Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

Originally posted by bogomil

And the best about it is that majic has to be DISPROVED, not PROVED.

Only in their little fantasy world! In the real world, if you make a claim or statement, it's up to you to prove your point!!

Otherwise we could just make up whatever...pink unicorns and all that. Laughable

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Muslims believed the world was round. The three wisemen were wizards by some standards, Romans and Greeks both had massive numbers of gays, and to quote the word of the times, "Men are for pleasure, women are for children". Religion didn't change this view. Just another religion came around with a different view on it. Also, slavery means different things to different religions. To me, any situation where you are treated less than your worth, means you're a slave. That doesn't justify beating them, nor do I see what you mean by that because I've not seen a religion say that yet. And again, Christianity said nothing on the Sun and Moon. Greek tradition did. Plenty of religions and cultures say differently. Nonesense usually comes from misinformation and incorrect ideas.

To put it simple, you're generalizing. And that's ignorant, to say the least.

I'm not ignorant, I'm asking for FACTS and EVIDENCE to claims...because without them, they're nothing but speculation. And it's highly irrational or illogical to base your life on speculation.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Technically from that standpoint, we only know of history accurately up to about 1500s AD, and only the most basic forms of everything that lived from before 50,000 years ago. You do realize up to a certain point, proof is just the best-case speculation? A combination of critical thinking with evidence is what constitutes full proof. For other things, we use indirect observation, or just speculation based off what we can observe today.

To state speculation has no place is in fact ignorant, seeing as most of our view of history from before the printing press is based off speculation of multiple sources,as every source was biased before then.

That said, The bible and its validity before Christ is just speculation based off Jewish and non-jewish sources. IE, It is just speculation that every religion before Christianity from Spain to Pakistan is based off the same ancestor religion. But this speculation is based of observations of culture, belief, and similarities. Similarly, the presence of the same archaic story of one man and his family or clan staking out against a flood is present in many cultures around the world. Thus we can logically deduce that they originate from the same story. The presence of the same story in regards to warriors righting sea monsters and sleeping in Lilly pads in Native American cultures, as well as Indian cultures, means that something links the two, because even their drawings are similar, despite the fact that the two could not have communicated to each other. This is also how we know that mankind designs things a certain way. The presence of pyramids in Mexico and Egypt gives us hindsight as to why: we look at the stars, see patterns, and copy them. We're looking at the same sky, drawing the same north-south-east-west axis.

All this is just speculation, but based off multiple sources of cut off people saying the same. Thus, it becomes a fact that somehow it happened to some degree. If, of course, a bit changed to local cultures. You call an ark that's breaking the rules of physics magic. I just call it technology.

With all that said, God is just speculation, as there is no proof either way. But the stories in the bible are not just myth if they are repeated globally.

reply to post by MrXYZ


the text doesn't say all the animals, nor does it say the whole planet was inundated. that's yet another english translation bias situation. Observe:

Gen 6:13 And God 430 said 559 unto Noah 5146, The end 7093 of all flesh 1320 is come 935 before me 6440; for the earth 776 is filled with 4390 violence 2555 through them 6440; and, behold, I will destroy 7843 them with 854 the earth 776.

words with numbers after them were in the original so the verse woulda said something like:

God said Noah, End of flesh come before me. earth with violence them, destroy with earth.

as i mentioned earlier in the thread, the hebrew language was so different from english that the original construction of the verse had to be modfied (words switched around) for it to make sense in english. this resulted in the addition of alot of new words that weren't in there originally. if you'll notice,the word "all" as in "all flesh" is NOT in there, i call this translation bias, such as what you do with ancient text (assume they are fable, and just quote whatever, instead of investigating it).

there's more:

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing 2416 of all flesh 1320, two 8147 of every [sort] shalt thou bring 935 into the ark 8392, to keep [them] alive 2421 with thee; they shall be male 2145 and female 5347.

the word "every" wasn't in the original hebrew. the verse would've read more like this:

Living flesh, two bring ark alive, male female.

same thing here:
Gen 6:20 Of fowls 5775 after their kind 4327, and of cattle 929 after their kind 4327, of every creeping thing 7431 of the earth 127 after his kind 4327, two 8147 of every [sort] shall come 935 unto thee, to keep [them] alive 2421 .

Fowl kind cattle kind creeping thing earth kind two come alive.

and again

Gen 7:2 Of every clean 2889 beast 929 thou shalt take 3947 to thee by sevens 7651 7651, the male 376 and his female 802: and of beasts 929 that [are] not clean 2889 1931 by two 8147, the male 376 and his female 802. \

this is the biggie.
note how many are actually loaded on the ark? 7 male and female clean beasts and 2 unclean male and female.

Gen 7:3 Of fowls 5775 also of the air 8064 by sevens 7651 7651, the male 2145 and the female 5347; to keep 2421 0 seed 2233 alive 2421 upon the face 6440 of all the earth 776.

7 birds, male and female.
that means there were 7 clean, 2 unclean and 7 birds. 7+2+7 = 16.
sounds like he was told to take the farm animals and some birds.

addendum to my post above: or it could've been 7 clean males, 7 clean females. 2 unclean males and 2 unclean females, and 7 male birds and 7 female birds, in which case it would've been
7+7+2+2+7+7=32

But then again MrXYZ

this is the ultimate epistemological argument between the majicians and the the more mundanely oriented.

For the majician, majic (ofcourse his/her special branch of it amongst the thousands of options) is THE reality of which mundaniality is a subset.

For what's commonly called realists (objectivists etc) majic is usually an expression of fantasy.


So now I will try an interesting experiment:


Quote from a recent post from Gorman91:

["Christianity said nothing on the Sun and Moon."]

and quote from genesis 1:16

["And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"]

Now I would be very interested in what majic can un-paradox the seemingly paradox here. Maybe the bible isn't really christian after all. Maybe it's two other great lights than the sun and moon. Maybe majic is after all majic and it's waste of time to search evidence instead of just listening to Gorman's wisdom.

reply to post by undo


Well, if it wasn't all kinds of animals, it makes it even more likely that the whole thing didn't happen. If he only took a certain %, we wouldn't have the biodiversity we have today

And again, all you're doing is subjectively interpreting ancient texts that aren't backed up by any other kind of evidence. It's pure guesswork...might be fun, but definitely not based on logic

reply to post by MrXYZ


Like I said, most of history is educated guesswork. There is enough water on the planet, there is enough evidence to suggest some sort of advanced society, and the story is widespread across the globe, meaning it's thousands of years old.

reply to post by undo


While Hebrew and English are far apart, Hebrew was not the only language. Greek would have been the first language to be translated. And this would have been done by scholarly people who had the knowledge to do it. In this way is the Bible not biased to the translator. Though I'm guessing you'd like my video post a ways back when dealing with things that are describe one way and are really another.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

Well, if it wasn't all kinds of animals, it makes it even more likely that the whole thing didn't happen. If he only took a certain %, we wouldn't have the biodiversity we have today

And again, all you're doing is subjectively interpreting ancient texts that aren't backed up by any other kind of evidence. It's pure guesswork...might be fun, but definitely not based on logic

it didn't flood the whole place. it just flooded anything along the atlantic connected waterways it's the black sea flood, which REALLY did happen. in fact, ancient sumer was found buried under 8 ft of flood silt (and the end of sumer was due to the black sea flood.. the route of the black sea flood water was, atlantic to mediterranean, mediterranean to black sea, black sea into the valleys, south, including the euphrates and tigris.

and it isn't the only account of the event. there's also the akkadian Atrahasis
www.livius.org...
and the early babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh
www.ancienttexts.org...
and those texts are not in the bible.

i mean it was a flood. you act like floods don't happen at all?

reply to post by undo


But even then it's not sure. The Direct translation can mean anything really. Because Hebrew is an ancient language and did not add new words for different things. Thus the people had to know what it meant from generation to generation. Example,

beginning create God * heaven * earth (Traditional)
first choose angels * air * field (Angels told God they like the air?)
firstfruit make judge * astrologers * common (Food... made star viewers good judges?)
chief cut down great * heavens * nations (War in space?)
best dispatch mighty * sky * wilderness (A great man stopped the chaos in the sky?)

interesting video series where 2 geologists were challenged to prove the black sea flood was the source of the epic of gilgamesh, the atrahasis epic and the biblical flood. the theory was, the ice melt from prior ice age, eventually raised the waters too high, and breeched the end of the mediterranean (which off and on thru ancient past, has been a dry valley instead of a sea), shot thru the bosporus at the eastern end of the mediterranean, flooded the black sea with salt water (over fresh water, which poisioned it) and the waters proceeded from there. by the time they were done with their investigation, one of the geologists calculated how much water would've flowed over the bosporous and at what speed. he concluded it was shooting out the other end at an extreme speed and at a rate 100 times greater than the water that flows over niagra falls.

here's ya go

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin

 

The Jesus title and Mary title were not blood linked and therefor either married or part of the same "family" tomb.

Key word there being family tomb. Jesus was buried in a stranger's tomb, donated.

In fact, this would further credit the bible, as the man whom donated his tomb was named Joseph. And if he married a marry and named his son Jesus, it would be for obvious belief reasons. A la the same reason many Hispanics name their son Jesus. In fact seeing as Spanish culture is a derivative of Middle Eastern culture, it would make ever more sense.

edit on 22-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

You appear to be unclear on what you are trying to imply.

Are you saying "This is absolutely not the jesus of the gospels" ?

reply to post by undo


So at best there was a guy called Noah, who had a bunch of chickens, goats, maybe a few camels, and a cow (judging from the type of animals people had around that time)...and he had a boat, and saved his animals from the LOCALIZED flood. Still a lot less "mythical" than what the bible claims

How does a geological flood prove that Noah existed? How deos the geological flood prove that certain evil entities were drowned? Beware conflation

reply to post by The Djin


I'm saying the Marry and Jesus Tomb are not biologically related.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

So at best there was a guy called Noah, who had a bunch of chickens, goats, maybe a few camels, and a cow (judging from the type of animals people had around that time)...and he had a boat, and saved his animals from the LOCALIZED flood. Still a lot less "mythical" than what the bible claims

depends. i'd get further into it, but i am getting tired of looking things up, linking them, putting videos, images, translations, explanations, only to have you act like i'm an idiot or a liar or both. and then laughing to top it off. lol i love this topic, but i'm not fond of having to discuss with a hostile person repeatedly. you just go on thinking you know all you need to know about the subject, and i'll just keep trying to figure it all out. nice of you to give the chance to be verbally abused by ya hope ya learned something other than what you think you already know

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin

 

I'm saying the Marry and Jesus Tomb are not biologically related.

edit on 24-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

And so what? There were 2 Marys so there is no reason why this cannot be the resting place of jesus that appears in the gospels.

Originally posted by tiger5
How does a geological flood prove that Noah existed? How deos the geological flood prove that certain evil entities were drowned? Beware conflation

Because it says so in the bible , wakey wakey

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by tiger5
How does a geological flood prove that Noah existed? How deos the geological flood prove that certain evil entities were drowned? Beware conflation

Because it says so in the bible , wakey wakey

i get the impression, just based on the various root words i've studied, particularly akkadian, that noah's name originally meant something like king/royal captain. his original name may not have been in the text. nimrod's name meant rebel, and that's what he did in the stories about him. that was actually a literary style of akkad and babylon, primarily because people of import, often had many many titles, and rather than having to memorize or write down a long list, they would pick the most applicable title to match the actions of the person in the story.