Archeological Evidence for Bible Stories

[Red3]

Depending on who you ask, there seems to be varying amounts of evidence and opinions about archeological proof of stories in the bible. Some Christians I've talked to are convinced that there is such evidence while most secular scholars say otherwise. So in a nutshell, what exists and what doesn't? It strikes me that some people in the Christian "science" world are either lying to their flock or are extremely misinformed in this area (like many others).

[Hux]

In that archaeology can confirm some site areas and proof of habitation, it allows no room for confirming these myths. For instance, discovering Troy in no way validates the Iliad.

From what I gather, the Israeli department of Antiquities, the very people who have an incredible vested interest in giving the OT some basis of truth, are finding a great fat zero. They cannot agree on the validity of actual sites. They cannot find any evidence for thousands of people having lived in a desert for 40 years. They have even been able to establish settlement dates that do not fall into line with supposed episodes in history. So it would seem that even the historical component of the OT leaves much to be desired, if the archaeological evidence is anything to go by.

[Pure Argent]

Depending on who you ask, there seems to be varying amounts of evidence and opinions about archeological proof of stories in the bible. Some Christians I've talked to are convinced that there is such evidence while most secular scholars say otherwise. So in a nutshell, what exists and what doesn't? It strikes me that some people in the Christian "science" world are either lying to their flock or are extremely misinformed in this area (like many others).

A few cities and trails have been found, but other than that, nothing. No remains of the drowned Egyptians in the sea that Moses parted, no Ark on the mountaintop, no great temple.

[paximperium]

Some references to some major cities and figures from that time, many are correct and many are incorrect. Can't see any relevance to archeological findings to support fantasy stories.

That would be like evidence for Zeus because of the descriptions in the Iliad lead to the finding of Troy or the evidence for Amaterasu since the early stories mention actual Japanese landmarks and cities or evidence for Spiderman since it gets New York right.

[Marduk]

Depending on who you ask, there seems to be varying amounts of evidence and opinions about archeological proof of stories in the bible. Some Christians I've talked to are convinced that there is such evidence while most secular scholars say otherwise. So in a nutshell, what exists and what doesn't? It strikes me that some people in the Christian "science" world are either lying to their flock or are extremely misinformed in this area (like many others).

some of the stuff about Babylon is accurate, but the reason for that is that they were there exiled during the diaspora, there are notable omissions, over 20 Gods of other nations are mentioned yet theres no mention of the God Enlil for instance. Enlil is the Mesopotamian god who sent the flood. It's well know that the Hebrews were very familiar with this deity, as the flood story is clearly copied from Atrahasis/Gilgamesh in which he plays a major role.

Its a bit like me writing about Larry Trotter the teenage wizard and his exploits at bogsnorts school while at the same time pretending to have never heard of JK Rowling..

or in other words, the bible is not a history book, and people that claim it is are usually heavily biased in favour of sky daddy. Its a book of mythology that includes some contemporary (for the time) moral stories (ancient world morals, not modern) and a few attempts to justify a sacred bloodline for their early kings who were little more than tribal chieftains.
;)

[Simon39759]

It really depends of what book you are considering.
The Old Testament was cobbled together from many sources over a long period of time. The books are very different in authorship, style and purpose.

Some of them are, indeed, historical and reasonably quite accurate, for example, the book of Maccabees.
Other are also intempted as being historical but were written long enough after the events for the legend to settle in and muddle the water. The book of Samuel is an example of that. It treats of thing that happen and use several references to older sources but it is difficult to evaluate how accurate the accounts really are.
This problem is even more profound in book such as the book of Judges.

Other books which are not aimed to be historical, nonetheless, give us an insight in the life of the people at the time, Leviticus, for example.

Finally, other, such as Ruth and Ester and, of course, Exodus seem like historical account but are almost certainly mythic, they certainly present all the hallmark of myths.
Now, myths can sometime carry basis in historical truth, but it is not evident by any stretch. In the case of Exodus, for example, I know that many events told in its page have been pretty much debunked (the 7th plagues, the lost of the Egyptian army). There might be some grain of truth within the smaller events, the ones we would not expect to find evidences for, but, who can tell?
I also know that some people (credible people) on these boards mentioned there being some valid evidences of an Hebrew presence in Egypt at the time, but I don't personally know of any such proof, all the ones I read about had been finally rejected.

[Red3]

Some references to some major cities and figures from that time, many are correct and many are incorrect. Can't see any relevance to archeological findings to support fantasy stories.



Yeah, I agree. I was just curious really.

or in other words, the bible is not a history book, and people that claim it is are usually heavily biased in favour of sky daddy.

Well, that's it isn't it? When you're trying to prove someone exists because the setting existed is poposterous and it shows what little else they have. I'm just interested if the people (xstians etc) who say there is historical/archeological evidence are as bad in this field as they are in others.

[edge]

Right none of this counts. Shezzz!
Blind leading the blind, look away you are hideous.

[Red3]

What the hell is all that crap?! ^^^

[Hokulele]

What the hell is all that crap?! ^^^


It's Ron Wyatt's stuff. He was a nutbar.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-05.htm


ETA: Even other Christians don't believe his stuff.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html

[Red3]

Ah. I see.

[paximperium]

Ah. I see.
I believe he has claimed to have found Noah's Ark several times.

The guy is a nutbar. It just take a few minutes of actual searching to see him to be an obvious liar. It is more amusing why certain people believe the nutbar and will fight, whine and lie to support Wyatt's nonsense.

[GreNME]

In that archaeology can confirm some site areas and proof of habitation, it allows no room for confirming these myths. For instance, discovering Troy in no way validates the Iliad.

Actually, the discoveries found in what would have been Troy (Ilios) have invalidatd the account as written in the Iliad, because there seems to have been several invasions over a large span of years. That doesn't mean much since no one today believes in the gods or heroes of the Iliad anyway, but from an archaeological and historical perspective it's a pretty big deal.

That little tangent aside, the rest of my opinion has been stated already by Marduk.

[Pure Argent]

Right none of this counts. Shezzz!
Blind leading the blind, look away you are hideous.

Hey, it's edge! I remember you! You were one of the first people I argued with when I joined this site!

Welcome back! I thought you had died or something.

Anyway, no, they don't "count". That's not actually evidence. That's just weird coral formations that people are lying about. I'm pretty sure we covered this in a thread a few weeks ago... I'll go look for it.

[paximperium]

Right none of this counts. Shezzz!
Yup. It doesn't.
Blind leading the blind, look away you are hideous.
You have no idea how funny this statement really is.

[Marduk]

I believe he has claimed to have found Noah's Ark several times.

The guy is a nutbar. It just take a few minutes of actual searching to see him to be an obvious liar. It is more amusing why certain people believe the nutbar and will fight, whine and lie to support Wyatt's nonsense.

was a nutbar, has since been recalled to sky daddy
Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 - August 4, 1999)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

[paximperium]

was a nutbar, has since been recalled to sky daddy
Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 - August 4, 1999)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt
Oh noes...sniff. Bye bye nutbar.

[Lanzy]

Right none of this counts. Shezzz!
Blind leading the blind, look away you are hideous.

Did you mean JESUS!?

[Ladewig]

So in a nutshell, what exists and what doesn't?

You may find this thread helpful: Archeology proves the Bible? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149824)

As for a more specific answer, archeology unequivocally proves that Noah's Flood did not occur and that the world is very much older than 6000 years.

[Red3]

You may find this thread helpful: Archeology proves the Bible? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149824)

As for a more specific answer, archeology unequivocally proves that Noah's Flood did not occur and that the world is very much older than 6000 years.

Thanks for the link. I should've known there would already be a thread on this. As for the second paragraph, I should hope it does! :p

I should probably mention I started this thread from a disbeliever's standpoint.

[Foster Zygote]

What the hell is all that crap?! ^^^

Edge wants us to believe that the wheel is from one of Pharaoh's chariots drowned in the Red Sea in pursuit of Moses and the Hebrews. Never mind that it looks a bit pristine for a wooden wheel that's been lying on the bottom of the Red Sea for some 3500 years (assuming that's where the photo was taken) and that it looks more like an industrial era flywheel from some ship's machinery. There have been ships sailing the Red Sea for thousands of years and there must be many thousands of wrecks at the bottom. The artifact in the photo could be from anything.

[Red3]

Bloody hell...Talk about clutching at straws.

[Marduk]

You may find this thread helpful: Archeology proves the Bible? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149824)

As for a more specific answer, archeology unequivocally proves that Noah's Flood did not occur and that the world is very much older than 6000 years.

are you sure, I thought that was geology ?
:D

[Ladewig]

Edge wants us to believe that the wheel is from one of Pharaoh's chariots drowned in the Red Sea in pursuit of Moses and the Hebrews. Never mind that it looks a bit pristine for a wooden wheel that's been lying on the bottom of the Red Sea for some 3500 years (assuming that's where the photo was taken) and that it looks more like an industrial era flywheel from some ship's machinery. There have been ships sailing the Red Sea for thousands of years and there must be many thousands of wrecks at the bottom. The artifact in the photo could be from anything.

I got that part. What's the deal with the atomic mushroom cloud?

[Red3]

are you sure, I thought that was geology ?
:D

Lol, good job someone's on the ball!

[HansMustermann]

are you sure, I thought that was geology ?
:D

Actually, archaeology makes a decent case too, IMHO. There are plenty of artefacts dug up that are older than 6000 years. There are primitive stone tools dating 2.5 million years back. The earliest evidence of a battle is from 13 to 14 thousand years ago (the Cemetery 117 site.) Etc.

It's a bit hard to reconcile a 6000 year old world and a 13000 year battle ;)

[Foster Zygote]

I got that part. What's the deal with the atomic mushroom cloud?

That's another piece of "Pharaoh's chariot". It looks like a pair of wheels on an axle. Again, it could be from damn near anything, assuming it even lies at the bottom of the Red Sea.

[Red3]

That's another piece of "Pharaoh's chariot". It looks like a pair of wheels on an axle. Again, it could be from damn near anything, assuming it even lies at the bottom of the Red Sea.

I'm shocked people can believe that. Edge? Do you really believe that, or are you just having us on?! If the answer is yes, would you like to elaborate?

[JoeTheJuggler]

My understanding is that archaeology pretty much shows that the Bible stories before about 1000 BC are pretty much invented from whole cloth, but after that, there is a greater or lesser degree of historicity to them.

Here's a good site (not that supports what I just said--but on the topic of "Biblical Archaeology"): http://www.badarchaeology.net/biblical/index.php

[TimCallahan]

Here are some specifics with respct to archaeology and the Bible:

The Merneptah victory stela, erected ca. 1210 BCE, mentions a tribal group called "Israel" living in Canaan.

The Tel Dan inscription, probably made by Hazael, prince of Damascus, ca. 850 BCE refers to the "king of the House of David."

The Moabite Stone, set up by Mesha, king of Moab, mentioned in chapter 3 of 2 Kings, refers to Omri, father of Ahab.

Kings of Israel and Judah, starting with Omri and Ahab, and including Hezekiah, are mentioned, fairly prominently, in Assyrian records.

Assyrian and Chaldean records tell of the sacking of Samaria and Jerusalem, respectively. Chaldean records mention an allowance given to the king of Judah (king in exile at the Chaldean court). This corroborates the final incident in 2 Kings, in which Evil Merodoch (Awil-Marduk) lets the last kingof Judah, Jehoiachin, out of jail and treats him kindly.

Ahab's palace in Samaria, often called the 'ivory palace" has been found. The number of iviory figurines indicates a fair level of wealth. In addition, excavations of Lachish and other cities in Judah, show signs of destruction at the hands of the Assyrians during Hezekiah's revolt.

Archaeological strata show a great increse in the size and population of Jerusalem following the fall of Samaria, probably as a result of refugees from Israel fleeing Assyrian domination.

There is absolutely no archaeological or historical support for either the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, regardless of whether the Exodus is set ca. 1450 BCE or ca. 1200 BCE.

Excavations of houshold hearths etc. in villages and cities of Iron Age Israel have yielded up nearly 1,000 Asherah figurines. These plus a number of contemporary inscriptions indicate that, to the rank and file among the people of Israel and Judah, Yahweh, like any other self-respecting god, had a consort, whose name was Asherah. The public worship, involving maters of state, centered on Yahweh. Private worship, while not excluding Yahweh, centered on Asherah, his wife. This pattern seems to have held up until the post-exilic period.

[Pure Argent]

I'm shocked people can believe that. Edge? Do you really believe that, or are you just having us on?! If the answer is yes, would you like to elaborate?

He believes. Like I said, edge was one of the first theists I got into an argument with when I joined JREF. There are a few really hardcore believers that show up on and off here, and all of them use irrational thinking to justify their beliefs. Edge (the pictures above are his trademark), kurious_kathy (endless preaching with no real substance), Ethnikos (literally retranslates huge swathes of scripture using NetBible to fit with whatever he believes that week), RevDisturba (who uses pseudoscience to try and win converts), and Yrreg (who is simply incoherent most of the time and flames when he can be understood).

[Marduk]

Actually, archaeology makes a decent case too, IMHO. There are plenty of artefacts dug up that are older than 6000 years. There are primitive stone tools dating 2.5 million years back. The earliest evidence of a battle is from 13 to 14 thousand years ago (the Cemetery 117 site.) Etc.

It's a bit hard to reconcile a 6000 year old world and a 13000 year battle ;)

Didn't know about cemetery 117, thanks for that (amazing what we miss isnt it), but archaeology originally proved the flood, and then disproved it. I always thought this was ironic
Leonard Woolley originally trained for the ministry, but was diverted into archaeology by Dr. W. A. Spooner, of "spoonerism" fame. After W.W. I, Woolley began explorations in the Euphrates-Tigris delta, hoping to make an important find of a biblical nature. His success was almost immediate. Working with the consummate skill and patience for which he became noted, Woolley discovered Sumerian temple ruins dating back to 2600 B.C. Encouraged, he selected a new site at the great mound of Tell el-Muqayyar, a 60-ft.-high ziggurat known to conceal Ur of the Chaldees because of prior excavations done in 1854 by J. E. Taylor, the British consul at Basra. In 1929 Woolley stirred world-wide interest with a melodramatic telegram, sent to London: WE HAVE FOUND THE FLOOD!


Deep down in the 40-ft. shaft sunk into the mound, Woolley had discovered a stratified layer of river clay almost 10 ft. thick. The deposit, he reasoned, could have come only from a flood of immense dimensions, a disaster of such magnitude that it had without doubt given substance to the Genesis legend of Noah and the Ark.

after further excavation of course he found another flood deposit and then another and another. Shortly after that a geological report showed that the entire country was a flood plain.
:p

[Fnord]

While archeology may provide evidence that supports some Biblical accounts, I doubt that there is any archaeological evidence that actually proves any Biblical account.


I mean, even a 99.999% correlation isn't actual proof, is it?

[HansMustermann]

If it were even a _much_ weaker correlation, it would still be better than basically nothing.

We have evidence of some places, and at best we have evidence that the Jews were in the middle east at some point. Which isn't entirely surprising. I mean, the Romans found it there, and the Ebla tablets nail a language that had evolved from the semitic Akkadian distinctly towards the latter Hebrew. So it's not entirely surprising that at a third point in between the two points you'd also find them there.

The stuff that's missing is evidence for pretty much everything else. You know, the actual events and stories there. You know, the exodus. The flood. Stuff like that.

Basically saying that that's evidence in any way with the actual story or events in the Bible, is a bit like saying that New York's existence evidence for Spiderman.

[tsig]

If it were even a _much_ weaker correlation, it would still be better than basically nothing.

We have evidence of some places, and at best we have evidence that the Jews were in the middle east at some point. Which isn't entirely surprising. I mean, the Romans found it there, and the Ebla tablets nail a language that had evolved from the semitic Akkadian distinctly towards the latter Hebrew. So it's not entirely surprising that at a third point in between the two points you'd also find them there.

The stuff that's missing is evidence for pretty much everything else. You know, the actual events and stories there. You know, the exodus. The flood. Stuff like that.

Basically saying that that's evidence in any way with the actual story or events in the Bible, is a bit like saying that New York's existence evidence for Spiderman.

Agreed, since humans wrote the bible it is hardly surprising that they would mention the places where they lived.

[George152]

Edge wants us to believe that the wheel is from one of Pharaoh's chariots drowned in the Red Sea in pursuit of Moses and the Hebrews. Never mind that it looks a bit pristine for a wooden wheel that's been lying on the bottom of the Red Sea for some 3500 years (assuming that's where the photo was taken) and that it looks more like an industrial era flywheel from some ship's machinery. There have been ships sailing the Red Sea for thousands of years and there must be many thousands of wrecks at the bottom. The artifact in the photo could be from anything.

:-)
Timber doesn't last very long in the sea.
One good example that comes to mind is the non-existent wooden fittings in the Titanic.
However
In lakes where there is little oxygen and wave/tidal motion yes.

[justcharlie09]

Depending on who you ask, there seems to be varying amounts of evidence and opinions about archeological proof of stories in the bible. Some Christians I've talked to are convinced that there is such evidence while most secular scholars say otherwise. So in a nutshell, what exists and what doesn't? It strikes me that some people in the Christian "science" world are either lying to their flock or are extremely misinformed in this area (like many others).

I've never personally cared about the evidence. I've always considered the pursuit of bits of the arc on Mount Ararat or searching for a place with a strange tree in the middle of it, etc. to be one big adventure in missing the point.

Metaphor, myth, allegory...what's so wrong with that for conveying important ideas?

As for the existence of Jesus, I think, at least as a man there is evidence through Josephus (although some debate that).

Personally, though, finding an actual historical Jesus, or a bit of arc on Ararat wouldn't change much for me. Again, I feel that for someone who is Christian, the search for "proof" misses the point. But, that's me.

The Bible is not a literal scientific of history text book. It is a book of ideas and a book of relationship with what lies beyond human understanding--the bigger picture. Not necesarily a supernatural sky-god with long flowing beard on a cloudy throne, but the essence of what it is to exist, what is right and true about being human/humane...that there is some purpose and something outside ourselves to relate to.

This is pretty much why I got bounced from church. I couldn't bridge the chasm between superstition and faith.

I actually find more in common with most atheists than I do with most Christians.

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome, justcharlie09! I hope you settle in, sounds like you have an interesting point of view.

[Red3]

I've never personally cared about the evidence. I've always considered the pursuit of bits of the arc on Mount Ararat or searching for a place with a strange tree in the middle of it, etc. to be one big adventure in missing the point.

Metaphor, myth, allegory...what's so wrong with that for conveying important ideas?

As for the existence of Jesus, I think, at least as a man there is evidence through Josephus (although some debate that).

Personally, though, finding an actual historical Jesus, or a bit of arc on Ararat wouldn't change much for me. Again, I feel that for someone who is Christian, the search for "proof" misses the point. But, that's me.

The Bible is not a literal scientific of history text book. It is a book of ideas and a book of relationship with what lies beyond human understanding--the bigger picture. Not necesarily a supernatural sky-god with long flowing beard on a cloudy throne, but the essence of what it is to exist, what is right and true about being human/humane...that there is some purpose and something outside ourselves to relate to.

This is pretty much why I got bounced from church. I couldn't bridge the chasm between superstition and faith.

I actually find more in common with most atheists than I do with most Christians.

There are better ways to convey ideas than the bible,and a fair few ideas in it I'd describe as despicable rather than important. I'm sure it worked for primitive societies thousands of years ago but it just doesn't cut it anymore imo. But this isn't the problem; the problem is that these stories are believed to be true and passed off as true. It wouldn't matter apart from the fact that a lot of people who believe in this type of thing are screwing the world up for everyone else. As for Jesus the man existing, I've yet to see any evidence of that whatsoever. The debate about Josephus is surely just in Christian circles as no one else buys it. The book he's mentioned in was written almost a hundred years after the gospels. "Humane" is not a word I'd use for the Bible, it's anything but.

[Foster Zygote]

:-)
Timber doesn't last very long in the sea.
One good example that comes to mind is the non-existent wooden fittings in the Titanic.
However
In lakes where there is little oxygen and wave/tidal motion yes.

I just watched a National Geographic program about the ROV exploration of a 1500 year old wreck on the floor of the Black Sea. The anoxic conditions result in startling preservation. You could even see the adze marks on the 30 foot mast still protruding vertically from the hull. Of course, that isn't the case in the Red Sea.

I did some looking around and it seems that Wyatt claimed that the picture in the upper left of Edge's post is of a gilded chariot wheel on which the wood had rotted away leaving only the gilding, which was too fragile to move. I have a very hard time believing this claim based on the photo. There is no way that gold leaf is going to hold its shape after the wood rots away. The wheel in that photo is still perfectly smooth, the spokes are still perfectly straight. I still think that we are most likely looking at a flywheel or something from a relatively modern ship's machinery. I'd bet $10 that it's made of corosion resistant brass, maybe even Enkotal.

Wyatt claimed to have salvaged one of the "chariot wheels" he found and had it examined by by an expert who proclaimed it to be from the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Alas, no one knows who this alleged expert was and no one has ever seen this wheel. Pretty typical of the quality of Wyatt's archaeological work.

[Ladewig]

That's another piece of "Pharaoh's chariot". It looks like a pair of wheels on an axle.

Ah, now I see. Then what is the rock that the guy is standing next to?

[Foster Zygote]

Ah, now I see. Then what is the rock that the guy is standing next to?

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that it's supposed to be Noah's anchor.

[Red3]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that it's supposed to be Noah's anchor.

It doesn't look very strong to hold an ark of that magnitude!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that it's supposed to be Noah's anchor.

Why would Noah's ark have an anchor? It wasn't like they had several ports of call to make. :)

[Pure Argent]

It doesn't look very strong to hold an ark of that magnitude!

:mgduh

Our shields cannot deflect a fail of that magnitude.

[justcharlie09]

There are better ways to convey ideas than the bible,and a fair few ideas in it I'd describe as despicable rather than important. I'm sure it worked for primitive societies thousands of years ago but it just doesn't cut it anymore imo. But this isn't the problem; the problem is that these stories are believed to be true and passed off as true. It wouldn't matter apart from the fact that a lot of people who believe in this type of thing are screwing the world up for everyone else. As for Jesus the man existing, I've yet to see any evidence of that whatsoever. The debate about Josephus is surely just in Christian circles as no one else buys it. The book he's mentioned in was written almost a hundred years after the gospels. "Humane" is not a word I'd use for the Bible, it's anything but.

I would say that a good bit of the Gospels are humane. The rest of the Bible is an interesting story about one particular tribe of humanity as they perceived themselves over time. The main problem of the Bible is the lack of understanding of it, in context, and rigid adherence to biblical literalism. I would also say that priesthoods (both secular and religious) are bad for humanity in general. But, that's another discussion.

Are there other important ideas out there? Of course, I wasn't discounting that. Certainly, any Christian who reads only the Bible and reads it only literally is missing out on a wealth of information that could deepen his/her worldview and understanding of fellow individuals.

I don't know about who is arguing or not about Josephus. Again, I don't really care. If you have to find bits of the cross and texts verifying the existence of Jesus, again, obviously the point has been missed. The Christian "myth" (myths are regarded as fictional stories containing deeper truths, expressing collective attitudes to fundamental matters of life, death, divinity, and existence) is something which is compelling to me, personally.

The fact that others don't feel this way or need to prove it has little impact on me as an individual. That's all I'm saying. :) My big question is: Why does anyone need to prove the Bible? Why do we need bits of cross and evidence of Jesus?

Frankly, I find myself in kind of a no-mans-land because atheists tend to think I'm "one of those Christians" and most Christians don't think I'm Christian enough. To hell with it, is all I can say :D

As for the "people who believe this stuff are screwing things up" notion... no, people in general screw things up. Christians don't have a monolopy on screw-ups. Screwing up is just human nature--especially humans in large groups. Group think is probably the biggest danger...and that's something we're all susceptible to--believer or no.

[Simon39759]

Hello Charlie, welcome to the fora.

You seem to have the right attitude about your faith, realizing that it is 'faith' and not pretending that it is 'knowledge'.

[Marduk]

I would say that a good bit of the Gospels are humane.

How can fiction be humane ?

The rest of the Bible is an interesting story about one particular tribe of humanity as they perceived themselves over time.
12 Tribes !!!, one God

The main problem of the Bible is the lack of understanding of it.
sometimes it helps to read it carefully
;)

[justcharlie09]

Hello Charlie, welcome to the fora.

You seem to have the right attitude about your faith, realizing that it is 'faith' and not pretending that it is 'knowledge'.

Thanks, although, it depends on the definition of knowledge...but that's the gist of it, yes. I'm a big fan of both John Polkinghorne and Lorenzo Albacete (although, I don't endorse everything they say--particularly Albacete as I have major issues with Catholicism).

To me, having faith is very different from willfully trying to bring about a "Demon Haunted World". I'm hoping that someday this will be the majority view. But, having studied at least 4 years of psychology, I don't think that's totally within human grasp.

If we don't come up with religious demons to haunt the world, we'll find secular ones to do just as much damage. It's a weird human trait.

The older I get, the more I find it is really unusual (and difficult) to truly "think for oneself". There's always a danger of falling in with the herd.

[Pure Argent]

Thanks, although, it depends on the definition of knowledge...but that's the gist of it, yes. I'm a big fan of both John Polkinghorne and Lorenzo Albacete (although, I don't endorse everything they say--particularly Albacete as I have major issues with Catholicism).

Why? This is something that has always puzzled me.

[justcharlie09]

How can fiction be humane ?

12 Tribes !!!, one God

sometimes it helps to read it carefully
;)

True, lots of tribes. Sorry I lost a few... heh...not the first time that's happened, I suppose.

Disagreeing with the use of the word fiction here, but of course fiction can be humane. There are plenty of examples besides the Bible where writers have taken great pains to put across narratives that elevate the values of compassion and the alleviation of human suffering (to be humane, to endorse humane values).

You've never read a book that did anything like that?

[justcharlie09]

Why? This is something that has always puzzled me.

Sorry, which part of what I said was the "Why?" directed at? Why on the definition or why on my problem with Catholicism? Or why on faith at all?

Happy to answer any of that, but if I try to answer all of it...I'm horribly long-winded and will suck up bandwidth like there's no tomorrow (besides that running short on time...kids have a class to get to this evening).

[paximperium]

If we don't come up with religious demons to haunt the world, we'll find secular ones to do just as much damage. It's a weird human trait.
I don't disagree with that. There will always be fear and hysteria even with a secular world. Anti-vaxers being a prime example.

The big difference is that secular "demons" can be countered with actual evidence and rationality. Religious demons is impossible to reason with.

[Pure Argent]

Sorry, which part of what I said was the "Why?" directed at? Why on the definition or why on my problem with Catholicism? Or why on faith at all?

Happy to answer any of that, but if I try to answer all of it...I'm horribly long-winded and will suck up bandwidth like there's no tomorrow (besides that running short on time...kids have a class to get to this evening).

Sorry, should have been more clear. "Why" on Catholicism.

[Marduk]

True, lots of tribes. Sorry I lost a few... heh...not the first time that's happened, I suppose.
Yup won't be the last, one lot built stone henge "allegedly", another lot, founded scotlands line of kingship, some others were later cursed by God and had their skin turned red and became "red indians"

Disagreeing with the use of the word fiction here,
On what grounds ?

but of course fiction can be humane. There are plenty of examples besides the Bible where writers have taken great pains to put across narratives that elevate the values of compassion and the alleviation of human suffering (to be humane, to endorse humane values).

Such as ?
Job ? (man gets tortured by God)
Jonah ? (man gets tortured by God)
Gospels (God (possibly man) gets tortured by man)

You've never read a book that did anything like that?
loads, I have never read a humane passage in the bible though, to write a humane statement actually requires the author to understand what "humane" is, and the bible wasn't written on compassionate grounds, or even by very compassionate people.
:p

[justcharlie09]

I don't disagree with that. There will always be fear and hysteria even with a secular world. Anti-vaxers being a prime example.

The big difference is that secular "demons" can be countered with actual evidence and rationality. Religious demons is impossible to reason with.

As a mom and someone who (until recently) worked with ASD kids, I cannot stand the anti-vaxers. Little did I know, as a teen, watching that idiot Jenny McCarthy on MTV, that one day she would be the cause of such needless guilt for parents and dangerous behavior regarding the health of children.

The "true believers" of secular or religious demons are about even in their willingness to ignore the truth. If people don't want to believe something, it doesn't matter what you put in front of them to counter it. Certainly, the anti-vax people don't have a leg to stand on, but they remain anyway.

[justcharlie09]

Sorry, should have been more clear. "Why" on Catholicism.

There are lots of things I like about Catholicism. I just don't like their rigid stance against gays, family planning and abortion (even in cases of poor prenatal diagnosis or maternal health issues)--in particular.

Also, I think they keep too much of their knowledge at the top, and allow the layity to be superstitious to the extreme (sometimes even openly supporting it).

Don't get me started on exorcism.

But, that's my beef with the RC church in a nutshell. Other than that, there are many good things about it. I would belong if not for the points mentioned above.

[justcharlie09]

Yup won't be the last, one lot built stone henge "allegedly", another lot, founded scotlands line of kingship, some others were later cursed by God and had their skin turned red and became "red indians"

Oh, don't you mean the Lamanites? ;)

On what grounds ?

Because I feel the term myth, as defined above is a better fit. Fiction doesn't necessarily go as far as myth in all cases. That's all.

Such as ?
Job ? (man gets tortured by God)
Jonah ? (man gets tortured by God)
Gospels (God (possibly man) gets tortured by man)

I didn't like Job at first, it always seemed like God and the devil were "taking the mickey" out of poor Job for sport. I don't have as much of a problem with it now. Gospels, well, there are a lot of examples...there are even some in the old testament that are humane. I have to run the kids to the library, but I will come back with a better list of what I'm talking about when I get back.

loads, I have never read a humane passage in the bible though, to write a humane statement actually requires the author to understand what "humane" is, and the bible wasn't written on compassionate grounds, or even by very compassionate people.
:p

Depends on how you're looking at it. I don't quite see where you've never read anything compassionate in the Bible. Especially, the new testament. I understand the anger toward Christianity as a whole, but I don't think it is fair to say the Gospels are completely lacking in compassion.

I'll get back with that...unfortunately, I'm running everyone late as it is :D

[Pure Argent]

There are lots of things I like about Catholicism. I just don't like their rigid stance against gays, family planning and abortion (even in cases of poor prenatal diagnosis or maternal health issues)--in particular.

Also, I think they keep too much of their knowledge at the top, and allow the layity to be superstitious to the extreme (sometimes even openly supporting it).

Don't get me started on exorcism.

But, that's my beef with the RC church in a nutshell. Other than that, there are many good things about it. I would belong if not for the points mentioned above.

Well, as a former RC myself, gotta say that I agree with you on most of the above points. I'd just like to point out that, as much of the knowledge of the less-savory Bible passages is kept at the top, many people are actually very un-superstitious in the church's lower ranks. Fire-and-brimstone, demons and the like are very, very rarely discussed, and exorcism was never mentioned at all in the entire time that I was a member of the church. Aside from the actual Jesus thing itself, most of the church members that I knew were very down-to-earth people who wouldn't put up with any demon nonsense.

[Marduk]

Depends on how you're looking at it. I don't quite see where you've never read anything compassionate in the Bible. Especially, the new testament. I understand the anger toward Christianity as a whole, but I don't think it is fair to say the Gospels are completely lacking in compassion.


maybe you should start a new thread, "why I believe the Gospels are compassionate", I assure you it would go down a storm here. I have no anger towards christianity, maybe hypocrisy as regularly demonstrated by its converts (but thats all religions, except mine of course:D), but Jesus himself I have no problem with, wether he existed or not.
Pantheists are like that, non discriminatory.
:D

[justcharlie09]

Well, as a former RC myself, gotta say that I agree with you on most of the above points. I'd just like to point out that, as much of the knowledge of the less-savory Bible passages is kept at the top, many people are actually very un-superstitious in the church's lower ranks. Fire-and-brimstone, demons and the like are very, very rarely discussed, and exorcism was never mentioned at all in the entire time that I was a member of the church. Aside from the actual Jesus thing itself, most of the church members that I knew were very down-to-earth people who wouldn't put up with any demon nonsense.

(So much for the library...had to give my 2 yr old a shower instead...)

I did, but I think that can be a regional thing. My main problems were reproductive rights and anti-homosexual rhetoric. But, I was very extensively involved in the religious education program and had some trouble there as well...with what the women were teaching the kids (asking them who they thought was going to hell, and some other things).

Being my age, with kids, and Catholic (at the time) is probably a very different experience from being male, single, and Catholic. The people I dealt with most were young women (or young-ish...20's and 30's...in my general age range). I found a lot of ignorance there and superstition. Not to mention the trouble over the Humanae Vitae baloney. Strict adherence to Humanae Vitae is just ducky if you don't mind having roughly the same number of kids as the Duggars or never having sex again.

I finally cracked after experiencing, first-hand, poor prenatal diagnosis and then going into church during an election year having to listen to the priest calling the parish to picket abortion clinics and supporters homosexual marriage. I very vocally took on former "friends", the pastoral minister, and the parish priest. So, I don't think I'll be welcome back any time soon--nor would I want to be.

The exorcism problem is just a very, VERY peripheral beef.

Anyway, "hi" from a fellow former-RC.

[justcharlie09]

maybe you should start a new thread, "why I believe the Gospels are compassionate", I assure you it would go down a storm here. I have no anger towards christianity, maybe hypocrisy as regularly demonstrated by its converts (but thats all religions, except mine of course:D), but Jesus himself I have no problem with, wether he existed or not.
Pantheists are like that, non discriminatory.
:D

Nah. I'll skip it. I'll just list: the Beatitudes/Sermon on the Mount, more or less all of the parables but particularly the good Samaritan, the Doctor and the Sick, treatment of the poor, sick, leppers, sinners, telling off the Pharisees, injunctions against usury, help the poor/widowed/orphaned, etc. call to love others as yourself, etc...

Hypocrisy...yeah, I'm with you on that page. No, it's never ones own religion that harbors the hypocrits...amazing how that works :rolleyes: :D

Really, it's a people problem. Good grief, look how anal people get over Star Trek and that doesn't even offer a celestial reward as a carrot on the stick!

[Red3]

Well justcharlie, you are certainly in the minority I would think in an extremely polarized global society. Most believers would not agree with you on either the validity of Jesus' existence or the merit of finding evidence proving it. I would also say that the literal word of the bible is followed by a lot of religious people.

As for the gospels being humane, they seem rather keen to bring up hell - it's referenced 162 times. Ye ole' behave or burn threat doesn't seem particularly humane; in fact, it's the kind of thing you'd find in a few dictator led regimes of today in the middle east. The N.T pretty much just says believe or rot in hell forever. Not humane.

Jesus is also cited as saying in the gospels that he is there to uphold every word of the law (or words to that effect). So he advocates every evil deed and practice of the O.T.

[tsig]

I just watched a National Geographic program about the ROV exploration of a 1500 year old wreck on the floor of the Black Sea. The anoxic conditions result in startling preservation. You could even see the adze marks on the 30 foot mast still protruding vertically from the hull. Of course, that isn't the case in the Red Sea.

I did some looking around and it seems that Wyatt claimed that the picture in the upper left of Edge's post is of a gilded chariot wheel on which the wood had rotted away leaving only the gilding, which was too fragile to move. I have a very hard time believing this claim based on the photo. There is no way that gold leaf is going to hold its shape after the wood rots away. The wheel in that photo is still perfectly smooth, the spokes are still perfectly straight. I still think that we are most likely looking at a flywheel or something from a relatively modern ship's machinery. I'd bet $10 that it's made of corosion resistant brass, maybe even Enkotal.

Wyatt claimed to have salvaged one of the "chariot wheels" he found and had it examined by by an expert who proclaimed it to be from the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Alas, no one knows who this alleged expert was and no one has ever seen this wheel. Pretty typical of the quality of Wyatt's archaeological work.

I think the picture on the left is a mariner's astrolabe.

http://astrolabes.org/mariner.htm

[Hokulele]

Pretty typical of the quality of Wyatt's archaeological work.


Nut. Bar.

[tsig]

Why would Noah's ark have an anchor? It wasn't like they had several ports of call to make. :)

They used the anchors to stabilize the ark. Can't find the reference but the theory is that by hanging a stone at each corner you could adjust how the ark floated.:boggled:

[justcharlie09]

Well justcharlie, you are certainly in the minority I would think in an extremely polarized global society. Most believers would not agree with you on either the validity of Jesus' existence or the merit of finding evidence proving it. I would also say that the literal word of the bible is followed by a lot of religious people.

As for the gospels being humane, they seem rather keen to bring up hell - it's referenced 162 times. Ye ole' behave or burn threat doesn't seem particularly humane; in fact, it's the kind of thing you'd find in a few dictator led regimes of today in the middle east. The N.T pretty much just says believe or rot in hell forever. Not humane.

Jesus is also cited as saying in the gospels that he is there to uphold every word of the law (or words to that effect). So he advocates every evil deed and practice of the O.T.

No, my husband and I have a running joke that if I said what I really think 99% of the time, they'd bring back the Auto de Fe just to get rid of me. I'm really close to being a UU sort of Christian, but I found I could quite dig the UU experience because it really was as all-inclusive as it seemed...mostly nice, well-educated and semi-elitist white people. Not that well-educated white people are bad. I just prefer a more diverse crowd.

No, hell isn't humane. I can't take the Bible literally. There are a variety of interpretations of what hell is...of those hell is less brimstone and more an absence of relationship with God. Again, I don't think there are many in ANY group I can think of that wouldn't consider that heretical.

I tend to be kind of an iconoclast. Mostly by accident, actually. I just can't seem to get into the groove with what everyone else is thinking.

Still don't get the validity argument. To be perfectly honest, the way the atheists and hardcore literalist theists go after this topic seems rife with humor.

[Simon39759]

(So much for the library...had to give my 2 yr old a shower instead...)
I did, but I think that can be a regional thing. My main problems were reproductive rights and anti-homosexual rhetoric. But, I was very extensively involved in the religious education program and had some trouble there as well...with what the women were teaching the kids (asking them who they thought was going to hell, and some other things).

Holly foock; that's down right foockin' evil. Poor kids. Seriously now.
Thanksfully, even after being subjected to 17 years of catholic school, I can't recall being in such situation.




Well justcharlie, you are certainly in the minority I would think in an extremely polarized global society. Most believers would not agree with you on either the validity of Jesus' existence or the merit of finding evidence proving it. I would also say that the literal word of the bible is followed by a lot of religious people.
As for the gospels being humane, they seem rather keen to bring up hell - it's referenced 162 times. Ye ole' behave or burn threat doesn't seem particularly humane; in fact, it's the kind of thing you'd find in a few dictator led regimes of today in the middle east. The N.T pretty much just says believe or rot in hell forever. Not humane.
Jesus is also cited as saying in the gospels that he is there to uphold every word of the law (or words to that effect). So he advocates every evil deed and practice of the O.T.

It really depends, though, on one hand, Jesus does say that, on the other hand, a lot of his teachings do go against the OT. He clearly reject the dietary restrictions, for example.
It seems to me that either Jesus was quite unfamiliar with the O.T, unlikely, or he did interpret it quite widely to fit the evolution the Hebrew culture had underwent under the Greek and Roman influence. It is also possible that some of the apparently conflicting passage were added to the gospels at a later date to bolster on position or the other in the early "political" conflict the Christian church underwent as Origen somewhat hint at.

[Simon39759]

Still don't get the validity argument. To be perfectly honest, the way the atheists and hardcore literalist theists go after this topic seems rife with humor.


Hum; I wonder, are you American? You used the expression 'taking the Mickey' which I associate more with British English...

Anyway, the reason why Atheists tend to go after the most literalistic interpretation of the Bible, well, at least why I do it, is that I have no or little problem with the more moderate readings of the Bible.

But its the literalists that try to sneak young earth creationism in school; they are the ones insulting the gays and refusing their rights and shooting doctors.
They represent the crazy we are trying to prevent from spreading.

[Red3]

It really depends, though, on one hand, Jesus does say that, on the other hand, a lot of his teachings do go against the OT. He clearly reject the dietary restrictions, for example.


So he's a liar? It strikes me he says what he wants when he wants. But that's apparent from various passages.

P.S. dietary restrictions?! He points that out in particular?! Nevermind not murdering gays, fortune tellers, witches, non believers, disobedient children, sunday workers...

[justcharlie09]

Hum; I wonder, are you American? You used the expression 'taking the Mickey' which I associate more with British English...

Anyway, the reason why Atheists tend to go after the most literalistic interpretation of the Bible, well, at least why I do it, is that I have no or little problem with the more moderate readings of the Bible.

But its the literalists that try to sneak young earth creationism in school; they are the ones insulting the gays and refusing their rights and shooting doctors.
They represent the crazy we are trying to prevent from spreading.

I'm American, but grew up on a lot of British humour and language. ;)

Well, you're right there. It is ridiculous. I'd like to see more moderates going after them as well. It angers me that more don't.

[justcharlie09]

So he's a liar? It strikes me he says what he wants when he wants. But that's apparent from various passages.

P.S. dietary restrictions?! He points that out in particular?! Nevermind not murdering gays, fortune tellers, witches, non believers, disobedient children...

Depends on who the Gospel is "according to"... then you have to know the character or have a general idea of the character of the guy who wrote it from his perspective...

[justcharlie09]

[QUOTE]Holly foock; that's down right foockin' evil. Poor kids. Seriously now.
Thanksfully, even after being subjected to 17 years of catholic school, I can't recall being in such situation.


Yes, that's what I told them. The gutless pastoral minister that I told about the incident just told me to switch to helping another class and said "well, she doesn't seem to know quite what she's talking about" but then never addressed it, either.

You should have seen the kids...2nd graders...asked that question. They were comparing notes on class members they didn't like and trying, in ernest, to figure out which one of their little friends would be hanging out in the Inferno.

[Red3]

Depends on who the Gospel is "according to"... then you have to know the character or have a general idea of the character of the guy who wrote it from his perspective...

Well yeah, which completely nullifies the whole idea of Jesus as the son god and makes him the invention of man. Along with the leaving out of the bible various gospels. What with one thing and another, if Jesus did exist he's been well and truly obscured and covered over.

Back to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed.

[justcharlie09]

Well yeah, which completely nullifies the whole idea of Jesus as the son god and makes him the invention of man. Along with the leaving out of the bible various gospels. What with one thing and another, if Jesus did exist he's been well and truly obscured and covered over.

Back to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed.

Nah, just proves that God himself could come down and to chat with people about the meaning of life and they still wouldn't listen well enough to report it accurately. :D

It's like a game of spiritual telephone.

[Simon39759]

So he's a liar? It strikes me he says what he wants when he wants. But that's apparent from various passages.

P.S. dietary restrictions?! He points that out in particular?! Nevermind not murdering gays, fortune tellers, witches, non believers, disobedient children, sunday workers...


Yes he {is reported to have} said:

Mark 7:15: (http://bible.cc/mark/7-15.htm)
Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.


Which is interpreted as repelling the laws about ritual purity.
I have, against the fundamentalist kind of Christians argued that Jesus was talking about penises and, hence, that he is ok with "da gayz".

[Red3]

Which is interpreted as repelling the laws about ritual purity.
I have, against the fundamentalist kind of Christians argued that Jesus was talking about penises and, hence, that he is ok with "da gayz".

I bet that went down well (pardon the pun).

[Simon39759]

I believe my argument was ignored, it was an internet discussion each times I used it (once, on these fine fora, I do believe).

[Hokulele]

I have, against the fundamentalist kind of Christians argued that Jesus was talking about penises and, hence, that he is ok with "da gayz".


And I have used that same quote to show how Jesus preferred those who swallow over those who spit. ;)

[gtc]

Excavations of houshold hearths etc. in villages and cities of Iron Age Israel have yielded up nearly 1,000 Asherah figurines. These plus a number of contemporary inscriptions indicate that, to the rank and file among the people of Israel and Judah, Yahweh, like any other self-respecting god, had a consort, whose name was Asherah. The public worship, involving maters of state, centered on Yahweh. Private worship, while not excluding Yahweh, centered on Asherah, his wife. This pattern seems to have held up until the post-exilic period.

Is Yahweh the same as El or where they originally two different Gods?

[paximperium]

Is Yahweh the same as El or where they originally two different Gods?
El Elyon is Yahweh's dad.

[Marduk]

Is Yahweh the same as El or where they originally two different Gods?

kill the heretic, burn the unbeliever
:D

[justcharlie09]

And I have used that same quote to show how Jesus preferred those who swallow over those who spit. ;)

He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

Doesn't say anything about gays...or fellatio for that matter. Unless someone is count "sexual immorality" and then I challenge anyone to find ONE place that SPECIFICALLY states the either being gay or participating in fellatio are immoral. And don't give me that bit about Onan. That wasn't even about anything other than the one specific case and was more a matter of not doing as instructed...AND it comes out of Genesis which has to be viewed a little (make that a lot) less than literally anyway.

The whole thing about anti-gay rhetoric and the anti-reproductive-rights for women argument seems to rest on two things:

1) Taking things out of context.
2) Not even bothering to understand the history of the text or less literal interpretations. (Speaking of Genesis...what happened to Lilith??)


Also, on the topic of female reproductive rights. Frankly, I think rights for women scare the heck out of an all male priesthood. It's like the boogeyman in the Vatican closet.

[TimCallahan]

Is Yahweh the same as El or where they originally two different Gods?

El, which means simply "god," was originally the patriarch of the West Semitic pantheon. His East Semitic counterpart was Anu. Elohim is the masculine plural of El. It could mean "gods." However, Hebrew has what are called intensives, forms of a word that intensify its meaning. Often, plurals are used as intensives. So elohim can mean either "gods" or "the god of all gods." Thus, Yahweh Elohim wold rbably mean "Yahweh, god of all gods."

Yahweh, a separate deity from El, seems to have been brought up from the south and melded with the Canaanite pantheon. In Isreal, he became identified and merged with El. Thus, El's wife in the Canaaninte pantheon, Asherah, became Yahweh's consort.

[edge]

I believe he has claimed to have found Noah's Ark several times.

The guy is a nutbar. It just take a few minutes of actual searching to see him to be an obvious liar. It is more amusing why certain people believe the nutbar and will fight, whine and lie to support Wyatt's nonsense.

It's not just his stuff but any one else’s that you will deny, selective archeology I guess.
Like the leading archeologists from Israel or anywhere you will think that there is a flaw or that they too are nut bars.
Anything that is positive you won't believe or deny holding on to your beliefs.

[Marduk]

It's not just his stuff but any one else’s that you will deny, selective archeology I guess.
Like the leading archeologists from Israel or anywhere you will think that there is a flaw or that they too are nut bars.
Anything that is positive you won't believe or deny holding on to your beliefs.

I believe in credible empirical evidence,
what do I win
:D

[Ladewig]

Doesn't say anything about gays...or fellatio for that matter. Unless someone is count "sexual immorality" and then I challenge anyone to find ONE place that SPECIFICALLY states the either being gay or participating in fellatio are immoral.

Leviticus 20:13 seems to be pretty clear that men having sex with man is immoral. Are you suggesting that there is some contextual meaning I am missing?

Disclamer: I do not follow the Bible and am not Christian. I believe that gays should have equal rights.

[justcharlie09]

Leviticus 20:13 seems to be pretty clear that men having sex with man is immoral. Are you suggesting that there is some contextual meaning I am missing?

Disclamer: I do not follow the Bible and am not Christian. I believe that gays should have equal rights.

Eh, yeah, kind of... Looking at the text in its entirety over multiple translations...it's hard to say whether this is directed at homosexual activity or a condemnation of Pagan temple rites OR quite possibly just referencing where someone should be doing their business in general. So, it certainly sounds specific, but depending on context, version of the translation, and interpretation it varies. Hanging hatred of a whole group of people on this verse is shaky at best...just like the Onan crap is shaky at best as a reason to keep people from using birth control or masturbating.

Again, this is old testament. The old testament Leviticus also has a problem with eating shellfish. I don't see anyone protesting at the Red Lobster. :D

Edit to add: A lot of the laws from Leviticus were tossed by early Christians and were, if I'm understanding things correctly, not considered of the most importance in the Gospels. Also, from Leviticus...if we take that passage literally as the only complaint against homosexuality...then are we to assume that lesbians are just ducky with the good Lord? Seems kind of unfair to get upset about one form of homosexuality and not the other.

[Foster Zygote]

It's not just his stuff but any one else’s that you will deny, selective archeology I guess.
Like the leading archeologists from Israel or anywhere you will think that there is a flaw or that they too are nut bars.
Anything that is positive you won't believe or deny holding on to your beliefs.

I'll believe expert archaeologists when they present solid evidence in support of their claims. I won't believe people have no archaeological training who make wild claims unsupported by evidence. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a propensity to believe anything as long as you feel it supports what you want to believe.

[Ladewig]

...then are we to assume that lesbians are just ducky with the good Lord? Seems kind of unfair to get upset about one form of homosexuality and not the other.

If we were to enumerate all the things "that seem kind of unfair" in the Bible, we would end up with a list numbering in the hundreds.

As for the rest, it ain't no big thing to me, but there are folks on this board that think the Levitical reference we are talking about is proof positive that God hates it when men kiss men. I'll let them take up the fight. I have no desire to interpret the phrase in any particular manner.

[Pure Argent]

It's not just his stuff but any one else’s that you will deny, selective archeology I guess.
Like the leading archeologists from Israel or anywhere you will think that there is a flaw or that they too are nut bars.
Anything that is positive you won't believe or deny holding on to your beliefs.

It's not "selective archaeology". It's "holding a standard of evidence". The things you claim are evidence for the Bible aren't. The "chariot wheels" are fairly common coral formations.

[TimCallahan]

It's not just his stuff but any one else’s that you will deny, selective archeology I guess.
Like the leading archeologists from Israel or anywhere you will think that there is a flaw or that they too are nut bars.
Anything that is positive you won't believe or deny holding on to your beliefs.

You seem to be implying here that archaeologists, or at least those who work we follow, are biased against the Bible. However, one of the most sriking situations in which archaeology doesn't support the Bible, actually involves archaeologists who bias was pro-biblical. In the 1930s and 1940s archaelogists from Christian colleges, such as Souhern Methodist University, set out for Palestine to find archaeological proof for Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

Instead, they found that the great walled cities said to be destroyed in the conquest either did not exist at that time, were small, minor villages or, if they were walled cities, they showed no signs of destruction. For many of these men, this failure of archaeology to support the Conquest provoked a crisis of faith.

To get around this failure, many advocates supporting the literal truth of the Exodus and Conquest narratives have resorted to all sorts of tortured, convoluted rationalizations, including radical redating. None of these systems has worked.

[shadron]

El Elyon is Yahweh's dad.

...and they are both married to Asherah.

So, he's his own papa.

[shadron]

Well, as a former RC myself, gotta say that I agree with you on most of the above points. I'd just like to point out that, as much of the knowledge of the less-savory Bible passages is kept at the top, many people are actually very un-superstitious in the church's lower ranks. Fire-and-brimstone, demons and the like are very, very rarely discussed, and exorcism was never mentioned at all in the entire time that I was a member of the church. Aside from the actual Jesus thing itself, most of the church members that I knew were very down-to-earth people who wouldn't put up with any demon nonsense.

Yes; it's remarkable that the RCC has managed to unbend from it's medieval stance of "tell 'em only what you want them to know" to "let them know what they can learn on their own", all in only 400 years. However, every once in a while they backslide...

The aux bishop of Denver wrote a letter in the Denver Post yesterday about why he, and therefore the diocese, will not support medical insurance reform. He says it is for two reasons: the reform must eschew all payments, even indirect, for abortion, and it must not attach strings on Catholic medicine (doctors, hospitals) from operating with their, or rather his, conscience, i.e., deny care for abortion, birth control and artificial insemination. That would not be so bad in itself (that is, I expected that), but he mentioned that his letter will be read at every church in the northern Colorado diocese this Sunday. While he didn't say that anyone disagreeing would be excommunicated, he certainly leaves the threat, and the promise that they will have sinned mortally.

Of course, that doesn't make too much difference, as there are probably very few married couples in the diocese who do not use forbidden birth control anyway. :rolleyes:

[justcharlie09]

If we were to enumerate all the things "that seem kind of unfair" in the Bible, we would end up with a list numbering in the hundreds.

As for the rest, it ain't no big thing to me, but there are folks on this board that think the Levitical reference we are talking about is proof positive that God hates it when men kiss men. I'll let them take up the fight. I have no desire to interpret the phrase in any particular manner.

Some people will find any excuse to hate others for one reason or another: they don't have enough money, the listen to the wrong music, they follow the wrong leaders, the laugh too loud, they read too much, they read too little, they have too many kids, they have to few, they don't believe in God, they believe in God, they don't believe in the correct God, or they believe in too many Gods...

Stupid, picky, petty....pretty much sums up human baseline set of instincts.

Most of the Levitical rules get a little nutty. And if every Christian followed them they'd be killing people left and right for sins, own slaves, and have a very limited wardrobe and diet.

NT largely moves on in a more forgiving direction. The NT is is the "new covenant".

[Hokulele]

NT largely moves on in a more forgiving direction. The NT is is the "new covenant".


Yes and no. Jesus does up the ante with the whole looking at a woman with lust in one's heart means adultery, God or Peter does strike a couple dead for not giving everything they earned to charity (or possibly lying, the passage in Acts is unclear), and don't even get me started with Paul (or bits of the epistles attributed to Paul, if you want to be picky) and Revelation.

To be fair, I accept that the Bible, OT and NT, isn't all bad, I just wish all Christians would cherry pick a bit more, or that the Bible would be up for review and revision on a regular basis.

[JoeTheJuggler]

They used the anchors to stabilize the ark. Can't find the reference but the theory is that by hanging a stone at each corner you could adjust how the ark floated.:boggled:

It also sounds like a biblical literalist is taking liberties with the Bible. :D


In the Noah's Ark story in Genesis, I find no mention of these "anchors"--even if they're actually meant to be big stone ballasts.

[shadron]

As for the OP, and as Tim mentioned early on (and to add that this is the third thread on biblical archaeology in three months, even ignoring the really dense, scholarly one, that I've said this): there is no archaeological proof of anything in the Bible before the kingdom of David, which is mentioned on the Dan Stele. The wall inscription mentioned in Egypt prior to that says only that there is a tribe in Canaan named Israel. There is no proof - at all - of A&E, Nimrod's money shot, Noah and his anchor, the migration of Abraham, Joseph's many-colored coat and the tiff it raised, Moses and the 40 year death march, or of Josh and his wall-tumbling rap music. On the contrary, the best guess is that the Israelites were the reminaing tribes of Canaanites after they suffered internal revolutions in the Canaanite city-states, and that many migrated into Judah under pressure from the Assyrians, and that the Bible began being composed in about 800 BCE. In fact, I'm told by an inmate that that is what is taught even in Baptist Bible seminary, but that it is labeled "Top Secret" and not for distribution to flocks.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not "selective archaeology". It's "holding a standard of evidence".
Well said.

Again, I submit the "bad archaeology" link: http://www.badarchaeology.net/

[justcharlie09]

Yes; it's remarkable that the RCC has managed to unbend from it's medieval stance of "tell 'em only what you want them to know" to "let them know what they can learn on their own", all in only 400 years. However, every once in a while they backslide...

The aux bishop of Denver wrote a letter in the Denver Post yesterday about why he, and therefore the diocese, will not support medical insurance reform. He says it is for two reasons: the reform must eschew all payments, even indirect, for abortion, and it must not attach strings on Catholic medicine (doctors, hospitals) from operating with their, or rather his, conscience, i.e., deny care for abortion, birth control and artificial insemination. That would not be so bad in itself (that is, I expected that), but he mentioned that his letter will be read at every church in the northern Colorado diocese this Sunday. While he didn't say that anyone disagreeing would be excommunicated, he certainly leaves the threat, and the promise that they will have sinned mortally.

Of course, that doesn't make too much difference, as there are probably very few married couples in the diocese who do not use forbidden birth control anyway. :rolleyes:

True, tell me they all just "accidentally" ended up with one or two children. Right. :rolleyes:

My concept of evil? The bishop who would tell a woman who has been handed a death sentence as an alternative to the abortion of a pregnancy which may kill her and leave her husband widowed and existing children without a mom...or else would have raped women carry their rapist's child...or force a woman to carry to term a child who will only live long enough to suffer miserably with an incurable and poorly formed (organs outside the body, no anus, etc) body. That's not just evil, it's @#$@#ing evil.

But I suppose since he's a male and "celibate" he can feel safe in the knowledge that none of his judgements will ever impact him personally or physically. :mad:

Our parish had a video of the stupid local bishop which they showed in place of the homily on multiple occasions to make sure everyone knew it was their duty to vote against gay marriage. :mad:

Maybe in another 400 years they will have improved to a point where women and homosexuals are truly equal in the eyes of their priesthood. Maybe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As for the OP, and as Tim mentioned early on (and to add that this is the third thread on biblical archaeology in three months, even ignoring the really dense, scholarly one, that I've said this): there is no archaeological proof of anything in the Bible before the kingdom of David, which is mentioned on the Dan Stele. The wall inscription mentioned in Egypt prior to that says only that there is a tribe in Canaan named Israel. There is no proof - at all - of A&E, Nimrod's money shot, Noah and his anchor, the migration of Abraham, Joseph's many-colored coat and the tiff it raised, Moses and the 40 year death march, or of Josh and his wall-tumbling rap music. On the contrary, the best guess is that the Israelites were the reminaing tribes of Canaanites after they suffered internal revolutions in the Canaanite city-states, and that many migrated into Judah under pressure from the Assyrians, and that the Bible began being composed in about 800 BCE. In fact, I'm told by an inmate that that is what is taught even in Baptist Bible seminary, but that it is labeled "Top Secret" and not for distribution to flocks.

I mentioned pretty much the same thing you just said here to a Jesuit friend, and he said that's been the view of RC scholars for a long time. (The RCC does not preach literalism or inerrancy, but has a relatively nuanced view of divine revelation. Now I think it's only so much apologia, but at least they don't push faith-based history and archaeology.)

[justcharlie09]

Yes and no. Jesus does up the ante with the whole looking at a woman with lust in one's heart means adultery, God or Peter does strike a couple dead for not giving everything they earned to charity (or possibly lying, the passage in Acts is unclear), and don't even get me started with Paul (or bits of the epistles attributed to Paul, if you want to be picky) and Revelation.

To be fair, I accept that the Bible, OT and NT, isn't all bad, I just wish all Christians would cherry pick a bit more, or that the Bible would be up for review and revision on a regular basis.

I don't know if it is upping the ante, or just saying that it is impossible for a human NOT to sin. Sin, which is missing the mark, anyway. If Jesus was, in fact, suggesting that the complete avoidance of sin is impossible then I would assume that's a way of negating the whole Leviticus trend of trying to kill anyone involved in "abominations" of one sort or another.

Revelation, meanwhile, to me, stands as clear evidence that at least one of the writers of the Bible got into some ergot tainted bread. :D

I don't know if it is cherry picking to view the Bible in the context of the time it was written, and through the lense of a balanced perspective which is informed by both the Bible and modern knowledge/understanding of science.

This is the big divide between fundies and moderate Christians. Fundies think you're only "really" Christian if you accept everything in the Bible at face value...everything else is evil, bad, wrong and deserving of hellfire. :eye-poppi

Crazy :boggled:

[paximperium]

I don't know if it is upping the ante, or just saying that it is impossible for a human NOT to sin. Sin, which is missing the mark, anyway. If Jesus was, in fact, suggesting that the complete avoidance of sin is impossible then I would assume that's a way of negating the whole Leviticus trend of trying to kill anyone involved in "abominations" of one sort or another.

Revelation, meanwhile, to me, stands as clear evidence that at least one of the writers of the Bible got into some ergot tainted bread. :D

I don't know if it is cherry picking to view the Bible in the context of the time it was written, and through the lense of a balanced perspective which is informed by both the Bible and modern knowledge/understanding of science.

This is the big divide between fundies and moderate Christians. Fundies think you're only "really" Christian if you accept everything in the Bible at face value...everything else is evil, bad, wrong and deserving of hellfire. :eye-poppi

Crazy :boggled:
What is sin and why is it "wrong"?

[Simon39759]

Well said.

Again, I submit the "bad archaeology" link: http://www.badarchaeology.net/


Thanks!
I meant to add that to my favorite but forgot the first time around. I have been racking my deficient brain to train and recall what I was looking for...

[Simon39759]

Revelation, meanwhile, to me, stands as clear evidence that at least one of the writers of the Bible got into some ergot tainted bread. :D



bad 'shrooms from what I read.

[justcharlie09]

As for the OP, and as Tim mentioned early on (and to add that this is the third thread on biblical archaeology in three months, even ignoring the really dense, scholarly one, that I've said this): there is no archaeological proof of anything in the Bible before the kingdom of David, which is mentioned on the Dan Stele. The wall inscription mentioned in Egypt prior to that says only that there is a tribe in Canaan named Israel. There is no proof - at all - of A&E, Nimrod's money shot, Noah and his anchor, the migration of Abraham, Joseph's many-colored coat and the tiff it raised, Moses and the 40 year death march, or of Josh and his wall-tumbling rap music. On the contrary, the best guess is that the Israelites were the reminaing tribes of Canaanites after they suffered internal revolutions in the Canaanite city-states, and that many migrated into Judah under pressure from the Assyrians, and that the Bible began being composed in about 800 BCE. In fact, I'm told by an inmate that that is what is taught even in Baptist Bible seminary, but that it is labeled "Top Secret" and not for distribution to flocks.

It's a shame someone would label that "Top Secret" or try to keep it from the flock. Injecting some real history and making exegesis part of the lay-person's faith-journey would be a GOOD thing. Anyone claiming faith that can't stand to find out the full origin of the Bible and better understand the text out of fear of losing aforesaid faith...never really had it to begin with or at the very least it was a very weak form of faith.

Wow, third chat about biblical archeology. Again, outside of trivia: what does it matter? Like old bits of wood are going to make a huge difference in the way people behave or view the Bible? I don't get it.

[justcharlie09]

bad 'shrooms from what I read.

Either way, what a trip! :p

[justcharlie09]

Thanks!
I meant to add that to my favorite but forgot the first time around. I have been racking my deficient brain to train and recall what I was looking for...

Wonder if these bad archaeology guys are friends with the bad astronomy guy :D

They should have no shortage of material given the crap The History Channel is dumping out into the public consciousness daily.

[paximperium]

Wow, third chat about biblical archeology. Again, outside of trivia: what does it matter? Like old bits of wood are going to make a huge difference in the way people behave or view the Bible? I don't get it.
What say you if we actually find the body of the Jesus mentioned in the Bible along with his wife, children and an actual original New Testament that describes his actual views without any supernatural nonsense? What if he was a hate filled bigot? What if he advocated murder or non-believers? Would that change your beliefs?

Among strict fundamentalist, biblical "facts" make a major difference. Everything in the Bible is real and must be true. If anything is shown to be wrong, it collapses like a house of cards. Among most other Christians, it matters less.

[justcharlie09]

What is sin and why is it "wrong"?

:D That could be a very, very long post...to go over the etymology of the word sin, discussing primitive Hebrew usage of the word vs. the word in context and what the contextual cues mean/what they don't.

Since the Bible is mostly about a relationship with God, the universe, other people, and everything else in between...think the best short answer to that is that sin is any act that involves straying from a positive path/relationship with God, the universe, other people, and everything else in between.

It's wrong because it has a negative impact on those relationships.

Hurting your neighbors, stealing things, screwing your wife's best friend...all not-so-good if you want to have a positive relationship with other people and/or a peaceful/positive life.

[Hux]

It matters not one jot or tittle to the rationalist but there are some believers who desperately want archaeology to prove..what? They want the ability to say, here is Nazareth, that proves the existence of a particular Nazarene.

These are the same people who crave evidence but when you demonstrate that snakes, modern and ancient, have no Naso-pharynx capable of speech, for some reason just don't want to know.

[justcharlie09]

What say you if we actually find the body of the Jesus mentioned in the Bible along with his wife, children and an actual original New Testament that describes his actual views without any supernatural nonsense? What if he was a hate filled bigot? What if he advocated murder or non-believers? Would that change your beliefs?

Among strict fundamentalist, biblical "facts" make a major difference. Everything in the Bible is real and must be true. If anything is shown to be wrong, it collapses like a house of cards. Among most other Christians, it matters less.

If you found evidence that the flesh-and-blood Jesus was the original Hitler...it would make a difference to my historical understanding. It wouldn't change the way the overall mythic figure of the Gospels inspires me personally. I'd think it was unfortunate the "real" person didn't match the myth...I'd probably want to learn more about the author...but I don't think there's any real worry about this happening :D The worst case scenario at this point rests along the lines of either finding nothing, or finding the remains of a relatively ordinary man.

As for finding Jesus and somehow proving he had a wife and kids. So what? That knocks out the divinity portion and the Trinitarian arithmetic that no one really understands anyway...but it leaves the Sermon on the Mount intact. It wouldn't be any less inspiring if it were written by just "some nice guy".

As for fundamentalist attitudes towards God...I'd be more than happy to see them collapse like a house of cards. I'd even go so far as to say they should collapse under the weight of their own absurdity.

Maybe if they do, I'll be able to walk into a church and feel comfortable for once in my life.

[justcharlie09]

It matters not one jot or tittle to the rationalist but there are some believers who desperately want archaeology to prove..what? They want the ability to say, here is Nazareth, that proves the existence of a particular Nazarene.

These are the same people who crave evidence but when you demonstrate that snakes, modern and ancient, have no Naso-pharynx capable of speech, for some reason just don't want to know.

I've met a lot of people who want to believe in talking snakes and even ones who tried to suggest there weren't any dinosaurs around today because they all died in Noah's flood ;)

Moderate theists, deists, believers of other philosophies, and atheists couldn't care less about proving the Bible. So, that leaves the loonies. Not very promising...

[Hux]

I rather feel that way about the Shroud. So what if it belonged to a Palestinian criminal that was tortured and executed? It doesnt prove divinity - nor does a resurrection. What would the Shroud prove? What does archaeological certitude of a given site prove?

[Hux]

I've met a lot of people who want to believe in talking snakes and even ones who tried to suggest there weren't any dinosaurs around today because they all died in Noah's flood ;)

Moderate theists, deists, believers of other philosophies, and atheists couldn't care less about proving the Bible. So, that leaves the loonies. Not very promising...

I often wonder if there might be a case for a subforum on JREF like "Rationality & Atheism"? (OK you can fight amongst yourselves for the title) where it would be better for the sane to hang out. After all, this subforum is 'religion and Philosophy' and I cant figure out why the two are together? We might rail at some of the lunatic propositions laid down by the hard of thinking but they do have a right to be here under the auspices of religion. Do you suppose the lunatics would follow us to evangelise us?

[justcharlie09]

I rather feel that way about the Shroud. So what if it belonged to a Palestinian criminal that was tortured and executed? It doesnt prove divinity - nor does a resurrection. What would the Shroud prove? What does archaeological certitude of a given site prove?

It's a painting. Why does Jesus always seem to be depicted as looking like one of the BeeGees? Anyway, it wouldn't prove anything in reality. Those who believe would still believe and those who don't still wouldn't. It's an exercise in futility.

I often wonder if there might be a case for a subforum on JREF like "Rationality & Atheism"? (OK you can fight amongst yourselves for the title) where it would be better for the sane to hang out. After all, this subforum is 'religion and Philosophy' and I cant figure out why the two are together? We might rail at some of the lunatic propositions laid down by the hard of thinking but they do have a right to be here under the auspices of religion. Do you suppose the lunatics would follow us to evangelise us?

Probably. I got into an argument with my husband's friend about the "rudeness" of bothering people about religion at random (i.e. asking a random stranger "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?")

It is rude. If you're already talking about beliefs and religion, then discussing he topic is fair play (still wouldn't put it in the form of the question above, though, personally). Just blurting out questions about religious and political affiliation without any warning or provocation is just obnoxious.

I asked him "What's the point? If you do that, they're sure not to listen anyway?" Answer in a nutshell: You're not a good/real Christian. *shrug* AND He told me he had "biblical precendent" for doing so.

Blah.

Nope, they'll follow ya to the ends of the earth nattering on...and on...and on...telling you how to think. Never ONCE realizing they're probably converting more people to atheism than Christianity in the long run :D

[TimCallahan]

It's a painting. Why does Jesus always seem to be depicted as looking like one of the BeeGees? :D

Jeez! I hope he didn't give the Sermon on the Mount in a falsetto voice!

[justcharlie09]

Jeez! I hope he didn't give the Sermon on the Mount in a falsetto voice!

:jaw-dropp

I think the creepiest depiction of Jesus, by far, is the one I saw in a Christian preschool office several years back:

Bee Gee Jesus was grinning, giving a thumbs up, and yet, wearing a crown of thorns and carrying a cross. :confused:

You know that saying? When you look like your passport it's time to go home?

I'd alter it for this situation to say: When your version of Christ looks like a mix of 70's pop culture icons, symbols of suffering/death and a used-car-salesman...it's time to reevaluate your mental landscape.

[HansMustermann]

bad 'shrooms from what I read.

While some of that stuff did get used in mystery cults, I think I'll put my suspicion on Ergot too. It was a major problem for a lot of time, and since its effects are exactly like LSD plus a nasty vasoconstriction, at times it caused whole cities to have mystical visions and revelations. And occasionally to go dance in the streets en masse.

The nastiest part is that, unlike shrooms, you wouldn't even know you took drugs. Peasants at the limit of subsistence would sell all the food they could sell, no matter how tainted or deadly. There are documented cases where the meat of cattle which died of anthrax was sold to the cities. Some grain contaminated by ergot would be almost guaranteed to be ground into floor anyway and sold. And the buyer wouldn't even know it.

You know, one moment you think you're just having supper with friends, the next one you're thinking it's your body and go make out with Judas ;)

[justcharlie09]

While some of that stuff did get used in mystery cults, I think I'll put my suspicion on Ergot too. It was a major problem for a lot of time, and since its effects are exactly like LSD plus a nasty vasoconstriction, at times it caused whole cities to have mystical visions and revelations. And occasionally to go dance in the streets en masse.

The nastiest part is that, unlike shrooms, you wouldn't even know you took drugs. Peasants at the limit of subsistence would sell all the food they could sell, no matter how tainted or deadly. There are documented cases where the meat of cattle which died of anthrax was sold to the cities. Some grain contaminated by ergot would be almost guaranteed to be ground into floor anyway and sold. And the buyer wouldn't even know it.

You know, one moment you think you're just having supper with friends, the next one you're thinking it's your body and go make out with Judas ;)

Yes. Go read some modern accounts of ergot poisoning. There was one in France which was recorded by a doctor in the village that positively sounded like a Zombie flick a la 28 Days Later.

The likelihood of getting shrooms by accident isn't nearly as high as eating some bread made with bad flour.

That explains Revelation. As for the last supper...doubtful. :p

[Simon39759]

It is just that I have read a few reference to Patmos being some sort of 'hallucinogenic mushroom capital of the ancient world' (imagine, if you will, the Greco-Roman Amsterdam, I guess).

I have no idea how much truth there in it, but I thought I'd contribute.

[justcharlie09]

Well, we're all in agreement that some kind of hallucinogen was involved. Who's to say it wasn't both ;)

[tsig]

kill the heretic, burn the unbeliever
:D

Can I have fries with that burnt unbeliever?

[Simon39759]

Well, we're all in agreement that some kind of hallucinogen was involved. Who's to say it wasn't both ;)

In fact, several of the descriptions of the revelations have symbolic values. The seven head of the beast of the land, for example, quite likely represented the 7 hills of the city of Rome, hence identifying the symbolic for the reader.

This seems to me a bit too carefully thought of to just be the account of an extended tripping.

[shadron]

It's a shame someone would label that "Top Secret" or try to keep it from the flock. Injecting some real history and making exegesis part of the lay-person's faith-journey would be a GOOD thing. Anyone claiming faith that can't stand to find out the full origin of the Bible and better understand the text out of fear of losing aforesaid faith...never really had it to begin with or at the very least it was a very weak form of faith.

Wow, third chat about biblical archeology. Again, outside of trivia: what does it matter? Like old bits of wood are going to make a huge difference in the way people behave or view the Bible? I don't get it.

The point, I think, is more about not getting yourself run out of your church on a rail. Knowing how rabid some of our posters here are, how would you like to be approached by a committee of them, even if you can argue rings around them? Particularly if you're in competition with other recent students for a position. Baptist preachers all have to make a sworn statement about accepting the "literal truth of the Bible, in it's original texts". I don't know how the honest ones square that; perhaps most doubt the truth of their teachers.

[shadron]

I mentioned pretty much the same thing you just said here to a Jesuit friend, and he said that's been the view of RC scholars for a long time. (The RCC does not preach literalism or inerrancy, but has a relatively nuanced view of divine revelation. Now I think it's only so much apologia, but at least they don't push faith-based history and archaeology.)

Yes, that's true; I attended a Jesuit college for undergrad and that's what we were lead to understand in our nine hours of required theology classes. The RCC stands on church tradition (that is, the writings of the early doctors, like Augustine and John Crysostom and later ones like Thomas Aquinas, plus the weight of the conservative conclaves of bishops and cardinals) at least as much as the Bible; that's why, rather than memorize scripture, RCCs memorize Q&As from the Baltimore Catechism (at least Americans do), and it has damn little in the way of internal self-discrepancies.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I believe he has claimed to have found Noah's Ark several times.

I believe he hitched his wagon solely to the Durunipar site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durup%C4%B1nar_site), but falsely claimed to have discovered it when he merely participated in an investigation of it.

Basically saying that that's evidence in any way with the actual story or events in the Bible, is a bit like saying that New York's existence evidence for Spiderman.

I think we get a little too flippant with some of our analogies. A more accurate one might be just because we find that a guy named Peter Parker lived in New York City that doesn't mean he was Spiderman.

Ah, now I see. Then what is the rock that the guy is standing next to?I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that it's supposed to be Noah's anchor.It doesn't look very strong to hold an ark of that magnitude!
See the Wiki link above. He claimed they were drogue stones that were meant to keep the Ark upright in the tempest of the flood.

[HansMustermann]

I think we get a little too flippant with some of our analogies. A more accurate one might be just because we find that a guy named Peter Parker lived in New York City that doesn't mean he was Spiderman.

No, that paints an entirely false image. The archaeological proof we have is basically at most at the level of confirming that some city mentioned there existed, but lacks any proof that anything like the events or even people working those wonders existed.

E.g., while Cyrus The Great is a historical figure, any mention of the guy who actually did the actually important stuff in the OT and showed him that Yahweh is the only God, is strangely missing. Furthermore from what we actually know about Cyrus, the story is BS in every imaginable way. Something like his executing priests left and right because some Jew showed him the light, not only isn't mentioned anywhere, but contradicts the stuff that _is_ recorded about his reign.

E.g., while we do have a full list of Pharaohs, and can say with certainty that Egypt had a Pharaoh, we're sorely missing any record of a guy named Moses who went into a pissing contest with the Pharaoh. Or the other events like the plagues, the sudden death of every firstborn, or three quarters of the population buggering off across the desert. Not only the egyptians were good at writing down stuff, but they also embalmed their dead and they at the very least wrote funerary plaques for their dead. (That's how we can calculate the life expectancies, for example: we have all those plaques of people dead, and generally on them they say at what age.) You'd think we'd notice if a million egyptians were buried in the same day. And again, given how we do know about their other notable figures, you'd think there would be some mention of Moses.

So, no, we're not even at the level of having found a Peter Parker. We're at best at the level where someone found that there was a country called the USA and a city called New York, and there was indeed a president of the USA, hence some episode where Spiderman saves the president must be 100% literally true.

[UnrepentantSinner]

No, that paints an entirely false image. The archaeological proof we have is basically at most at the level of confirming that some city mentioned there existed, but lacks any proof that anything like the events or even people working those wonders existed.{snip}

Sorry, I disagree. Solomon's temple didn't build itself. We have names. We have locations. What we do not have is evidence for the supernatural connected with those names and places.

[HansMustermann]

Except we _don't_ actually have any archaeological evidence of Solomon's temple. You'd think such a large complex would be mentioned somewhere else or leave traces, but we have nothing. All that we can find on that hill is a few pieces of broken pottery, taken as sign that some humans lived there, but no sign of the grand temple complex.

Furthermore the dates given by the Talmud are stupidly wrong. Not just "wrong", but _stupidly_ wrong.

According to the Talmud, Solomon's temple was destroyed in the year 420 BC. The problem is that the rebuilding of it was authorized by Cyrus The Great, who reigned between 576 BC – 530 BC, and later confirmed by Darius, who reigned between 522 C - 486 BC. So that would mean it was being rebuilt while the old one was still standing.

So for all we know, the Hebrews could have pulled a fast one on Cyrus to get him to pay for a temple that never existed before.

Deuteronomy itself seems to have been written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, so it's really talking about stuff supposed to have been happened hundreds of years earlier. There is even a point of view that it was written _after_ the second temple was built.

The structure of the temple itself is no different from other temples all over the middle east. You can find for example temples in Phoenicia which are really only different in details, but have the same general plan. There is _nothing_ special about a city in the region having a temple like that. (Though its size is disputed.)

Solomon himself is a figure that really exists only in the OT. There is no archaeological evidence about him at all, and he isn't mentioned anywhere else in sources contemporary with him.

So what we have is a temple which didn't built itself, but maybe didn't exist at all, or not at that size, and no archaeological evidence exists for it either way. And is described in a source which may have been written ad-hoc to justify the grand expenses demanded from Cyrus to "rebuild" it. Built by a King who may or may not be just a fictional figure, and again is unsupported by any evidence. And King of a Kingdom which may or may have not even existed at all: there is no evidence that Jerusalem was at the time anything more than just another city-state. Etc.

I'm sorry, but that's lacking evidence for a lot more than just the supernatural aspects. It's lacking any evidence at all. Even the names involved (e.g., King Solomon) aren't supported by anything and may be pure fiction, just like Spiderman.

[pakeha]

...Excavations of houshold hearths etc. in villages and cities of Iron Age Israel have yielded up nearly 1,000 Asherah figurines. These plus a number of contemporary inscriptions indicate that, to the rank and file among the people of Israel and Judah, Yahweh, like any other self-respecting god, had a consort, whose name was Asherah. The public worship, involving maters of state, centered on Yahweh. Private worship, while not excluding Yahweh, centered on Asherah, his wife. This pattern seems to have held up until the post-exilic period.

I missed this post the first time around.
Before lurking then joining JREF, I'd never really engaged any sort of thinking to the OT. It had never occured to me to question its reality or at the very least, its basis in reality, as opposed to the NT, which is another kettle of fish.

Off to learn more about Asherah.

[dafydd]

Is Yahweh the same as El or where they originally two different Gods?

You're thinking of Elvis.

[MRC_Hans]

In fact, several of the descriptions of the revelations have symbolic values. The seven head of the beast of the land, for example, quite likely represented the 7 hills of the city of Rome, hence identifying the symbolic for the reader.

This seems to me a bit too carefully thought of to just be the account of an extended tripping.Since writing at that time involved an arduous task of preparing costly pergament, sharpening pens, ink, and carefully putting down writing, I think we can assume that no extended body of writing was done when seriously intoxicated by any substance. The ideas that formed the basis for the text, on the other hand .....

Of course, post hoc symbolism is only worth what you put into it. It could mean Rome, or it could mean anything. Seven being a symbolic number in itself, could be ascribed to lots of things. The naming of exactly 7 hills in the hilly landscape of Rome is in itself an application of symbolics.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Except we _don't_ actually have any archaeological evidence of Solomon's temple. You'd think such a large complex would be mentioned somewhere else or leave traces, but we have nothing. All that we can find on that hill is a few pieces of broken pottery, taken as sign that some humans lived there, but no sign of the grand temple complex.
*snip*

To be sure, a lot of archaeology, espcially biblical, is highly self-referential.

I mean, either you find some building traces in the place where you think the temple stood, so heureka! We found the temple.

Or, you find some temple-like ruins somewhere else and heureka! We found the true position of the temple.

In both cases, maybe you really just found Joe's farm.

Hans

[justcharlie09]

The point, I think, is more about not getting yourself run out of your church on a rail. Knowing how rabid some of our posters here are, how would you like to be approached by a committee of them, even if you can argue rings around them? Particularly if you're in competition with other recent students for a position. Baptist preachers all have to make a sworn statement about accepting the "literal truth of the Bible, in it's original texts". I don't know how the honest ones square that; perhaps most doubt the truth of their teachers.

Having been sent out of the church on a rail, more or less, I'd say the same thing I did then: it's better to speak up honestly and be attacked by your peers than remain silent and become part of the problem.

There were people who agreed with me, but they wouldn't back anything I was saying publicly. To me, the ones who know better and don't speak up are worse than the others.

[justcharlie09]

In fact, several of the descriptions of the revelations have symbolic values. The seven head of the beast of the land, for example, quite likely represented the 7 hills of the city of Rome, hence identifying the symbolic for the reader.

This seems to me a bit too carefully thought of to just be the account of an extended tripping.

True. There are a lot of interpretations of Revelations. I just think the ergot/shroom comment is funny and fitting--given the general insanity of anyone who would take it literally. I was being facetious. :D

I don't get--or want to get--the rapture crowd.

[Simon39759]

Yeah; I agree, the idea of an evangelist tripping on 'shrooms like some kind of hippy makes me smile. I keep imagining the Hippy guy from futurama:


http://theinfosphere.org/images/c/cb/Free_Waterfall,_Jr..jpg

'And then there was this beast, you see. And it had, like, seven, head, like, and ten horns. And then somebody hit it with a sword and it die but actually no, it came back to life and I was like "Dude, this is some good 'shrooms". '

[Hux]

Maybe it might be jst as well to state that Archaeology cannot substantiate and story much less Biblical stories. It is only concerned with human culture and settlement. If archaeology can show that someone took a crap in spot 'x' it can establish no more than the site and a referential date.

You might as well expect Archaeology to turn up sites where Harry Potter slept.

[BobTheDonkey]

There are better ways to convey ideas than the bible,and a fair few ideas in it I'd describe as despicable rather than important. I'm sure it worked for primitive societies thousands of years ago but it just doesn't cut it anymore imo. But this isn't the problem; the problem is that these stories are believed to be true and passed off as true. It wouldn't matter apart from the fact that a lot of people who believe in this type of thing are screwing the world up for everyone else. As for Jesus the man existing, I've yet to see any evidence of that whatsoever. The debate about Josephus is surely just in Christian circles as no one else buys it. The book he's mentioned in was written almost a hundred years after the gospels. "Humane" is not a word I'd use for the Bible, it's anything but.

Agreed. If the Bible were merely allegory/moral stories and were treated as such, then it would be no different from Mother Goose or The Brother's Grimm. However, because it's accepted as truth, the Bible is provided political and societal clout.

[Hux]

Agreed. If the Bible were merely allegory/moral stories and were treated as such, then it would be no different from Mother Goose or The Brother's Grimm. However, because it's accepted as truth, the Bible is provided political and societal clout.

Archaeology cannot describe morality. if the Bible was merely a moral guide, it would have died out years ago.

[BobTheDonkey]

Back to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed.

That, sir/ma'am, is sigworthy.

:D

[justcharlie09]

Yeah; I agree, the idea of an evangelist tripping on 'shrooms like some kind of hippy makes me smile. I keep imagining the Hippy guy from futurama:


http://theinfosphere.org/images/c/cb/Free_Waterfall,_Jr..jpg

'And then there was this beast, you see. And it had, like, seven, head, like, and ten horns. And then somebody hit it with a sword and it die but actually no, it came back to life and I was like "Dude, this is some good 'shrooms". '

:D Yeah, that's the image that pops into my mind, too. Saw the episode were Bender plays god the other night. Priceless. How can you not like Matt Groening?

[BobTheDonkey]

Having been sent out of the church on a rail, more or less, I'd say the same thing I did then: it's better to speak up honestly and be attacked by your peers than remain silent and become part of the problem.

There were people who agreed with me, but they wouldn't back anything I was saying publicly. To me, the ones who know better and don't speak up are worse than the others.

Unfortunately, speaking up for what they believe would find them ostracized from what is, for many of them, one of their major support groups.

An entire church body could disagree with a certain point the Pastor has made, and no one will say a word for fear of being ostracized or being seen as irreverent/sacrilegious.

[TimCallahan]

I missed this post the first time around.
Before lurking then joining JREF, I'd never really engaged any sort of thinking to the OT. It had never occured to me to question its reality or at the very least, its basis in reality, as opposed to the NT, which is another kettle of fish.

Off to learn more about Asherah.

Probably the most thorough and up to date work on this subject is Did God Have a Wife? by Dr. William Dever.

[Lucian]

Yeah; I agree, the idea of an evangelist tripping on 'shrooms like some kind of hippy makes me smile. I keep imagining the Hippy guy from futurama:


http://theinfosphere.org/images/c/cb/Free_Waterfall,_Jr..jpg

'And then there was this beast, you see. And it had, like, seven, head, like, and ten horns. And then somebody hit it with a sword and it die but actually no, it came back to life and I was like "Dude, this is some good 'shrooms". '

When I read it, I hear Lrrr after he's eaten the hippie--well, at least that's how I intend to read it from now on. Maybe it will finally make sense.

[justcharlie09]

Unfortunately, speaking up for what they believe would find them ostracized from what is, for many of them, one of their major support groups.

An entire church body could disagree with a certain point the Pastor has made, and no one will say a word for fear of being ostracized or being seen as irreverent/sacrilegious.

It was kind of an extended family for me, honestly. So, I took the personal attacks of former "friends" very badly. It's still a sore point. I have other outlets through secular affiliations, but the other still hurts.

Nevertheless, there's a time for speaking up. And if seeing a priest actively spewing hate from the pulpit or witnessing a religious education program that's not keeping the less-knowledgeable in check (e.g. the pastoral minister rebuking the one teacher for asking the children who was going to hell, or the other for spouting divisive political opinions to young children) ISN'T the time to speak up...I don't know what is.

It's cowardice to let it slide for selfish gains. "I might lose something if I stand up for the rights and dignity of others." No good.

I understand it's good to have a healthy respect for legitimate authority, but it's unhealthy and dysfunctional to just shut up and follow no matter what the guys in charge are doing. That's a big problem w/ organized religions as well as secular institutions. People don't speak up when they should.

I'm not trying to suggest some silly teabagger, Hitler poster, by the way or any kind of glennbeckery. I mean speaking up in a board meeting where people are deciding to inact policies that screw the little guy, or in church when someone is advocating disrespectful treatment of some other group--even when it might mean your job or leave you without a community.

Anything else is herd behavior.

[HansMustermann]

Since writing at that time involved an arduous task of preparing costly pergament, sharpening pens, ink, and carefully putting down writing, I think we can assume that no extended body of writing was done when seriously intoxicated by any substance. The ideas that formed the basis for the text, on the other hand

Well, that's just the thing. The mystical feelings involved in some LSD (or Ergot: remember, it is identical in that aspect to LSD) trips are well documented, and it can leave one convinced in all seriousness that it's the real thing. They could swear on a stack of bibles that they really witnessed some miracle, or had a message from God/saints/whatever. Or conversely have such vile and realistic visions and feelings that they leave one with genuine PTSD.

Someone who didn't even know they had an Ergot trip could write about their visions in all earnesty.

[Red3]

Agreed. If the Bible were merely allegory/moral stories and were treated as such, then it would be no different from Mother Goose or The Brother's Grimm. However, because it's accepted as truth, the Bible is provided political and societal clout.

The difference between the biblical moral tales and the secular ones is that the secular ones are sold to people as "suggestions" for how to live, while the biblical ones are sold as "DO THIS OR BURN!", or at least that's what they've become for the most part. So when it comes to disagreeing with them people can be a little hesitant to say the least. So even if they disagree with them personally - which they'll try to deny even to themselves - they won't speak out about them and certainly won't act to stop them spreading (not tarring everyone with this brush). It's GOD's work remember, you don't mess with it. Which points out the main point of religion - fear. The people who push this crap want things to stay the same, they're doing just fine without change.

[gypsey]

justcharlie09

It's a painting. Why does Jesus always seem to be depicted as looking like one of the BeeGees? Anyway, it wouldn't prove anything in reality. Those who believe would still believe and those who don't still wouldn't. It's an exercise in futility.

i had such a crush on barry but after reading your post i will never think of him the same way again :p

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/106514afd854cec31b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18184)


justcharlie09 Originally Posted by TimCallahan
Jeez! I hope he didn't give the Sermon on the Mount in a falsetto voice!


I think the creepiest depiction of Jesus, by far, is the one I saw in a Christian preschool office several years back:

Bee Gee Jesus was grinning, giving a thumbs up, and yet, wearing a crown of thorns and carrying a cross.

You know that saying? When you look like your passport it's time to go home?

I'd alter it for this situation to say: When your version of Christ looks like a mix of 70's pop culture icons, symbols of suffering/death and a used-car-salesman...it's time to reevaluate your mental landscape.


from my favorite movie :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_106514afd856b242a9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18185)

[pakeha]

Probably the most thorough and up to date work on this subject is Did God Have a Wife? by Dr. William Dever.

Thanks, that goes straight onto my wish list.

[justcharlie09]

.

i had such a crush on barry but after reading your post i will never think of him the same way again :p

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/106514afd854cec31b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18184)





from my favorite movie :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_106514afd856b242a9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18185)

LOL

Seriously, that statue is not anywhere NEAR that picture in the preschool. I wish I could find the image: carrying a cross, grinning with a bright-white-all-american-grin, giving a thumps up, and wearing thorns.

And just what sentiment was that supposed to express? **shudder** Don't worry, be crucified? It's creepy even if you are a member of the religion. I suppose there's some nut out there thinking it is inspirational...but seriously, what is it like to live in their head for a day? :eek:

[Dancing David]

I missed this post the first time around.
Before lurking then joining JREF, I'd never really engaged any sort of thinking to the OT. It had never occured to me to question its reality or at the very least, its basis in reality, as opposed to the NT, which is another kettle of fish.

Off to learn more about Asherah.

Well the Saducees also left documents the Dead Sea Scholars don't really like to emphasize. The rabbinacal judaism we have today does not include the polytheistic elements.

[gypsey]

justcharlie09

LOL

Seriously, that statue is not anywhere NEAR that picture in the preschool. I wish I could find the image: carrying a cross, grinning with a bright-white-all-american-grin, giving a thumps up, and wearing thorns.

And just what sentiment was that supposed to express? **shudder** Don't worry, be crucified? It's creepy even if you are a member of the religion. I suppose there's some nut out there thinking it is inspirational...but seriously, what is it like to live in their head for a day?

i didn't think it was creepy enuff from your descrition but still to me pretty darn creepy :D
i think i would be scared to know for sure what goes on in peoples minds when they come up with some of the images i have seen, even some of the "happy" images aimed at kids :jaw-dropp
for most i think they are meant to be inspirational but with some i think the inside of their brains must be really scary places

[justcharlie09]

i didn't think it was creepy enuff from your descrition but still to me pretty darn creepy :D
i think i would be scared to know for sure what goes on in peoples minds when they come up with some of the images i have seen, even some of the "happy" images aimed at kids :jaw-dropp
for most i think they are meant to be inspirational but with some i think the inside of their brains must be really scary places

Reminds me of the 10 plagues of Egypt finger puppets I saw in an educational supply catalog once. Not sure which I liked better, the blood one, the boils one, or the dead first born. I guess there are lots of finger puppets for religions these days...everything from Judeo-Christian to Hindu and beyond.

Like grinning crucifixion Jesus...it creeps me out. Guess I'm a wimp. :boxedin:

[Marduk]

Reminds me of the 10 plagues of Egypt finger puppets I saw in an educational supply catalog once. Not sure which I liked better, the blood one, the boils one, or the dead first born. I guess there are lots of finger puppets for religions these days...everything from Judeo-Christian to Hindu and beyond.


http://daddytypes.com/archive/ten_plagues_finger_puppets.jpg
Theyre great aren't they, just what you need to indoctrinate your under 5s

[John Jones]

Well the Saducees also left documents the Dead Sea Scholars don't really like to emphasize.

Link, please.

[justcharlie09]

http://daddytypes.com/archive/ten_plagues_finger_puppets.jpg
Theyre great aren't they, just what you need to indoctrinate your under 5s

It's great if you want your child's first introduction to spirituality to be something that scares the ever-living @#$@$@ out of them, I guess. Not my style, but I know it suits a lot of people. Sick and saddistic as that is.

Now, my kids and I have used this curriculum to cover world history:

http://www.amazon.com/Story-World-History-Classical-Earliest/dp/0971412901

Starting at 1st grade....and that covers some difficult terrain in terms of human cruelty as well as mythical cruelty...but at least there aren't coloring pages of the military dictators putting severed heads on pikes as part of the lesson plan :eye-poppi or finger puppets :p

[Lucian]

Reminds me of the 10 plagues of Egypt finger puppets I saw in an educational supply catalog once. Not sure which I liked better, the blood one, the boils one, or the dead first born. I guess there are lots of finger puppets for religions these days...everything from Judeo-Christian to Hindu and beyond.

Like grinning crucifixion Jesus...it creeps me out. Guess I'm a wimp. :boxedin:

Have you ever looked at http://shipoffools.com/? It's a website aimed at liberal Christians with a sense of humor (some atheists enjoy it, too). There is a section on "Gadgets for God," where I first came across the 10 plagues finger puppets. And don't miss the Smart Klamp home circumcision kit (http://shipoffools.com/gadgets/personal/221.html).

Oh, and they also have a list of the top ten worst biblical passages. It's a great place to waste some time.

[justcharlie09]

Have you ever looked at http://shipoffools.com/? It's a website aimed at liberal Christians with a sense of humor (some atheists enjoy it, too). There is a section on "Gadgets for God," where I first came across the 10 plagues finger puppets. And don't miss the Smart Klamp home circumcision kit (http://shipoffools.com/gadgets/personal/221.html).

Oh, and they also have a list of the top ten worst biblical passages. It's a great place to waste some time.

Ooh... thanks for the link! I'm all about time-wasting. I shouldn't, but I do. Can't do much else since I've been sick.

Smart Klamp home circumcision :jaw-dropp

Holy handgrenadesofantioch Batman! :eye-poppi

[kurious_kathy]

As for a more specific answer, archeology unequivocally proves that Noah's Flood did not occur and that the world is very much older than 6000 years.

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.

[shadron]

Except we _don't_ actually have any archaeological evidence of Solomon's temple. ... All that we can find on that hill is a few pieces of broken pottery, taken as sign that some humans lived there, but no sign of the grand temple complex.

I appreciate what you are saying about evidence for the temple, but it is not as cut and dried as that. The temple mount (Mount Moriah) is not a happy place for digging, not because there is any derth of objects in the area, but because it lies underneath the Muslim Dome of the Rock, an artifact dating to 691 CE, arguably the second most holy location to the Islamic faith, as well as an architectural masterpiece. It is said to be the site from which Mohammad was assumed into heaven. Also on the site is the Al-Aqsa mosque. The Muslims don't allow Jews to pray on the mount, and orthodox Jews have forbidden (as much as they are able) anyone, regardless of faith, from walking on the mount at all, as they cannot determine exactly where the Holy of Holies may have been. Dig it up? Not a chance.

The Dome itself is said to have a large amount of stone in it that was dug from the site as it was built. Mark Twain, upon viewing the site, remarked:

Every where about the Mosque of Omar are portions of pillars, curiously wrought altars, and fragments of elegantly carved marble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble) - precious remains of Solomon's Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple). These have been dug from all depths in the soil and rubbish of Mount Moriah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriah), and the Moslems have always shown a disposition to preserve them with the utmost care.But of course, Clemens was no archaeologist either.

[kurious_kathy]

The point, I think, is more about not getting yourself run out of your church on a rail. Knowing how rabid some of our posters here are, how would you like to be approached by a committee of them, even if you can argue rings around them? Particularly if you're in competition with other recent students for a position. Baptist preachers all have to make a sworn statement about accepting the "literal truth of the Bible, in it's original texts". I don't know how the honest ones square that; perhaps most doubt the truth of their teachers.

Excuse me shadron but don't you mean the actual, or factual truth rather than use the word literal? Just hoping you would clarify this point a bit. Thanks

[Simon39759]

Well, first of all, it's the one that did the calculation, the Bible does not give any hard dates.

On the other hand, yes, the flood would have left a tremendous array of evidences behind.
Looking back, we find such evidences for a variety of smaller flood but none for the big global one, hence disproving it.
Furthermore, the amount of water required for the flood narrative simply does not exist on earth.
Moreover, there are cities whose existence predates that of the flood, there are trees leaving todays that would have died in the flood, there are overlapping record of such trees that date back 10,000 years, much further than the alleged flood.
There is also the probelm that such an amount of freshwater would have killed almost every single marine species and left the continents dead and disolate.
There is also the impossibility to fit the 2000 000 species existing (or the few thousands of "kind" whatever that's supposed to mean) in a ship that would never have floated anyway (wooden ship building only works to a point), let alone the food required to feet this floating zoo.
And there is the problem as to how animals are supposed to have radiated from North-East Mediterranean to any countries in the world, crossing oceans and unfavourable climate (polar bears in turkey?) to settle in the exact pattern predicted by evolution and radial diffusion of populations...

[TimCallahan]

Well, first of all, it's the one that did the calculation, the Bible does not give any hard dates.

On the other hand, yes, the flood would have left a tremendous array of evidences behind.
Looking back, we find such evidences for a variety of smaller flood but none for the big global one, hence disproving it.
Furthermore, the amount of water required for the flood narrative simply does not exist on earth.
Moreover, there are cities whose existence predates that of the flood, there are trees leaving todays that would have died in the flood, there are overlapping record of such trees that date back 10,000 years, much further than the alleged flood.
There is also the probelm that such an amount of freshwater would have killed almost every single marine species and left the continents dead and disolate.
There is also the impossibility to fit the 2000 000 species existing (or the few thousands of "kind" whatever that's supposed to mean) in a ship that would never have floated anyway (wooden ship building only works to a point), let alone the food required to feet this floating zoo.
And there is the problem as to how animals are supposed to have radiated from North-East Mediterranean to any countries in the world, crossing oceans and unfavourable climate (polar bears in turkey?) to settle in the exact pattern predicted by evolution and radial diffusion of populations...

Much like those championing the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, in the face of mounting evidence for the Copernican model, creationists have come up with increasingly convoluted explanations for the flood, animal distribution, etc. They use the vapor canopy heory to explain where the water came from and say that before the disruptive burst of vulcanism that destroyed the vapor canopy the oceans wer rather shallow and here were no mountains, only low hills. Thus, the deepening of the oceans ceated a place for the excess waer to go. They also posit a short ice age to create necessary land bridges enabling kangaroos to hop from Armenia to Australia.

One thing they haven't really figured out, however, is that, if all land animals came out of the ark, why don't patterns of genetic drift from all over the world point back to Armenia (or eastern Turkey)? Maybe KK can anewer that one for us.

One interesting point about the Bible's two creation tories, however, is that they are perfunctory, a mere introduction to the patriarchal tales. There are 50 chapters in Genesis. The creation, fall, preflood patriarchs and the flood only account for the first 8 chapters, or a grand total of 16% of Genesis. Noah's descendants, the tower of Babel and the table of nations account for chapters 8 thhrough 11, or 8%. Chapters 12 through 50 are about Abraham and his descendants, the patriarchal stories, cccounting for 76% of Genesis. The mythic history of Genesis, then, is mainly about Israel. Everything going before was just introducotry material to the real story.

[HansMustermann]

I appreciate what you are saying about evidence for the temple, but it is not as cut and dried as that. The temple mount (Mount Moriah) is not a happy place for digging, not because there is any derth of objects in the area, but because it lies underneath the Muslim Dome of the Rock, an artifact dating to 691 CE, arguably the second most holy location to the Islamic faith, as well as an architectural masterpiece. It is said to be the site from which Mohammad was assumed into heaven. Also on the site is the Al-Aqsa mosque. The Muslims don't allow Jews to pray on the mount, and orthodox Jews have forbidden (as much as they are able) anyone, regardless of faith, from walking on the mount at all, as they cannot determine exactly where the Holy of Holies may have been. Dig it up? Not a chance.

The Dome itself is said to have a large amount of stone in it that was dug from the site as it was built. Mark Twain, upon viewing the site, remarked:

But of course, Clemens was no archaeologist either.

Nevertheless, Shadron, for whatever good reason it may be so, the fact remains that there is exactly zero evidence.

One can't go "Solomon's temple didn't build itself" before we establish that there was such a thing as a "Solomon's Temple". (Including the very important "Solomon's" part.) It kinda pains me to see even otherwise intelligent and critical thinkers fall into the trap of, basically, circular logic. Sorta: the bible says Solomon's temple existed so it must have existed, therefore King Solomon existed too, therefore both are evidence of the names and places in the bible. Until actual evidence outside of the bible exists that there was such a thing as Solomon's Temple, one can't take Solomon's Temple as evidence of the bible.

As for Mark Twain... well, as you've said, he was no archaeologist.

[shadron]

Excuse me shadron but don't you mean the actual, or factual truth rather than use the word literal? Just hoping you would clarify this point a bit. Thanks

Statement of beliefs, Sand Creek Baptist Church: "CREATION - We believe that the early chapters of Genesis are literal and accurate history. "

Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church: "We believe in ... the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture to be Scripture itself"

Fellowship Baptist Church: "11. Creation: We believe in the Genesis account of creation as literal and factual, and therefore that God created all that exists in 6 literal days. God spoke and it was! Our God is big enough to do all that He did without the need of millions or billions of years. The fact that God created a mature earth, and that earth was later covered in a worldwide flood, leaves scientists with the impression that it took millions or billions of years when in fact it was all accomplished in 6 days. We would also deny the need of any gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2."

Sr. Pastor, Landover Baptist Church: "If you believe the Bible at all, then you must believe it is literal and inerrant. Inerrant, because God promised to keep His word pure (Ps 12:6), and literal, because the Bible warns against private interpretation (II Peter 1:20)."

L I T E R A L.

[Red3]

Interesting but hardly surprising...So most of the "evidence" for the biblical epics is next to none existent in most cases? I apologize (well, sort of) to all the Christians for being flippant in previous posts, but if there is this massive scarcity of evidence of these things happening, are you surprised when people have little time for your religion? We (society in general via the sciences etc) have ways of "proving" things that happened thousands/hundreds of thousands of years ago at all different times in the history of the world, yet not one of these stories bible stories can be verified; Does that not strike you as strange? Did God do this on purpose? Ya know, so you have faith alone? I'm genuinely interested why you believe in things that have no solidity in any form. They're not even nice enlightened stories for the most part. It appears they're nothing more than stories involving tribal bigotry and narrow-mindedness that have set man against man for centuries. To be honest I gave the bible a little more credit than it was perhaps due on this score (archeology); I at least thought more of the settings could be proven as real.


Maybe in another 400 years they will have improved to a point where women and homosexuals are truly equal in the eyes of their priesthood. Maybe.

With any luck in 400 years there won't be a priesthood.

[Red3]

pointless post - deleted.

[shadron]

Nevertheless, Shadron, for whatever good reason it may be so, the fact remains that there is exactly zero evidence.

One can't go "Solomon's temple didn't build itself" before we establish that there was such a thing as a "Solomon's Temple". (Including the very important "Solomon's" part.) It kinda pains me to see even otherwise intelligent and critical thinkers fall into the trap of, basically, circular logic. Sorta: the bible says Solomon's temple existed so it must have existed, therefore King Solomon existed too, therefore both are evidence of the names and places in the bible. Until actual evidence outside of the bible exists that there was such a thing as Solomon's Temple, one can't take Solomon's Temple as evidence of the bible.

As for Mark Twain... well, as you've said, he was no archaeologist.

OK, I accept that. I suppose my complaint was a bit nit-picky; I just had this vision of a broken shard lying on the top of a bare hill in the middle of the desert... :)

[Hux]

I sometimes feel as if believers really need you to 'concede' archaeology to make them feel better. it usually concerns a book (The OT) that is really none of their concern, unless they are Jewish. Why do christians care if Solomon's Temple was built or not?

In practical terms, its really easy to 'concede' any of these claims. There is nothing denied or achieved by supposing Soloman's temple once existed. it could have so easily been a mud hut with a few stones in it. Or is that the Kabbah? Anyhoo, so what? Even if we knew where Sodom actually was it says nothing about the legend. Its the superstitious and unsupported crap that is apportioned to these sites that just doesn't make any sense and as such, Archaeology is just not interested.

[joobz]

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.
Of course you don't believe it. You have no understanding of science. You only pretend to.

[John Jones]

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.

<shakes head>

There is so much bad religion why do you buy it?

That was strictly rhetorical. I don't want to see another "the bible is correct because the bible says so" argument.

Not tonight.

[joobz]

<shakes head>

There is so much bad religion why do you buy it?

That was strictly rhetorical. I don't want to see another "the bible is correct because the bible says so" argument.

Not tonight.
Then I suggest not reading the R&P forum tonight.

[John Jones]

Excellent point. I was responding to the newest posts W/O regard to forum.

Thanks, and sorry.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by kurious_kathy
What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.


Fine. We'll see how you get on with Peritonitis or a ectopic pregnancy.

[Ladewig]

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it?

So how exactly do you, KK, distinguish between good and bad science?


I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods.

So do you believe that the scientists who perform the type of radiometric dating described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) are simply mistaken, are being mislead by Satan, or are part of a conspiracy to hide the [i]real age of the Earth?


I'll choose God's wisdom over man's any day.

[sigh] Another false dichotomy. The majority of Christians in the world believe that the world is over 10,000 years old AND that the message of the Bible is worthy of following. Admitting that the world is billions of years old has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting God's wisdom.

[tsig]

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.

God's wisdom says you should shut up when a man's speaking.

[tsig]

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.

I pity your poor husband. You are castrating him by posting here and usurping his teaching role.

[kurious_kathy]

<shakes head>

There is so much bad religion why do you buy it?

That was strictly rhetorical. I don't want to see another "the bible is correct because the bible says so" argument.

Not tonight.

Your right there is a lot of bad/false religion, but having a relationship with God through Christ is not about being religious, it's about having a relationship with God, and it is the one main relationship that matters for everyone for all eternity. "Know Jesus, Know Peace- No Jesus, No Peace!"

[the_eye]

Your right there is a lot of bad/false religion, but having a relationship with God through Christ is not about being religious, it's about having a relationship with God, and it is the one main relationship that matters for everyone for all eternity. "Know Jesus, Know Peace- No Jesus, No Peace!"

How can you have a relationship with something that doesn't talk back?

[pakeha]

Am I dreaming, has the ergot finally kicked in or does kurious_kathy's post say what I think it did?
What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.

[shadron]

What? Archeology does most certainly NOT disprove the flood! There is so much bad science why do you buy it? I do not believe they can measure how old the earth or rocks are with their so called methods. I'll choose God's wisdom over mans any day.
No, Kathy, you're wrong. Geology, chemistry, stratigraphy, oceanography and other multiple methods in multiple sciences all say that a flood hypothesis for creating the crustal geology of the Earth is wrong, and doubly wrong if you expect it to have occurred within the last 6000 years rather than over millions of years. Your incredulity is simply pitiable. Personally, I'd rate your ability to detect "bad science" right down there with Big Foot.

[Hux]

Kathy, would you care to give us some examples of this 'bad science? Just the one will do? Anything?

Your Incredulity may be pitiable but your ignorance is gobsmacking.

[paximperium]

Your right there is a lot of bad/false religion, but having a relationship with God through Christ is not about being religious, it's about having a relationship with God, and it is the one main relationship that matters for everyone for all eternity. "Know Jesus, Know Peace- No Jesus, No Peace!"
This is of course a great example of Bad Religion.

[pakeha]

Kathy, would you care to give us some examples of this 'bad science? Just the one will do? Anything?...

I once asked kurious_kathy that question, and she answered it.

The sources posted up were a preacher's slide show featuring Irish bogs, an advert for a home schooling video and a book which asserts the Beowulf story proves the bible.

Are you sure you want to go there, Hux?

[Hux]

Yup. Bring it on. because I want her to show me how her examples are therefore 'good science' since we know she cannot tell the difference.

Its not going to happen though is it? We might even be treated to some 'drive bye' statement but she and her cronies know they are on thin ice when they start dealing with reality.

[Marduk]

asking KK to provide real evidence for her belief is going to be as fruitful as asking Rramjet for real evidence of his. Never going to happen. You just get more unscientific belief supported by books of faith and quotes from people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves
:D

[Hux]

people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves

I LOVE that!

[Marduk]

I LOVE that!

so, steal it already
:D

[Hux]

Right I give up. I tried to use it in my sig. but it just wont take it!

It remains superb however.

Never mind. its working now. thank you

[joobz]

"Know Jesus, Know Peace-
Ask the Jews during the Inquisition if they received peace.
No Jesus, No Peace!"
Why are there so few atheists in prison?
The murder rate by country is lower for nations with more atheism.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/26/atheism-theism-and-violence.htm


Your assertion is simply not supported by reality.

[Foster Zygote]

"Know Jesus, Know Peace- No Jesus, No Peace!"

Sorry Kathy, but people can be very happy without adopting your religious beliefs. The fact that you seem to need to convince yourself that everyone who rejects those beliefs cannot possibly be happy says a lot more about you than you may realize.

[Lord Emsworth]

Wouldn't "no Jesus, no peace" imply that anybody who is at peace, also has Jesus.



Welcome to Absurdistan.

[Doctor Evil]

Ask the Jews during the Inquisition if they received peace.


Unfortunately yes - the peace of the grave. Eventually.

[fromdownunder]

The problem with KK is that she has absolutely no concept of the God she believes in, and prefers to accept a book (which she has not read, and the parts she has read she cannot understand) written by nomadic Goat Hearders 1,000s of years ago, and translated/mis translated/redacted/deliberately altered/faked ever since then.

Since she worships a book, rather than her God, she cannot conceive of the fact that He (if he actually existed) is bigger and smarter than she is. She certainly cannot even comprehend that perhaps her God did create the universe 14 Billion years ago, that He created Earth 4.5 Billion years ago, and that He used his own scientific laws including evolution to complete His creation.

She cannot even comprehend that maybe her God actually can do things which she does not understand to achieve His results. The only thing she accepts appears to be that she deserves to die and spend eternity in hell. Look up some night Kathy. Look at the stars.

She does not understand that the Bible is mostly myths, legends and morality tales which never actually happened. Kathy has her own mind stuck in a book, and has absolutely no idea of her own God, because the book takes precedence. She has been brainwashed by her Masters, so it is not really her fault. But, hey Kathy, maybe one day you will start thinking.

Norm

[pakeha]

Unfortunately yes - the peace of the grave. Eventually.

When I mentioned your post this morning to His Grace, the Archbishop of Toledo, he was fascinated by this widely held and long enduring misconception about The Holy Inquisition's interest in Judaism.
Abraham's children only marginally attracted the attention of the Santa, as we call it here- the focus was irradicating apostates, or two-timers as some of the more frivolous Jesuit novices call them.

Just a friendly hint, Doctor Evil- when visiting this lovely city, do not under any circumstances follow signs which read
"This Way to Authentic Spanish Coffee Shop"
;)

[Hux]

The problem with KK is that she has absolutely no concept of the God she believes in, and prefers to accept a book (which she has not read, and the parts she has read she cannot understand) written by nomadic Goat Hearders 1,000s of years ago, and translated/mis translated/redacted/deliberately altered/faked ever since then.

Since she worships a book, rather than her God, she cannot conceive of the fact that He (if he actually existed) is bigger and smarter than she is. She certainly cannot even comprehend that perhaps her God did create the universe 14 Billion years ago, that He created Earth 4.5 Billion years ago, and that He used his own scientific laws including evolution to complete His creation.

She cannot even comprehend that maybe her God actually can do things which she does not understand to achieve His results. The only thing she accepts appears to be that she deserves to die and spend eternity in hell. Look up some night Kathy. Look at the stars.

She does not understand that the Bible is mostly myths, legends and morality tales which never actually happened. Kathy has her own mind stuck in a book, and has absolutely no idea of her own God, because the book takes precedence. She has been brainwashed by her Masters, so it is not really her fault. But, hey Kathy, maybe one day you will start thinking.

Norm

She just strikes me as having classic mental illness. She then gloms onto the first 'self help' book on the bookshelf. But who is she trying to convince? us or herself?

[Hux]

When I mentioned your post this morning to His Grace, the Archbishop of Toledo, he was fascinated by this widely held and long enduring misconception about The Holy Inquisition's interest in Judaism.
Abraham's children only marginally attracted the attention of the Santa, as we call it here- the focus was irradicating apostates, or two-timers as some of the more frivolous Jesuit novices call them.

Just a friendly hint, Doctor Evil- when visiting this lovely city, do not under any circumstances follow signs which read
"This Way to Authentic Spanish Coffee Shop"
;)

I heard an interesting aside recently perhaps you might be able to confirm: At ons stage in Spain, Jews were told, convert to Christianity or GTFO of here. Many left, some stayed and converted but were viewed with suspicion.

Enter Tapas.

Tapas was originally all cut from pieces or derivations of Pork so that a convert would have to eat some to prove he was sincere in his conversion. Hence Tapas bars. Any reality in this?

[Pure Argent]

Your right there is a lot of bad/false religion,

Yep. Yours is one of them.

but having a relationship with God through Christ is not about being religious, it's about having a relationship with God,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5Rd7ty05Gnw/SY4poTPKfoI/AAAAAAAAAP4/9NuNNfKEZGs/s400/contradictions.jpg

Religion is having a relationship with your god. You can say "Oh, no, I don't practice organized religion", but the very act of believing in a god is religious.

and it is the one main relationship that matters for everyone for all eternity. "Know Jesus, Know Peace- No Jesus, No Peace!"

Bare assertion.

[Pure Argent]

She just strikes me as having classic mental illness. She then gloms onto the first 'self help' book on the bookshelf. But who is she trying to convince? us or herself?

Both, I think. But mostly herself. KK has previously posted several times about how she has run from one source of comfort to the next over her lifetime - drugs and alcohol, then spirits and mediums and astrology, then Jesus. She just latches onto the nearest fad and hangs on for dear life.

[Hux]

Wow! Is she a 'Born Again'? I hope so. I wonder what dirty little secrets she might tell us about?

[Pure Argent]

Wow! Is she a 'Born Again'? I hope so. I wonder what dirty little secrets she might tell us about?

Yes, she is, but don't expect much. Apparently her deepest descent into evil was to break each of the commandments (she counts abortion as murder) and visiting psychics.

[Hux]

Then I take back what I said about her. Sounds just like another depressed, full of self loathing, individual with a comic book for comfort.

[BobTheDonkey]

Then I take back what I said about her. Sounds just like another depressed, full of self loathing, individual with a comic book for comfort.

Now now... That's not fair at all. The heroes in comics can be looked up to, whereas the hero in the Bible is a sadistic insecure bully.

[pakeha]

I heard an interesting aside recently perhaps you might be able to confirm: At ons stage in Spain, Jews were told, convert to Christianity or GTFO of here. Many left, some stayed and converted but were viewed with suspicion.

Enter Tapas.

Tapas was originally all cut from pieces or derivations of Pork so that a convert would have to eat some to prove he was sincere in his conversion. Hence Tapas bars. Any reality in this?

Well, 1492 WAS a very good year, but not if you were a non-Christian in Spain.
Many Sephardic families claimed to have the key to their Toledan houses, passed down through generations.
Convert or leave? Yes. Many went as far as Barcelona, where they were welcomed and helped form the textile industry and the printing which saved Catalunya from stagnating with the rest of Spain. Obviously I exagerate and simplify, but that's a very quick summing of the situation of the Jews. The Moorish population from 1492 (Fall/Reconquista of Granada) onwards actually had it worse, if possible.

The Jews' worst enemy in Spain as far as I can tell were the fire and brimstone preachers. One very famous one was Vicent Ferrer, who's empassioned sermon against the Jews in Toledo sent the faithful howling into the streets hunting Jews. The Jews took refuge in one of Europe's most lovely buildings, a synagogue now church named Santa Maria la Blanca. The Christians tore down the door, dragged all the Jews down to an island in the Tajo river and fired the island. Those who tried to swim away were picked off by archers.
It's a dreadful story and illustrates, at least to my mind, the danger of fundamentalist preaching.
And it took place long before Isabel la Catolica asked her father confessor to found an institution to ensure the converts stayed converted.
La Santa was much more 'concerned' with conversos and heretics. Even Miguel Cervantes (author of Don Quijote) ran afoul of the Santa- he'd been captured by the Moors, enslaved and set as a rower in a galley for I can't remember offhand how many years.
Due to his public success in Madrid, the Santa investigated don Miguel's beliefs, fearing that his contact with the Moors might have contaminated his doctrinal stance which in turn could influence the theatre -going public.
Curiously enough, don Miguel and don Guillermo (Shakespeare) died on the same day in the same year.

Enough of the horrors of mob frenzy fueled by preachers.

Tapas had their origin not in pork but in the strongly flavoured cheeses from la Mancha which disguised the taste of cheapo wine.
Nowadays, tapas or pinchos (pinxos in the Basque country, where they are an authentic art form) can range from peanuts to crisps to olives, free of charge, of course. It would be considered brutish to serve drinks without even the most rudimentary tapa.
I'd certainly never return to a tavern which didn't serve tapas. Nor would his Grace.

As for ham- check out the prices of authentic Serrano ham and tell me how likely it is anyone would waste a square centimeter of it to discover whether a converso was backsiding or not.
That was what the Santa was for, after all.

Sorry to go on so, but there you are.

[HansMustermann]

Yes, she is, but don't expect much. Apparently her deepest descent into evil was to break each of the commandments (she counts abortion as murder) and visiting psychics.

What, all 10? Did she actually worship another god, made an idol, stole, bore false witness against someone (note that it doesn't say "witnessing religion" there), stole, and covetted her neighbour's wife? Note that covetting the neighbour's wife is a separate commandment, namely #9 at least for Catholics and Lutherans, so you have to do that explicitly to have the full set. Never figured Kathy for the lesbian kind, but then there's nothing wrong with that anyway ;)

And if we're talking about _all_ the Commandments, the Exodus 34 set too? Did she actually boil a kid in its mother's milk, or what? Sacrificed a goat to God with leavened bread on the side? ;)

Still, if she actually did manage to break the whole set, and it's not just an empty brag... respect. It's not something you manage just by mistake. It takes some perseverence and planning. I can respect the hell out of that.

[Pure Argent]

What, all 10?

Yep.

Did she actually worship another god, made an idol,

Well, she defines "worshiping" and "idolatry" so broadly that it's physically impossible not to break those commandments. If you tell Kathy you went to the toilet, she would accuse you of worshiping the plumbing.

stole, bore false witness against someone (note that it doesn't say "witnessing religion" there), stole,

Apparently.

and covetted her neighbour's wife?

Most definitely.

Note that covetting the neighbour's wife is a separate commandment, namely #9 at least for Catholics and Lutherans, so you have to do that explicitly to have the full set. Never figured Kathy for the lesbian kind, but then there's nothing wrong with that anyway ;)

And if we're talking about _all_ the Commandments, the Exodus 34 set too? Did she actually boil a kid in its mother's milk, or what? Sacrificed a goat to God with leavened bread on the side? ;)

Well, yeah, but we've all done that at some time or another.

Still, if she actually did manage to break the whole set, and it's not just an empty brag... respect. It's not something you manage just by mistake. It takes some perseverence and planning. I can respect the hell out of that.

We should start a fan club.

[HansMustermann]

Yes, well, I'd expect some actual hardcore commandment-breaking there. I'll cut her some slack on counting abortion as breaking "thou shalt not murder", because, well, 9 out of 10 still ain't bad. But if we're talking just redefinitions for all, I'm getting a lot less impressed :p

[BobTheDonkey]

And if we're talking about _all_ the Commandments, the Exodus 34 set too? Did she actually boil a kid in its mother's milk, or what? Sacrificed a goat to God with leavened bread on the side?
Well, yeah, but we've all done that at some time or another.

Actually, those were my plans for this weekend. Anyone else needing to cross this off their list is welcome to come on over :D

[Hux]

Kathy is sounding more and more interesting by the minute. I trust there are pictures?

[Pure Argent]

Kathy is sounding more and more interesting by the minute. I trust there are pictures?

You need to be less trusting, then.

[Hux]

Crap. Thats a bummer. But it just confirms what I always said. Born Agains are much funnier and much more interesting, in a Petrie Dish kind of way.

[Marduk]

Actually, those were my plans for this weekend. Anyone else needing to cross this off their list is welcome to come on over :D

I can't I'm busy coveting my neighbours Ox
:p

[BobTheDonkey]

I can't I'm busy coveting my neighbours Ox
:p

Here's a thought:

Say I'm out working in the yard. My neighbor throws a full rack of ribs on the BBQ. If I start drooling over the aroma of the ribs on her bbq, does that count as coveting my neighbours ox?

And what if they're pork ribs?

[pakeha]

<snipped> Born Agains are much funnier and much more interesting, in a Petrie Dish kind of way.
;)