Forums > Social Discussion > My agnostic connection with "God"

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Hi Woodlandapples, I can see by you instant dismissal of the Gnostic gospels that we are not going to agree on this one. Talk about open minded, you obviously have a barrow to push

Here are a few bits on the reliability of the new testament from a mate. “Although Luke and Matthew both use Mark as a source, and the author of Luke probably read Matthew’s compilation while in Antioch, these two evangelists’ accounts contradict each other in many ways. To name an example:

Matthew 1:16 Joseph’s father was Jacob.
Luke 3:23 Joseph’s father was Heli.

According to the theory of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so who cares whether Joseph was a descendant of King David? Some Christian priests would have their faithful believe that the Luke genealogy was of Mary, that Heli was Mary’s father; however, Luke 3:23–24 actually negates such a claim.

Matthew 1:20 An angel appears to Joseph.
Luke 1:38 An angel appears to Mary.

Matthew 2:11 Jesus was born in a house
Luke 2:7 Jesus was born in a manger.

Matthew 2:14 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt.
Luke 2:22 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem. “

Personally, I don’t think the bible is accurate in any way, it's been fiddled with so many times it’s become a very biased compilation. The reason that there are not many ancient scrolls today is because they were all destroyed by the church of rome. The church would tolerate no competition. The Inquisition was not abolished until 1834. In that time, thousand and thousands of so called heretics were killed. You talk about history, then why then happened to the Celtic and the other earth base religions?

The brainwashing comes because people are not allowed to read other scripture besides the bible. Have you ever read any other scriptures beside the bible, the Dhammapada for example?

He may indeed wear the yellow robe (ie. a priest).
Mistaking the false for the true,
And the true for the false,
You overlook the heart,
And fill yourself with desire,
See the false as false,
The true as true,
Look into your heart,
Follow your nature,
An unreflecting mind is a poor roof.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1259890443)

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Hi there Stout, i'm sure you know that DNA existed before the flood. But, if you are confused about the evolution of species, and in particular Koalas. Then I think you are perhaps mistaking the voyage of Noah and the Ark with the voyage of Charles Darwin on the Beagle. Charles Darwin sailed on the good ship Beagle, and came to discover much on his voyage to the great southern lands. He published his findings on Koalas and other species in book called the “The Origin of the Species”. It's well worth a read, and only 150 years young Bet you wish you had a first edition.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Quote:Hi there Stout, i'm sure you know that DNA existed before the flood

Nope. wrong wrong wrong !

DNA came after the flood. Before the flood there were only clean animals and unclean animals. The clean ones were good, the unclean ones, not so good which is why the clean ones got priority loading on the ark and got to bring along their children.

There were dinosaurs on the ark, dontcha know? Well, baby ones, and they slept through the whole voyage, but they turned out to be gay and since there was only two of them they couldn't reproduce and got extincted.

After the flood, God waved his hand and created DNA because at the time there was only about 8000 different type of animal in the world and God wanted more variety. Evolution proceeded at a frantic pace for a while 'till God figured he was done.



Non-Https Image Link

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: StoutThere were dinosaurs on the ark, dontcha know? Well, baby ones, and they slept through the whole voyage, but they turned out to be gay and since there was only two of them they couldn't reproduce and got extincted.

Thanks for that Stout. That would explain why parts of the Bible, for example Leviticus 18:22, appear to have been written by dinosaurs.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Dammit, if I'd know that I would have made it through Leviticus before I got bored with reading the bible

How did they hold the pen?

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Hey Rouge, I didn't make it to far into the bible myself, it was like when i tried to read the whole Dune series back to back, or Foucault's Pendulum, enough was enough.

I really have no idea as to how historically accurate the Bible is so I'll refrain from commenting but....

There's a series showing on Discovery Channel right now called Battles B.C. and in one of their episodes they covered the battle of Jericho. What they're trying to do is analyse the OT as a military document and they're speculating what really happened in the real world with those stories.

In the battle of Jericho they proposed that Rahab, the prostitute, was in on the whole deal from the get go and her hanging a red cord in her window was to act as a marker. While the rest of the Israelites marched around the city, conducting psyops to distract the defenders, there were Israelites slowly sneaking into the city under cover of darkness.

The time comes, the horn is blown, and it's a signal fro the guys on the inside to come out of hiding, attack the front gate and throw it open. "The walls came tumbling down" is just a metaphor.

Makes more sense to me than some dude in the sky helping out. Why didn't God just send fireballs from the sky, that would have been way more impressive and been much more intimidating to the planned future sieges than simply killing everything that breathes.

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Hi Woodlandapples, I can see by you instant dismissal of the Gnostic gospels that we are not going to agree on this one. Talk about open minded, you obviously have a barrow to push

You are right to some extent, If you haven’t already worked it out Im Christian. But I have read the Gnostic gospels and I think they are priceless form of ancient text, yet by the fact that there is only one ancient copy of them been found, that that one copy is incomplete and heavily damaged. As well as the fact that it contradicts at least 7 other verifiable sources means that it cannot be used as proof that the bible in false. It is therefore an unreliable source. Whether you or I personally agree or disagree with these texts or not does not change the fact that until more sources are found, they will still continue to be an unreliable source, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for historical context. This way of thinking follows accepted historical and palaeontologic processes.

Here are a few bits on the reliability of the new testament from a mate. “Although Luke and Matthew both use Mark as a source, and the author of Luke probably read Matthew’s compilation while in Antioch, these two evangelists’ accounts contradict each other in many ways.

This is pretty interesting information. I hadn’t heard before the idea of them collaborating in Antioch before, I would like to know your sources so I could research this myself. This is how I have understood the gospels to have originated:
Matthew: Matthew was a tax collector who was one of the 12 disciples, it is believed that he wrote his gospel in A.D. 70. Most likely in the middle eastern Jewish settlements
Mark: John Mark was the owner of a home where early Christians met. It is believed that he got his information and stories from the disciple Peter. It was written in A.D. 50 in Rome.
Luke: Was a companion of Paul the Apostle, Luke also wrote Acts and was a Gentile and also a medical Doctor. The Gospel of Luke is believed to be written in the early A.D. 60’s but the location is unclear.
John: John the Apostle was one of the original 12 Disciples, It was written between A.D. 80 and 95 in Ephesus (in modern day Turkey).
I don’t see how you could say that Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, Matthew wouldn’t need to as he was there, and it is known that Luke used Paul as his source. I would suggest that the reason why this is a theory is only because Mark was written first. Luke couldn’t have read Matthews account first as he wrote his 10 years before Matthew.

these two evangelists’ accounts contradict each other in many ways.

Well actually they only contradict each other slightly, and in ways that do not suffer the integrity of the message or, more relevant to this discussion, its historical account. If you read each gospel together, they have the exact same stories, the exact same messages. In fact, the variations that do occur can lend credence to the reliability of the account. If all four authors plagiarised each other, then these differences would not have occurred.

To name an example:
Matthew 1:16 Joseph’s father was Jacob.
Luke 3:23 Joseph’s father was Heli.
Some Christian priests would have their faithful believe that the Luke genealogy was of Mary, that Heli was Mary’s father; however, Luke 3:23–24 actually negates such a claim.

First of, Luke 3:23-24 does not negate this claim. When you research this past the bible you find that if Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with use of the word "son" at that time. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a son has other scriptural precedent. This reasoning that it follows Mary’s genealogy does not fall down with Luke 3:23-24, it actually gets refuted in Luke 1:16 when it reveals Mary is descendant of Levi and not David. So maybe recheck your sources before making claims?

The more accepted reason is that Heli and Jacob were brothers; Josephs Mother was originally married to Heli, when Heli died Joseph was obliged by Levirite law to marry the Widow as the nearest relative who was currently unspoken for. Referring to both Heli and Jacob as father to Joseph is consisted with the use of that word at the time.

Regardless, if you still believe that this is a direct contradiction, then please reread both passages, and then continue. This whole series of passages is used to explain that Jesus was born from the house of David, and despite the whole Joseph’s father thing all four gospels do so. So when you read this contradiction in CONTEXT it does not actually negate the real message, that of the heritage of Jesus being from David.

According to the theory of the virgin birth, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so who cares whether Joseph was a descendant of King David?

Actually this is pretty important to the whole story. Again, if you had actually read the bible you would understand that the OT has in it several prophesies regarding the coming of the Messiah, all of them state that the Messiah would be from the house of David, so explaining this heritage is important in revealing the fulfilment of the prophesy.

Matthew 1:20 An angel appears to Joseph.
Luke 1:38 An angel appears to Mary.

Lets read the passages properly shall we
(Matthew 19-20 NIV)Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
And
(Luke 36-38 NIV)The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. Luke36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

How do these contradict each other? One writes about the angel that appeared to Joseph, the other the angel that appeared to Mary. It’s not even like the angels said the same thing, Come on now your last one was better.



Matthew 2:11 Jesus was born in a house
Luke 2:7 Jesus was born in a manger.

You are misquoting again, (Matthew 2:11 NIV) On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

Nothing whatsoever about Jesus being born in a house, just that the three wise men visited the house where the Manger was located. When I visited my mum in hospital when she gave birth to my brother, I didn’t say I visited room 372, I said I visited her in hospital.
Again no contradiction here, Im beginning to suspect you haven’t actually read these passages yourself.

Matthew 2:14 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Egypt.
Luke 2:22 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem.

This one is a little bit better, but again describes two different events, again. You need to read all passages before and after, and take it into context.
In Luke, it describes that they took Jesus to Jerusalem when he was 8 days old to be presented at the temple. Luke then picks up the story when Jesus is 12 years old.

Matthew talks about Jesus and his family fleeing to Egypt as Herod (the Jewish King) wanted him killed. Herod ordered the killing of all male babies UNDER 2 YEARS old killed, This tells us that Jesus was probably around 1 and a half years old at this time. Jesus returned to his homeland after Herod’s death in 4BC, This would be place Jesus as roughly 3-4 years old (its believed Jesus was born around 7BC) Leaving more than enough time for both to have happened, and for the story to still continue at age 12.

Personally, I don’t think the bible is accurate in any way

My debate with you is not whether you personally believe in the bible or not, my argument is against whether the bible is a good source for historical reference.

it's been fiddled with many times it’s become a very biased compilation.

When has it been fiddled with, and by whom? You make this claim with no evidence to back it up. In my research I’m yet to uncover ANY proof that the bible I read today is not the same as it was when it was written, In fact the OVERWELMING evidence PROVES the opposite. That it remains remarkable unchanged. As for biased, well it is a religious text, written by religious people for religious people. So, yeah, its going to be biased slightly towards religion, but it is still the most historically accurate narrative we have.

The reason that there are not many ancient scrolls today is because they were all destroyed by the church of rome. The church would tolerate no competition.

Really? All of them? A remarkable claim, yet again unsubstantiated, it however does not help us when we try to validate or void the Bibles accuracy. Whether other copies were around or not, the Gnostic gospels are still considered unreliable because we have only found one, in comparison to the several hundred thousand old bibles that have been discovered. Just because they may have been deliberately destroyed does not mean that they were historically accurate versions of events.

The Inquisition was not abolished until 1834. In that time, thousand and thousands of so called heretics were killed.

Actually, the inquisition stopped in 1808 at the latest, I could talk in depth about the role of the inquisition and in particular the Spanish inquisition, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the bible is a reliable historical source. But I would say that thousands and thousands were killed? Hardly; from its inception (around 1200) to its peak (around 1530) no more than two thousand people were executed, following that time it averaged out to be less than 3 deaths per year, far less than the normal judicial executions at the time, While still horrendous and an evil period of time, shameful to the Catholic Church; it is still less than the thousands and thousands that you claim.

You talk about history, then why then happened to the Celtic and the other earth base religions?

Im sorry, how does the loss of Celtic and druid-ship worship relate to the reliability of the bible as a historic record?

The brainwashing comes because people are not allowed to read other scripture besides the bible. Have you ever read any other scriptures beside the bible, the Dhammapada for example?

AH, I must confess that I have not dealt with the Dhammapada very much as it relates more to Theravada and Ive only really studied the Mahayana Buddhism idea’s behind the 4 noble truths.
I have also read the Toran, Koran, The Hindu beliefs and the Ancient Egyptian Mythology (I can read hieroglyphics). I have even read as much of the scientology books you can without having to pay anything.

See you make an assumption that Christians are not allowed to read anything but the bible, the bible teaches us to challenge our faith and to learn new things. To turn it around, from looking at your so called contraditctions, have you actually read the bible? It kinda looks like you haven’t.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: Stone
Thanks for that Stout. That would explain why parts of the Bible, for example Leviticus 18:22, appear to have been written by dinosaurs.


no, just homophobes. No wait; probably dinosaurs afterall

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Im not trying to prove that christianity is right, nor am I neccessarrily saying that the miricles in the bible are correct; just that the historical content and figures are. Take Moses for Example,

During the Riegn of Rameses the second, he built a new capital city in Egypt that was closer to the delta than Memphis and Thebes, He called this city Pi-Rameses and commissioned the whole thing to be made out of mudbrick. during the building of this city the workers revolted and fled Egypt to the east. The army tried to follow but were repulsed; the workers never returned and Pi-rameses was left reletivly unfinished. Tis is a historic record from Egypt that was discovered carved in stone on the road to the Hitite capital.

This follows the same storyline as the Moses story in the bible; has the same timeline and is said to have occured at roughly the same time.

Im not saying that Moses parted the red sea; I am saying he was the leader of the mass exodus of workers.

Im not saying that God shot fire from the sky and ingulfed Jericho, just that the battle that is described in the Bible did take place.

Im not saying that Jesus is the Messiah, just that there was a bloke called Jesus around 0BC that was a spiritual leader and healer; who was executed for claiming he was the son of God.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 3rd Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: StoutMakes more sense to me than some dude in the sky helping out. Why didn't God just send fireballs from the sky, that would have been way more impressive and been much more intimidating to the planned future sieges than simply killing everything that breathes.

Like what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah? Although for the most part I do agree that that sums up a very major point - why didn't the G-man just smite all of the baddies?

(just by the way, I read to the end of Exodus before I got bored out of my brain. I plan on finishing it one day though)

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Posted: 4th Dec 2009
Interesting how people argue about (the true or false contents of) books they haven't written (or understood) and make it look as if their opinion on them is actual fact...

Even more interesting how people criticize the Bible as being falsified and/or far off the actual truth and incline to refer to other (even older) scripts as being like fresh fallen snow...

In the meantime I find it completely OK to neither accept nor to reject the idea of the existence of g.o.d. ... There is no proof for or against, only opinions.

I haven't been around there at this time, neither has anyone I know - so it is all "hearsay"; no matter how plausible it appears to me.

Question is:

How much of a relevance do these theories hold for me today?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 4th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleDuring the Riegn of Rameses the second, he built a new capital city in Egypt that was closer to the delta than Memphis and Thebes, He called this city Pi-Rameses and commissioned the whole thing to be made out of mudbrick. during the building of this city the workers revolted and fled Egypt to the east. The army tried to follow but were repulsed; the workers never returned and Pi-rameses was left reletivly unfinished. Tis is a historic record from Egypt that was discovered carved in stone on the road to the Hitite capital.

Now that's interesting...I watched a history channel show on Pi-Ramesses last night. They had the city completed and inhabited fro 200 years. The branch of the Nile it was on dried up making the place rather useless as a location for a grand city. They decided to dismantle and actually move the place to an open branch.

Archaeologists used ground penetrating radar and determined the city's outline. so there may be a theory out there floating about that suggested the city was never finished, but I can't find anything on it. The second location functioned until something like 600 AD

The biblical angle all hinges on which date of the Exodus you prefer.

Speaking of...what's up with that 600K number of people ?

Posted: 4th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: Rouge Dragon
Like what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah? Although for the most part I do agree that that sums up a very major point - why didn't the G-man just smite all of the baddies?



Yea, if he's going to part the Red Sea, and knock down the walls of Jericho why not make it really easy for the Hebrews?

Posted: 5th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: Stout
Now that's interesting...I watched a history channel show on Pi-Ramesses last night. They had the city completed and inhabited fro 200 years. The branch of the Nile it was on dried up making the place rather useless as a location for a grand city. They decided to dismantle and actually move the place to an open branch.


I was refering more to the fact that the city was designed to be the new capital for the country, which after Rameses it wasn't, so as a capital it wasn't finished - Kinda like Bendigo and Castlemain in Victoria - both cities were supposed to be capitals of Victoria but they never really got there so the infrastructure and design of both towns are a bit incomplete and haphazard. (I relate to these cause I think your living in Melbourne??) Sorry for being vague but I was trying to keep my posts unsuccesfully short. As to the number of people - I will answer rather criptically (mainly cause Im in the middle of packing so all my references Ive been using are now in boxes) It is true that the population of Egypt at the time was not believed to be high enough to sustain that level of exodus - yet when we look at the building of the pyramids- when we calculate the man power we believe that they had to complete these projects we are left with timespans that far exceed the actual time it took to build them. Now unless Aliens built them the easiest answer is that the manpower used was greater than we suspect - which would also mean that Egypts population was greater than we suspect.

Pi Rameses location was chosen cause of its military advantages, being in the bottleneck delta region of Egypt that bordered the Hittite nation - it was never in a good social or economic position and once a large portion of its population left it became unsustainable and I think thats largely why it was abandoned - but if you watched a recent doco on it then I would suggest that your info is more up to date on it than mine.

Im done debating Bible; I think its reached the point where it is just your opinion vs mine, with no other real learning to be had; The last I want to say is that I agree that the bible is never going to be 100% accurate when we use it to view historical events. I still stand by the notion that it is the largest and best reference we have to understanding events in the past that it depicts, all handily in one place. Without its stories we would not be able to have as a complete picture of the past. However if people let their personal bias towards God and religions in general cloud their judgement then we loose a valuable tool when we try to understand an ancient people and its culture.

History is not only about what happened and at what time, but about the lives of those that did it. The culture of these people are also important when we try to understand the culture that we live in today. When we try to work out the reasoning behind our own relationship towards our cultures and even land usage. To this end the bible is a valuable, and accurate depiction of a nation and people. We ignore it to our own detriment.


*My bad Stout, your from Victoria CANADA, Stone is from Victoria Australia
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1259997435)
EDIT_REASON: added a last comment

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 5th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: FireTom
How much of a relevance do these theories hold for me today?


Amazing video you posted....

As well as the stuff that are in my profile, I also study historical sociology, which deals with exactly that; the relevance on past theories, trends and attitudes have on todays culture and attitudes. SO I find this stuff quite interesting and relevant.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 5th Dec 2009
Quote:I was refering more to the fact that the city was designed to be the new capital for the country, which after Rameses it wasn't, so as a capital it wasn't finished

According to the documentary I watched, it was completed and functioned for 150 years after Ramesses death. It wasn't until that particular branch of the Nile it was on silted up that the city was deconstructed giving it the appearance of being unfinished. The second location was described to function until the collapse of the Egyptian empire. I can't find anything online to back this up though, even the History Channel website on the documentary Inside Ancient Discoveries, is nigh on useless.



Quote:I will answer rather criptically

Fair enough nut it's issues like that that make the bible questionable as a historical document. 600 000 people, or 600 000 fighting men? either way you slice it that's an awful lot of people and raises the question of WHY the Hebrews needed to "hang out" in the desert for 40 years. Going with the lower estimate gives a fighting force of about 150K guys meaning there would be no need to take time to build up a fighting force as that amount could easily overrun Cannon instantly.

Unless your prefer the idea that that particular generation had to die out before the Hebrews could continue on their quest to conquer the promised land.

Then there's the logistics of maintaining a population of 600K+....in the desert.

Quote:yet when we look at the building of the pyramids- when we calculate the man power we believe that they had to complete these projects we are left with timespans that far exceed the actual time it took to build them.

Or...those calculations were wrong. Initially it was thought the pyramids were built with slave labour but modern archeology has determined this not to be the case. Pyramid labour was a form of taxation that the citizens were expected to "pay" when the Nile flooded. Archaeological evidence has determined that the labour force is/was much smaller than initially thought ( based on excavations uncovering the settlement areas of the workers ) and given that some of these pyramids have vast areas filled with sand that would greatly speed up the construction process.

Quote:Im done debating Bible; I think its reached the point where it is just your opinion vs mine

Fair enough, only it's not "my opinion" I'm working on, it's archaeology. If faith is an issue here, then so be it. One might consider the writings of Gerald Massey and his Jesus=Horus idea as an example of personal bias can affect "history"

Quote:History is not only about what happened and at what time, but about the lives of those that did it

Yes and that's what makes it interesting. What makes it challenging thought is letting go of previously held beliefs in the presence of new information. Archaeology is progressing, the bible isn't and if archaeology can prove what the bible says, the...good.

Quote:*My bad Stout, your from Victoria CANADA, Stone is from Victoria Australia

No worries.

Posted: 5th Dec 2009
WoodlandApple, I'm also done debating Bible. I used to believe that the bible provided a fairly accurate account of history. Then I started watching history documentaries, including the one Stout watched on Pi-Ramesses, now I’m not so sure.

I think Stout summed it up well:

Originally Posted By: StoutYes and that's what makes it interesting. What makes it challenging thought is letting go of previously held beliefs in the presence of new information. Archaeology is progressing, the bible isn't and if archaeology can prove what the bible says, the...good.

cheers

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Posted: 5th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: Stout

I can't find anything online to back this up though, even the History Channel website on the documentary Inside Ancient Discoveries
That sucks, do you have the title at least, it sounds interesting

Quote:Or...those calculations were wrong.

The calculations are based on the timespan it took to build the pyramids, 50ish years, the lifespan of the pharoah at the time. And the amount of blocks in the pyramids. It calculates to a block being cut, transported (the quarry was far to the south) moved and placed to pinpoint precision every 7 minutes. This is at a constant rate, not just when the nile was flooded. WHich is one of the reasons why the building of the pyramids is such a mystery. (not saying that theses calculations are right, just telling you what they were)


Quote:Archaeology is progressing, the bible isn't

The bible is a book. Of course it doesnt progress! But our understanding of it does, like archaeology.

anyway, thankyou for challenging my worldviews, it always brings growth
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1260058135)

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 5th Dec 2009
Oops..

The show was Inside Lost Worlds, not Inside Ancient Discoveries

Posted: 6th Dec 2009
I know that old Babylonian myts also include major flood events. They are surprisingly widespread the myths) in that part of the world.

Oh, and very similar to early parts of the old testament.

'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Posted: 6th Dec 2009
hmm sounds like a full fledged debate about the bible to me

being a x-tian doesn't necessarily mean that you have to believe in everything the bible says... or the pope.

IMO it only counts whether or not you're subscribing to the underlying philosophy - whichever way you interpret it is up to you (unless you enjoy living dogmatically)... no?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 6th Dec 2009
I think that lies VERY much within the boundaries of your opinion, FireTom. Everyones interpretation of what it means to be anything is their own and its all a part of what makes us unique.

Posted: 6th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: FireTomhmm sounds like a full fledged debate about the bible to me

being a x-tian doesn't necessarily mean that you have to believe in everything the bible says... or the pope.



I would be the first to admit that the bible provides a lot of challenges to the christian user And as a christian I dont have to do anything the pope tells me to; cause Im not Catholic.

Arguements and debates generally make people back into their opinions corner and take a very hardline stance; I cant speak for Stone or Stout but I do recognise they raised valid points. Naturally Im still right of cause.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 6th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: WoodlandApple
Arguements and debates generally make people back into their opinions corner and take a very hardline stance;

Yes, this is true and the important idea to keep in mind is "attack the argument, not the argument". Difficult at times I know, as anyone whose ever spent any time in the comments section of YouTube of conspiracy theory websites) can attest to.

People don't like having their opinions or beliefs challenged, that's a given but if those opinions or beliefs are based on "wrong" information then it's best not to raise them in a discussion environment if one is unprepared for those challenges.


Take a fairly simple example, according to science bumblebees can't fly. Have you ever heard and believed that one? Have you ever repeated it ? Did you know it's complete cowspoo ? Bumblebees can't glide, that's what was really said, but somehow it morphed into this "truism" that keeps getting batted around.

Posted: 7th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_SonI think that lies VERY much within the boundaries of your opinion, FireTom. Everyones interpretation of what it means to be anything is their own and its all a part of what makes us unique.

Beautifully stated! That's why I brought up Existentialism actually.

~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Posted: 7th Dec 2009
"were all individuals"

"Im not!"

ah Monty python, freekin gold.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 9th Dec 2009
Originally Posted By: StoutTake a fairly simple example, according to science bumblebees can't fly. Have you ever heard and believed that one? Have you ever repeated it ?

As Pratchett put it (loosely), just as well bumblebees do not know this....

'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Posted: 10th Dec 2009
MNS: which is why I prefixed the statement "IMO"

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 10th Dec 2009
Noted, Tom, but "(unless you enjoy living dogmatically)... no?" appears to apply a certain connotation to anyone that does not agree with your point of view.

Posted: 10th Dec 2009
almost..

Originally Posted By: Merriam WebsterDOGMA: 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

the best smiles are the ones you lead to