on purpose or by accident) in the Greek, so then, even being an expert at ancient Greek (I am assuming it has changed some) won't tell a person what it "actually is".

I propose that will get you a damn sight closer that taking the word of an "authority" who, far from being impartial, has a huge personal stake in the game. I doubt that there is a group of people on Earth more likely to shade the truth than theists piously inventing evidence for their beliefs whilst translating the Greek.

 

[Deeje]

And getting this thread back on track....is there anything more exquisitely designed than a Barn Owl?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1402488459844658

"Accident" of nature? or designed aerodynamic perfection?

 

[Olinda]

And getting this thread back on track....is there anything more exquisitely designed than a Barn Owl?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1402488459844658

"Accident" of nature? or designed aerodynamic perfection?

Oh definitely perfection. . . a perfect killing machine for that poor little field mouse.
So was the mouse just "designed" as fodder...or had it offended in some way?

 

[Sapiens]

And getting this thread back on track....is there anything more exquisitely designed than a Barn Owl?

"Accident" of nature? or designed aerodynamic perfection?

Accident of nature, clearly not, a wonderful example of the power of natural selection? Clearly. Is there anything more exquisitely designed? No, but then every other living creature is every bit as exquisitely designed ... for other purposes.