@Blueduck I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share. I do not know where you stopped but I had
@Blueduck I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share. I do not know where you stopped but I had
@Blueduck I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share. I do not know where you stopped but I had
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking. Take it or leave it.
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is. Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore? Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus.
Good grief!
I covered what you asked, including where I stand on abortion...., you do not read so well or failed to read my direct reply to YOU at all!
Maybe you were too busy down voting my poast above to read it through...
Either way, I'm done, stick a fork in me... Is the bread done yet...yes I'm toast.
Good day.
You started to, then you unanswered it with this:
(I am Not going to argue for or against caveats such as rape incest health of mother carrying full term) IMHO The basic principle should not be compromised, but I am not without understanding and compassion for exigent circumstances.... Those decisions and options should be discussed and made with family, doctor, religious and or psychiatric council.
And if you covered what I asked, I didn't see it. Of course it's possible I missed it, but it would take less time to just answer what you meant in the quoted language than to go on this whine fest. I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I'm sure you are quite intelligent on these matters, but your writing style is indirect and tends to talk around the issue. Did you mean that by removing religious influence from government proceedings that we have opened the door to compromise or hindered it? The passage I quoted was not clear. A simple clarification, not a prevarication, is what was asked of you. But you have a fork in you now, so I guess I'll never know.
Relating to your view on abortion, I'm sorry, but it's just terrible. It's "abhorrent," blah blah blah, BUT, doctors and psychiatrists should be consulted? Fuck outta here with that. Grab your balls and say it's ok or it's not. You can't decide to kill me with any justification by simply consulting your therapist. GMAFB. If that's your religious conviction, you can keep it because it's useless.
Just take a real fucking stance or bow out for real. You haven't said shit. At least Race and the others know they're going to hell. You seem to have deluded yourself.
Good lord you are an idiot! Directly above the part you quoted about caveats, I stated very clearly...
Abortion and taking of innocent life for poor decisions and lack of self control is abhorrent and should not be allowed.
If you cannot read that, and conclude I am against, not for, opposed to, abortion then you have bigger comprehension issues than can be fixed or you are being purposely difficult to get a rise out of me.
Now that you've gotten very personal, I will reply in kind: you are a fucking moron. I read just fine. Are you so stupid as to think that at this point I'd be skipping lines? What a dumb fuckery comment.
You may be against it, but you leave open serious gaps w/o justification "because you have compassion." Fuck you and your compassion. If it's immoral, then it's immoral, and consulting with clergy, shrink or doc can't save it from that fateful conclusion.
So your limp wristed answer is, "It's abhorrent!!!!!! But I have compassion, so if your counselor says it's ok, then another decision can be made." Go stand in line with the others who support infanticide "when appropriate."
JFC - you go on this 40 page history lesson about Judaism and Christ, making it appear that religion is important to you, then you make some rather unclear (as it still stands) rant about the the lack of religion in the political process, and then you pinch that one out of your butthole? For Christ's sake (literally); you are green lighting abortion on the basis of humanistic concerns. The whole point of religion is to express a tenet and then stick to it, even when it sucks doing so.
I get it.. I was right... you don't like that I am not interested in debating the "caveats" I mentioned. LMAO!
You can't stand it. But that's exactly why I precluded it in my reply to you because I saw you coming! You are just looking for a fight.
I am against abortion. CLEARLY!
If someone were to find themselves in one of those positions and considering getting an abortion and came to me, I would council them against and tell them what God thinks about killing the innocent and then send them to talk to the people I mentioned in hopes they would change their mind.
(When I say them I am referring to a couple if that were the case.)
Now . If you can only speak using insults and profanity and not take being called an idiot because you were intentionally pretending to not understand what I was saying then maybe you should just refrain from approaching me.
@Blueduck I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share. I do not know where you stopped but I had
@Blueduck I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share. I do not know where you stopped but I had
@Blueduck I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share. I do not know where you stopped but I had
I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw... I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking. Take it or leave it.
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state. I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is. Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore? Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus.
Good grief!
I covered what you asked, including where I stand on abortion...., you do not read so well or failed to read my direct reply to YOU at all!
Maybe you were too busy down voting my poast above to read it through...
Either way, I'm done, stick a fork in me... Is the bread done yet...yes I'm toast.
Good day.
You started to, then you unanswered it with this:
(I am Not going to argue for or against caveats such as rape incest health of mother carrying full term) IMHO The basic principle should not be compromised, but I am not without understanding and compassion for exigent circumstances.... Those decisions and options should be discussed and made with family, doctor, religious and or psychiatric council.
And if you covered what I asked, I didn't see it. Of course it's possible I missed it, but it would take less time to just answer what you meant in the quoted language than to go on this whine fest. I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I'm sure you are quite intelligent on these matters, but your writing style is indirect and tends to talk around the issue. Did you mean that by removing religious influence from government proceedings that we have opened the door to compromise or hindered it? The passage I quoted was not clear. A simple clarification, not a prevarication, is what was asked of you. But you have a fork in you now, so I guess I'll never know.
Relating to your view on abortion, I'm sorry, but it's just terrible. It's "abhorrent," blah blah blah, BUT, doctors and psychiatrists should be consulted? Fuck outta here with that. Grab your balls and say it's ok or it's not. You can't decide to kill me with any justification by simply consulting your therapist. GMAFB. If that's your religious conviction, you can keep it because it's useless.
Just take a real fucking stance or bow out for real. You haven't said shit. At least Race and the others know they're going to hell. You seem to have deluded yourself.
Good lord you are an idiot! Directly above the part you quoted about caveats, I stated very clearly...
Abortion and taking of innocent life for poor decisions and lack of self control is abhorrent and should not be allowed.
If you cannot read that, and conclude I am against, not for, opposed to, abortion then you have bigger comprehension issues than can be fixed or you are being purposely difficult to get a rise out of me.
Now that you've gotten very personal, I will reply in kind: you are a fucking moron. I read just fine. Are you so stupid as to think that at this point I'd be skipping lines? What a dumb fuckery comment.
You may be against it, but you leave open serious gaps w/o justification "because you have compassion." Fuck you and your compassion. If it's immoral, then it's immoral, and consulting with clergy, shrink or doc can't save it from that fateful conclusion.
So your limp wristed answer is, "It's abhorrent!!!!!! But I have compassion, so if your counselor says it's ok, then another decision can be made." Go stand in line with the others who support infanticide "when appropriate."
JFC - you go on this 40 page history lesson about Judaism and Christ, making it appear that religion is important to you, then you make some rather unclear (as it still stands) rant about the the lack of religion in the political process, and then you pinch that one out of your butthole? For Christ's sake (literally); you are green lighting abortion on the basis of humanistic concerns. The whole point of religion is to express a tenet and then stick to it, even when it sucks doing so.
Now if we could just have a law to keep people from murdering their own children...
Apparently, according to the Duck, there would have to be an exception for cases when people get the ok from their clergy, doctor or shrink. We could call it the 'compassion exception.'
There is no textual evidence which shows any early Greek Philosopher-(from Thales to Epicurus) quoting or commenting on The Old Testament.
Both Pythagoras and Plato were reported to have traveled to Israel and the greater Middle East, though there is no reliable textual evidence which proves this. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that Pythagoras and Plato, if having traveled to the Middle East, may have learned about the Jewish Scriptures and in doing so, may have written about it. However, there is no available historical evidence to prove this.
The early Greek Philosophers did refer to and write about the histories and cultures of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians and especially, the Persians.
Keep in mind that the Persian Empire, was a nearly ubiquitous political and even cultural presence in Ancient Greek life, due to their conquest and occupation of Greco-Anatolia-(present-day Turkish coast) and attempt to conquer mainland Greece. Of all the foreign cultures the (Pre-Hellenistic) Greeks encountered and interacted with, the Persian culture appears to have had the greatest impact and influence on Early Greek Philosophy and intellectual life. The Early Greek Thinkers of Antiquity were much more interested in the theological teachings of Zoroastrianism....from a philosophical perspective and NOT from a religious or conversionary perspective.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I suppose it's possible.
Then again, if we're playing the game of drawing inference of what happened thousands of years ago, I'm more apt to go with the guys who were inventing geometry in the sand with sticks rather than a fable of some guy with a story about a burning bush and stone tablets carved with the commandments by lightning bolts ... or whatever. Maybe the tradition of monotheism emerged and evolved on two independent tracks.
That said, the Greeks were different. They were smarter. They were better. Ergo, I'm going with the Greek guy as the first true monotheist because his was a worked out philosophy, rather than made-up "trust me" stories.
Abraham was first. He was the Greeks daddy as well as the rest of us
The Greeks were early believers and open to many new ideas
Ideas from wandering former slaves included
As smart people tend to do. That said, I'm sticking with Plato and the guys who invented shit we still believe and use. Architecture, government, mathematics, you name it.
You're relying on people who probably did not even exist, and the fairy tales that accompanied them.
Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era, and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.
If you like your religion, you can keep it. As for me and my house, we will worship the ancient monotheistic Greeks.
I think this round goes to the Creep. Never take sides against Plato and the Academy.
Comments
I do not know where you stopped but I had I get it.. I was right... you don't like that I am not interested in debating the "caveats" I mentioned. LMAO!
You can't stand it. But that's exactly why I precluded it in my reply to you because I saw you coming!
You are just looking for a fight.
I am against abortion. CLEARLY!
If someone were to find themselves in one of those positions and considering getting an abortion and came to me, I would council them against and tell them what God thinks about killing the innocent and then send them to talk to the people I mentioned in hopes they would change their mind.
(When I say them I am referring to a couple if that were the case.)
Now . If you can only speak using insults and profanity and not take being called an idiot because you were intentionally pretending to not understand what I was saying then maybe you should just refrain from approaching me.
Good day
Dtm
Coward Duck.
But I'm against abortion!!!!!!!
Says the Duck.
Both Pythagoras and Plato were reported to have traveled to Israel and the greater Middle East, though there is no reliable textual evidence which proves this. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that Pythagoras and Plato, if having traveled to the Middle East, may have learned about the Jewish Scriptures and in doing so, may have written about it. However, there is no available historical evidence to prove this.
The early Greek Philosophers did refer to and write about the histories and cultures of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians and especially, the Persians.
Keep in mind that the Persian Empire, was a nearly ubiquitous political and even cultural presence in Ancient Greek life, due to their conquest and occupation of Greco-Anatolia-(present-day Turkish coast) and attempt to conquer mainland Greece. Of all the foreign cultures the (Pre-Hellenistic) Greeks encountered and interacted with, the Persian culture appears to have had the greatest impact and influence on Early Greek Philosophy and intellectual life. The Early Greek Thinkers of Antiquity were much more interested in the theological teachings of Zoroastrianism....from a philosophical perspective and NOT from a religious or conversionary perspective.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I suppose it's possible.
Then again, if we're playing the game of drawing inference of what happened thousands of years ago, I'm more apt to go with the guys who were inventing geometry in the sand with sticks rather than a fable of some guy with a story about a burning bush and stone tablets carved with the commandments by lightning bolts ... or whatever. Maybe the tradition of monotheism emerged and evolved on two independent tracks.
That said, the Greeks were different. They were smarter. They were better. Ergo, I'm going with the Greek guy as the first true monotheist because his was a worked out philosophy, rather than made-up "trust me" stories.
The Greeks were early believers and open to many new ideas
Ideas from wandering former slaves included
You're relying on people who probably did not even exist, and the fairy tales that accompanied them.
Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era, and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.
If you like your religion, you can keep it. As for me and my house, we will worship the ancient monotheistic Greeks.
I think this round goes to the Creep. Never take sides against Plato and the Academy.
Got it
Like I said, if you like your religion, keep it. We are with the Greeks on this one. Sorry, but not sorry.
Or philosophy
I just know