Biblical Literalist Christians; What exactly do the Believe?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Marduk

take away the invisible sky daddy and he'd be out sodomizing virgins and eating babies like the rest of you atheists
allegedly

but thank you for that brief summation of everyone else's approach in this thread Dark Lord, I worship your unholy power of description

On a more serious note...I never EVER thought that anyone would seriously believe that...until I went with some of my PreDental Society members to an orthodontist who happened to be an evangelist. Of course, he resonated well with the other members, and they knew I was an atheist and at that moment in his proselytizing (one should fear for his patients...but not really he was a great guy, just loved God a lot) everyone in that room literally changed their temperament. I have had no trouble talking to them, they were my friends, but once they were around that guy and we left for the next hour, on facebook, in the car, I was told that exact same stuff. "You don't believe in God, then how can we be good?" "What DO you believe" "How can you be a good person Chip?"

For hours.

I've NEVER had a problem with any Christian and they've never had a problem with me, but somehow, somewhere deep in their minds I think that when they get together and empower themselves that kind of psycopathy takes root. And I'm sure atheists do it too; I'm also a member of the Birmingham Freethought Society and there is an air of perpetual ridicule waiting to pounce on anyone who says anything religious.

But I've never thought any thinking person would find it necessary to be good with God...until then.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

We know that because the Bible records it. We also know that the conflict was resolved, with the Bible explaining the reason for the conflict and which position was the correct.



Again, there is no reason to believe that there are any errors of that sort.


He says He won't, and I believe what He says.

He whispers sweet nothings in your ear?

[Quad4_72]

Avalon I think you missed this post in the fray:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...35#post8237735

What is your proof that a flood occurred, and also what is your proof that people lived longer during that timeframe.

[Halfcentaur]

Why would God give us something that is supposed to be so important which has turned out to be so absurdly subject to interpretation? This defeats the purpose of guidance and renders it into an esoteric quest based on clues and secret meanings, a spiritual game of guessing and choosing whose intuition is more informed, and it's clear that only a few dozen, to a few hundred, to a few thousand people at a time can really seem to agree on what is being communicated by this so called guidance. And when you consider the consequences of making a mistake,... this seems to set off so many alarms in my sense of skeptical inquiry. How do I reconcile myself honestly with such vagueness?

What is the context of the this passage?

Quote:

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

Did Jesus intend for disobedient children to be stoned up until the point of his death in a matter of years, or am I wrong on the context here?

Quote:

Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The Real World^TM intervened in my life today so I'm just catching up with the Forum.

What a wonderful thread!

I have a vision of a parallel timeline in which Valentinus^* was elected Pope and Gnosticism became the Authoritative Truth. What wonderful discussions we could with an AvalonXP defending his belief in The Gospel of Thomas.

------------------------
^* http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Again, I apologize for offending you. Apparently there's no pleasing you, and I don't feel like bending over backwards trying.
We're done.

You apologize then blame him for being offended.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

All of these ages are pre-flood. There are a number of theories about the pre-flood environment being better than the post-flood environment for human longevity (rate of telomere loss, etc).

It's also possible that Noah was part of a particularly long-lived lineage that he didn't successfully pass on to his kids.

IOW godditit

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Any more questions about how Biblical literalists interpret scripture?

The fact that you can't see the contradiction in your post speaks for itself.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Typically, Biblical literalist Christians, particularly Biblical inerrantists, believe that the original autograph of the Bible as written represents the Words of God and is therefore true and accurate.

They also generally believe that the historical accounts (particularly in Genesis) are literal accounts of actual events.

It has been my experience that even so-called "Biblical literalists" are anything but literal in their reading of the Bible. They interpret it just like everyone else does, picking and choosing, yet they refuse to admit as much. In this sense, they are among the greatest hypocrites of the religious.

For example, I got into a discussion about creationism with a family member who labels himself as a so-called "literalist"; he was pushing the usual "you either believe all of it [the Bible] or none of it" nonsense, espousing the attitude I've often seen which tries to claim some mantle of truth and holiness somehow attached to being a "literalist". As many of you will no doubt recognize, this is one of the big arguments for accepting the Genesis story (stories) of creation as true.

So I challenged him with Isaiah 40:22...

Quote:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I argued that, according to that passage, the Earth is flat. He quibbled that the passage states the Earth is like a ball, but I wouldn't let him get out of it because I drew the clear distinction between "circle" (2-dimensional) and "ball/sphere" (3-dimensional). When it became clear to him that he'd been backed into a corner, he responded by stating that Isaiah 40:22 also stated that people are bugs, which clearly wasn't true. Thus, he concluded, we just had to read Isaiah 40:22 poetically (his exact words).

I paused, then said: "You mean like how some people read Genesis poetically?"

He ended the conversation after that. Interesting, isn't it?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

But as good skeptics Avalon, we have no physical evidence that a flood of that proportion even occurred. Also as good skeptics, you know that I am going to ask to see your evidence that people could live longer int hat time period.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

All of these ages are pre-flood. There are a number of theories about the pre-flood environment being better than the post-flood environment for human longevity (rate of telomere loss, etc).

It's also possible that Noah was part of a particularly long-lived lineage that he didn't successfully pass on to his kids.

excuse me for saying so, but thats a pile of crap, whenever someone starts trying to claim that before something which science has long shown didn't happen things were different or that the evidence died out with the last of the line its basically saying you don't have a credible answer

would you like to see what the Hebrews really based the ages of their Patriarchs on ?
I mean, this isn't an issue for me or anyone else who has ever properly studied mesopotamian history
It all starts with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
which was where the early Hebrews first came under the absolute control of a more advanced culture and where they got a lot of their ideas from, I have already shown how two bible stories are derived from Mesopotamian stories, now here's where the long lifespans of the Patriatchs came from

The Sumerians recorded the length of reign of their kings much like any other culture, here are the kings of Kish followed by their attested length of rule in years, these are just the first ten of many that I will use to illustrate my point
Ĝušur 1200
Kullassina-bēl 960
Nanĝišlišma 670
En-tara-ana 420
Babum 300 300
Puannum 840
Kalibum 960
Kalūmum 900
Zuqāqīp 900
Atab 600
These are from a Babylonian record from 1800 bce
http://www.ashmolean.org/ash/faqs/q001/
which was copied from an earlier record, which in turn was copied from an earlier record, going all the way back to the time when the kings ruled more than a 1000 years earlier, we're still some 1100 years before the enslavement of the Hebrews with this artifact

what the unnamed babylonian scribe who copied this from earlier lists didn't realise but which is well understood now is that the symbol that used to represent 3600 for the Sumerians, by the time of the Babylonian period had come to represent a different value altogether, whereas originally the symbol known as a "Sar" represented 3600 or 60 x 60
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5195.html
This is a basic sexagesimal system developed for accounting by the Sumerians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal

Quote:

Sexagesimal (base 60) is a numeral system with sixty as its base. It originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 3rd millennium BC, it was passed down to the ancient Babylonians, and it is still used — in a modified form — for measuring time, angles, and geographic coordinates.

This is where we get 60 minutes/seconds from a clock from, its also why we divide circles into 360 degrees.
But the scribe transcribing the king list in the Babylonian period didn't know the value for the symbol had changed, because by his time they were using a base ten system, so he just copied them down as they appeared, we know this absolutely because the error becomes obvious when you are familiar with the counting systems of both cultures
so to arrive at the correct length of reign for these kings you have to divide their reign by 60
Ĝušur 1200 = 20 years
Kullassina-bēl 960 = 16 years
Nanĝišlišma 660 = 11 years
En-tara-ana 420 = 7 years
Babum 300 = 5 years
Puannum 840 = 14 years
Kalibum 960 = 16 years
Kalūmum 900 = 15 years
Zuqāqīp 900 = 15 years
Atab 600 = 10 years

suddenly what seemed to be kings living for hundreds of years is easily explained by an accounting error, no special human genetics or super duper longevity environment required

now before the Hebrews were slaves of the Babylonians they didn't have
1. Any claims for extra long lived ancestors
2. a flood story
3. the bible

after they were freed by the Persians they had all three
what an amazing coincedence

[pakeha]

^^^
Thanks, Marduk.
You won't hate me if I call that a perfect circular argument, will you?

After coping with bible scholars' attempts to date the Exodus anywhere from 2440 BCE to 1200 BCE it's good to see something straightforward.

Back to trying to identify the Pharaoh whose daughter drew Moses out of the river.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by pakeha

After coping with bible scholars' attempts to date the Exodus anywhere from 2440 BCE to 1200 BCE it's good to see something straightforward.
.

well they tend to forget that the language that the story is alleged to have been written in didn't exist when the bible claims it was written

Quote:

The language (Hebrew) is attested from the 10th century BCE to the late Second Temple period, after which the language developed into Mishnaic Hebrew

"Exodus (original version)
35,1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them: 'These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.
And the congregation did say "what is the first law of God" master
And moses did reply "something something something, Kill" i think "


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

Originally Posted by pakeha

Back to trying to identify the Pharaoh whose daughter drew Moses out of the river.

hmmmm, Moses whos existence is doubtful, vs Sargon the Great who' existence is well attested from every angle and who has this as his birth story

Quote:

My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and ... years I exercised kingship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_...tive_mythology
which incidentally exists on a tablet 200 years older than the Exodus story
again, the Jews would have been well aware of this story, what an amazing coincedence that after they got in a position to hear it,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
they suddenly remember the same thing happening to one of their own

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Marduk

excuse me for saying so, but thats a pile of crap, whenever someone starts trying to claim that before something which science has long shown didn't happen things were different or that the evidence died out with the last of the line its basically saying you don't have a credible answer

would you like to see what the Hebrews really based the ages of their Patriarchs on ?
I mean, this isn't an issue for me or anyone else who has ever properly studied mesopotamian history
It all starts with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
which was where the early Hebrews first came under the absolute control of a more advanced culture and where they got a lot of their ideas from, I have already shown how two bible stories are derived from Mesopotamian stories, now here's where the long lifespans of the Patriatchs came from

The Sumerians recorded the length of reign of their kings much like any other culture, here are the kings of Kish followed by their attested length of rule in years, these are just the first ten of many that I will use to illustrate my point
Ĝušur 1200
Kullassina-bēl 960
Nanĝišlišma 670
En-tara-ana 420
Babum 300 300
Puannum 840
Kalibum 960
Kalūmum 900
Zuqāqīp 900
Atab 600
These are from a Babylonian record from 1800 bce
http://www.ashmolean.org/ash/faqs/q001/
which was copied from an earlier record, which in turn was copied from an earlier record, going all the way back to the time when the kings ruled more than a 1000 years earlier, we're still some 1100 years before the enslavement of the Hebrews with this artifact

what the unnamed babylonian scribe who copied this from earlier lists didn't realise but which is well understood now is that the symbol that used to represent 3600 for the Sumerians, by the time of the Babylonian period had come to represent a different value altogether, whereas originally the symbol known as a "Sar" represented 3600 or 60 x 60
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e5195.html
This is a basic sexagesimal system developed for accounting by the Sumerians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal

This is where we get 60 minutes/seconds from a clock from, its also why we divide circles into 360 degrees.
But the scribe transcribing the king list in the Babylonian period didn't know the value for the symbol had changed, because by his time they were using a base ten system, so he just copied them down as they appeared, we know this absolutely because the error becomes obvious when you are familiar with the counting systems of both cultures
so to arrive at the correct length of reign for these kings you have to divide their reign by 60
Ĝušur 1200 = 20 years
Kullassina-bēl 960 = 16 years
Nanĝišlišma 660 = 11 years
En-tara-ana 420 = 7 years
Babum 300 = 5 years
Puannum 840 = 14 years
Kalibum 960 = 16 years
Kalūmum 900 = 15 years
Zuqāqīp 900 = 15 years
Atab 600 = 10 years

suddenly what seemed to be kings living for hundreds of years is easily explained by an accounting error, no special human genetics or super duper longevity environment required

now before the Hebrews were slaves of the Babylonians they didn't have
1. Any claims for extra long lived ancestors
2. a flood story
3. the bible

after they were freed by the Persians they had all three
what an amazing coincedence

Very good post Marduk. Avalon did you have some evidence of your own? I would really like to see why you believe that a giant flood occurred and why you think people lived hundreds of years.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Very good post Marduk. Avalon did you have some evidence of your own? I would really like to see why you believe that a giant flood occurred and why you think people lived hundreds of years.

the flood story, which is attested in three versions so you can see its development exists only in Mesopotamia
first version where the flood is described as affecting just the river
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrahasis
second version where the flood is described as affecting the whole world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh
third version
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin...?text=t.1.7.4#
where extra details are added like the addition of many animals
then about 700 years later, again after this event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
the Hebrews suddenly come up with an amazing true story about a global flood
where can they have got their ideas from

can someone mention Angels while we're here, or the Tower of Babel story
guess what?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Marduk

can someone mention Angels while we're here,

Angels are weird. I had the opportunity to tour some of the Painted Monasteries in Romania a while back, and saw the Eastern Orthodox version of angels. Yeah.....These aren't androgynous beings playing harps. The ones that stuck out to my mind were the ones with baby faces, but surrounded by wings. And that's because those somewhat made sense (FF8 had come out by that time, after all). The rest looked like something you'd see on a bad acid trip while reading Call of Cthulhu.

[mutile]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And you are obviously incapable of basic civility. Why the continual need to insult me? Why can't you just treat me like a human being?

Some people may find it despicable that you are perfectly happy to keep your faith while other people's children are being raped and murdered but admittedly would lose faith if the bad stuff that God does affected you personally.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Angels are weird. I had the opportunity to tour some of the Painted Monasteries in Romania a while back, and saw the Eastern Orthodox version of angels. Yeah.....These aren't androgynous beings playing harps. The ones that stuck out to my mind were the ones with baby faces, but surrounded by wings. And that's because those somewhat made sense (FF8 had come out by that time, after all). The rest looked like something you'd see on a bad acid trip while reading Call of Cthulhu.

Angels are what happens when a monotheistic religion develops out of a polytheistic one, in the ancient world, you didn't ignore the Gods of other cultures for two main reasons
1. Its motions for war
2. the God won't like being ignored
remember, everyone was a religious fundamentalist in this period
but again, you don't need to take my word for it

Quote:

According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 AD), specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel#In_Judaism
the name Michael is linked to the Exodus story through a passage in "numbers 13:13

Quote:

Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael

which states the names of the spies sent into Canaan by Moses
however, Michael is a Hebrew name which means "who is like God", and as we already know, Hebrew didn't exist when Archangel Michael was throwing Satan from Heaven, so he can't have been a slave in Egypt either can he, I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't mention time travel.
Then we have Satan, who also can be found in Mesopotamia before the Hebrews existed
SA = http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e4600.html = opposed
An = http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e347.html - heaven
SA.AN - opposed to heaven
Satan - Adversary (to God)
wheres the innerrancy when even the names are made up ?
Satans other name "Lucifer"was first applied to a Mesopotamian king

Quote:

Use of the name "Lucifer" for the Devil stems from applying to the Devil what Isaiah 14:3–20 says of a king of Babylon whom it calls Helel (הֵילֵל, Shining One), a Hebrew word that refers to the Day Star or Morning Star (the Latin term[2] for which is lucifer)[3] This association developed in Early Christianity, in the 2nd or 3rd century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
and his "Great Red Dragon" nickname of his so beloved by fiction writers
well you don't have to look too far for that either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat

[pakeha]

This is all fascinating, Marduk and it will take me years to fully explore the labyrinth of knowledge you've so generously offered the forum, but...

I believe this gentleman has something to say on the subject of the origins of his name:



Hai capito?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by pakeha

This is all fascinating, Marduk and it will take me years to fully explore the labyrinth of knowledge you've so generously offered the forum,

this is just the easy stuff, easy to find and easy to check,

*I wonder why people aren't interested in the formation of their belief
would it be so bad to suddenly realise that your entire family going all the way back to the birth of civilisation has fallen victim to a confidence trick designed to enrich and empower a few who think they are better than everyone else
well, maybe
but I'm buggered if I can understand why they'd rather not know the truth and incorporate what they've learned into their future plans, it's like selling your descendants into slavery
lines since "*" are heavily sardonic and sponsored by the one true God *Bel "no flood" Marduk,

Originally Posted by pakeha

but...
I believe this gentleman has something to say on the subject of the origins of his name:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7880/michaeljr.jpg

Hai capito?

Capisci
but...
if it isn't rendered in an East Semitic dialect, I won't be very impressed

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Resume

You understand some literalists would call you a sinner?

We are all sinners. You don't have to be a literalist to believe that. It is part of the human condition.

Originally Posted by Resume

Yes, and those people claim you don't really understand the bible. I find this all very intramural. But interesting.

People calling each other sinners bothers me though.

It shouldn't. The question is what one does about one's sin, or doesn't do.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

How do you get that from what I've said? I've said the opposite - none of the Old Law applies.

That's the whole point.

OK, I'll bite: are the Ten Commandments written off?



EDIT:

Also, I note the usual DOGPILE tactics.

Try reading the top of the page, folks.

READ and comprehend. Not seeing a lot of friendly and lively.

As usual, I enjoyed some of the detail Marduk provides regarding ancient stories.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

We are all sinners. You don't have to be a literalist to believe that. It is part of the human condition.

First, define "sin". Then we can talk about whether any individual is has committed a sin or not.

Quote:

It shouldn't

Yeah, it really should. "Sin", as the Catholics and Christians understand the term (and if we're talking about The Bible, we're talking Catholics and Christians), comes in one of two flavors: either it's something you've done/refused to do, or it's inherited from what an ancestor did. If you're talking about the latter, you end up with things like the Spanish Inquisition and European monasticism, neither of which was very nice as they hinge on doing penance for something YOU DIDN'T DO. If you're talking about the former, you're making a specific accusation of guilt without having any facts to back it up--in other words, libel or slander, depending on how you go about it. That kind of thing typically annoys people.

If you know of any sin I've committed (after, of course, you define the term) let's hear it. And let's hear what sins others on this board have committed. Otherwise you've just made a blanket accusation without proof, and are guilty of defamation of character.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

First, define "sin". Then we can talk about whether any individual is has committed a sin or not.

Yeah, it really should. "Sin", as the Catholics and Christians understand the term (and if we're talking about The Bible, we're talking Catholics and Christians), comes in one of two flavors: either it's something you've done/refused to do, or it's inherited from what an ancestor did. If you're talking about the latter, you end up with things like the Spanish Inquisition and European monasticism, neither of which was very nice as they hinge on doing penance for something YOU DIDN'T DO. If you're talking about the former, you're making a specific accusation of guilt without having any facts to back it up--in other words, libel or slander, depending on how you go about it. That kind of thing typically annoys people.

If you know of any sin I've committed (after, of course, you define the term) let's hear it. And let's hear what sins others on this board have committed. Otherwise you've just made a blanket accusation without proof, and are guilty of defamation of character.

I am not sure I am interested in talking to someone with a closed mind. Your posts in this thread show me that is what is going on, but since I may be wrong about that, I'll proceed.

But just to be sure you understand my framework here, there are two kinds of sin: venial and mortal.

You can sin either by doing something or not doing it.

If you go by Catholic teaching, you will find that there are three conditions to mortal sin:
Serious/grave matter
Full intention
Full consent of the will

I think you will find this to be progressive teaching, but it is pretty well addressed in the Catehcism of the Catholic Church. That is a recent codification, based on Vatican II and other stuff, of what the Church believes.

I suspect you have not caught up, and don't feel bad, a lot of Catholics haven't either. It's a long book and it's written in obtuse language.

So, have you sinned?

Most likely yes. The matter is: in what degree?

Let us look at two points of reference

The Two Greatest Commandments
Love God with all your heart and mind, etc
and
Love your neighbor as yourself

If you've failed to do either, you (and or I) have sinned. Is it a serious sin or a less than serious sin? Depends, I guess.

Second point of reference

The conventional Ten Commandments.

It is easy to list them, and see which you have or have not broken at some point. Was it serious (mortal) or venial? Well, circumstances will probably tell us.

So, what do you do when you sin? (In this I mean "you" collectively, and I am included).

Either admit it, and try to make things right, or don't.

We will all sin. We are all prone to error. We are all gonna **** up.

None of us is perfect.

The measure of our character is what we do about our imperfections, and whether or not we make a good faith effort to reconcile with our neighbors, at the very least.

I note the venom you have spit at Avalon in this thread. As I see it, that's not in line with loving your neighbor as yourself.

What do you intend to do about that?

Your call.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am not sure I am interested in talking to someone with a closed mind. Your posts in this thread show me that is what is going on, but since I may be wrong about that, I'll proceed.

But just to be sure you understand my framework here, there are two kinds of sin: venial and mortal.

You can sin either by doing something or not doing it.

If you go by Catholic teaching, you will find that there are three conditions to mortal sin:
Serious/grave matter
Full intention
Full consent of the will

I think you will find this to be progressive teaching, but it is pretty well addressed in the Catehcism of the Catholic Church. That is a recent codification, based on Vatican II and other stuff, of what the Church believes.

I suspect you have not caught up, and don't feel bad, a lot of Catholics haven't either. It's a long book and it's written in obtuse language.

So, have you sinned?

Most likely yes. The matter is: in what degree?

Let us look at two points of reference

The Two Greatest Commandments
Love God with all your heart and mind, etc
and
Love your neighbor as yourself

If you've failed to do either, you (and or I) have sinned. Is it a serious sin or a less than serious sin? Depends, I guess.

Second point of reference

The conventional Ten Commandments.

It is easy to list them, and see which you have or have not broken at some point. Was it serious (mortal) or venial? Well, circumstances will probably tell us.

So, what do you do when you sin? (In this I mean "you" collectively, and I am included).

Either admit it, and try to make things right, or don't.

We will all sin. We are all prone to error. We are all gonna **** up.

None of us is perfect.

The measure of our character is what we do about our imperfections, and whether or not we make a good faith effort to reconcile with our neighbors, at the very least.

I note the venom you have spit at Avalon in this thread. As I see it, that's not in line with loving your neighbor as yourself.

What do you intend to do about that?

Your call.

Your definition of sin is meaningless to anyone who isn't a Catholic.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Here's a fun (wiki) link discussing Sarfati's ideas. To put it simply, he's a Young-Earth Creationist. His response to criticism is rather...unique.

Anthropologists aren't barred from understanding radiometric dating. In fact, I'd say they're probably as likely to understand it as someone with a degree in physical chemistry (for the same reason that a mechanic is a better person to talk to about fixing a car than a mechanical engineer).

Here's his website, for anyone who wants to look at it. It's your typical "there's not enough time/no transitional forms/we know more than the experts!" YEC drivel. That AvalonXQ actually thinks this clown is worth listening to is disheartening.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The simple answer is, if you can't demonstrate it it's nothing more than a fairy tale, even if it relates to actual events. There's no way to demonstrate the truth of it, thus it CANNOT be taken as true. At best, it's curious. The reason is, if we can't demonstrate it to be true how can we KNOW it's true?

Not entirely true. Animals can, on rare occasion, give birth to live offspring without fertilization. There was a somewhat sensational event with a snake doing so fairly recently. But it's incredibly rare in mammals.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Cladistics and taxonomy have shown how difficult it can be to detect similarities that signify common origins.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I see I'm off ignore.

You missed my point: it's difficult, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE, to identify similarities due to shared ancestry (and an ancestor shares ancestry with its descendants). The trick is that the similarities aren't always obvious. I seriously doubt that literary scholars, archaeologists, historians, et al. are saying "read this fragmentary ancient poem and if you don't immediately agree with me you are intellectually dishonest". What I suspect is that this is a reference to a suite of arguments, none of which you are familiar with, calling into question your expertise. Since you're claiming that the Bible (well, some unidentified and possibly nonexistent version of it, since you admit all current ones are flawed) is innerrant, it seems that you should be knowledgeable on the proofs.

And we're done here. No offense intended--it's just that there's literally no argument to counter this. You can simply say "I have faith", and that covers any inconsistency, any contradiction, any logical argument against your position.

You have faith, so you'll automatically win any argument. At least in your mind.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Yes. What's your view of the Medieval (1200~1300 AD) Biblical literalists who thought that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally in terms of history and the like, but in terms of inspiration?

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Angels are weird. I had the opportunity to tour some of the Painted Monasteries in Romania a while back, and saw the Eastern Orthodox version of angels. Yeah.....These aren't androgynous beings playing harps. The ones that stuck out to my mind were the ones with baby faces, but surrounded by wings. And that's because those somewhat made sense (FF8 had come out by that time, after all). The rest looked like something you'd see on a bad acid trip while reading Call of Cthulhu.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

First, define "sin". Then we can talk about whether any individual is has committed a sin or not.

Yeah, it really should. "Sin", as the Catholics and Christians understand the term (and if we're talking about The Bible, we're talking Catholics and Christians), comes in one of two flavors: either it's something you've done/refused to do, or it's inherited from what an ancestor did. If you're talking about the latter, you end up with things like the Spanish Inquisition and European monasticism, neither of which was very nice as they hinge on doing penance for something YOU DIDN'T DO. If you're talking about the former, you're making a specific accusation of guilt without having any facts to back it up--in other words, libel or slander, depending on how you go about it. That kind of thing typically annoys people.

If you know of any sin I've committed (after, of course, you define the term) let's hear it. And let's hear what sins others on this board have committed. Otherwise you've just made a blanket accusation without proof, and are guilty of defamation of character.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am not sure I am interested in talking to someone with a closed mind. Your posts in this thread show me that is what is going on, but since I may be wrong about that, I'll proceed.

But just to be sure you understand my framework here, there are two kinds of sin: venial and mortal.

You can sin either by doing something or not doing it.

If you go by Catholic teaching, you will find that there are three conditions to mortal sin:
Serious/grave matter
Full intention
Full consent of the will

I think you will find this to be progressive teaching, but it is pretty well addressed in the Catehcism of the Catholic Church. That is a recent codification, based on Vatican II and other stuff, of what the Church believes.

I suspect you have not caught up, and don't feel bad, a lot of Catholics haven't either. It's a long book and it's written in obtuse language.

So, have you sinned?

Most likely yes. The matter is: in what degree?

Let us look at two points of reference

The Two Greatest Commandments
Love God with all your heart and mind, etc
and
Love your neighbor as yourself

If you've failed to do either, you (and or I) have sinned. Is it a serious sin or a less than serious sin? Depends, I guess.

Second point of reference

The conventional Ten Commandments.

It is easy to list them, and see which you have or have not broken at some point. Was it serious (mortal) or venial? Well, circumstances will probably tell us.

So, what do you do when you sin? (In this I mean "you" collectively, and I am included).

Either admit it, and try to make things right, or don't.

We will all sin. We are all prone to error. We are all gonna **** up.

None of us is perfect.

The measure of our character is what we do about our imperfections, and whether or not we make a good faith effort to reconcile with our neighbors, at the very least.

I note the venom you have spit at Avalon in this thread. As I see it, that's not in line with loving your neighbor as yourself.

What do you intend to do about that?

Your call.

Could you point out the venom. I went over the last two pages and have included his posts for your convenience.

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I understand some people calling themselves literalists disagree with me, yes. I also recognize that, at least in my experience, those people don't really understand the Bible or the implications of their position.

Translation: "My interpretation/understanding is correct; theirs is not."

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Can you identify a single difference between these texts that would have any doctrinal impact on Christianity whatsoever?

You're evading the question. You claimed you consult the "original autograph"; I claimed that is lost. So again: what do you consider the original autograph?

You've set yourself a nice cop-out by claiming that you're not bound by the OT's laws, but the question still remains: where there are differences between the MT and the LXX, which do you consider the true and accurate word of God?

And various passages of the OT do have bearing on the NT, as they contain (claimed) prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus' coming. Especially the one Brainache mentioned:

Originally Posted by Brainache

Well there is that whole "Born of a young woman"/"Born of a virgin" thing. That might get a little complicated.

which is taken up especially by Matthew.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

There are no word differences in different documents around this point.

Yes there are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14:

Quote:

The author of the gospel of Matthew used the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew word almah (a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, i.e., an unmarried virgin or a married young woman) as Greek parthenos (unequivocally a virgin) in support of his concept of the virgin birth of Jesus.[2] Scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity per se, but many conservative Christians still judge the acceptability of new bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14.

[pakeha]

@Elypsis44-Thanks for posting the translation.

Originally Posted by Marduk

...
would it be so bad to suddenly realise that your entire family going all the way back to the birth of civilisation has fallen victim to a confidence trick ...
Capisci
but...
if it isn't rendered in an East Semitic dialect, I won't be very impressed

I completely agree with with you, about the confidence trick, Marduk, and I for one am glad you spend the time to post regarding the Emperor's new clothes,
Even so I think you'll find the Sicilian gentleman's message transcends dialects.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Even so I think you'll find the Sicilian gentleman's message transcends dialects.

for a fictional character, thats an almost monotheistic god like power
i.e. only good on paper

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am not sure I am interested in talking to someone with a closed mind. Your posts in this thread show me that is what is going on, but since I may be wrong about that, I'll proceed.

I'm sorry, but you categorically state that all humans are sinners, without knowing any of us, and you accuse ME of being closed-minded?!

Protip: just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them closed-minded.

Quote:

If you go by Catholic teaching, you will find that there are three conditions to mortal sin:

The sound you're hearing is the sound of goalposts shooting across the field. First you have to define "sin". THEN we can talk about different types. The mortal/venial dichotomy only matters after you've proven that sin exists.

Quote:

I suspect you have not caught up, and don't feel bad, a lot of Catholics haven't either. It's a long book and it's written in obtuse language.

What is it with you theists and insulting people? I went to a Roman Catholic school where we had whole classes on the Catechism. Believe it or not, I know what the Catholic view on sin is. I'm not some supplicant begging knowledge from On High. I'm trying to get you to define sin so that we can see what YOU think of it. Which, up to now, you haven't done.

Quote:

So, have you sinned?

Most likely yes. The matter is: in what degree?

No, let's start at the beginning. Define sin, and THEN we can talk about who did what.

Quote:

I note the venom you have spit at Avalon in this thread. As I see it, that's not in line with loving your neighbor as yourself.

I haven't spat venom at Avalon. I've disagreed with him. Strongly at times, but still, all I've done is disagree with him. Besides, you don't know that it's not loving my neighbor as myself. First off, Avalon hasn't done what's required to BE my neighbor. Jesus has a parable on that topic. Second, you don't know what I consider loving myself. I come to forums like this specifically to have my arguments disected and ripped apart. Far as I'm concerned I'm doing Avalon a favor. YOU may not like it, but Jesus didn't say "Love everyone as Darth Rotor loves himself". That's left a lot of wiggle-room the RCC has exploited over the centuries.

Quote:

What do you intend to do about that?

Your call.

Let's see....That "venom" you speak of involves me calling Avalon out on insulting me. Avalon then said the magic words "I'm sorry" and thought that made the whole thing disappear, ignoring my point (that his argument wasn't valid, in that it attacked me not my argument). Avalon got his knickers in a twist and put me on his ignore list until he determined I could behave myself to his satisfaction. Then you come along and try to brow-beat me with the Bible, a book of highly questionable provenance, and demand I abide by the precepts of a religion I rejected nearly a decade ago.

What do I plan to do about all that? Frankly, I plan to drink beer, eat pizza, watch Futurama DVDs, and laugh at silly theists pretending that we all, deep down, in our heart of hearts, just KNOW that they're right and we're big meanies for not agreeing with you.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

the Bible, a book of highly questionable provenance, .

Quote:

The Babylonian Captivity had a number of serious effects on Judaism and the Jewish culture. For example, the current Hebrew script was adopted during this period, replacing the traditional Israelite script, followed by the emergence of the central role of the Torah in Jewish life; according to many historical-critical scholars, it was edited and redacted during this time, and saw the beginning of the canonization of the Bible,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
how very dare you call Babylonia highly questionable
if you were a 5thC BCE jew perhaps

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

We are all sinners. You don't have to be a literalist to believe that. It is part of the human condition.

You see, I rejected the nonsensical idea of sin quite a long time ago. I understand some still cling to it but for the love of whatever, leave me out of it. Especially that original sin crap.

Thanks.

ETA Ex-catholic, 8 years catholic school, altar boy, considered priesthood.

[The Dark Lord]

Sin is just doing something their invisible sky daddy doesn't like, right.

Of course, he also set it up so that it is impossible to not do stuff that he doesn't like. So that he gets to torture forever the tens of billions of people who don't get saved from his own wrath because they don't believe this crap.

Yeah, Christians, your god if he existed, would literally be the most evil being in existence. Thank the FSM that he doesn't.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What is it with you theists and insulting people?

Allow me to expand on this, Darth, because I genuinely don't think you understand what's happening here.

I'm not asking you to define "sin" because I don't know. Again, eight years of Catholic school, alter boy for 8, my father went to the sem, I learned how to double-fist drinks from Fr. O.--I'm familiar with RCC dogma. And I've taken to studying Medieval monasticism, which as far as I can tell is the purest form of Catholic observance. I actually know the definition. So the "Moses come down from the mountain" act is based on an unwarranted and insulting assumption: that because I disagree with you, I must not be aware of the things YOU are aware of. I am. I simply disagree.

So why did I ask? It was a rhetorical device to demonstrate two points: First, that you can't do it. You've proven that--your refusal to define "sin", preferring instead to prattle on about specific TYPES of sin, is all the evidence we need. It's not that you don't know the answer; rather, it's that you're so caught up in your own world-view that you're incapable of looking at the world through the other side's perspective. Google the term "goblin universe" sometime; it's a good trick to learn.

The other reason, and the more important one, you've also demonstrated: the concept of sin, as it's known in our culture, is dependent upon the concepts inherent to Christianity. If Christianity is wrong, sin--at least, in the modern (meaning post-Constantine view)--does not and CANNOT exist. Thus, to prove that we've sinned you must first demonstrate the validity of Catholic dogma, a task that's been attempted for two thousand years and which has never succeeded (the closest was Aquinas, and even he fell to hand-waving and "I have faith").

Again, I don't disagree with you because I'm ignorant of RCC dogma. I'm more than familiar with it--far more than many Christians and Roman Catholics that I've met. I disagree with you BECAUSE I know RCC dogma. So let's try this again, this time without you assuming that I'm too ignorant to hold up my end of the conversation: Please define "sin".

Marduk: Well, your quote says that the Bible, a book that didn't exist until the Council of Niccea, began to be cannonized during the Babylonian Captivity. There's a question right there.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

One of the often used explanations I ever heard is that time was measured differently in the past, that a season was considered a year. This still has the obvious problem that, if it were true, you'd still have people living in the excess of two hundred years old during a time when people only lived to 30's to 40's.

Plus, such a calender has never existed. Noah, for example, would have been living during the time that the Babylonian calender, which had 360 days to a year, was still in use (assuming he ever actually existed), which would still make him in excess of 900. And if this obviously fictional calender was in use when Yahweh said that the human lifespan would never exceed 120 from thence forth from Noah onward then that would mean human lifespan would never exceed 30, which it has. The human lifespan has also exceeded 120, which makes that claim doubly untrue.

I remember a suggestion that the years in question were lunar months but I haven't explored this further.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Marduk

http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Atrahasi.htm

When the gods instead of man
Did the work, bore the loads,
The gods' load was too great,
The work too hard, the trouble too much,
The great Anunnaki made the Igigi
Carry the workload sevenfold.
Anu their father was king,
Their counselor warrior Ellil,
Their Chamberlain was Ninurta,
Their canal-controller Ennugi.
They took the box of lots
Cast the lots; the gods made the division.
Anu went up to the sky,
And Ellil took the earth for his people.
The bolt which bars the sea
Was assigned to far-sighted Enki.
When Anu had gone up to the sky,
And the gods of the Apsu had gone below,
The Annunaki of the sky
Made the Igigi bear the workload.
The gods had to dig out canals,
Had to clear channels, the lifelines of the land.
The gods dug out the Tigris river
And then dug out the Euphrates.
...in the deep
...they set up
...the Apsu
...of the land
...inside it
...raised its top
...of all the mountains
They were counting the years of loads
...the great marsh,
They were counting the years of loads.
For 3,600 years they bore the excess,
Hard work, night and day.
They groaned and blamed each other,
Grumbled over the masses of excavated soil:

Let us confront our Chamberlain
And get him to relieve us of our hard work!
Come, let us carry the Lord
The counselor of the gods, the warrior from his dwelling.

Then...made his voice heard
And spoke to the gods, his brothers:

Come, let us carry
The counselor of the gods, the warrior, from his dwelling.
Come, let us carry Ellil,
The counselor of the gods, the warrior, from his dwelling.
Now, cry battle!
Let us mix fight with battle!

The gods listened to his speech,
Set fire to their tools,
Put aside their spades for fire,
Their loads for the fire-god.
They flared up.
When they reached the gate of warrior Ellil's dwelling,
It was night, the middle watch,
The house was surrounded, the god had not realized.
When they reached the gate of warrior Ellil's dwelling,
It was night, the middle watch,
Ekur was surrounded, Ellil had not realized.
Yet Kalkal was attentive, and had it closed,
He held the lock and watched the gate.
Kalkal roused Nusku.
They listened to the noise of the Igigi.
Then Nusku roused his master,
Made him get out of bed:

My lord, your house is surrounded,
A rabble is running around your door!
Ellil, your house is surrounded,

A rabble is running around your door!
Ellil had weapons brought to his dwelling.
Ellil made his voice heard
And spoke to the vizier Nusku,

Nusku, bar your door,
Take up your weapons and stand in front of me.

Nusku barred his door
Took up his weapons and stood in front of Ellil.
Nusku made his voice heard
And spoke to the warrior Ellil,

'O my lord, your face is sallow as Tamarisk!
Why do you fear your own sons?
'O Ellil, you face is sallow as Tamarisk!
Why do you fear your own sons?
Send for Anu to be brought down to you
Have Enki fetched into your presence.

He sent for Anu to be brought down to him,
Enki was fetched into his presence,
Anu, king of the sky was present,
Enki, king of the Apsu attended.
The great Anunnaki were present.
Ellil got up and the case was put.
Ellil made his voice heard
And spoke to the great gods:

Is it against me that they have risen?
Shall I do battle...?
What did I see with my own eyes?
A rabble was running around my door!

Anu made his voice heard
And spoke to the warrior Ellil

Let Nusku go out
And find out the word of the Igigi
Who have surrounded your door.
A command...
To...

Ellil made his voice heard
And spoke to the vizier Nusku,

Nusku, open your door,
Take up your weapons and stand before me!
In the assembly of all the gods,
Bow, then stand and tell them,
&QUOTYour father Anu,
Your counselor, warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta
And your canal-controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say,
Who is in charge of the rabble?
Who is in charge of the fighting?
Who declared war?
Who ran to the door of Ellil?&QUOT

Nusku opened his door,
Took up his weapons, went before Ellil
In the assembly of all the gods
He bowed, then stood and told the message.

Your father Anu,
You counselor warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta,
And your canal controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say
&QUOTWho is in charge of the rabble?
Who is in charge of the fighting?
Who declared war?
Who ran to the door of Ellil?&QUOT

Ellil...

Every single one of us declared war!
We have put a stop to the digging.
The load is excessive, it is killing us!
Our work is too hard, the trouble too much!
So every single one of us gods
Has agreed to complain to Ellil

Nusku took his weapons
Went and returned to Ellil

My lord, you sent me to...
I went...
I explained...
...
Saying &QUOTevery single one of us gods
Declared war
We have put a stop to the digging.
The load is excessive, it is killing us!
Our work is too hard, the trouble too much,
So every single one of us gods
Has agreed to complain to Ellil!&QUOT

Ellil listened to that speech.
His tears flowed.
Ellil spoke guardedly,
Addressed the warrior Anu,

Noble one, take a decree
With you to the sky, show your strength-
While the Anunnaki are sitting before you
Call up one god and let them cast him for destruction

Anu made his voice heard
And spoke to the gods his brothers,

What are we complaining of?
Their work was indeed too hard, their trouble was too much.
Every day the Earth resounded.
The warning signal was loud enough, we kept hearing the noise.
...do
...tasks
...
While the Anunnaki are sitting before you
And while Belet-Ili the womb goddess is present,
Call up one and cast him for destruction!

Anu made his voice heard and spoke to Nusku

Nusku, open your door, take up your weapons,
Bow in the assembly of the great gods, then stand
And tell them...
&QUOTYour father Anu, your counselor warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta and your canal controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say
&QUOTWho is in charge of the rabble? Who will be in charge of battle?
Which god started the war?
A rabble was running around my door!

When Nusku heard this,
He took up his weapons,
Bowed in the assembly of the great gods, then stood
And told them

Your father Anu, your counselor warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta and your canal controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say,
&QUOTWho is in charge of the rabble? Who is in charge of the fighting?
Which god started the war?
A rabble was running around Ellil's door!

...
Ea made his voice heard
And spoke to the gods his brothers,

Why are we blaming them?
Their work was too hard, their trouble was too much.
Every day the earth resounded.
The warning signal was loud enough, we kept hearing the noise.
There is...
Belet-ili the womb goddess is present-
Let her create a mortal man
So that he may bear the yoke...
So that he may bear the yoke, the work of Ellil,
Let man bear the load of the gods!
...
Belet-ili the womb goddess is present,
Let the womb goddess create offspring,
And let them bear the load of the gods!

They called up the goddess, asked
The midwife of the gods, wise Mami,

You are the womb-goddess, to be the creator of Mankind!
Create a mortal, that he may bear the yoke!
Let him bear the yoke, the work of Ellil
Let him bear the load of the gods!

Nintu made her voice heard
And spoke to the great gods,

On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month
I shall make a purification by washing.
Then one god should be slaughtered.
And the gods can be purified by immersion.
Nintu shall mix the clay
With his flesh and blood.
Then a god and a man
Will be mixed together in clay.
Let us hear the drumbeat forever after,
Let a ghost come into existence from the god's flesh,
Let her proclaim it as her living sign,
And let the ghost exist so as not to forget the slain god.

They answered &QUOTyes&QUOT in the assembly,
The great Anunnaki who assign the fates

On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month
He made a purification by washing.
Geshtu-E, a god who had intelligence,
They slaughtered in their assembly.
Nintu mixed clay
with his flesh and blood.
They heard the drumbeat forever after.
A ghost came into existence from the god's flesh,
and she proclaimed it as his living sign.
The ghost existed so as not to forget the slain god.
After she had mixed that clay,
She called up the Anunnaki, the great gods.
The Igigi, the great gods,
Spat spittle upon the clay
Mami made her voice heard
And spoke to the great gods,

I have carried out perfectly
The work that you ordered of me.
You have slaughtered a god together with his intelligence.
I have relieved you of your hard work,
I have imposed your load on man.
You have bestowed noise on man,
You have bestowed noise on mankind.
I have undone the fetter and granted freedom.

They listened to the speech of hers,
And were freed from anxiety, and kissed her feet:

We used to call you Mami,
But now your name shall be Mistress of All Gods.

Far sighted Enki and wise Mami
Went into the room of fate.
The womb-goddesses were assembled.
He trod the clay in her presence;
She kept reciting an incantation,
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces of clay,
And set seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left.
Between them she put down a mud brick.
She made use of a reed, opened it to cut the umbilical cord,
Called up the wise and knowledgeable
Womb goddesses, seven and seven.
Seven created males,
Seven created females,
For the womb goddess is creator of fate.
He...them two by two,
...them two by two in her presence.
Mami made these rules for people:

In the house of a woman who is giving birth
The mud brick shall be put down for seven days.
Belet-ili, wise Mami shall be honored.
The midwife shall rejoice in the house of the woman who gives birth
And when the woman gives birth to the baby,
The mother of the baby shall sever herself.
A man to a girl...
...her bosom
A beard can be seen
On a young man's cheek.
In gardens and waysides
A wife and her husband choose each other.

The womb goddesses were assembled
And Nintu was present. They counted the months,
Called up the Tenth month as the term of fates.
When the Tenth month came,
She slipped in a staff and opened the womb.
Her face was glad and joyful.
She covered her head,
Performed the midwifery,
Put on her belt, said a blessing.
She made a drawing in flour and put down a mud brick:

I myself created it, my hands made it.
The midwife shall rejoice in the house of the qadistu-priestess.
Whenever a woman gives birth
And the baby's mother severs herself,
The mud brick shall be put down for nine days.
Nintu the womb goddess shall be honored.
She shall call their ...&QUOTMami&QUOT
She shall ... the womb goddess,
Lay down the linen cloth.
When the bed is laid out in their house,
A wife and her husband shall choose each other.
Inanna shall rejoice in the wife-husband relationship
In the father-in-law's house.
Celebration shall last for nine days,
And they shall call Inanna &QUOTIshhara&QUOT.
On the fifteenth day, the fixed time of fate
She shall call...

...
A man...
Clean the home...
The son to his father...
...
They sat and...
He was carrying...
He saw...
Ellil...
They took hold of...
Made new picks and spades,
Made big canals,
To feed people and sustain the gods.
...
600 years, less than 600, passed,
And the country was as noisy as a bellowing bull.
The god grew restless at their racket,
Ellil had to listen to their noise.
He addressed the great gods,

The noise of mankind has become too much,
I am losing sleep over their racket.
Give the order that suruppu-disease shall break out,

...
Now there was one Atrahasis
Whose ear was open to his god Enki.
He would speak with his god
And his god would speak with him.
Atrahasis made his voice heard
And spoke to his lord,

How long will the gods make us suffer?
Will they make us suffer illness forever?

Enki made his voice heard
And spoke to his servant:

Call the elders, the senior men!
Start an uprising in your own house,
Let the heralds proclaim...
Let them make a loud noise in the land:
Do not revere your gods,
Do not pray to your goddesses,
But search out the door of Namtara.
Bring as baked loaf into his presence.
May the flour offerings reach him.
May he be shamed by the presents
And wipe away his hand.

Atrahasis took the order,
Gathered the elders to his door.
Atrahasis made his voice heard
And spoke to the elders:

I have called the elders, the senior men!
Start an uprising in your own house,
Let the heralds proclaim...
Let them make a loud noise in the land:
Do not revere your gods,
Do not pray to your goddesses,
But search out the door of Namtara.
Bring as baked loaf into his presence.
May the flour offerings reach him.
May he be shamed by the presents
And wipe away his hand.

The elders listened to his speech;
They built a temple for Namtara in the city.
Heralds proclaimed...
They made a loud noise in the land.
They did not revere their god,
they did not pray to their goddess,
But searched out the door of Namtara,
Brought a baked loaf into his presence
The flour offerings reached him.
And he was shamed by the presents.
And wiped away his hand.
The suruppu-disease left them.
The gods went back to their regular offerings.

I liked the Doctor Who take on this myth.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

The Real World^TM intervened in my life today so I'm just catching up with the Forum.

What a wonderful thread!

I have a vision of a parallel timeline in which Valentinus^* was elected Pope and Gnosticism became the Authoritative Truth. What wonderful discussions we could with an AvalonXP defending his belief in The Gospel of Thomas.

------------------------
^* http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm

I seem to remember at least two over at AH.com. Just don't mention Sealion.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Marduk: Well, your quote says that the Bible, a book that didn't exist until the Council of Niccea, began to be cannonized during the Babylonian Captivity. There's a question right there.

The Hebrew Bible began to be canonized there. The Christian Bible adopted the Hebrew one as the OT (wit hsome slight differences between denominations).

I'm a bit puzzled how this discussion of RCC dogma came into this thread. I thought it was about Biblical literalism, a phenomenon that, AFAIK, only (or nearly only) exists within Protestantism.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't mention time travel.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Marduk: Well, your quote says that the Bible, a book that didn't exist until the Council of Niccea, began to be cannonized during the Babylonian Captivity. There's a question right there.

or perhaps there's a simpler explanation

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by ddt

The Hebrew Bible began to be canonized there.

That's what I figured. I was just messing with him.

Quote:

I thought it was about Biblical literalism, a phenomenon that, AFAIK, only (or nearly only) exists within Protestantism.

It's difficult to find Biblical literalists in the RCC, but they do exist. Most RCC members aren't interested enough in religion to have an opinion, far as I can tell. The ones that do get a bit weird.

[Quad4_72]

Where did Avalon go? I see some pretty intelligent posts in here it would be nice to see his response to them.