Why is Agression wrong?

Free State Project Forum

264494 Posts in 21125 Topics by 34833 Members / Latest Member: WarrenYDF

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2013, 04:17:08 am

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

Quote from: Reaper on January 25, 2003, 11:48:20 pm

Why is many authors (often contradictory) scattered over centuries better than a single author?

Is this supposed to prove something?

You may continute to assert, falsely and without valid evidence (most of the evidence you have presented has been shown one way or another to be ridiculous, out-of-context interpretations of items which clearly don't have the meaning you attribute).

Again any reasonable observation is that the authors are not contradictory. The few times they appear to be so, it is paradox, and turns out to not be so.

For this reason, many authors gives more support to the idea that the book was inspired by an outside source and that the things asserted therein are correct. A single author can define and design his own religion, which I believe was the case with Mohammed.

Quote from: Zack Bass on January 26, 2003, 01:27:01 am

Quote from: libertyVSlibertine on January 25, 2003, 11:21:55 pm

There were just a bunch of different texts.
At some point (really two points: the Septuagint for the Old Testament, and then VERY RECENTLY King James for the New), a powerful group of HUMANS decided to put together a Book, and they included texts they liked and threw out others they didn't like.

How was it that this group (or these two, I'm not as familiar with the assembly of the septuagint) was so powerful? Please establish this. I don't believe they were very powerful as we see it. They may have been as powerful as say, Billy Graham, influence and all. However they weren't government leaders, had no armies, no weapons. How do you say they were so powerful.

Yes they were humans. I have said before that humans are a necessary part of the equation, however, they began from a source, which claimed to be the Word of the Creator. They were able to agree upon what parts truly were valid, as you can see from these posts, a significant task, and the protestant church agreed endorsed them for the next 400 years or so.

The criteria they used for including and excluding text is available and a very interesting study. I can't recall the references off the top of my head this moment, but I can produce some if you are interested.

The evidence doesn't seem consistent with just wanting to put together a book. These people endured ridicule, torture, and death in some cases to assemble a book that they believed to be God's word. Nothing evidences an ulterior motive of glory or fame. The fact is that they didn't receive glory or fame, then or now, only the product lived on without them. Could you name any of them without looking it up? If you can, you are knowledgeable. I suspect 99% of the population couldn't name one of them.

Quote

How about the equally maintained and holy-written books that didn't make it into the final cut? What OBJECTIVITY??? You think King James hired people for their Objectivity? How come they left out the Gospel of Thomas (by the Apostle Didymos Judas Thomas), for example?

I am not qualified to answer that question, about Thomas specifically. They did document their criteria and I have examined them indidually from time to time. They used solid bases to choose. I believe that they doubted the authenticity of that book. They would have otherwise likely accepted it on the grounds that Thomas was a legitimate Apostle of Christ.

Quote

And what are Song of Solomon and Revelation doing in there at all?
You don't think Song of Solomon is about RELIGION, do you?
Long long after it was written some rabbi made up a lying filthy untrue interpretation pretending it had to do with man's love of God, when any teenager can tell you what it's about:

"4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
6 I opened to my beloved...."

Many of the books aren't particularly "about Religion". I believe the fact that the Song of Solomon is included is a testimony to the practices of those who included books. Leaving Song of Solomon out on the basis you state, not about religion, would have been consistent with wanting to create a religious book. It seems they left it in based upon its veracity (thanks for the previous grammar lesson), not its content (consistent with an attempt to actually, rationally discern which words were from God).

Perhaps God included it to show that sex isn't nasty, as you say (the words are really much stronger in the hebrew and greek than those you used - I think you'd like them).

As to Revelation, you give no basis for why it shouldn't be included. It was Apostolic (John) and appears to have been consistent and had a good audit trail for authenticity. It, unlike perhaps Song of Solomon, is very religious and is extremely linked with other (independently written) books.

Quote from: Anti-Federalist on January 26, 2003, 08:12:49 am

Sorry Liberty, you're back to supporting your claim with a logical fallacy!

B5. Appeal to Popularity

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Stephenâ€™s Examples:
(i) If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy Buy-EZ and become beautiful. (Here, the appeal is to the "beautiful people".)
(ii) Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority government, so you may as well vote for them.
(iii) Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?

Proof:
No proof provided

1. I reject your B.S. detector. It is useful at times, but simply not correct at others. What authority do you give for it's particular ability to infallible in it's detection logic?

Popularity, as you call it, is reliable evidence on some points. Are you saying that the entire body of statistical opinion polls (while I also admit the questionable nature of the premises they are often purported to support) are entirely useless for evidence of anything?

I contend that popular belief is adequate evidence to shift the burden of proof to those who disagree. Round-earth theorists should have been allowed to present their views (popularity evidence inadequate to silence them completely), but should also have borne the burden of proving their case (popularity evidence adequate to make them prove it). Likewise those scientists who today believe that HIV does not cause AIDS, should bare the burden of proof (popular belief - by the way the popular belief must have some merit (i.e., not a joke or entirely unsupported even by empirical evidence) - is adequate to force them to prove the assertion), though they should be considered (popular belief is not adequate evidence to entirely discard their theories without a hearing).

Quote

ONE CAN SIMPLY NOT RELY ON THE FACT THAT A BELIEF HAS BEEN HELD A LONG TIME TO PROVE THAT IT'S CORRECT! Many of the world religions have been around a long time, that doesn't mean anything; other than they were strong memes (see, Richard Brodie; "Viruses Of The Mind" http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm).

B.S. aside, you don't seem to have understood my premise. If many writers over a long period, without consulting or even being able to consult others, were substantially in agreement about things, it provides evidence that they are telling the truth (i.e., testimony of witnesses is consistent, which consitutes substantial evidence). I wasn't appealing to popularity.

Quote from: libertyVSlibertine on January 26, 2003, 05:22:23 pm

King James was KING OF ENGLAND!!!

Quote

Perhaps God included it to show that sex isn't nasty, as you say (the words are really much stronger in the hebrew and greek than those you used - I think you'd like them).

I once thought that.
I got into a big discussion with Jason about it.
He finally found a place where Jesus himself said that sex (sexual lust - and sex is no good without lust) is nasty, so he won that one.
If you can show that your god is okay with sexual lust and unmarried sex, then maybe I'll start up with him again.

Quote

As to Revelation, you give no basis for why it shouldn't be included. It was Apostolic (John)

No no no, it was John the Divine, writing on Lesbos, long long after the Apostles were all dead. Different guy. An obvious hebephrenic.

In response to libertyVSlibertine's original question the ultimate answer for religious and nonreligious sides are both available at: http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Home/
Her book on governmental aggression Healing our World should answer all your questions and should be a model for the legal system for the FSP. I have spoken with her and she is a very intelligent and enlightened woman. You can download the (1993) original edition for free on this website.

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.