Ok, firstly my example of the repairing plant was one that was repeated with numerous species of plant with repeatable results.
Another thing, science, I am astounded by you all at your proovign and unprooving thing. You ahve totally illusioned yourself as to what science actually is.
Science is not what has been prooven or disprooven. Science doesnt attempt to do either. Science is the bets itnerpretation of the world as we see ti and the underlying rules that govern it. The rules we devise to explain it may be wrong, but they're the most accurate we have.
The problem here si that sometimes the people who devise those ideas on what those rules are are blinded by selfishness so they dotn change them even when new evidence that doesnt fit the rule is found, so they keep the rule and say the evidence is wrong.
An example of this would be if cold fusion was actually correct. Many unviersities and research labs around the world attempted it, and some replicated it, others said it was impossible.
Is it any wodner that many scientists who where working on hot fusion where against it? Hot fusion which had had billions of government money poured into it and had a nice rosy expensive future ahead of it? It's already been shown that some of these people actively sought to put down cold fusion and some results ahve even been prooven to have been falsified by these people. Whether cold fusion works ro not, some hot fusion people are prime examples.
Hundreds fo years ago we could 'proove' newtons physics because ti fitted the world we knew. Then the world we knew changed as we saw more of it, we saw space and unusual phenomena which newtons laws could nto explain thus newtons laws where prooven incomplete, and new theories came to explaint he new thigns which where 'prooven'. Even now this process happens cotninuosly.
They're not prooven or disprooven, they're just shown not to fit the universe, which is why concurrent theories that explaint he same thing as well as eachother exist.
Religion on the other hand works almost totally off of faith, not off of observations and experimentation. In some cases it is similair to science in that it is the best conclusion the people got from what they saw, only they didnt experiment, and the conclusion couldnt be tested, eg How do we do an experiment to test if god exists? Bets bet would be to die and goto heaven but how would we get our results? If heaven existed they couldnt send the results back and if we ceased to exist we couldnt either, so people had faith in it.
Other religions would be the example given further above on why religoon exists, which supports the idea that religion is an attempt to give us a philosophy, aka the goodwill = good life = goodsociety = everybody in happy utopian earth.
The bible and other holy books contradict themselves. People see that as a reson not to believe it, they also forget that parts of the old testament are not the word of god at all but the word of jewish historians recording events, some of which have been prooven false (Jews would disagree with me but pasover didnt occur when the bible says it did, it would be impossible given the situation as described by all the major/minor empires that surrounded the region and a sheer lack of evidence archaeologically), and others which have been prooven true (isreal was conquered by assyria and the inhabitants did flee to judea).
Theses people also forget the bible isnt meant to be interpreted ltierally, the stories and parables in it may conflict, but the messages they give you, the morals of the stories, do not conflict at all.
Single most retarded statement I have ever heard...
Moderator: Moderators
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
its an interesting read
I myself am an Athiest. I have no idea how all this started off (though chances are that it was by accident)
its an interesting read
I myself am an Athiest. I have no idea how all this started off (though chances are that it was by accident)
Just on the whole Bible not being a very acurate history... Its actully far more likely the other records are wrong. The historys that the greeks wrote, well, EVERYONE takes them to be true (sorry, lots of people thats nearly as good as everyone)
However, (sorry here I'm a bit rusty, so someone may want to put in teh actull right numbers) of the original copeis of the historys that the greeks made, there are very few copies. however because they have lots of more mordern copies that are very similare to these originals, they are taken as being true.
The bible has LOADS of early copies, all of which are the same, and also teh same as much more morden copies (by modern I still mean ages ago...)
Also, teh way the jewish schollers did things was to copie word for word page by page the bible out. They never changed anything. They didn't go re-writing it into theer own language for there benifit like we have.
Anyway, just a few irelevent ramblins...
aGorm
However, (sorry here I'm a bit rusty, so someone may want to put in teh actull right numbers) of the original copeis of the historys that the greeks made, there are very few copies. however because they have lots of more mordern copies that are very similare to these originals, they are taken as being true.
The bible has LOADS of early copies, all of which are the same, and also teh same as much more morden copies (by modern I still mean ages ago...)
Also, teh way the jewish schollers did things was to copie word for word page by page the bible out. They never changed anything. They didn't go re-writing it into theer own language for there benifit like we have.
Anyway, just a few irelevent ramblins...
aGorm
Point taken, I'll ellaborate on passover then.
So a huge number of slaves left egypt with no recordings of it, or economic factors beign recorded anywhere in the region, they wandered for 40 years between egypt and canaan, an area without sufficient resources tof eed that many people, thatw as filled with egyptian military foprtresses (maybe the gyptians didnt want the mass of slaves that fueled their economy or to pay them back for causing such financial damage), and then this mass of people, 40 years later after wandering through barren desert reconquered canaan from barbarians! Even though Canaan was an egyptian province! They reconquered many cities which archaeology says didnt exist or had been long deserted at the time, and lived there long after (didnt the region get conquered by the assyrian or babylonian empires within the next 20 years after?).
Eitherway Egyptian and assyrian records show that there where only raiding atatcks on the coastline by a seafaring people.
So a huge number of slaves left egypt with no recordings of it, or economic factors beign recorded anywhere in the region, they wandered for 40 years between egypt and canaan, an area without sufficient resources tof eed that many people, thatw as filled with egyptian military foprtresses (maybe the gyptians didnt want the mass of slaves that fueled their economy or to pay them back for causing such financial damage), and then this mass of people, 40 years later after wandering through barren desert reconquered canaan from barbarians! Even though Canaan was an egyptian province! They reconquered many cities which archaeology says didnt exist or had been long deserted at the time, and lived there long after (didnt the region get conquered by the assyrian or babylonian empires within the next 20 years after?).
Eitherway Egyptian and assyrian records show that there where only raiding atatcks on the coastline by a seafaring people.
Yeah dint the egitian empire like... exsist for a long time after the slave's left? Wouldent there economy collapse if a third of there workforce just up and left? I find that implausable.
I was also talking about stuff with my good freind, who is a catholicish person, and he thinks the bible sould just be considered a great pice of literature, not a holy relic. I agree!
I was also talking about stuff with my good freind, who is a catholicish person, and he thinks the bible sould just be considered a great pice of literature, not a holy relic. I agree!
True. But while there are lots of holes in it, its amazing how often things taken to be wrong, suddenly on new evidence turn out to be right. Like there was this king (cant rtember which one) but anyway, the bible stated that it was talking about a certain year, in which there was a certain king ruling, and histroy Knew that that king was not going to be born for 100 odd years. So they said "ha!! its rong!!" . Unfortuntaly they then found many years latter a few even older texts, which showed that a king with teh same name had infact been ruleing at he exact time the bible had placed it.
What I'm saying is, you cant discredit the bible based on other history books, because its has (from a historians point a view) way more back up than every other book out there.
Sure, it can be disproved by events and kings dieing and things, but these things are being found to just be because we dont know everythimg all the time.
aGorm
What I'm saying is, you cant discredit the bible based on other history books, because its has (from a historians point a view) way more back up than every other book out there.
Sure, it can be disproved by events and kings dieing and things, but these things are being found to just be because we dont know everythimg all the time.
aGorm
I'm sorry. I take a lot of the Bible literally myself so therefore I believe in God. How did the jews survive in the desert? God provided mana. How did they route the peoples in the land of Cannaan? God was fighting on your side... the problem with people trying to argue against the "facts" and "history" of the bible is that they have already refused to believe that God can be part of that history.
-
CaptainMaim
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 04 Sep 2005, 01:25
I agree with SinBadEV....
I think mostly the problem of evidence is that either:
A) people don't believe it's true before they start, so they help find ways of proving that. Either by not giving it enough effort, covering up what they find cause it's against their beliefs and they say "People would be better off as atheists anyway." Or they just judge too quickly.
Or B) They do believe, but are either, can't find what they're looking for because it was somewhere else (things can be so hard to find sometimes, just remember the last time you lost something, how hard was it to find? And you were alive when it was lost!) Or those who believe are hushed up by people who don't.
For instance, it'll sound strange perhaps, but the magazine, "Scientific American" has a very strict "Must be an evolutionist" policy (I think PBS does too, they never broadcast anything on creationism as anything but someone else's relgion.) Anyway Scientific American fired a man who was making nothing more than amusing mathmatics puzzles for them, based expressly on the fact that he wasn't an evolutionist. So if your a creationist, and find things that prove the bible true, your not likely to make your findings in the public media. At least not in any "respected" places which generally aren't okay with the idea of creationism. They'll call it "Not scientific". I really don't know why they do that, since it's not illogical that for the possible that biology was invented by a man who understood it (assuming he's at the very least tremendously old, which he would have to be if you believed the bible.) Many of our sciences were invented by men who came to understand their rules and laws, so why not biology? If were self replicating androids, we'd still think we'd have evolved if our creator(s) weren't around to constantly to prove it otherwise. But if he's there, where is he? Now that's just a matter of personal choice on his part, and really isn't part of the where we came from argument. Anymore than it would be relevant to prove that an orphan doesn't exist because you can't find his or her parents.
The other thing, is, evolutionism IS a religion.. You believe that nature made you, that she designed and molded you. Try reading some evolutionist literature, "Evolution" itself is worded to be a god unto itself. It's either that or it's nature, or Natural Selection. Listen to how it's all worded, it's no less a religion with a thinking god (who in this case doesn't get any face time with the reader.)
Secondarily, Evolution isn't science, all it is however, the accepted religion OF science. I'll include the big bang in that too.. And I know more about that one because I study astronomy much more than biology.
Darwin invented evolution because he was mad at the church, I don't know which one but he was mad at them and really wanted to prove that he doesn't have to obey any commandments at all. Basically he wanted to justify to himself that he could prove that right and wrong don't exist (at least he did subconsciously.) And therefore free himself of any responcibility for his actions. But like I said he renounced it on his death bed. I guess after he spent his life on it, he got far enough to realize he couldn't get anywhere with it. Or just never really believed in it himself.
The Big Bang was hypothesized back in the `50's or so when they were just building microwave satalites. They were testing out their microwave receiver on the ground and found that empty space produced a static hiss, that wasn't anticipated. Over time they found that the hiss was caused by what is known as the cosmic background radiation. (I know microwave is in that phrase somewhere but at the moment I can't remember where.)
Anyway the point is, they saw that beyond the universe or (anything else that could be seen) was this light that was coming back in on them. (I saw a documentary on this), they figured well if it's that far away, than the light must be really old. Which is a good assumption. But the thing that seems very suspect to me is that they assumed that light traveling inward was evidence of an explosion that traveled outward? (I'd have viewed it as light reflecting off what could be something else beyond the universe, I mean, that's possible too right? I mean how else could it be coming back to us? It's either glowing everywhere around us, or it's reflecting everything from everywhere.) To say nothing of the fact that because mathmatically it's convient to resove particles as sizeless points and they are therefore infinately compressable. It's not provable that matter doesn't have limitations to it's compression capabilites. You might mention black holes, I've checked those out too.. I've looked at a great many of their pictures and read their explainations. I don't believe that those are real either. They were originally anomalies in Einstein's equations that even Einstein didn't think were real, as Eistein was admittedly poor at mathmatics. But again, can we be sure that matter compress that much? I know I've spotted things in astonomy that make much better sense with an application of applied particle physics. Much better than the explainations I've read about. I don't think astronomers take classes in particle physics very often. Or more would know how charged particles react to magnetic fields.
Not to sound like I'm all anti-science, I'm not. I love science, a massive amount of it is perfect, wonderful and true enough to be incontradictable. It's just that some parts of science ARE religion. And if that were not so, people would not be expending the enormous amounts of time, energy, money and PR on those parts. If they didn't believe against all evidence that they were dead right. Inspite of their findings that nature disagrees with them from time to time. I just choose not to blindly believe science, or religion based purely on what other people say.. I make up my own mind and choose to accept or reject what I want, as I want. I never argue with the evidence, only with intepretations. And occationally, the vailidiy of such an expariment, but never because it disagrees with my personal beliefs. (Such as when IMSabbel corrected me on radar physics. http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2603)
Bottomline: Theories should be made to fit the facts and evidence. Facts and evidence should not be made to fit people theories. The first is the method of a true seeker of truth, who's willing to admit he was wrong. The other is the method of a true seeker of personal doctrine, who won't admit he's wrong unless he's forced to. I belive in God, because the evidence I've seen/felt/expirenced and objectivelly analyzed over the years, proves that I should. Afterall, if I'd concluded that I should be an atheist, my life would have a LOT more fun to it. So I didn't make any of my decisions based on what others think, but purely on what my personal search for truth has lead me to know and understand. Whether it's my study of physics and the sciences as we know them, or my personal choices on religion.
I think mostly the problem of evidence is that either:
A) people don't believe it's true before they start, so they help find ways of proving that. Either by not giving it enough effort, covering up what they find cause it's against their beliefs and they say "People would be better off as atheists anyway." Or they just judge too quickly.
Or B) They do believe, but are either, can't find what they're looking for because it was somewhere else (things can be so hard to find sometimes, just remember the last time you lost something, how hard was it to find? And you were alive when it was lost!) Or those who believe are hushed up by people who don't.
For instance, it'll sound strange perhaps, but the magazine, "Scientific American" has a very strict "Must be an evolutionist" policy (I think PBS does too, they never broadcast anything on creationism as anything but someone else's relgion.) Anyway Scientific American fired a man who was making nothing more than amusing mathmatics puzzles for them, based expressly on the fact that he wasn't an evolutionist. So if your a creationist, and find things that prove the bible true, your not likely to make your findings in the public media. At least not in any "respected" places which generally aren't okay with the idea of creationism. They'll call it "Not scientific". I really don't know why they do that, since it's not illogical that for the possible that biology was invented by a man who understood it (assuming he's at the very least tremendously old, which he would have to be if you believed the bible.) Many of our sciences were invented by men who came to understand their rules and laws, so why not biology? If were self replicating androids, we'd still think we'd have evolved if our creator(s) weren't around to constantly to prove it otherwise. But if he's there, where is he? Now that's just a matter of personal choice on his part, and really isn't part of the where we came from argument. Anymore than it would be relevant to prove that an orphan doesn't exist because you can't find his or her parents.
The other thing, is, evolutionism IS a religion.. You believe that nature made you, that she designed and molded you. Try reading some evolutionist literature, "Evolution" itself is worded to be a god unto itself. It's either that or it's nature, or Natural Selection. Listen to how it's all worded, it's no less a religion with a thinking god (who in this case doesn't get any face time with the reader.)
Secondarily, Evolution isn't science, all it is however, the accepted religion OF science. I'll include the big bang in that too.. And I know more about that one because I study astronomy much more than biology.
Darwin invented evolution because he was mad at the church, I don't know which one but he was mad at them and really wanted to prove that he doesn't have to obey any commandments at all. Basically he wanted to justify to himself that he could prove that right and wrong don't exist (at least he did subconsciously.) And therefore free himself of any responcibility for his actions. But like I said he renounced it on his death bed. I guess after he spent his life on it, he got far enough to realize he couldn't get anywhere with it. Or just never really believed in it himself.
The Big Bang was hypothesized back in the `50's or so when they were just building microwave satalites. They were testing out their microwave receiver on the ground and found that empty space produced a static hiss, that wasn't anticipated. Over time they found that the hiss was caused by what is known as the cosmic background radiation. (I know microwave is in that phrase somewhere but at the moment I can't remember where.)
Anyway the point is, they saw that beyond the universe or (anything else that could be seen) was this light that was coming back in on them. (I saw a documentary on this), they figured well if it's that far away, than the light must be really old. Which is a good assumption. But the thing that seems very suspect to me is that they assumed that light traveling inward was evidence of an explosion that traveled outward? (I'd have viewed it as light reflecting off what could be something else beyond the universe, I mean, that's possible too right? I mean how else could it be coming back to us? It's either glowing everywhere around us, or it's reflecting everything from everywhere.) To say nothing of the fact that because mathmatically it's convient to resove particles as sizeless points and they are therefore infinately compressable. It's not provable that matter doesn't have limitations to it's compression capabilites. You might mention black holes, I've checked those out too.. I've looked at a great many of their pictures and read their explainations. I don't believe that those are real either. They were originally anomalies in Einstein's equations that even Einstein didn't think were real, as Eistein was admittedly poor at mathmatics. But again, can we be sure that matter compress that much? I know I've spotted things in astonomy that make much better sense with an application of applied particle physics. Much better than the explainations I've read about. I don't think astronomers take classes in particle physics very often. Or more would know how charged particles react to magnetic fields.
Not to sound like I'm all anti-science, I'm not. I love science, a massive amount of it is perfect, wonderful and true enough to be incontradictable. It's just that some parts of science ARE religion. And if that were not so, people would not be expending the enormous amounts of time, energy, money and PR on those parts. If they didn't believe against all evidence that they were dead right. Inspite of their findings that nature disagrees with them from time to time. I just choose not to blindly believe science, or religion based purely on what other people say.. I make up my own mind and choose to accept or reject what I want, as I want. I never argue with the evidence, only with intepretations. And occationally, the vailidiy of such an expariment, but never because it disagrees with my personal beliefs. (Such as when IMSabbel corrected me on radar physics. http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2603)
Bottomline: Theories should be made to fit the facts and evidence. Facts and evidence should not be made to fit people theories. The first is the method of a true seeker of truth, who's willing to admit he was wrong. The other is the method of a true seeker of personal doctrine, who won't admit he's wrong unless he's forced to. I belive in God, because the evidence I've seen/felt/expirenced and objectivelly analyzed over the years, proves that I should. Afterall, if I'd concluded that I should be an atheist, my life would have a LOT more fun to it. So I didn't make any of my decisions based on what others think, but purely on what my personal search for truth has lead me to know and understand. Whether it's my study of physics and the sciences as we know them, or my personal choices on religion.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Alantai: We could argue about the motive of science all day. The fact of the matter is the majority of scientist are simply scientists to either prove themselfs right, or show how smart they are. Some just do stuff to generally advance thier feild because they love that kind of work, but those are usually the exception. Either way, the motives of science are irrelevent, because the method of science is well recorded and solid. The method of science is quite simply theorize and disprove. Science advances when people take everthing they know about that we have already disproved as a possibility, and create a new theory that we can then test. For instance, your plant experiment disproved something that was long accepted about the theory of natural selection. It proved that there is a non random element to evolution, which the theory of natural selection did not account for. What it hasn't shown is what that non random element is. We need a new theory that we can test and then either prove or disprove.
Most scientists don't like the theory of God because it's difficult or impossible to test. Imagine ants trying to prove that we exist, as soon as they think they have an experiment or method of proving it we can just come and step on them if we want. Similar to aliens, if we ever tryed to test for thier existance we would come up negitive, because the fact of the matter is, if they exist they are concious and will know enough to aviod our efforts of finding them. Therefore they can't be proved definitively unless they want to be or they slip up somehow.
In my opintion blaming things we don't understand on God is bad science. God works within the means of a perfect universe, anything that happens on earth or around us has a cause and effect, and therefore we should be able to scientifically map out the world we live in quite accurately.
Most scientists don't like the theory of God because it's difficult or impossible to test. Imagine ants trying to prove that we exist, as soon as they think they have an experiment or method of proving it we can just come and step on them if we want. Similar to aliens, if we ever tryed to test for thier existance we would come up negitive, because the fact of the matter is, if they exist they are concious and will know enough to aviod our efforts of finding them. Therefore they can't be proved definitively unless they want to be or they slip up somehow.
In my opintion blaming things we don't understand on God is bad science. God works within the means of a perfect universe, anything that happens on earth or around us has a cause and effect, and therefore we should be able to scientifically map out the world we live in quite accurately.
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
ARGH...too much text!
*skims*
Time for my 2 cents...again...
Most bibical texts are based on other myths that preceded it, most of them are form ancient civilizations, the names were changed but most of the stories were kept intact.
However, the Sumerian account of the flood wasn't a global flood but rather a more regional flood, it had something to do with the red sea I believe, he was warned by Enki, Rival of Ea/El, the bible's account on this claims god warned him, enki is much closer to Satan however and probably was what the Character Satan was based on.
Also the story that Noah collected animals doesn't hold water (no pun intended), it could very well have been he collected DNA instead, if this is true, the implications could be staggering.
I personally strongly believe in an Extra-Terrestial link between ancient civilizations and I believe they were highly influenced by them.
It's also funny that the Annuzazi indians (sounds ALOT like Annunaki of the Sumerians) suddenly disapeared without a trace, there have been many abduction accounts that mentions all sorts of Humans, probably directly related to us, some even look like Indians from South America, some look like Swedish people and some look like Asians, perhaps some of our ancient ancestors actually become very advanced or were educated by an extra-terrestial or otherwise inteligent pressence.
I believe alot of the accounts in the holy books were based on this, after the Christians made an appearence, ancient civilizations were desperatly being covered up by the church, many libraries were burned and blasphemy was punished severely as Zoombie already pointed out.
A great source for the bible is http://www.evilbible.com which have alot of analysises on the bible.
Even the 10 commendants weren't from the Christians, Egyptians already had a very similar version the 10 commendants...the wording was only changed.
If you really wish to find out about a more likely account on the world's history, I can suggest the book: "Rule by Secrecy" by excellent writer Jim Marrs, He is such an excellent author, the book is quite cheap if you don't buy it hard cover...
do your self a favor, get it! :) it's a true eye opener about current events and past events...
*skims*
Time for my 2 cents...again...
Most bibical texts are based on other myths that preceded it, most of them are form ancient civilizations, the names were changed but most of the stories were kept intact.
However, the Sumerian account of the flood wasn't a global flood but rather a more regional flood, it had something to do with the red sea I believe, he was warned by Enki, Rival of Ea/El, the bible's account on this claims god warned him, enki is much closer to Satan however and probably was what the Character Satan was based on.
Also the story that Noah collected animals doesn't hold water (no pun intended), it could very well have been he collected DNA instead, if this is true, the implications could be staggering.
I personally strongly believe in an Extra-Terrestial link between ancient civilizations and I believe they were highly influenced by them.
It's also funny that the Annuzazi indians (sounds ALOT like Annunaki of the Sumerians) suddenly disapeared without a trace, there have been many abduction accounts that mentions all sorts of Humans, probably directly related to us, some even look like Indians from South America, some look like Swedish people and some look like Asians, perhaps some of our ancient ancestors actually become very advanced or were educated by an extra-terrestial or otherwise inteligent pressence.
I believe alot of the accounts in the holy books were based on this, after the Christians made an appearence, ancient civilizations were desperatly being covered up by the church, many libraries were burned and blasphemy was punished severely as Zoombie already pointed out.
A great source for the bible is http://www.evilbible.com which have alot of analysises on the bible.
Even the 10 commendants weren't from the Christians, Egyptians already had a very similar version the 10 commendants...the wording was only changed.
If you really wish to find out about a more likely account on the world's history, I can suggest the book: "Rule by Secrecy" by excellent writer Jim Marrs, He is such an excellent author, the book is quite cheap if you don't buy it hard cover...
do your self a favor, get it! :) it's a true eye opener about current events and past events...
ahem, before christianity the mediterranean was filled with a single type of religion, the onyl deviation from which was the one god religion that rose in egypt briefly, (see the thign about tutenkhamuns father who worshipped the sun the 'ahtan').
The religions had gone on for thousands of years before hand, they where rpesent fromt he start fo all the major civilisations, egypt, sumeria, the greeks etc (hmm I'm not sure about sumeria).
Anyways, they held the form of inner and outer mysteries. The outer mysteries where in the form fo what we se ein the bible today. They where not ltieral, they instead relied on inner meanings, those inner meanings being taught to you when you where initiated intot he inner mysteries. It was all the same religion however they used different names and people to represent it. For example Dionysus or Osirus. Note how these bare an amazing resemblance to christianity? Pendants showing dionysus curcified on a cross that predate christianity ahve been found, texts showing how he and his 'followers' of equal nubmer ot jesus' aposteles, had a last supper where dionysus is quoted to say thigns remarkably similair to jesus that held the same context.
And then note how after jesus' supposed death the gnostics who spread the religion used the same style as the egyptian and romana nd greek religion system.
Then ST.Paul in league witht he newly converted roman emperor eliminated all these religions in one swoop and destroyed the gnostics, threw away 50%+ of all the books in the bible, and kept all forms of ti written in latin, saying any other religion was pagan and ahd to be destroyed.
note: you're talking as if science itself was an object, that is the flaw in your interpretation of my explanation, it is the reaso we could argue for weeks on end.
The jews couldnt have taken back canaan, all the evidence shows that ti was an unsurmountable feat to do. They would have had to have secretly assasinated all the egyptians in that heavily guarded province, full of egyptian military to defend against raids from sea people and as a deterrent for the neighbouring empires, they'd ahve had to fool every other nation nearby into thinking they where egyptians, somehow replace all their former slavery occupations with new people, conquer cities that ahdnt been built, and lay waste to cities that ahd been in ruins for more than a century. They'd have had to have generated vast amounts of food and drink from sand, conjure the resources necessary to create the things the stories say of in the bit telling of how moses got the 10 commandments, all an incredibly implausible story.
Either that or after 2 months of wandering in the desert with gods help, the peoples of the middle east and eastern mediterranean where so horrified that undead jews wandering about powered by mana from god where rampaging in canaan after wandering aimlessly in the desert for 40 years, and when the zombies got to canaan the people fled in teror and didnt record it so others wouldnt knwo what happened, and the zombies having lost all intelligence laid ruins to cities that didnt exist yet, and pillaged cities that ahd been deserted for centuries, they where then turned back to normal people by god who then wrot eit all down from their perspective and ignored the fibbers across the border.
And another example of the myths beign used in other literature as suggetsed by GZ would be the epic of gilgamesh. Just look, there's a version in the vast majority fo religions/ national folklore
The religions had gone on for thousands of years before hand, they where rpesent fromt he start fo all the major civilisations, egypt, sumeria, the greeks etc (hmm I'm not sure about sumeria).
Anyways, they held the form of inner and outer mysteries. The outer mysteries where in the form fo what we se ein the bible today. They where not ltieral, they instead relied on inner meanings, those inner meanings being taught to you when you where initiated intot he inner mysteries. It was all the same religion however they used different names and people to represent it. For example Dionysus or Osirus. Note how these bare an amazing resemblance to christianity? Pendants showing dionysus curcified on a cross that predate christianity ahve been found, texts showing how he and his 'followers' of equal nubmer ot jesus' aposteles, had a last supper where dionysus is quoted to say thigns remarkably similair to jesus that held the same context.
And then note how after jesus' supposed death the gnostics who spread the religion used the same style as the egyptian and romana nd greek religion system.
Then ST.Paul in league witht he newly converted roman emperor eliminated all these religions in one swoop and destroyed the gnostics, threw away 50%+ of all the books in the bible, and kept all forms of ti written in latin, saying any other religion was pagan and ahd to be destroyed.
note: you're talking as if science itself was an object, that is the flaw in your interpretation of my explanation, it is the reaso we could argue for weeks on end.
The jews couldnt have taken back canaan, all the evidence shows that ti was an unsurmountable feat to do. They would have had to have secretly assasinated all the egyptians in that heavily guarded province, full of egyptian military to defend against raids from sea people and as a deterrent for the neighbouring empires, they'd ahve had to fool every other nation nearby into thinking they where egyptians, somehow replace all their former slavery occupations with new people, conquer cities that ahdnt been built, and lay waste to cities that ahd been in ruins for more than a century. They'd have had to have generated vast amounts of food and drink from sand, conjure the resources necessary to create the things the stories say of in the bit telling of how moses got the 10 commandments, all an incredibly implausible story.
Either that or after 2 months of wandering in the desert with gods help, the peoples of the middle east and eastern mediterranean where so horrified that undead jews wandering about powered by mana from god where rampaging in canaan after wandering aimlessly in the desert for 40 years, and when the zombies got to canaan the people fled in teror and didnt record it so others wouldnt knwo what happened, and the zombies having lost all intelligence laid ruins to cities that didnt exist yet, and pillaged cities that ahd been deserted for centuries, they where then turned back to normal people by god who then wrot eit all down from their perspective and ignored the fibbers across the border.
And another example of the myths beign used in other literature as suggetsed by GZ would be the epic of gilgamesh. Just look, there's a version in the vast majority fo religions/ national folklore
I didnt know! How can ANY sane person worship a god that condones Rape, murdur, pilliging, war, theft, slavery, sacrifices and child labour?
More people have to actually READ the bible, not just memorize the good parts.
EDIT: I am refereiung to my reaction on reading Evil Bible.com, that Zero has so nicely shown me. Very shocklingly cool website...everyone needs to read it... EVERYONE!
More people have to actually READ the bible, not just memorize the good parts.
EDIT: I am refereiung to my reaction on reading Evil Bible.com, that Zero has so nicely shown me. Very shocklingly cool website...everyone needs to read it... EVERYONE!