here are comments from NG's blog

[John T]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Previously, Neil started a thread where he pretends to understand philosophy and how it should be applied on a Biblical Text and History board. It was a total non sequitur of sophistry, unless it was intended to be used as an excuse to behave badly on this forum.

Then when someone else calls him on it (on a new thread), Neil calls them a liar and worse.

Strange how some people can dish it out but they can't take it.

The worst kind of hypocrite is one that falsely accuses someone of doing what they are actually doing.

e.g. Hillary and the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.

Now that you know how it feels, perhaps in the future you will treat this forum and those on it (especially those who disagree with your point of view) with respect and not use it like it is a was a Stephen Colbert show of political satire.

John T is done with this thread.

[StephenGoranson]

I wrote what I had reason to think was accurate. That is no lie.
If the claim that no such comments were deleted--
though some claims may not be trustworthy--
I was mistaken.

R. Gmirkin Vridar-blog-commented, 2022-10-03 21:24:27 GMT+0000 at 21:24:
"Yes, the replacement of earlier national memories based mostly on oral traditions was replaced by a new official national memory in the form of the Hebrew Bible in 270 BCE and thereafter. This took place exactly according to the literary agenda laws out in Plato’s Laws.

But note that a handful of written sources existed from earlier times: the royal annals of Judah and Israel, authentic prophetic oracles (Haggai) and some Persian Era official correspondence (Ezra) preserved in the temple. Possibly a few psalms and proverbs. Not a lot. I have also written about in various books and articles which you should track down and read. I don’t believe you have read Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible in which many of these issues were extensively discussed."

So-now-instead of claiming that the first five books of Hebrew Bible "were composed in their entirety about 273-272 BCE" in Alexandria, and that other TaNaK books were later, RG is starting to accept the reality that some Bible writings are older than c. 273-272.
That is a change well worth underlining.

[John T]

I don’t believe you [Neil] have read Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible in which many of these issues were extensively discussed."

Stephen,

I said I was done with this thread and I am. However, I still read them and you piqued my interest once again. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to the above referenced source.

Sounds like a good read.

Thank you in advance.

[StephenGoranson]

The "you" in that quote by RG (I was quoting RG), I'm pretty sure, refers *not* to Neil, but to me, SG.
(I do not doubt that NG read RG's book.)

https://vridar.org/2022/09/25/biblical- ... ent-239442

[lclapshaw]

I don’t believe you [Neil] have read Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible in which many of these issues were extensively discussed."

Stephen,

I said I was done with this thread and I am. However, I still read them and you piqued my interest once again. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to the above referenced source.

Sounds like a good read.

Thank you in advance.

Colbert would have a field day with an idiot like you.

[John T]

The "you" in that quote by RG (I was quoting RG), I'm pretty sure, refers *not* to Neil, but to me, SG.
(I do not doubt that NG read RG's book.)

https://vridar.org/2022/09/25/biblical- ... ent-239442

Thank you for the link. A cursory look shows Neil's willingness to hijack/weaponize my comments without attribution on his blog. Nothing new there.

However, just because Neil may have read: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, does not make him a real philosopher.

Even so, I don't get the credit. Plato's, Timaeus has been studied for over 2,000 years. I'm just sorry that when Neil first heard about Timaeus (clearly he did not understand it, let alone read all of it) on this forum, he arrogantly thought because he was smarter than John T, and others (what Neo-atheist doesn't think that?) he could use it as an example to show once again how stupid Christians (flat earth, fundamentalists) are and why useful idiots should, out of hand, dismiss the philosophical ethics of Plato and join his growing army of Neo-atheists.

Talk about the narcissist arrogance of the Neo-atheist.

And no, I won't join Neil's blog no matter how much he goads me to respond.

Yes, that is all on this thread. Even with the usual ad hominem, smart-alleck comments that will no doubt follow.
Wait for it.....

[neilgodfrey]

I wrote what I had reason to think was accurate. That is no lie.
If the claim that no such comments were deleted--
though some claims may not be trustworthy--
I was mistaken.

You said all of your comments were deleted and you posted them here. That was the title of your thread.

You never saw all of them deleted. Never. You assumed I was deleting your words for some unsavoury reason and came straight here to declare your falsehood.

Apologize.

This is not about Gmirkin. It is about you posting a thread aimed at smearing me with reckless and false assertions.

[lclapshaw]

Delete

[dbz]

Wait for it.....

• Indeed I am "Wait[ing] for it....."

John T, do you oppose/hate/reject evil?

A sophisticated first_CE Platonist (i.e. middle platonic) would understand evil in the same way that something being “cold”—can be understood as merely the absence of heat. All (Loddy, Doddy, and Everybody) have the potential to be good in the same way that every atom—understood as a ball on the classical (pre QT) Newtonian billiard table universe—has the potential to have heat. Thus a person is evil if they are not living their full human potential. As the bible says; since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, “men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men … They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice.” because they are ‘COLD’ (i.e. not fulfilling their potential to be good), thus have “a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” Cf. Romans 1:28

Adamson nails it in "Plotinus on Evil". YouTube. "Peter Adamson discussion Plotinus's philosophy on the conception of evil."

What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction

Lecture by Arthur Holmes per course, "A History of Philosophy"

Wheaton College, Illinois.

[neilgodfrey]

trolls.jpeg (147.36 KiB) Viewed 575 times

(with thanks to Ken)