[SERIOUS] Is Kidicious getting dumber?

[Kidlicious]

I didn't expect much.

[Boris Godunov]

God appearing to you and speaking to you as a not repeatable event would be disregarded as not part of reality for a pure empiricist.
JM

Which is to be distinguished from a vivid dream, hallucination or going insane how, exactly? Or even a lie?

Every religion is full of examples of people who claimed to have spoken with various gods. Obviously, you don't believe all such accounts are true. The ones you accept you do so because of personal bias, nothing more.

Insane asylums are full of people who claim to speak with various gods. Not to mention dead persons, aliens, apparitions, vampires, etc.

You have to ignore everything we know about human psychology and the easy ability for us to be fooled and our brains to screw up in order to say this is a reasonable thing to do.

The suggestion that we should consider something other than verifiable evidence for determining what is and isn't true is a license to believe in *anything.* It's the exact same excuse homeopaths, psychics and various other peddlers of woo use.

[Fake Boris]

Jon, I understand the idea of time as a dimension (philosophically at least). I have never seen it employed as a successful case for free will. I also assume that your understanding of rational theology is inspired from Leibniz; Leibniz is good, but he makes concessions to his times (negating free will was a big no-no in his days).

If you truly believe that defining time as a "dimension' gives you a case, the burden of the proof is on you right now. Though I'm going on vacation tonight, I might never see your post.

[loinburger]

Are you going on vacation to Darfur or something?

[Boris Godunov]

"Perhaps the Spirit of the LORD has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley."

You say we don't know, but the author has already given us a context that fits. He's a prophet who has just witnessed Elijah going up to heaven, and then performing some miracles of his own. Obviously told the people that Elijah was lifted up (since they want to look for where he might have been set down).

There's no need to go further than that and invent a difficult path or rely on it being a bad translation of "go". (It could very well be a bad translation of anything, but without something to suggest that it's not very useful to speculate.)

As for the kids, the author of their words was someone else, many years later, writing down a story of something that probably never even happened (certainly not the way it's described). The story has context that the author knows about, and a moral to teach. In both cases it makes more sense that "go up" is referring to being able to do the same thing as in the main event of that story, which was Elijah's transcendence to heaven.

Er, so you think bears mauling some youths is obviously made up to teach a moral, but not the part about the dude being sucked up to heaven in a whirlwind?

If I were going to pick only one of those things to be fictitious, I'd pick the whirlwind part, not the bears. After all, we know bears exist and we know they like to maul things, such as youths. I've never seen someone taken up to heaven in whirlwind, although I suppose some might construe Dorothy and the cyclone as being the same thing...

[Aeson]

Er, so you think bears mauling some youths is obviously made up to teach a moral, but not the part about the dude being sucked up to heaven in a whirlwind?

If I were going to pick only one of those things to be fictitious, I'd pick the whirlwind part, not the bears. After all, we know bears exist and we know they like to maul things, such as youths. I've never seen someone taken up to heaven in whirlwind, although I suppose some might construe Dorothy and the cyclone as being the same thing...

Um... I said the story was was probably something that never happened, certainly not the way it's described. :boggle:

[Kidlicious]

BG, That's the same thing you said last time. It's still circular logic.

But you also assume an order to the universe, right? Which is that human beings are suppose to discover the truth of the universe through logic and objectivity, right?

[Boris Godunov]

Um... I said the story was was probably something that never happened, certainly not the way it's described. :boggle:

Um, no, you only singled out the bear part as fictitious, not the entire story. Reread what I quoted. :doubleboggle:

[Aeson]

Please point out where I said that the translation of Elijah was not part of the story Elok and I were discussing.

[Aeson]

As for the kids, the author of their words was someone else, many years later, writing down a story of something that probably never even happened (certainly not the way it's described). The story has context that the author knows about, and a moral to teach. In both cases it makes more sense that "go up" is referring to being able to do the same thing as in the main event of that story, which was Elijah's transcendence to heaven.

I mean, how can you read that to think that I think Elijah's transcendence was not part of the story?

[Boris Godunov]

As for the kids, the author of their words was someone else, many years later, writing down a story of something that probably never even happened (certainly not the way it's described). The story has context that the author knows about, and a moral to teach. In both cases it makes more sense that "go up" is referring to being able to do the same thing as in the main event of that story, which was Elijah's transcendence to heaven.

You preface the whole paragraph by noting you're talking about the youths who were mauled by the bear. Considering that those youths had nothing whatsoever to do with Elijah's alleged whirlwind ride, and you yourself distinguish right here between the part of the story you're saying probably never happened and the "main event of the story," I cannot fathom how you can pretend that was as clear as what you say. You could easily acknowledge that you don't believe either is true after the fact and that you weren't clear, which would be fine, but to claim that's clear in what you originally said is preposterous.

[molly bloom]

Is your friend a dog or something?

I am afraid this is quite puzzling. Whose friend ?

And why would they be a dog ?

Is this a reference to a Lasse Hallstrom film ?

[molly bloom]

Stop posting pictures of penises in religious discussions please. (And there are documented cases of bears going bald. )

If I were to post a picture of a penis on 'Poly, it would at least be one I wanted to get to grips with.

Bald bears (ursus alopecia areata) are a different grouping from the now extinct Naked Bears (ursus nudus) .

I thank you.

[Aeson]

You preface the whole paragraph by noting you're talking about the youths who were mauled by the bear. Considering that those youths had nothing whatsoever to do with Elijah's alleged whirlwind ride, and you yourself distinguish right here between the part of the story you're saying probably never happened and the "main event of the story," I cannot fathom how you can pretend that was as clear as what you say. You could easily acknowledge that you don't believe either is true after the fact and that you weren't clear, which would be fine, but to claim that's clear in what you originally said is preposterous.

You're obviously confused because you are taking a sentence fragment without regard for it's surrounding context (paragraph and discussion). In that paragraph I clearly identify "Elijah's transcendence" as the "main event in that story" which "probably never even happened" and was "certainly not the way it's described". I've bolded "that" because it is obviously referring to the previous mention of "the story", not differentiating itself from it. You seem to be reading it as "another story", which is completely ridiculous.

The reason "as for the kids" is used to preface the discussion is because I am addressing Elok's response. In his response there are two main themes. The first was whether or not Elisha had said anything about Elijah's translation up to that point in the story. The second is the "voice" of the youths. I was pointing out that the voice of the story is not the youths' at all, but that of the author of the story. If the argument from Elok had something to do with the voice of the author at the time of translation, then I would have addressed it in that regards as well. But the simple fact is only the voice of the youths was being debated.

At no point do I ever say that Elijah's translation is a literal thing. I instead call it the main event in a story that probably never happened, and even if it happened, it was certainly not like it was described. That is obvious to anyone who can read in-context. If it's not obvious to you, then you have my condolences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can we just say that both of you have some good points and end this pedantic silly-fest (I mean you basically both agree, you are just arguing over how clear a response was). Seriously.

If it helps any, you can both join together and mock me because I believe Elijah was indeed taken up into heaven. Not sure what to make of the bears though.