any christians here in this entire site please stand up by leelu7777

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That is not abolition, that is fulfillment...those two commandments contain all ten commandments. You break one of the 10 then you can't fulfill one or both of the two Jesus ask's you live by.

Whose ten commandments?

There are Catholic and Protestant versions which are different from each other. There are two different versions in the OT (but only nine total in each), and then a whole nother set of commandments in the OT meant to replace the previous ones.

And there is an argument to be made that when Jesus said of the ten only two mean anything to god 1) love god and 2) love your neighbor. Now, love your neighbor doesn't show up in any OT version. This most certainly WAS a serious break w/ the OT.

literal reactions to a story that is allegorical

And the NT is not allegorical? Perhaps you need to discuss the finer points with the NT literalists who've posted here.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 5:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Precisely, "No one comes to the Father except through Me." No argument there. As He said multitudinously, He was the fulfillment of the promises of God for the redemption of sinners -- Jesus was the "seed" promised in the garden who would crush the head of the devil -- the "lamb" God Himself would provide as the sacrifice which God promised to Abraham on Mt. Moriah -- the son of David who would sit eternally on David's throne, etc. The Hebrew scriptures speak of His coming throughout. Again, none of this is a contradiction of the Hebrew scriptures, but a fulfillment of them.

Just a short observation - this is a fine example of a religion about Jesus which I find prevalent in people who call themselves Christians. Jesus is the fulfillment, the seed, the lamb of god, the sacrifice, the true king etc

OTOH, the religion of Jesus would practice love, forgiveness, non-attachment to material things etc rather than righteouness, 'smoting' and all those other OT exhortations and prophecies. You can't follow Jesus if you're busy with the OT.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's also a scientific explanation, the sea did “part”, at around the time recorded in the Bible, . . .

So in other words, there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
*sigh* I really don't want this to be offensive, and if it is I appologize in advance... But, that was the silliest thing I have ever heard.... -OmegaDark
Why silly? I thought the whole thing about Abraham sacrificing Isaac was a test of faith.

It’s silly because it seems very overly simplistic interpretation. Abraham, afterall, did not sacrifice Isaac.

Also the Bible, as we know it today, was cannonized in the 4th century, though technically there were earlier canons.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

Quote:

May I assume that you're getting at, the bible is along the lines of a "moral guide."

Nope, I am saying that it is irrelevant to someone who is incorporating the values. It doesn't hold up in an argument unless you are basing your entire arguments validity on your 'historical evidence.' We can argue whether it is useful or not to argue historically in some other thread, I would prefer arguments on doctrine and understanding....

Ok, now I'm confused. Perhaps it's the lack of sleep. Could you re-state the entire thought, I'm having problems right now

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

Quote:

IMO, all religions are the same, they just go about it in a different way.

From my study (FOR THE MOST PART, MOST PART) the values are very similar....but that too doesn't affect or hinder the arguments for or against Christianity...but it is awfully interesting to see how alike most religions truly are!!!

Not saying it did. Just voicing a thought.

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

Quote:

(Yes, I've used exageration in the above. By all, I mean vast majority that I've studied.)

I know

Yah, I assumed that you'd get it. But, I wanted to be explicit. No chance for misunderstanding that way

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

Quote:

For instance, Christanity generally promots that if you don't do x, you'll go to Hell for all eternity.

I have to disagree here (sigh).

I'm happy you disagree

But, that doesn't take from the fact, that in my experience talking to people "of faith" and my readings, that this seems to be true. That it is the general concensus.

Perhaps it is just all those burned out bulbs that you referenced in this post?

You really are turning out to be the Christian that is opposite to all Christians that I've met to date. I like that

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

The toughest thing about scripture and the like is the 'reading between the lines'. But, if you take it literally, then well...*sigh*...my argument is useless for you....

Agreed. Scripture has been used to commit terrible attosities throughout history.

But, interpreted "properly" it can reveal wisdom. For instance, my referenced non-warm fuzzy passage. One could interpret it to mean, if you don't take some time off regualarly, then you'll put yourself into the grave. Or similarly, if you don't take time off, you won't enjoy life and become a bitter shell of a man. etc.

And if you interpret it literally, badness.

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

Quote:

"or true"?

Hey don't insinuate...that is just silly

No, what I was getting at was, what did you mean by truth? I wasn't being facetious.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 5:46 PM

SASSALICIOUS

I'm going to make this short since I haven't really slept in 2 days and I'm starting to come down from my caffeine high.

1. Capital letters, grammar, and the occasional punctuation mark to break up the run-on sentences would make your argument (or lack thereof) much more coherent.

2. Jesus was a social worker. Some may even argue he was a socialist or communist. If he were here right now, I'm fairly certain he would be appalled at the way his teachings have been twisted.

3. The current edition(s) of the Bible are different than what was originally written (see Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient pieces of parchment). The Bible also isn't the word of God. It's man's interpretation. Also, the Church (namely Roman Catholic, but I'm sure others do it as well) has a bad habit of declaring anything that threatens the status quo and power structure "heretical". My favorite piece of "heretical" work is the one that says (I'm paraphrasing here) "I'm all around you everywhere you look", suggesting that Church is kind of pointless.

4. Whether or not a god, goddess, or multiples of these exist seems irrelevant to argue over. Can't we agree to be good people and whatever happens happens? If one is a good person, one won't go to hell, assuming such a place exists. I'm personally a fan of Siddhartha's viewpoint: "yeah, sure there are gods, but they are subject to the same rules and regulations as humans. But this knowlege is irrelevant as it will not help you achieve Nirvana"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 6:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It’s silly because it seems very overly simplistic interpretation. Abraham, afterall, did not sacrifice Isaac.

Do you know your Bible? God stayed Abraham's hand... but Abraham was fully prepared to kill someone- his son- in order to please God. Because God regularly accepted sacrifices... and apparently even required them (o/wise Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't have been part of the plan).

I was raised in the Pope John XXIII version of Catholicism. For those too young to remember, Pope John XXIII came (I thought) closest to the teaching of Jesus as written in the current Bible. "Let he who is without sin...", "Behold the publican", "Blessed are the peacemakers", "If he demands your cloak give him also your shirt" (I read an interesting intepretation of that), and so forth. Pope John XXIII was all about love and compassion.

But then I would read portion of the Old Testament, and the brutality and UNFAIRNESS of it all would bring my mind to a screeching halt. Reading about Abraham and being a child, for example, I naturally identified with Isaac. What was Isaac doing all this time? Was he gulled into following his dad? Did he have an idea what was about to happen, and was he accepting of it? Or was he resisting? Conflicted? And mostly- Who gave Abraham the right to murder his son?

Another intersting thing I found about the Old Testament is the view of religion as being a cross between and tribe and a belief. That's what all the "begats" are about. You didn't "become" a Jew, you were either one of God's Chosen People or you weren't. (I sometimes think that the "reason" why Xtianity was relatively successful was because is was pretty cosmopolitan- you didn't need to be BORN into it, you could be converted. That has a lot of immediate growth potential. )

When people talk about religions being more or less the same, I don't think they realize how truly alien some of the religions are. The Greeks gods, for instance: superhuman strength coupled with backstabbing, petty, jealous antics, not above raping young girls or killing honorable men. Power uncoupled from wisdom. Or the Aztec and Mayan and Phoenecian gods demanding human sacrifices for things like rain and good winds: Stuff that they often didn't deliver on. They were unpredictable, vindictive bastards, eh? BTW- the populations were relatively comfortable with supplying the sacrificial victims. Rubbing our modern sensibilities against ancient religions should produce a sense of discontinuity.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 7:31 PM

ROCKETJOCK

I'm not a Christian. I'm a Pagan.

But some years ago a Navy Chaplin gave me some excellent advice: "If you're going to be a non-Christian in America, you had better study the Bible."

So I bought a good red-letter edition (where the words of The Nazarine are printed in red ink), and studied the words of the Son of Man. And, to my surprise, found that he was exactly the sort of good neighbor a virtuous Pagan could live with. His basic message is "Clean up your own act before you judge anyone else; lead by example, and for God's sake, pray from the heart, not by rote."

And I came to realize that my argument wasn't with Christ, it was with those people who call themselves Christians without the slightest idea what he was talking about:

The sort of people who think Jesus was a voice of conformity--

The kind who substitute worship of their church for worship of God--

And worst, the kind who selectively quote the Old Testiment to support their own prejudices, while ignoring those laws inconvenient to them. (As a Jewish friend once told me, nobody has a right to quote Jewish law as binding who doesn't keep a kosher table.)

Sadly, those types are in the ascension right now. I fear that, if the Rapture occurs tomorrow, and all those who actually follow the teachings and example of Jesus vanish, the disappearance will constitute such a paper-thin percentage of those who call themselves Christian that it will hardly be noticed.

But I'll miss them. They're nice folks.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." -- Matthew 6:5-6

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 7:37 PM

LEELU7777

god told abraham to sacrifice his so because issac became more important to him than god so god told him to sacrifice isasc to see if he loved god more than his son. well its my intrepolation.

greater is he who is in me than who is in the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It’s silly because it seems very overly simplistic interpretation. Abraham, afterall, did not sacrifice Isaac.
Do you know your Bible? God stayed Abraham's hand... but Abraham was fully prepared to kill someone- his son- in order to please God. Because God regularly accepted sacrifices... and apparently even required them (o/wise Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't have been part of the plan).

But Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac. That’s how the story ends.

Your interpretation of Bronze Age society as being composed of lunatics is overly simplistic, and I think, silly, to use someone else’s word. There seem to be two implications in what you’re saying, either the Bronze Age was composed of criminally insane lunatics or we, in the modern age, are incapable of understanding Bronze Age history/religion/society. If either is true, then what’s the point of studying history? I don’t think either of those is necessarily true; there will always be the common human factor. This story ends with Abraham not sacrificing Isaac because otherwise the story would probably have offended the sensibility of Bronze Age society, in general, much as modern society would view killing without cause, murder. The Bronze Age was a very primitive and probably very difficult time to live, but it is shortsighted to attempt to package it as composed religious nuts.

This story of Abraham has very real world significant. It’s often said that there aren’t any atheists in foxholes. I’ve honestly never been in a foxhole, so I don’t know, but the point is that a belief in god is intertwined with our own perception of the certainty of our mortality. In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament histories, the concept of god is, in part, a surrogate for the preservation of the people or the tribe. The tribe lives and dies at the mercy of god. Abraham was a leader of the tribe. People would have viewed Abraham as being responsible for the preservation of the tribe, which was synonymous with carrying out god's will. This is not a story of criminally insane fruitcakes murdering children because they heard voices, which is a terribly, terribly literal interpretation. The story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is a story of the responsibility of a leader and how sometimes the leader is call to make the difficult decision to put the preservation of the tribe above, even the livelihood of its most cherished sons, in this case represented by Isaac, the son Abraham loves and heir to the Abrahamic dynasty. Just as people today wish to live in a country, whose leaders are willing to commit troops to the defense of its borders against invaders (i.e. sacrificing sons to the survive of the nation), so the people in the Bronze Age would have found a certain degree of comfort in believing that their leader was prepared to defend the clan or tribe.

I think this story is not only very pragmatic but also very relevant to modern times. Ancient religions are only alien on the surface. Underneath, the mythology plays to the same human needs and desires that influence society today. We may not always understand what is going on, but we can be assured that there is a common human nature, and therefore, always, a common frame of reference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 8:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

the Bronze Age was composed of criminally insane lunatics

Many cultures of the time practiced large-scale brutality as normal. Like most peoples, they had their reasons. For example, Greek and Roman predecessors believed in large-scale 'games' that were meant to be fatal. Their cultures (as far as one can know) believed that life was tough. Sympathy was for losers. The ultimate test was not whether or not one died, but how the contestants and spectators faced death. Thousands died every year that way.

Meso Americans took several hundred years but eventually worked their way up to sacrificing 40,000 people at a crack.

I think one can make a case that many cultures were mass-murdering machines, though not necessarily lunatics. They were just following the rationale of the day.

So are you trying to say that no cultures did that kind of thing? Or that the Israelites were advanced beyond their surrounding cultures?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

When people talk about religions being more or less the same, I don't think they realize how truly alien some of the religions are.

Ok, you got me. I change religion to modern religion in my statement.

*sigh* I should have seen that.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 9:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I actually don't view ancient societies as criminally insane lunatics. But OTOH if you think that sacrifices (human and otherwise) were "actually" metaphors, those metaphors left an awful lot of blood on the altars. I view those societies as different- VERY different. Although their goals were the same (group and individual survival) their means and rationalizations were quite different. Their ethical dilemnas were different, their values were different... it seems odd that on the one hand, people can argue about how fanatical and irrational and incomprehensible modern-day Muslims are and on the other hand they can embrace ancient religions as being easily enfolded into our own sensibilities.

But taking an example not related (directly) to human sacrifice.... I used to look at the pyramids and think.... what a waste. There was a society that expended hundreds of thousands if not millions of person-hours on homes and riches for their deceased leaders, presumably so that the leaders could continue to act as emissaries to the gods. The Egyptians were bread-eaters, which created all kinds of dietary deficiencies. It seemed to me that just about everyone would have been better fed if the Egyptians had turned some of those person-hours into more extensive irrigation ditches... grown grass for goats, or created fish ponds, or grown almonds or nurtured other valuable sources of protein and fat. They could have all been better-off had they turned their hands to less fanciful tasks.

And the picture isn't one of slaves groaning under the overseers lash. AT the time when the best weapon was (maybe) the spear, the elite actually had little military control of the population.

No, what they were all working for was an idea that took precedence over material improvement. And... it's late. I'll have to finish this tomorrow.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 9:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Now how did THAT happen!!?!?

Double post- sorry!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 10:37 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And taking that a little bit off track - I think of the millions of people past who sincerely practiced their religions. They prayed, made sacrifices, anxiously read the signs, and generally were looking for some small benefit from their gods.

No one worships Mithra anymore. Once he was a powerful force, today the bull-god is an embarassing concept all but forgotten. And the people who worshipped him, and their time, efforts, sincerity, hopes and beliefs, were blown away in the dust and into extinction. Though they were just as human, thoughtful, and emotional as anyone, ultimately what they did was empty, pointless, hollow, meaningless effort.

But people today can't see themselves from the viewpoint of 2,000 years from now, when their own individual beliefs, efforts, and time spent will have been forgotten. Further, that future culture will not even remember the meaning of what was once an eternal religion, practiced with all sincerity and fervor.

What a waste of mind and heart.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
So in other words, there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible?

Not exactly and you know it. There's scientific and historical evidence to suggest the sea could have been seen to part and backs the plagues of Egypt. The Bible is based on history, but like all works of man of it's type it has been embellished. The facts of the story have been warped to fit the theology.

But before we get over excited about science sort of backing up this one little bit maybe we should remember there's no historical or scientific evidence, at least that I know of, to say the Israelites were ever enslaved within Egypt. Even Egyptian documents of the time make no mention of the event. Did Egyptian scholars just forget about that huge number of slaves making to freedom? Did they forget that the Israelites even existed?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 1:14 AM

FLETCH2

Finn,
a truely awesome analysis. It probably adds more quality to this thread than it really deserves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 2:43 AM

DOFFE

Quote:
Get away from it all to a place where things aren’t really all that bad, though not really all that good. Just kind of so-so, like living in Sweden.

I never saw a better description. That's exactly the way it is. But how do You know? Anyway - Thanks!

Keep flying.
Doffe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So are you trying to say that no cultures did that kind of thing? Or that the Israelites were advanced beyond their surrounding cultures?

Last century alone, I would imagine, that there were far more people killed by their governments then the entire Bronze Age. Mass murder and fanaticism are not uniquely Bronze Age characteristics. In fact they are, unfortunately, common today.

And maybe Pharaoh Khufu would have done better to put the wealth of Egypt into digging canals, but the pyramids stood for much more then a burial chamber. If all the Egyptians wanted were a burial chamber, they could have just as easily built one out of mud brick, which they frequently did. The Giza Pyramids, for instance, were symbols of the Fourth Dynastic Egyptian might. Maybe Americans would have done better to dig a few canals rather then send a man to the moon. Maybe French could have done without the Eiffel Tower? Maybe my home tome might have done better not to put itself in bankruptcy building some 300 foot rotating restaurant. Yet these things are all symbols of accomplishment and pride, no different then the pyramids, except maybe for shear size.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Did Egyptian scholars just forget about that huge number of slaves making to freedom? Did they forget that the Israelites even existed?

I would imagine that is exactly what they would have wanted to do.

Quote:
Originally posted by Doffe:
I never saw a better description. That's exactly the way it is. But how do You know? Anyway - Thanks!

I get around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I would imagine that is exactly what they would have wanted to do.

Id of thought America would have wanted to expunge Vietnam from the History books, yet you guys have not. The Egyptians were fastidious record keepers; they recorded everything, good or bad. The 'plagues' of Egypt and their effects, including the lawlessness and anarchy of the areas affected, that followed were recorded, so why not the slaves

Frankly Finn you don't get to dismiss the point of why they have no records of the exodus by saying "well they didn't record it because they forgot".

You could argue we haven't found those records yet, but that's not very likely, since the areas of the exodus have been quite well researched.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 4:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And maybe Pharaoh Khufu would have done better to put the wealth of Egypt into digging canals, but the pyramids stood for much more then a burial chamber. If all the Egyptians wanted were a burial chamber, they could have just as easily built one out of mud brick, which they frequently did. The Giza Pyramids, for instance, were symbols of the Fourth Dynastic Egyptian might.

And maybe the Egyptians had a less understandable motive than something that sounds an awful lot like modern-day nationalism? How do we know that the pyramids themselves- like Stonhenge and the Anaszi building in Chaco Canyon- weren't some kind of reflection of their cosmology, perhaps a predictor of those all-important floods?

I think if you overlay your viewpoint on ancient cultures you often miss ideas that were so important to them, but relatively unimportant to us now.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Id of thought America would have wanted to expunge Vietnam from the History books, yet you guys have not. The Egyptians were fastidious record keepers; they recorded everything, good or bad. The 'plagues' of Egypt and their effects, including the lawlessness and anarchy of the areas affected, that followed were recorded, so why not the slaves

Frankly Finn you don't get to dismiss the point of why they have no records of the exodus by saying "well they didn't record it because they forgot".
[[]NOTE: the above quote appears to be attributed to Finn, but he never said it.[]]

You could argue we haven't found those records yet, but that's not very likely, since the areas of the exodus have been quite well researched.

America is an open society. We couldn’t have expunged Vietnam from the recorded if we wanted to, and I have no doubt some did.

The late dynastic Egyptians were not an open society. And I would argue that whether the Hebrews of the Exodus existed in Egypt or not, and there is linguistic evidence that they may have been there, the Egyptians would not have wanted a successful slave revolt like that a part of the historical record. The Egyptians were fastidious record keepers, but that doesn’t mean that they would have recorded everything, in fact it actually suggests the opposite. The Egyptians recorded what they wanted recorded. I’m not an Egyptologist or particularly expert on Egyptian writing, but I’m pretty sure that gaps in Egyptian “record keeping” are more common then you make them appear. In fact the history around Nefertiti is one good example. It’s not a question that the Egyptians forgot, as you disingenuously present my position, but rather that they controlled what was written in Egypt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 5:34 AM

OMEGADARK

RUE:

Quote:
love god and 2) love your neighbor.

you will see they are the sum of the OT ten commandments.

First 3 are love of God, last 7 love of neighbor...that's all that needs to be said..no bigger point that that...taking translations as 'of' can be dangerous...you could turn out to be right though, but it doesn't change the fact or moral...

This is how we know it now...and none of it makes it wrong or distorts the point....

Quote:
Further, that future culture will not even remember the meaning of what was once an eternal religion, practiced with all sincerity and fervor.

What a waste of mind and heart.

That is the assumption that all religions are the same and that is a dangerous assumption...the Mithras(sp?) or Baal worship is the same as Jesus or Allah. That's the danger...but this becomes a theological debate...and it will be an absrudly long one...so id rather leave it at that...if it is viewed from 'all worship and gods are alike' then I would say that what you are saying makes sense...but in my view they aren't and in my theological studies (although they have similar stories) some are vastly more potent and real than others (no fault necessarily of those who worshiped, just the reality IMO) just my .02

SigmaNunki

Quote:
Ok, now I'm confused. Perhaps it's the lack of sleep. Could you re-state the entire thought, I'm having problems right now

Hehe, I know the feeling, I wanted to say so much more yesterday and, in my exuastion, I wrote to little...

But, the point of what I was saying is this, I do not believe that the Bible is a moral guide I believe it was the inspired word of God and that it is 100% true. I am saying,for a believer that none of the anti-biblical arguments whether they are based in history or not will give a flying rats butt what is said...IMO. But, i know that not everyone believes, and if someone who wasn't a believer was asking me the things that were said in these posts, I would have to explain it to them in a way that makes sense to them (that's the way Jesus and God spoke that's why so much of what was said has the language and writing style of the day, and is often harsh to us today).

If I tell a non-believer who is interested that it often appears and can often be used as a moral guide and he or she listens and starts to read it, the further questions they will definitely have can be explained and doctrine can be clarified...

It all starts with their desire...no one can force them (the free will thing again). They want to i will help get the message out...they don't; I can't

See, the problem I have run into is that some believers fear they are rejecting or going against their religion if they don't explain it all as 'THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD! BELIEVE IT OR DIE!' who in thier right mind would even think of that positively today?

Thus, (Man that was long winded) when you said moral guide, I said no because that wasn't MY particular belief...but you arent necessarily wrong either... i was just responding to you in terms of how I believe.

Quote:
that in my experience talking to people "of faith" and my readings, that this seems to be true. That it is the general concensus.

*sign* unfortunately I can't disagree here...that has been my experience also...with both christians and non... it is like they just heard it at a sermon or from someone in an 'authoritative' position and never gave it another thought...

Quote:
One could interpret it to mean, if you don't take some time off regualarly, then you'll put yourself into the grave. Or similarly, if you don't take time off, you won't enjoy life and become a bitter shell of a man. etc.

And if you interpret it literally, badness.

exactly, those sounds like to viable answers (i haven't read that passage again, so i am taking your word on it). It has to be thought about and you must ask yourself, what the heck does this mean? because you are write in both cases, if all you do is work you will find an early grave...

Quote:
No, what I was getting at was, what did you mean by truth? I wasn't being facetious.

um... I think i meant that by history proving them true as in they prove them to actually have happend.

-OD

CITIZEN: your evolutionary avatar his HILARIOUS!

X

(I can't read or write)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 5:52 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

I just want to go on record as saying it is threads like this that continue to convince me that policy of not talking about politics, religion, or money is one of the best decisions I ever made.

That being said I must convey my dismay and disappointment in the lack of respect & tolerance by some members of this community in someone trying to discuss their beliefs. Ok, so maybe Leelu was a bit heavy handed & a little too enthusiastic about it, but that does not excuse attacking Leelu or Leelu's beliefs.

We don't have to agree with anyone, their beliefs, or their opinions, but we should all try to be respectful and tolerant. Extend to everyone the same courtesy you would expect for yourself.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 6:11 AM

NUCKLES87

Quote:
Originally posted by leelu7777:
fine live in darkness live in emptiness and die go to a place where you will have every disease and every mental sickness ever created because a misconception. I dont know what happened to you to get that idea but he will never let you down it just takes some time for every thing to take place. he lived for you he died for you and this is how you repay him he died because the devil took the keys of heaven so no one could enter he had a chance to flee the garden of olives and leave the people that cursed him and let you burn he could have had a long and furfilled life but no he was beaten broken and nailed at a tree his children spit on him and he knew it would happen he could of shunned them left them to suffer in etrenal darkness but no he forgave the ones that cursed him and you say he dosent care ha as a christian I know him speak to him and feel his love and his peace and then to hear the words of hate twards him to think people would rather chose emptyness and pain over peace and true everlasting love because of past wrong doings fine you have a choice not mine who am I to tell you it your life

i'm in the world not of it

Hence, why I became agnostic LONG ago.Of course, before that I was jewish, so I guess either way I'm going to hell, eh?

There is proof behind evolution. There is proof behind the big bang. There is no proof behind God. And if God provides no proof of his existence as a test of faith, or provides proof of other things to test his faith, I really wouldn't care the worship him regaurdless, a guy who obviously has nothing better to do then screw with the minds of little people, then punish them on account of it.

If God exists, he either has a great sense of humor or is a complete ass. Either way I have a feeling I'd like the guy. I mean, the guy behind Lean Cuisine Paninis must have SOMETHING going for him right?

I'm a good person. I know plenty of people who are not Christian, but are loads better then me. If we have to go to hell simply because of a difference of opinion, not of how we treated other people in the world around us, I have no interest in whether I'm going to heaven or hell.

Ok, I'm done ;).

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You know, it's funny; I wasn't going to post in this thread after reading it a bit (especially after the person who started it went off on what can only be an LSD inspired rant consigning Sig to the depths of hell), but I changed my mind. I'm a Christian, and by God, I have something to say.

I always wonder (especially in the neocon evangelical era) what happened to the Christianity I grew up with. I can rememner hearing things like "turn the other cheek," and "beating swords to plowshares," and sacrificing ourselves to serve others. I remember "hate the sin, not the sinner," and "be not like the hypocrites that pray in the streets." I remember the Resurrection was about hope and salvation.

Now look at what we have. We bomb people in the name of God (don't think we do? Our fearless leader preaches that he follows God's direction). We torture, and think that it's okay to live in fear. We have protestors that show up waving signs that say "God hates fags." God hates? Since when? Last time I checked, Jesus was about free love and forgiveness. We have people in Missouri trying to create state sponsored religion, and people screaming on television about how good a worshipper they are. Now, people are waiting for the second coming not with hope, but with an attitude of "watch me go to Heaven in the rapture, all you corrupted souls, as I laugh while you suffer." What kind of attitude is that?

I'm sorry, but Christians have become decidedly un-Christian as of late, including the thread's OP, who ranted about someone going to hell. The fact that you praised the 700 club, whose leader (isn't that Pat Robertson?) called for an assassination of a Supreme Court judge and the Venezuelan President, makes me shudder in incredulity.

Sorry, but as the so-called "evangelicals" have taken control, I've shifted farther and farther left go get away from them. I wonder what Jesus would have done - but I doubt it would be to kill or hate anyone.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

Yeah, this I can agree with. But it's not just Christianity. It's Islam and Judaism to. All their religions talk about peace and love, yet the people who follow them use their religions to insight hate and political gain.

I'm sure Christianity was better back in the day, before it got hijacked by politicians (starting in the Reagen era).

How's my firefly speak? Good? Bad? Fee-oo?

...It's fee-oo isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 6:49 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:
...others, and I believe more truthfully say, that it was a parable or event that happened to show where everything came from: GOD. God, gave Abraham the child when he could have none, God gave him everything! It wasn't a sacrifice of worth it was seeing if Abraham knew that what he has, what he loves, only came from God. That he wouldn't be attached to things as if he (Abraham) created it. Not even his child.

Something else is often overlooked when discussing the sacrifice of Isaac...

In Genesis 15, God came to Abraham and told him that he would have an heir born of his own body, and that Abraham's descendants would be as the stars of the sky.

God reiterated that pledge in Genesis 17, that He would give Sarah a son (named Isaac), through whom God would establish His covenant (specifically with Isaac and Isaac's descendants after him).

So when God later asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22, I believe it was more a test to see if Abraham believed God's previous promises that God would establish His covenant with Isaac (and Isaac's descendants after him), than a test to determine whether Abraham was willing to give up his son.

Abraham believed that God would establish the covenant through Isaac and Isaac's descendants (as He had promised), so Abraham knew that even if Isaac died on Mt. Moriah, that God would have to raise him from the dead in order to keep His promise.

Abraham believed God would keep His promise to him, and proved it by his willingness to slay the son through whom it was promised that the covenant would be established.

And the thing which I find the most profound about this whole event is what Abraham said as he was about to slay Isaac -- that God, would provide Himself the lamb for the offering.

I doubt if Abraham understood the significance of that remark, because God indeed would provide the lamb for the offering -- His own Son.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
[[]NOTE: the above quote appears to be attributed to Finn, but he never said it.[]]

It wasn't a quote, something quite clear in fact, by the fact it wasn't enclosed in a quote block.

Quote:
The late dynastic Egyptians were not an open society. And I would argue that whether the Hebrews of the Exodus existed in Egypt or not, and there is linguistic evidence that they may have been there, the Egyptians would not have wanted a successful slave revolt like that a part of the historical record.

Except the only people who could read and write in Egypt and who had access to the historical records were the high priests. They had no reason to hide the event from the general populace to prevent further slave revolts or whatever.

Also, what linguistic evidence are you referring too?

Quote:
The Egyptians were fastidious record keepers, but that doesn’t mean that they would have recorded everything, in fact it actually suggests the opposite.

No it doesn't.

Quote:
I’m not an Egyptologist or particularly expert on Egyptian writing, but I’m pretty sure that gaps in Egyptian “record keeping” are more common then you make them appear.

Actually the records I've heard of are blow by blow accounts and where there are gaps it's because the records have been destroyed in the intervening centuries.

Quote:
It’s not a question that the Egyptians forgot, as you disingenuously present my position, but rather that they controlled what was written in Egypt.

Now now Finn, you can't get indignant, you started it by suggesting what I posted about a real historical event that could have been the inspiration for a single Bible passage was scientific proof behind the entire Bible. I thought that was somewhat tongue in cheek, as was my comment meant to be. Your reaction makes me think that maybe you were being serious. If you don’t like it, don’t dish it out.

At the end of the day the Bible is not the word of God. At best it is the word of God interpreted through man. This isn't blaspheme or heresy, this is what the Christian Church itself says.

Neither is the Bible an exhaustive historical reference. The fact that some passages are supported by historical and scientific evidence proves that the Bible is inspired by real history, not necessarily an account of it.

Hell the Da Vinci Code is fairly well researched uses a lot of real history, but it's entirely fiction. It uses those bits of History that fits the story, ignores other bits and fudges what's left to fit.

Just because the Bible talks about the exodus doesn't mean it happened, or that it happened how the Bible says. Their may have been a revolt, I believe some are record, with a bit of embellishment, fudge the dates, shoe horn in the eruption, plagues and parting of the sea, stir it all together, say it happened all at the same time, and there you have it. It's how most good stories are written.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 7:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Abraham believed God would keep His promise to him, and proved it by his willingness to slay the son through whom it was promised that the covenant would be established.

So God created of "Fear Factor"?

On a more serious note...

There is the irreducible fact that God demanded sacrifices. Burnt offerings, in fact - no matter how you dress it up. It was a common point of various religions of that day, beginning before the Jews were nomadic herders and continuing through the time when Judaism was an establised religion with a huge central temple

Quote:
The Temple sanctuary was situated in the center of a large complex of courtyards, each more exclusive than the last. Both Jews and non-Jews -- called Gentiles -- were allowed into the outermost courtyard; Jewish men and women in the second; Jewish males in the third; and finally priests in the sanctuary. Only the high priests could enter the innermost chamber of the sanctuary, called the Holy of Holies. The Temple was the only site in the world where Jews could offer sacrifices to their God. On the altar in front of the sanctuary, priests offered sacrifices on behalf of individuals and the community. Sacrifices had different purposes, including atonement, thanksgiving, fulfillment of a vow, or supplication, and could consist of a variety of offerings, including grain or flour, wine, doves or pigeons, sheep, goats and cattle. Jewish law prescribed specific rules and procedures for each type of sacrifice, but most involved the burning of part or all of the offering on the altar.

www.pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/footsteps/footsteps_2_2.html In fact, the sprinkling and smearing of blood was also a common feature- one that we "normally" associate with the Aztecs and Mayans...

Quote:
MISHNAH. … The slaughtering of the bullock and the he-goat… their blood requires sprinkling between the staves [of the ark],
on the veil, and on the golden altar...HOW WAS THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD SACRIFICED? HE PINCHED OFF ITS HEAD CLOSE BY ITS NECK, BUT DID NOT SEVER IT, AND HE SPRINKLED ITS BLOOD ON THE WALL OF THE ALTAR; THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD WAS DRAINED OUT ON THE BASE. ONLY THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ALTAR, WHILE THE WHOLE OF IT BELONGED TO THE PRIESTS.

www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_2.html This God had much in common with other ancient Gods- "He" demanded his pound of flesh (even if that flesh was his). That was how "He" established supreme emotional and psychological dominance over "His people". (It all sounds very cult-like to me.)

The other thing is that this God seems to be very invested in a rather small group of geographically limited people. Apparently he's not "everyone's" God- cetainly not a God of the people who came before, or a God of the people who were born outside of the correct lineage, just a rather narrow-scope God trying to distinguish himself from Golden Calves and other Gods.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 10:23 AM

HOTPOINT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The late dynastic Egyptians were not an open society. And I would argue that whether the Hebrews of the Exodus existed in Egypt or not, and there is linguistic evidence that they may have been there, the Egyptians would not have wanted a successful slave revolt like that a part of the historical record. The Egyptians were fastidious record keepers, but that doesn’t mean that they would have recorded everything, in fact it actually suggests the opposite. The Egyptians recorded what they wanted recorded. I’m not an Egyptologist or particularly expert on Egyptian writing, but I’m pretty sure that gaps in Egyptian “record keeping” are more common then you make them appear.

But consider that the Egyptian Priests and ruling class did try to expunge Pharoah Akhenaten from the records (his leanings towards monotheism were considered more than a touch heretical) and failed enough that we know a fair deal about him and his reign several millennia later.

Quote:

With Akhenaten's death, the Aten cult he had founded gradually fell out of favor. Tutankhaten changed his name to Tutankhamun in his Year 2 of his reign (1349 BC or 1332 BC) and abandoned Akhetaten, the city eventually falling into ruin. Temples Akhenaten had built, including the temple at Thebes, were disassembled by his successors Ay and Horemheb, reused as a source of easily available building materials and decorations for their own temples, and inscriptions to Aten defaced.

Finally, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay were excised from the official lists of Pharaohs, which instead reported that Amenhotep III was immediately succeeded by Horemheb. This is thought to be part of an attempt by Horemheb to delete all trace of Atenism and the pharaohs associated with it from the historical record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 10:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Drats, did I kill a thread? I wasn't trying to. I was just making the point that separating religions from historical and social contexts can lead to the (false) impresison that they all fit comfortably into our understanding.

But, pursuing some thoughts on pyramids ... It seems such a wasted effort. All that stone-moving, all that artwork, all that metal-refining and beer-making and tablet-writing to re-produce a whole society in glyph form, just for the pharaoh's survival in the afterlife. It must have seemed terribly important- or at least it was so widely accepted by the Egyptians of that day that they never thought to demur, never wondered what their lives would be like if instead of weaving funery shrouds they wove bug-nets or fish-nets. Or rather than pushing stones up a ramp, they created canals and sewage systems? It's an example of one of those monumental assumptions- not even fatal (like sacrificing to the rain gods) just effortful, and yet no one stops and says "Hey, we could be doing a lot better!" What you had was a significant portion of a population willingly busting their *sses in projects that actually siphoned off beneficial progress.

That leads me back to the idea that fundamental assumptions are nearly invisible. Looking back, we might want to smack the Aztecs upside the head and say "Hey, you numb-nuts! Killing people doesn't bring the rain! Check out your own records! And this big-ass pyramid? You should have created wells and cisterns instead!" And yet I'll bet we do a lot of really, really stupid, wasteful, even fatal things all because our assumptions are equally faulty and we can't even see them.

EDITED TO ADD: But this is already far afield of the "Xtians please stand up" topic, so I won't post further along these lines. Perhaps in another thread, if anyone cares to discuss comparative religions and heirarchical systems.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 10:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BrownCoat1,

Uhm, we are expected to respect Leelu but not the other way around? I didn't see any negative postings toward Leelu until Leelu aimed a flamethrower at everyone who doesn't believe as Leelu believes.

Return fire is fair.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Uh- yeah. That too.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 10:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I believe it was the inspired word of God and that it is 100% true

Oh boy.

Whose OT ? That of the Jews or those of the Christians? And which versions? There are so many. And if you are to literally believe every word, what do you make of the backtracking and outright contradictions? Which ones do you accept?

Whose NT? The Nag Hammadi plus or the early bible or the one that survived all the serious book-burning (manuscripts anyway) ca 500AD or the proposed Q1 and Q2 NTs. And if you go with the modern NT, again, which versions? How do you reconcile the discrepancies in order to figure out WHAT to believe in?

If the bible truly is the word of god you need to figure this out ASAP because it is CRITCAL to your everlasting spiritual life. Simple belief that it is the word of god ain't gonna cut it when god takes you to account about following his word.

This is the word of god.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
But consider that the Egyptian Priests and ruling class did try to expunge Pharoah Akhenaten from the records (his leanings towards monotheism were considered more than a touch heretical) and failed enough that we know a fair deal about him and his reign several millennia later.

That’s actually my point. We know that the Egyptians did try to control recorded history. And we have a pretty good idea why, I think. The power of the pharaohs and the priests rested heavily on the perception of the divinity of the pharaohs and the Egyptian leadership. The Egyptians weren’t writing objective history; they were promoting the politics of the pharaoh, which probably meant controlling and in many cases erasing certain things from public knowledge. They may not have always succeeded, but if they had, how would we know, if not for other recorded text or archeology?

If a story ever got out and became common knowledge that some heathen god of rogue slaves laid waste to the mighty Egyptian kingdom, then one imagines the priests would be very concerned that it would seriously undermine the power of the pharaoh. Now why they might have succeeded in erasing the Exodus from history and not the Aten cult, I don’t know. It could have been that the Aten Cult just wasn’t as big a deal as the Exodus or maybe, following the devastation that the Santorini eruption left, people may have had more important things to deal with, or maybe there wasn’t anyone left who knew. I don’t know; I’m not sure anyone does.

My point is that one simply cannot argue that the Exodus was not based on an actual event, simply because there is no Egyptian account of it, because it is quite possible that there wouldn’t be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

But, the point of what I was saying is this, I do not believe that the Bible is a moral guide I believe it was the inspired word of God and that it is 100% true.

...

Thus, (Man that was long winded) when you said moral guide, I said no because that wasn't MY particular belief...but you arent necessarily wrong either... i was just responding to you in terms of how I believe.

Well, we clearly disagree about the 100% true part, so I'm not going to go down that road.

But, when it comes to my saying it is a moral guide, why can't it be what you beleive it is and and moral guide. Doesn't it being the word of God and 100% true imply moral guide?

I understand that you don't want to limit the Bible to a moral guide, but why not say it is that and a whole lot more?

Or did I miss your point entirely?

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

It all starts with their desire...no one can force them (the free will thing again). They want to i will help get the message out...they don't; I can't

See, the problem I have run into is that some believers fear they are rejecting or going against their religion if they don't explain it all as 'THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD! BELIEVE IT OR DIE!' who in thier right mind would even think of that positively today?

As someone who has been harassed by "beleivers" at several points in his life, I thank you for taking this stance. I wish there were more Christians like you in the world

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

*sign* unfortunately I can't disagree here...that has been my experience also...with both christians and non... it is like they just heard it at a sermon or from someone in an 'authoritative' position and never gave it another thought...

It's sad when the whole being kind thing gets tossed out the window.

One of my past classmates said he had a Paster that put it as, "You don't want to be a Quaker Christian!" He wasn't refering to the Quaker religion, but the quaker breakfast bar. You know with all the nuts and fruits. At least, I found it funny

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

exactly, those sounds like to viable answers (i haven't read that passage again, so i am taking your word on it).

Thanks

But, you're taking my word for what's in the passage? Oh dear

Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaDark:

It has to be thought about and you must ask yourself, what the heck does this mean? because you are write in both cases, if all you do is work you will find an early grave...

That is one of the things that I've notice in society in general. Namely, that people seem not to want to think, they just want to be told what to think. And this doesn't seem to be limited to only one country, but is growing in all countries

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 11:32 AM

HOTPOINT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My point is that one simply cannot argue that the Exodus was not based on an actual event, simply because there is no Egyptian account of it, because it is quite possible that there wouldn’t be.

But the attempt to write Akhenaten out of the history books failed despite the fact that it was likely a greater threat to the status quo than a story about a few thousand slaves which could have far more easily been spun as an expulsion anyway.

We know from the records of the Battle of Kadesh between Egypt and the Hittites that the Egyptians were certainly not above spinning a story to make a defeat, where Ramesses the Great was likely repulsed, look like a glorious victory. Why not do the same for the Exodus (which supposedly happened at roughly the same time according to some chronologies)?

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 11:43 AM

@BrownCoat1:
In general I agree. But, there are some exceptions to this rule.

For instance, my conversations with OmegaDark and Cartoon in this thread, have been quite civil and illuminating; I enjoy[ed] them greatly

Some others though, not so much.

I kind of think of my conversation right now as this:

Scene:
Two staunch British soldiers sitting at a small table in the middle of a battlefeild having tea and crumpets, bullets flying all around them.

Soldier 1: Yes well, I think...
Soldier 2: I agree up to a point, but...
Soldier 1: Oh dear, they seem to have destroyed our tea kettle.
Soldier 2: It does seem that they have; quite upsetting.
Soldier 1: No matter, we can carry on.
Soldier 2: Indeed.

The conversation continues.

Yes, the above was meant to be silly

But, the point is that even in the mess that some (most?) of these threads become, it is possible to have civil discourse.

At any rate, I understand that most people don't want to enter the fray. I can become quite ugly.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
But the attempt to write Akhenaten out of the history books failed despite the fact that it was likely a greater threat to the status quo than a story about a few thousand slaves which could have far more easily been spun as an expulsion anyway.

We know from the records of the Battle of Kadesh between Egypt and the Hittites that the Egyptians were certainly not above spinning a story to make a defeat, where Ramesses the Great was likely repulsed, look like a glorious victory. Why not do the same for the Exodus (which supposedly happened at roughly the same time according to some chronologies)?

That kind of thing was common in the ancient world. You can probably find examples of it today, as well. I’m not as familiar with Egyptian history as I am with Roman, but I can tell you that the Roman’s frequently portrayed defeats in various ways that took the emphasis away from what actually happened. However, you’re arguing that an event in which the Pharaoh’s army lost a battle is tantamount to an event in which Egypt may have been destroyed, and I don’t know if that is a valid assumption.

However, if the Egyptians couldn't have found a way to spin the Battle of Kadesh, they might have attempted to expunge it. So still, I don't think there is any way to argue that the Exodus wasn't covered up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My point is that one simply cannot argue that the Exodus was not based on an actual event, simply because there is no Egyptian account of it, because it is quite possible that there wouldn’t be.

No, but the Bible isn't what you can really call an unbiased historical document, so the fact that the plagues of Egypt are mentioned in Egyptian records (as well as records of other civilisations) with out a mention of the Israelites casts a fair bit of doubt. In fact the Israelites are never mentioned, by your account that's a lot of history that would have to have been rewritten, since the Israelite slaves would have appeared at least a few times in the records. Yet they don't, how do we account for that?

Did the Egyptian scholars say "Well, this looks bad on us, so if we just rebuild all these temples with the stories on the walls and burn the libraries we can start again, what do you reckon, weeks work?"

Quote:
So still, I don't think there is any way to argue that the Exodus wasn't covered up.

This makes no sense. Why not? If it never happened they needn't cover it up. The possibillity that it never happened is at least as likely as the possibillity that it was covered up.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 12:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'd go with Occam's razor.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No, but the Bible isn't what you can really call an unbiased historical document, so the fact that the plagues of Egypt are mentioned in Egyptian records (as well as records of other civilisations) with out a mention of the Israelites casts a fair bit of doubt. In fact the Israelites are never mentioned, by your account that's a lot of history that would have to have been rewritten, since the Israelite slaves would have appeared at least a few times in the records. Yet they don't, how do we account for that?

There are no such things as unbiased historical texts, but I don’t even know what you’re talking about. The first historical mention of the Israelites is a 12th century Egyptian tablet, [1] and the Egyptian word ‘apiru used during the 12-14th Egyptian dynasties is thought, by many historians and linguists, to refer to the Hebrews. [2]

And we mustn't forget The Exodus which also places the Hebrews in Egypt and is certainly as valid a historical text as any other. [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
[2] http://www.answers.com/topic/habiru?method=5&linktext=Habiru
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 1:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But apparently they mentioned Israelites in the context of bedouin-like nomads in the land of Shusu, not as runaway slaves. Apparently they're mentioned a few times, rather offhandedly, as rather unsavory foreigners, and lumped in with all the other unsavory wanderers ("gyspies, tramps and thieves" comes to mind) who didn't wear clothes, who smelled, and weren't above a bit of thievery and merc-work.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 1:50 PM

CARTOON

One thing which I've found interesting regarding the Bible and the historical accuracy thereof was the whole issue of the King Belshazzar mentioned in the book of Daniel. For the longest time, historians scoffed at that account in Daniel (as they have always done with most of the Bible), saying there was no record of any King called Belshazzar, and that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus.

Then they found the Nabonidus cylinder (which is now in the British Museum) which mentions that Nabonidus's son, Belshazzar ruled as a co-regent to his father.

What I find as icing on the cake to the finding of the Nabonidus cylinder was Daniel's account in the Bible that if anyone could interpret Belshazzar's dream (which Daniel subsequently did), that Belshazzar would make that person "the third ruler in the kingdom."

Why third? Why not second? Because, as we now know (thanks to the Nabonidus cylinder), Belshazzar was the second ruler in the kingdom (behind his father, Nabonidus).

I just love when they find things like this.

BTW, if anyone's interested in reading a bit on some biblical archeology, I found this page at Wikkipedia discussing finds in Biblical archeology over the past century or so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

P.S. Still don't know what the name of that documentary was showing the chariot wheels, but here's a little something which mentions it: http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/redsea.htm

EDIT: I found the name of the documentary. It's "The Exodus Revealed", and Christian Book currently has it at a good price.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 2:00 PM

My point was you can't really call it an historical account. It's not records; it's a collection of stories about God. The bias is different; a biased historical source will attempt to show the writers in a good light. The Bible is at least partly entirely fiction.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cuhmal:
The first historical mention of the Israelites is a 12th century Egyptian tablet

You know, or at least you should, what I was saying. What game are you trying to play?

Okay, we know that the Biblical account of exodus is false because it refers to the people who became the Israelites as 'the Israelites', a name they weren't know by at the time of the exodus, so it's obviously all made up.

Or we can stop playing silly word games and you can recognise that I was talking about references to the people who became the Israelites in the word that we can all recognise.

And actually it doesn’t mention Israelites, it mentions only Israel, that’s also according too your source.

Quote:
the Egyptian word ‘apiru used during the 12-14th Egyptian dynasties is thought, by many historians and linguists, to refer to the Hebrews.

It's also thought by many others to not refer to the Hebrews. From your own source that was just one of the possibilities.

Quote:
And we mustn't forget The Exodus which also places the Hebrews in Egypt and is certainly as valid a historical text as any other.

Not sure that's true. The Jewish Exodus in the Torah is essentially the same source as the Bibles Old Testament. Its one source, and the documents still aren't historic accounts, they're sacred texts.

Thanks for the links; I wasn't aware of some of that. Last I had heard there were no hints of a reference to the people who became (since I have to verbosely qualify it) the Israelites.

However, there are still mentions of the Plagues of Egypt, the Santorini eruption and slave revolts in Egyptian texts. These don't all appear at the same time, so I still think it's at least a possibility that Exodus is an amalgamation of various historic accounts.

The Bible isn't an exhaustive and correct historical account. For instance the story of Noah. There's evidence that backs up aspects, for instance there’s evidence that points to a flood of the 'Biblical area' (though not the whole world) and the hull of the ark, though that's shaky at best. Point is there was probably a flood, but the whole world was not submerged, so the Bible is wrong on that one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
I just love when they find things like this.

I'm sure you do, because in your warped twisted little world the Bible being correct in a minor insignificant matter proves the whole thing is litteral fact. But that's because your a nut.

I toughly believe that the above is the level of converse you are truly capable of and deserve.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 2:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's the interestring thing about the Bible. Like all writings of ancient lineage, it provides us clues about ancient societies and history. But in that context it's difficult to take literally as "the word of God" because while many things correlate with other writings from contemporary societies, others things don't.

I suspect that the Jews (Hebrews) were at least passingly familiar with their neighbors' gods and customs because they show up in the Bible. One of the things I found interesting was a comparison of an Egyptian god (whose name I don't recall now) who was killed and rises from the dead. That particular mythology parallels Biblical prophesy amazingly well.
EDITED TO ADD: The god is Horus, the resurrected version of Osiris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not sure that's true. The Jewish Exodus in the Torah is essentially the same source as the Bibles Old Testament. Its one source, and the documents still aren't historic accounts, they're sacred texts.

The Exodus is as historical account as any contemporary source from that time period. Whether or not Exodus is a sacred text to any religion today is irrelevant. It sounds to me like you’re trying to play favorites (or unfavorites) with the source. If you can’t view Exodus impartially, then all we’re doing here is arguing your disapproval of Christianity or Judaism. And I couldn’t care less what you think about these or any other religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 2:37 PM