»
Archives
»
Open Poetry #44
»
the B-I-B-L-E
| Open Poetry #44 |
|
the B-I-B-L-E |
|
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
Let God be abolished, dismantled, demolished Let die all dogma that opposes our knowledge. The dead myths of christ must not be exhumed let the bible be burned and the ashes entombed. Let come the new era of science and reason now our salvation, no longer our treason! God isn't dead, because he never existed. He's just a construct of myths we enlisted to order the chaos, and let us be "blessed" instead of just dust in this great cosmic mess. Shed your beliefs and your shackles are lost. put trust in your judgement, not in the cross. Keep the Sinai tablets, those ten silly rules out of our classrooms, away from our schools. Intelligent Design is out and out nonsense yet it is taught alongside of science. Keep faith at arm's length no matter the cost offer no prayer or salvation is lost. |
||
| © Copyright 2009 tao power - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
steavenr Member Elite
since 2003-11-17
Posts 4058 |
this is a gift...will be a great seed-thought for Sunday's sermon  ...interesting last lines: "Keep faith at arm's length no matter the cost offer no prayer or salvation is lost." I was completely amazed at your use of the word 'keep.' I am not sure if you realize how significant the use of that word is here, but I am truly impressed. It is amazing! |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
what's so amazing about "keep"? |
||
|
Pilgrimage Member Elite
since 2001-12-04
Posts 3945Texas, USA |
I'm a Christian. Jesus is my lord and my savior. I hope someday he will be yours. As to the poem, very nice structure and I like the use of language. The tone is consistent throughout and well done. I look forward to reading more of your poetry. Nan (Pilgrim variety) |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
OOOOOO! This ought to stir things up...lol Hey TP, You aware of the court battle over intelligent design? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html You have some turns in this write I like. turtle |
||
|
steavenr Member Elite
since 2003-11-17
Posts 4058 |
tao, glad you asked While I was trying to decide whether or not to read this as veiled sarcasm or as an earnest complaint, I decided to hinge it on this word, 'keep'. Either you knew the scriptural background and were referencing it (hence the sarcasm) or you had no idea and its appearance was not planned on your part. Here is what is amazing. In the particular reference (Jude vv.18-21) there is a word (in the original Greek) that is used only 2 times in the entire Bible. That word is empaiktes. It is translated here as mockers and in II Peter 3:3 as scoffers. Both times it is used, it is used in the context of the "last times" and both times as proof of God's plan, love, mercy, and grace. In Jude, the Christian is reminded that the mocker separates himself from the love of God and not God separating His love from the mocker. It then goes on to teach the Christian the following four things: 1. build up yourself on your most holy faith 2. pray in the Holy Ghost 3. keep yourself in the love of God 4. look for the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ Notice the third instructional verb--keep (in Greek it means to 'watch', 'observe' or 'hold fast.') Rather than judging the mocker and possibly holding ill feelings toward him, it (along with faith and prayer) is an essential step in introducing mercy to the mocker. In II Peter, Peter infers that what may appear as God not fulfilling His promise to send Jesus back to earth for His own (believers), is simply God's love for unbelievers evidenced in His long-suffering toward them. you see, the 'keep' here is an emphatic...it should envigorate the reader |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
i still dont follow. empiatkes means keep? I dont understand. thanks for your input though. I find what you're talking about interesting, but a little confusing. |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
Steavan I think you mean 'invigorate' I don't believe God "loves" unbelievers. I believe God is patient and wishes unbelievers would repent and turn around so he can love them for righteousness sake. An unbeliever is what he/she is, an unbeliever. God is perfect and never loves unrighteousness or unrighteous people of any type. However, when his beloved nation of Isreal sinned heavily against him he hardly loved them but extended mercy in the form of admonition and guidelines for them to redeem themselves and find their way back into God's love. At that time he certainly didn't love them. His prophets warned them in no uncertain terms of the consequences of remaining disobedient making themselves unbelievers. We will never understand the depth of God's mercy. He hardly loved Manasseh when he allowed the the king of Assyria take him captive down into Babylon. He had made his sons pass through the fire, practiced magic, employed divination, and promoted spiritistic practices all of which were detestable to God. Yet while in captivity Manasseh had a change of heart and prayed to God. After all the detestable things he had done God still restored him to the throne of Isreal. Manasseh then proceeded to remove all the detestable things, foreign idols and false gods from the temple and restored true worship. God hardly loves unbelievers but when they have a change of heart and turn around from their wicked ways then he can love them as believers. Free moral agents to choose between God or disobedience by not following God's principles and guidelines. However, does adhering to those principles require that you shun unbelievers entirely? The Scriptural answer to that question is no. After all, the apostle Paul himself showed loving consideration for “people of all sorts,” including unbelievers. (1 Cor. 9:22) The very nature of Christianity demands that we show an interest in others—including those who do not share our beliefs. (Rom. 10:13-15) Indeed, how can we follow the counsel to “work what is good toward all” if we isolate ourselves from people who might need our help? (Gal. 6:10) However, there is a clear difference between being friendly toward a workmate and being that one’s close companion. Here is where another Scriptural principle enters the picture. The apostle Paul warned Christians: “Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers.”—2 Cor. 6:14. God does not love unbelievers but he does if and when they become believers. Take care Eric |
||
|
steavenr Member Elite
since 2003-11-17
Posts 4058 |
tao, sorry for not being clear enough. 'Keep' is the Greek word tereo. You used it twice (once as in observing the Sinai laws, and once as 'to keep away from'.) I found your usage in the two cases as examples of the differences connoted paralleling the two most common modern day meanings of the word 'keep.' It was this dual usage that caused me to question as I did. Eric, never would have guessed our views would be so diverse on this subject...email me should you choose to continue this conversation...thanks...oh, btw, I admit to being the werlds werst spellur... |
||
|
Robert E. Jordan Member Rara Avis
since 2008-01-25
Posts 8541Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
Yo Eric, Your God is a little pickyer than mine is. Mine loves everyone. Bobby [This message has been edited by Robert E. Jordan (03-05-2009 04:31 PM).] |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Quote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God is perfect and never loves unrighteousness or unrighteous people of any type. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gee! And I thought God was love. That's okay TP, my God loves everyone and everything He created ........Including the unrighteous. |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
Oh that's true God is love. However, he does not love his creations, free moral agents, that choose to be wicked. That wouldn't make any sense. How would you feel if you were a victim of atrocities? Perhaps even evil deeds that kill your own beloved family members. God does NOT love his creations that murder, rape or steal. The Bible is very explicit about such things. Prov 6: 16 -19 However, God is love because he makes the way out for these ones to repent just like I mentioned in the above. The example of Manesseh. God is love because he is very forgiving of those who have a change of heart. Being wicked does not give all humans a free trip through this life to do just exactly what they want because God is going to love them anyway. Let's not make God out to be that unjust. To say God loves everything he created is a cop out and makes God appear to be cruel and unfeeling. It's a way to skirt around the real issues that affect mankind today. It comes down to trying to put the blame on God and that's not true. But that's another subject but a very very interesting one. Love the way you guys reply though, because you are thinkers and that's always good. The Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of unrighteous is "sinful, wicked, unjust. Eric |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
This poem, and the beautifully enlightening discussion that follows, is certainly a "keeper".  (steaven knows I had to go there) *chuckle* I'm curious as to the title, too. Your article "the" in lower case, and then all caps for B-I-B-L-E... hmm..whim or device? And I'm curious as our friend steaven was, if it was intended as a reference to the scriptural admonition regarding reading "by the letter"? Congratulations on a thought provoking piece. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
sorry (chuckle) Eric - I would love to debate this, but not here. If you want to start a thread in "Philosophy 101".................... |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
Turtle What would be the sense of debating it when you start your reply that way? Take care Eric |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
i accidentally hit the caps lock. It was like 5 am and I was really tired. That's why the title is the way it is. I spelled it out because we used to sing a song that goes "The b-i-b-l-e, that's the book for me, I stand upon the word of god, the b-i-b-l-e" and also people spell out evil things that they dont want children to understand. It's cool to read all the religious discussions. I hate my own poem but Im glad I wrote it because of the responses. |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
I don't understand how educated men and women can still cling to religion. Please read Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Sure it's an old old book, but compared to the bible, it's a new release. I can't even argue against the religious. They make me too sad. |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
TP You're a thinker and that's wonderful. Don't be sad when it comes to religious people. You have nothing to be sad about. We can believe in God and not be fanatical. You may think otherwise but I am not fanatical over this but I am a realist like you. We look at things from different angles... Consider OUR earth teems with life. From the snowy Arctic to the Amazon rain forest, from the Sahara Desert to the Everglades swamp, from the dark ocean floor to bright mountain peaks—life abounds. And it is loaded with the potential to amaze us. It comes in types, sizes, and quantities that stagger the imagination. A million species of insects hum and wiggle on our planet. In the waters around us swim over 20,000 species of fish—some the size of a grain of rice, others as long as a truck. At least 350,000 plant species—some weird, most wonderful—embellish the land. And over 9,000 species of birds fly overhead. These creatures, including man, form the panorama and symphony that we refer to as life. But more amazing than the delightful variety around us is the profound unity linking them. Biochemists, who peek beneath the skin of earth’s creatures, explain that all living things—be they amoebas or humans—depend on an awesome interaction: the teamwork between nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and protein molecules. The intricate processes involving these components occur in virtually all our body cells, as it does in the cells of hummingbirds, lions, and whales. This uniform interaction produces a beautiful mosaic of life. How did this orchestration of life come about? In fact, what is the origin of life? Likely you accept that at one time the earth had no life on it. Scientific opinion agrees, and so do many religious books. Still, you may realize that those two sources—science and religion—differ in explaining how life began on earth. Millions of people of all educational levels believe that an intelligent Creator, the original Designer, produced life on earth. In contrast, many scientists say that life arose from nonliving matter, one chemical step after another, merely by chance. Is it one, or is it the other? We should not think that this issue is rather remote from us and from our finding a more meaningful life. As already noted, one of the very fundamental questions humans have sought to answer is, Where did we as living humans come from? Most science courses focus on the adaptation and survival of life-forms instead of on the more central question of the very origin of life. You may have noted that attempts to explain where life came from are usually presented in generalizations such as: ‘Over millions of years, molecules in collision somehow produced life.’ Yet, is that really satisfying? It would mean that in the presence of energy from the sun, lightning, or volcanoes, some lifeless matter moved, became organized, and eventually started living—all of this without directed assistance. What a huge leap that would have been! From nonliving matter to living! Could it have occurred that way? Back in the Middle Ages, accepting such a concept might not have seemed a problem because spontaneous generation—the notion that life could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter—was a prevailing belief. Finally, in the 17th century, Italian physician Francesco Redi proved that maggots appeared in rotten meat only after flies had laid eggs on it. No maggots developed on meat that flies could not reach. If animals as big as flies did not just appear on their own, what about the microbes that kept appearing in food—covered or not? Although later experiments indicated that microbes did not arise spontaneously, the issue remained controversial. Then came the work of Louis Pasteur. Many people recall Pasteur’s work in solving problems related to fermentation and to infectious disease. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life-forms could arise by themselves. As you may have read, Pasteur demonstrated that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination. In 1864 he announced: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” That statement remains true. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter. How then could life come to be on earth? Modern efforts to answer that question might be dated to the 1920’s, to the work of Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparin. He and other scientists since then have offered something like the script of a three-act drama that depicts what is claimed to have occurred on the stage of planet Earth. The first act portrays earth’s elements, or raw materials, being transformed into groups of molecules. Then comes the jump to large molecules. And the last act of this drama presents the leap to the first living cell. But did it really happen that way? Fundamental to that drama is explaining that earth’s early atmosphere was much different from what it is today. One theory assumes that free oxygen was virtually absent and that the elements nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon formed ammonia and methane. The concept is that when lightning and ultraviolet light struck an atmosphere of these gases and water vapor, sugars and amino acids developed. Bear in mind, though, that this is theory. According to this theoretical drama, such molecular forms washed into the oceans or other bodies of water. Over time, sugars, acids, and other compounds concentrated into a broth of “prebiotic soup” where amino acids, for instance, joined to become proteins. Extending this theoretical progression, other compounds called nucleotides formed chains and became a nucleic acid, such as DNA. All of this supposedly set the stage for the final act of the molecular drama. One might depict this last act, which is undocumented, as a love story. Protein molecules and DNA molecules happen to meet, recognize each other, and embrace. Then, just before the curtain rings down, the first living cell is born. If you were following this drama, you might wonder, ‘Is this real life or fiction? Could life on earth really have originated in this way?’ Genesis in the Laboratory? In the early 1950’s, scientists set out to test Alexander Oparin’s theory. It was an established fact that life comes only from life, yet scientists theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life might have come slowly from nonlife. Could that be demonstrated? Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent an ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of reddish goo, which Miller analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids—the essence of proteins. You may well have heard of this experiment because for years it has been cited in science textbooks and school courses as if it explains how life on earth began. But does it? Actually, the value of Miller’s experiment is seriously questioned today. (See “Classic but Questionable,” pages 36-7.) Nevertheless, its apparent success led to other tests that even produced components found in nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Specialists in the field (sometimes called origin-of-life scientists) felt optimistic, for they had seemingly replicated the first act of the molecular drama. And it seemed as though laboratory versions of the remaining two acts would follow. One chemistry professor claimed: “The explanation of the origin of a primitive living system by evolutionary mechanisms is well within sight.” And a science writer observed: “Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded.” The mystery of the spontaneous origin of life, many thought, was solved.—See “Right Hand, Left Hand,” page 38. Moods Change—Riddles Remain In the years since, however, that optimism has evaporated. Decades have passed, and life’s secrets remain elusive. Some 40 years after his experiment, Professor Miller told Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” Other scientists share this change of mood. For example, back in 1969, Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon coauthored Biochemical Predestination. But more recently he concluded that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.” Indeed, laboratory work bears out Kenyon’s assessment that there is “a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.” After Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth. After thousands of experiments with so-called prebiotic conditions, what was the outcome? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories notes: “There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.” The latter efforts are characterized by “uniform failure.” Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules came into existence. It includes how they work together. “It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Yet the encyclopedia notes that how that partnership could come about remains “a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.” True, indeed. Appendix A, “Teamwork for Life” (pages 45-7), reviews some basic details of the intriguing teamwork between protein and nucleic acids in our cells. Even such a glimpse into the realm of our body cells elicits admiration for the work of scientists in this field. They have shed light on extraordinarily complex processes that few of us even think about but that operate every moment of our lives. From another standpoint, however, the staggering complexity and precision required returns us to the question, How did all of this come about? You may know that origin-of-life scientists have not ceased trying to formulate a plausible scenario for the drama about the first appearance of life. Nevertheless, their new scripts are not proving to be convincing. (See Appendix B, “From ‘the RNA World’ or Another World?” page 48.) For example, Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, observed: “At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Even at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, no solutions were forthcoming. Instead, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who convened had “grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.” Intelligence and advanced education were required to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred first in a “prebiotic soup,” undirected, spontaneously, and by chance? Or was more involved? Why the Riddles? A person today can look back over nearly half a century of speculation and thousands of attempts to prove that life originated on its own. If one does that, it would be hard to disagree with Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Speaking about origin-of-life theories, Crick observed that there is “too much speculation running after too few facts.” It is thus understandable that some scientists who examine the facts conclude that life is much too complex to pop up even in an organized laboratory, let alone in an uncontrolled environment. If advanced science cannot prove that life could arise by itself, why do some scientists continue to hold to such theories? A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” He added: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” And the picture has not improved. Consider the underlying import of such reasoning. It is as much as saying: ‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.’ Are you comfortable with such logic? Does not such reasoning call for a lot of ‘bending’ of the facts? There are, however, knowledgeable, respected scientists who do not see a need to bend facts to fit a prevailing philosophy on the origin of life. Rather, they permit the facts to point to a reasonable conclusion. What facts and what conclusion? Information and Intelligence Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered: “We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.” The more you learn about the wonders of life, the more logical it is to agree with that conclusion: The origin of life requires an intelligent source. What source? As noted earlier, millions of educated individuals conclude that life on earth must have been produced by a higher intelligence, a designer. Yes, after examining the matter fairly, they have accepted that even in our scientific age, it is reasonable to agree with the Biblical poet who long ago said about God: “For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Well Dr, Eric Very impressive...... It might be a good idea to recognize those you directly quote. Otherwise it looks like you wrote all this. Instead of just copy/paste from your creationism blogs. Quote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the early 1950’s, scientists set out to test Alexander Oparin’s theory. It was an established fact that life comes only from life, yet scientists theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life might have come slowly from nonlife. Scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold Urey, took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor which represented the primitive atmosphere (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom to represent the ocean, and zapped electric sparks, to represent the lightning, through the vapors. By Iron Serpent (Yahoo) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://de.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070806025123AA7lvuG Quote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of >Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this >subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to >demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could >not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the >emergence of life too small.” He added: “Regrettably from this point of >view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and >activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its >existence.” And the picture has not improved. By Free Lunch (Google) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://groups.google.com.mx/group/alt.talk.creationism/b rowse_thread/thread/fa14ed91088d0e24/95b66b88a63da88f?lnk=raot Turtle Look I don't care what any of you choose to believe. It is your right and I fought for that right. It is also Tao Power's right to believe what he wants to believe. I fought for that right too. Please quit ganging up on him and giving him what he has clearly indicated he does not want to hear in his own thread. |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
Leaving religious faith aside, I think there is value in reading the (Jewish) bible for what it was meant for, namely an anthology that recorded histories of men. The Bible is not a book, it is a collection of books. Contratry to mythologies that tell of the births and deeds and deaths of the Gods, the books of the Tanakh focused on human beings. Also, according to certain scholars, including a Yale universtity lecturer, the Tanakh is not a religious textbook either. I believe the lecture is still available online on Academic Earth. Discovery channel also had an interesting series on the Bible, the selection of the canon, which you can find on You Tube. Mark |
||
|
Dark Stranger Member Patricius
since 2001-03-19
Posts 13631West Coast |
If there is not a God I hate to consider the alternatives since we seem to do so well at everything we actually create and or explain the existence of...as for the scientists and their opinions..to disney with them..(since there is no hell right?) when was it that the earth was discovered to be roundish? the poem was well planed, I am amazed though at the bible and how well planned it is/was... |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Nice poem. I double what Robert said. (: -Juju |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
I don't have any creationism blogs nor do I visit any. Those references are easily searched and recognizable. Publications are quoted in my post in most cases. Never did I imply these were my words. In no way shape or form am I trying to take credit for these quotes. They are simply what they are. Merely a compilation of research. However, no one is ganging up on Tao Power as you say. This is simply just a discussion. No one has said anything nasty to TP. I started out my post by complimenting TP However, this being his own thread and him being selective of what replies he wants and doesn't want. This is called open poetry 44. I went to your links and none of that research was quoted there. Just bits and pieces of similiar work. Have a nice day and it's great to see you sticking up for your friend. The world certainly needs more of that these days. Eric |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Hi Tao Power. I was just thinking that if you wanted to post this poem in CA, we might discuss ways of wording this poem that is less offensive to these folks of faith. Eric - I don't even know Tao Power ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Plagiarism.org http://www.plagiarism.org/ Here is a link to my post addressed to you in Philosopy 101 /pip/Forum8/HTML/000918.html turtle |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
Let' get fanatical about the fanatics. Let's stop allowing intolerance. Don't ya just hate HATERS? ...and if you are REALLY bright... your intelligence will demand that you rise up and make a stand against the hummingbird's antlers. ::smiles:: |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
It's not plagairism it's direct quotes. By permission too I might add. Read that link in depth and you'll see what constitutes plagairism. I never said I found TP's post offensive. My original post was in answer to Steavan's post. However, you make up whatever you think is right. Have a great day. Eric |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Plagiarism is a serious offense and a very insulting charge, whether direct, implied or even suggested publicly. Turtle if you feel there is plagiariam here, issue a ticket on it and we will investigate it. Otherwise, please let it go... Also, if you want to start a thread in another forum to further the discussion. go ahead. Those who wish to join, will. This is the Open forum, where we try to limit comments to the poems. Obviously more than one person has expanded greatly on that. |
||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Hi Balladeer, Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Turtle if you feel there is plagiariam here, issue a ticket on it and we will investigate it. Otherwise, please let it go. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes I do think there is plagiarism here, but I'm not aware of this "ticket" thingy. I searched around this site last night trying to find what would be the proper approach to this. Didn't see anything about how to "issue a ticket". I'll look again. turtle |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. Oh dear God forgive me I copied the above out of an internet enclyclopedia.....All I paid was my monthly fee for high speed. Hope you will all come to see me in crowbar hotel....I have truly sinned.....Please forgive me all. All of the material in my posts are compiled from textbooks that are open to the public for research purposes. At no time have I ever taken credit for authorship of direct quotes from these research vehicles. I simply used....The following in my previous post. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955 Technology Review, April 1981 Scientific American 1991 Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life Origin and Development of Living Systems The Origin of Life J D Bernal Biochemical Predestination Dean H. Kenyon If you're going to judge someone why not try and do it outside of self serving pride. With an element of understanding open minded differences can be easily set aside. In love with the romance of life..... Eric |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
Just because we don't know how life began doesn't mean we need to invent deities to explain it. We ESPECIALLY dont need to personify said deity with things like gender, likes, dislikes, and moral codes. We should just say "we don't know". God has provided no evidence for his existence other than creation (is that evidence?) and the bible, which was written by scholars and men of power who harbored their own agendas. |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
also, I dont want to make the poem less offensive. Offense was the intent. I am always compelled to push the red button. |
||
|
tao power Member
since 2009-02-24
Posts 109 |
It's bad for me to sit here and reply on my own thread, but I was rereading and saw where Dark Stranger says he/she is saying "I am amazed though at the bible and how well planned it is/was..." I hope this was a sarcastic comment. The bible is possibly the most poorly executed text to date. The discrepancies from book to book are astounding and sometimes in direct opposition to eachother. Not even the genealogy of Jesus is agreed upon within the bible. The time of the crucifixion is not even agreed upon between Mark and John. Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, NOR John can agree on what the inscription was above his head when he was crucified. This is not good planning. This is slipshod workmanship. It becomes obvious that scholars wrote the bible, with little communication among them as to who is saying what, and that the books that claim to be eyewitness accounts are anything but. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
