Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679

    Tock, Where Is Tock

    Will you tell me why my Bible is wrong? Tock.

  2. #2
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Man, you shouldnt ask Tock about religion, he gets very angry, and will curse and call you stupid.

  3. #3
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Oh I know. Believe me. I havent heard from him in a while.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Tock makes some of the better arguments put forward in this forum.

    Actually, to a trained philosopher, it's evident that he is much more capable of putting forth a sound argument than 99%+ of the Theists in this forum...and ....since he's also gay, I bet he's a better dresser than any of the Theists also.

  5. #5
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Tock makes some of the better arguments put forward in this forum.

    Actually, to a trained philosopher, it's evident that he is much more capable of putting forth a sound argument than 99%+ of the Theists in this forum...and ....since he's also gay, I bet he's a better dresser than any of the Theists also.
    But Tock's arguments is always that since he cannot see GOD, GOD cannot exist. This is the basic argument he puts, in different ways.

    Do we really know the universe is infinite? But we still belive it is infinite dont we?

  6. #6
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Actually Tock contradicts himself Quite a bit. His arguement for atheism has no foundation. He has a misunderstanding of theology. How many trained philosophers do we have in this forum. Most likely less than 1%.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    But Tock's arguments is always that since he cannot see GOD, GOD cannot exist. This is the basic argument he puts, in different ways.

    :
    No...thats a bad representation of an argument he may have made. His arguments tend to center on proof (and what is acceptable as such) of existence, though.

  8. #8
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    But Tock's arguments is always that since he cannot see GOD, GOD cannot exist. This is the basic argument he puts, in different ways.
    Ya, I'm still here . . . guess I musta missed this thread.

    Anyway, no, that's not my approach to the issue of any god's existance.
    What I maintain is that if we cannot detect things with the use of our five senses, we can have no proof that they exist. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that such things do not exist, either. Then again, wishful thinking won't bring undetectable things into existance.

    We can speculate on the previous or current existance of the heirarchy of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, too. Just like Jehovah, they are undetectable. Does that prove that they never existed? Does that prove that they do not exist now? No.

    What we can do is analyze the claims of those who say that such beings exist. In the Christian Bible, we have a few unsubstantiated stories of talking animals, people rising from the dead and walking on water, claims that adulterers and sabbath breakers must be put to death. No one knows who actually wrote much of the Bible -- it could have been "you, me, or that nutcase hiding behind that tree." IMHO, only nutcases would put much stock in the anonymous, silly, vicious, and unverifiable blatherings of the Bible.

    Many Christians say that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, but there's a passage in Genesis that refers to events that transpired centuries after the time Moses supposedly lived. I suppose they would much prefer to avoid facing such issues, and that's their perogative. I, however, enjoy discomforting fundamentalists in spirited debates, hence my posts challenging their groundless assertions to be the "One and Only True Faith."

    Yah.

    -Tock

  9. #9
    MilitiaGuy's Avatar
    MilitiaGuy is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Middle-East Lebanon
    Posts
    4,328
    Tock are you against religions (espacially judaism ,christianity and islam) because homosexuality is forbiden in all of them?

  10. #10
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is offline AR-Elite Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    14,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    .... Many Christians say that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, but there's a passage in Genesis that refers to events that transpired centuries [I]after[/I] the time Moses supposedly lived. I suppose they would much prefer to avoid facing such issues, and that's their perogative. I, however, enjoy discomforting fundamentalists in spirited debates, hence my posts challenging their groundless assertions to be the "One and Only True Faith."

    Yah.

    -Tock
    Just for the sake of arguement I'll throw in my .02...Gen 36:31 is a reference to Gen 17:6..That verse contains God's promise to Abram/Abraham that his descendants would be kings.......Also. I would say it refers to Gen. 35:11 and God's promise to Jacob concerning his descendants..

    ...Or at least that is what makes sense to me....

    Have a good one,
    AG
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  11. #11
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Ya, I'm still here . . . guess I musta missed this thread.

    Anyway, no, that's not my approach to the issue of any god's existance.
    What I maintain is that if we cannot detect things with the use of our five senses, we can have no proof that they exist. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that such things do not exist, either. Then again, wishful thinking won't bring undetectable things into existance.

    We can speculate on the previous or current existance of the heirarchy of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, too. Just like Jehovah, they are undetectable. Does that prove that they never existed? Does that prove that they do not exist now? No.

    What we can do is analyze the claims of those who say that such beings exist. In the Christian Bible, we have a few unsubstantiated stories of talking animals, people rising from the dead and walking on water, claims that adulterers and sabbath breakers must be put to death. No one knows who actually wrote much of the Bible -- it could have been "you, me, or that nutcase hiding behind that tree." IMHO, only nutcases would put much stock in the anonymous, silly, vicious, and unverifiable blatherings of the Bible.

    Many Christians say that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, but there's a passage in Genesis that refers to events that transpired centuries after the time Moses supposedly lived. I suppose they would much prefer to avoid facing such issues, and that's their perogative. I, however, enjoy discomforting fundamentalists in spirited debates, hence my posts challenging their groundless assertions to be the "One and Only True Faith."

    Yah.

    -Tock
    Tock: +1



  12. #12
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by MilitiaGuy
    Tock are you against religions (espacially judaism ,christianity and islam) because homosexuality is forbiden in all of them?
    Not at all.

    I don't really care what religion you do or don't follow, just so long as you don't force me to conform to your religious notions.

    If you embrace a religion that requires death for gay people, leave me out of it. But if you turn gay, you're perfectly free to have your preacher shoot you -- that's up to you.

    And if your religion says that gay people can't marry other gay people, well, if you turn gay, then don't marry another gay person. I don't really care. But if someone who isn't a member of your religion is gay, you really have no business telling them that they must comply with your religion.

    Aside from that, I'd say that I'm against religions because they invite people to embrace irrational notions that lead them to do horrible things to other people. Find me a religion that does not do that, and I'll drop my objection to it.

    That's all I have to say about that.

    -Tock
    Last edited by Tock; 08-07-2005 at 04:00 PM.

  13. #13
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Genesis 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

    Genesis 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.


    Quote Originally Posted by almostgone
    Just for the sake of arguement I'll throw in my .02...Gen 36:31 is a reference to Gen 17:6..That verse contains God's promise to Abram/Abraham that his descendants would be kings.......Also. I would say it refers to Gen. 35:11 and God's promise to Jacob concerning his descendants..

    ...Or at least that is what makes sense to me....

    Have a good one,
    AG
    Good try, but no banana.

    36:31 uses the past tense of the verb "reign" as the author already knew of kings who reigned in Israel. Had the author merely been speaking of kings who would reign in the future, he would have said so . . . unless, of course, the anonymous author made an error. But since this is "the inerrant Word of God," there could be no mistakes, right? Or maybe there is a mistake, which would make the Word of God imperfect, yes?

    Which way do you want to have it?

    -Tock

  14. #14
    IronFreakX's Avatar
    IronFreakX is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Not at all.

    I don't really care what religion you do or don't follow, just so long as you don't force me to conform to your religious notions.

    If you embrace a religion that requires death for gay people, leave me out of it. But if you turn gay, you're perfectly free to have your preacher shoot you -- that's up to you.

    And if your religion says that gay people can't marry other gay people, well, if you turn gay, then don't marry another gay person. I don't really care. But if someone who isn't a member of your religion is gay, you really have no business telling them that they must comply with your religion.

    That's all I have to say about that.

    -Tock
    exactly!!!...if people would just mind their own fvcking bussines ..even tho im not gay...i face the same thing..in other issues..with muslims.....

  15. #15
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is offline AR-Elite Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    14,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Genesis 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

    Genesis 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.




    Good try, but no banana.

    36:31 uses the past tense of the verb "reign" as the author already knew of kings who reigned in Israel. Had the author merely been speaking of kings who would reign in the future, he would have said so . . . unless, of course, the anonymous author made an error. But since this is "the inerrant Word of God," there could be no mistakes, right? Or maybe there is a mistake, which would make the Word of God imperfect, yes?

    Which way do you want to have it?

    -Tock

    The Hebrew word translated "reign" in the Hebrew as used in the Massorah is also the same when used in the future tense....But that's a nice attempt to counter my statement....

    AG
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  16. #16
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by almostgone
    The Hebrew word translated "reign" in the Hebrew as used in the Massorah is also the same when used in the future tense....But that's a nice attempt to counter my statement....

    AG
    So, you're admitting that there's a 50-50 chance that I might be right?
    -Tock

  17. #17
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is offline AR-Elite Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    14,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    So, you're admitting that there's a 50-50 chance that I might be right?
    -Tock
    LOL....Nice try!!...No, I'm saying the context determines the verb tense....
    ....But you do stick to your arguement well!!!
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  18. #18
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by almostgone
    The Hebrew word translated "reign" in the Hebrew as used in the Massorah is also the same when used in the future tense....But that's a nice attempt to counter my statement....

    AG
    It does seem that all the English Bible versions are translated to use the word in the past tense, as mentioned at
    http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp...36&Version=YLT

    ASV :31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
    BBE (Bible in Basic English) 31 And these are the kings who were ruling in the land of Edom before there was any king over the children of Israel.
    Darby 31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned a king over the children of Israel.
    KJV 31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
    WEB (World English Bible) 31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel.
    YLT (Young's Literal Translation) 31 And these 'are' the kings who have reigned in the land of Edom before the reigning of a king over the sons of Israel.

    More versions listed at
    http://studylight.org/desk/?l=en&que...e&ng=36&ncc=36
    NAS (New American Standard) Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king R1063 reigned over the sons of Israel.
    Amplified Bible And these are the kings who reigned in Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites:
    NIV These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned
    NLB (New Living Bible) These are the kings who ruled in Edom before there were kings in Israel
    Douay-Rheims And the kings that ruled in the land of Edom, before the children of Israel had a king, were these:

    And there are more, all of them translating this text the same way.

    Anyway, perhaps you think you know better than the hundreds of Bible Scholars who translated the Hebrew into English over the proper tense of the verb in question. Should you decide to take them to task, I'd like to see the text of your arguement . . . should make for interesting reading.


    Here's something from a Hebrew site, supporting my take on this issue:
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0136.htm



    And here's a pregnant comment about this quibble extracted from
    http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../001hoist.html
    from a former Church of Christ minister turned thoughtful atheist, Farrell Till:

    . . . the language indicates that the writer was referring to kings who had reigned over an established Israelite nation. The word reigned was used twice in this verse, first in reference to kings who had reigned in the land of Edom and then to kings who had reigned over the Israelites. If the first usage of the word signified kings who had reigned as the heads of an established nation inhabited by an ethnic group known as Edomites, then what reason is there to suppose that the second usage of the word in the same sentence had a different meaning and referred not to kings who had ruled over the Israelites as a nation but to kings who had reigned in a foreign country that had held the Israelites in bondage? There is no sound literary reason to justify this meaning. I have done a computer check of how the expression "reigned over Israel" was used in the Old Testament, and I found that it was consistently used in reference to kings like Saul, David, and Solomon, who reigned over the unified kingdom of Israel, and Nadab, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehu, and others who had reigned over the northern kingdom after the division. Furthermore, I found that "reigned over Judah" was consistently used in reference to the Judean kings who had reigned in Jerusalem after the unified kingdom had split into the northern and southern divisions. Not one time did I find this expression used in reference to foreign kings who reigned over the Israelites while they were in captivity.


    It's all very interesting, indeed.
    Looks to me that most everybody who knows much of anything scholarly sides with me on this issue, and even you seem to give me 50-50 odds on this interpretation. What that says about the authorship of the first five books of the Bible should shake you to the very foundation of your fundamentalism, because
    a) if one person wrote the first five books of the Bible, and
    b) if that person was someone who knew about the Kings of Israel,
    c) then those texts were written after the days of King Saul, David, and Solomon, sometime after 1000 BC, and some 500 years after the time Moses supposedly lived, and thousands of years after the days of Noah and his flood, and many thousands of years after the time a talking serpent chatted up Eve in the Garden of Eden.



    All this points to these ancient Hebrew texts being nothing more than folklore. What do you think about that?

    -Tock

    By the way, I wonder what Books has to say about all of this . . .
    Last edited by Tock; 08-07-2005 at 11:27 PM.

  19. #19
    almostgone's Avatar
    almostgone is offline AR-Elite Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    the lower carolina
    Posts
    14,227
    ..Very good work..but, no not eveyone scholary sides with you....
    Even in this little backwater town I live in there there is a tabernacle...The rabbi is a fairly friendly fellow who I've spoken with several times....Fortunately, he, like many others of the Jewish faith are capable of reading both "modern" Hebrew and the older "Paleo" Hebrew...Unfortunately, many of the so-called "scholars" on the internet are ignorant of the difference or even how to read it..Even I can slowly translate from a copy of the Massorah, so why the "scholars" don't dig in and read and study for themselves instead of taking information for granted is beyond me...But I compliment you on your efforts at trying to dissuade me.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    All this points to these ancient Hebrew texts being nothing more than folklore. What do you think about that?
    ....Actually, not much....but at least you seem to understand the concepts of researching a subject....
    There are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
    A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.

  20. #20
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Ya, well, not to dis your guy, but I kinda think the collective brain power of all those Hebrew scholars and Bible translators down through the years working on all those Bible translations and paraphrases count for more than your backwater tabernacle's resident rabbi's individual opinion. They were working from the same documents (actually, from the oldest ones available), debated and discussed the issues, and as things turn out, they all agree on the interpretation of the passage in question, and it raises interesting issues.

    But feel free to continue to delude yourself. No skin off my nose . . .


    Nevertheless, I'm still curious about Book's take on all this. He was, after all, the one who asked me to tell him "why his Bible is wrong."

    -Tock

  21. #21
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    so tock, what you are looking for is a religion that believes in a god, yet there is nothing miraculous that has happened in that religion because of or from that god, because that would turn the religion into a stupid unbelievable story. is that correct?

  22. #22
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    so tock, what you are looking for is a religion that believes in a god, yet there is nothing miraculous that has happened in that religion because of or from that god, because that would turn the religion into a stupid unbelievable story. is that correct?
    Nope, not at all.

    What I'm looking for is "A Good Meal at a Good Deal."

    Why should I be looking for a religion? I'm doing perfectly well without one.

    -Tock

  23. #23
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    To find meaning in life.


    Who am I?
    What am I here for?
    Where am I going when I die?

  24. #24
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Why should I be looking for a religion? I'm doing perfectly well without one.
    -Tock
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    To find meaning in life.
    Who am I?
    What am I here for?
    Where am I going when I die?
    Lots of different religions give you different answers to that question. Seems like an unlikely source for reliable information.

    -Tock

  25. #25
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    ask those questions about the worldview you believe in.

    all worldviews also must answere the question of

    Meaning
    Morality
    Salvation
    Destiny

    and be

    Logically consistent
    Empiracally adequate
    Experiential relevant



    ask yourself these questions concerning your worldview. Does it measure up

  26. #26
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    ask yourself these questions concerning your worldview. Does it measure up
    It not only measures up, but it meets or exceeds WPSO (World Philosophical Standards Organization) minimum requirements for "Worldview Measurements." And not only does it beat the pants off the Christian Worldview, but it pulls them down and exposes its shriveled nuts for all to see.

    -Tock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •