# 2008:Noah's Ark FOUND? Who Was informed?



## StevieHification (Dec 11, 2011)

Was anyone informed on this?


----------



## jcal (Dec 12, 2011)

Is there a link or something?


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> Was anyone informed on this?


Yes, I got an Email with photographs of the ark. The sender offered to send me a fragment of the ark, "suitable for framing" for $19.37, but postage and handling was $1,595, so i had to pass up the offer. Did you get a fragment?

Isn't 2008 the year that an intact alien spaceship was found in New Jersey? I think that I got a similar offer on that, too.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

I read on the interwebs they found Santa's sleigh and the Easter Bunny's basket, too. Also Heracles' Nemean lion skin and King Arthur's sword Excalibur. It's so crazy that all those old allegorical myths turned out to be literal reality rather than parables.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

@ jcal, http://youtu.be/NamCI9pD6Bc here is the link.

@PhilinYuma, No I didn't get a fragment of the ark but that would be AWESOME! I never heard of an intact alien spaceship being found in 2008 in New Jersey. Tried to look up some information on it but none was found.

@Precarious, Your not mocking me in the beginning of your sentence are you? Cause I didn't find anything on those two, LOL! I also think it's way beyond crazy that all those old allegorical myths turned out to be reality and not parables.


----------



## rs4guy (Dec 12, 2011)

Pretty amazing if that is what it is. BUT I would think there would have been a MUCH larger celebration in archeology if that actually was the Ark. Considering there was next to no buzz, I doubt it.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

Exactly... It's not new news. Archeologist have been working on the site for more then 5 years now... They're 99% sure lol. Also why does it sit 12,000ft in Mt Ararat, Where the bible say's it lays? Hey at least Christians now have a history.


----------



## rs4guy (Dec 12, 2011)

Christians? Noah was Jewish sir  Remember, your old testiment is the Jewish Torah, written long before Christ roamed this earth.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> @Precarious, Your not mocking me in the beginning of your sentence are you? Cause I didn't find anything on those two, LOL! I also think it's way beyond crazy that all those old allegorical myths turned out to be reality and not parables.


Yeah, I was joking. You can't find something that never existed in the first place.

Ararat means simply large mountain or hill. At the time the Biblical verses were written (or should I say re-imagined from previous myths from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, Babylon, etc.) there was no mount Ararat. The location in Turkey was given that label much later and only due to its association with the Noah myth. Previously it was called Mount Masis. The Bible does not mention a location, only the "mountains of Ararat" (note "_mountains_" plural). No evidence of a locality known as Ararat has ever been found.

But don't take my word for it. Here is the opinion of Evangelicals directly involved with the find:

Dr. Randall Price, head of Judaic Studies at Liberty University, had been a cohort of the Noah's Ark Ministries International team until two years ago. He pulled out of the project, sensing they were being taken advantage of by Kurdish guides, who've turned Ark searching into a cottage industry.

"I think we can't rule out the possibility that this is a hoax, because a lot of the things that happen in that region of the world, and especially with the Kurdish guides that are involved, are designed to try to extract money from gullible people," Price said.

But he added: "I'm reserving my opinion at this point until I see how things are developing."

Dr. John Morris, lead archeologist at the Institute for Creation Research, says "I'm leaning towards that the Chinese people have been deceived."

Morris has led 13 expeditions to Mount Ararat looking for the ark. He knows the area well and says of the recent find, "At best, it is an elaborate deception."

More:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/30/noahs-ark-hoax-claim-doesnt-deter-believers/

Another Christian scholar, Liberty University archaeologist Dr. Randall Price, a veteran ark hunter, was involved at one point in this particular "discovery" but denies it has anything to do with The Real Noah's Ark™. Said Price:



I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).


To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut's men to the site saw the wood, but couldn't get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters - something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit [stet] (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.
More:

http://scienceblogs....g_is_a_fake.php
​
I realize this myth is tied into religion so people will hold to it and interpret it as literal history. You are all entitled to believe what you want, even if there is no real evidence or even the possibility of a literal event (i.e. fitting a pair of every animal on the earth on a wooden boat with enough food, etc.). Fortunately, I am not blind to the realities. I understand the difference between history and allegory. I can also recognize a retelling of an older tale.

Look into the Babylonian _Epic of Gilgamesh_ (2150-2000 BC) or Zoroastrianism's _Avesta_ (300-1700 BC). Or take a look at a few of the links below.

Solving the Noah's Ark Mystery

http://survive2012.c...p/noahsark.html

The Great Noah's Ark Hoax

http://www.examiner....noah-s-ark-hoax

The Myth of Noah's Ark

http://www.truthbeknown.com/noah.htm

Take all of that however you like. I would hope as adults we can see when the details of a story amount to a fairly tale. There are no giant boats that can hold representatives of all animals (unless we're talking about DNA), and there is not enough water on the planet to flood to the top of Ararat. So you've got to ask yourself what the story is really about. It is only once you quest for an understanding of allegory you stumble onto the esoteric level of myth/religion, which is where the real meat is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0KHt8xrQkk


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 12, 2011)

It must have been _planted _by the Christians to help substantiate their claims. Excellent job. I don't know how plausible this is, but "don't believe the hype", especially when there isn't any.


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 12, 2011)

LOL. "...Right..."


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

Ok so how do you explain things like Stone Henge, Easter Island, The Pyramids, Gobekli Tepe? So your telling me it's just a coincidence that Gobekli Tepe is within the same region as Noah's Ark? I don't think they had the knowledge let alone tools to carve out 15 ton blocks of granite and stack them on top of each other 8,000 years before the "earth was born". 12,000 some years ago. Also Gobekli Tepe was purposely buried though, But there is also the Anasazi who where even before that...


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

Oh and did you ever heard about any of the pyramids found this year? NO..... Media shunned it... The news don't tell you anything... Blood lines, Royalty, Illuminati, that stuff ain't fake. I think fiction is based on fact. It just cause people are so wound up with electronics and new technology and everyday struggle in this world that we are all lost in touch with our spiritual beings. I think we are spiritual beings in physical bodies. That's just how I see it though. Knock me if you want but you really think that people back in the day where more worried about living their lives or making these massive monuments? Making these massive monuments right? So you have to wonder what pushed these people (if any) to do this type of work and live such a life. The Sumerians even said that the Anunnaki (which literally translates into heaven and earth) made us. So that's how I'm going to take it.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

rs4guy said:


> Christians? Noah was Jewish sir  Remember, your old testiment is the Jewish Torah, written long before Christ roamed this earth.


The ark narrative has been extensively studied by adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as other Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> Knock me if you want but you really think that people back in the day where more worried about living their lives or making these massive monuments?


All I'm knocking is taking myth as history. That will lead you in circles and you'll never find truth that way. Not to mention we have no ancient WOODEN artifacts for a reason. Biological materials decay (if they are not fossilized), which is why we are left with only STONE artifacts. That's how archaeologists get away saying ancient cultures didn't have metal tools or pottery! Metal and pottery decay over a much shorter period. Incidentally stone artifacts can only be dated by biological materials found around them, which is not a very sure method considering what I've pointed out above.

I don't recall the Bible mentioning Noah's stoneworking skills and there is no Judaic iconography at Gobekli Tepe so there is no evidence of a connection between the supposed arc and Gobekli Tepe. Ararat is nearly 400 miles from Gobekli Tepe. That's not exactly close. Besides that, Gobekli Tepe is estimated to be 11,000 years old. According to Biblical scholars the world is only 6,000 years old!  Even if you tie the Noah myth back to the Babylonian _Epic of Gilgamesh_ that only takes us to about 2150 BC!

Stevie, you can't just mix and match without looking more closely at the facts like they do on Ancient Aliens. I mean _you can_ but I will call you out. I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm just pointing you in the right direction.


----------



## rs4guy (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> The ark narrative has been extensively studied by adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as other Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths.


Agreed, what are you arguing?


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> The ark narrative has been extensively studied by adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as other Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths.


He's pointing out that ALL of the Old Testament is an adoption of the Jewish Torah. Has nothing to do with who's studied or accepted it. It's a Judaic document. Period. Christians adopted it as part of the accepted form of the Bible. Or should I say Emperor Constantine inserted it even though it represents the Old Covenant vs Christ's New Covenant. There is great conflict between the old and new.

Here is a great book worth looking into...

Jehovah Unmasked!


----------



## meaganelise9 (Dec 12, 2011)

Another good book is The Bible as History by Werner Keller- talks a lot about archeological finds, if you're interested in that and real scientific explanations for things people thought were miracles. I find stuff like that interesting, and that's about the extent of my interest in the bible..


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

Precarious said:


> He's pointing out that ALL of the Old Testament is an adoption of the Jewish Torah. Has nothing to do with who's studied or accepted it. It's a Judaic document. Period. Christians adopted it as part of the accepted form of the Bible. Or should I say Emperor Constantine inserted it even though it represents the Old Covenant vs Christ's New Covenant. There is great conflict between the old and new.
> 
> Here is a great book worth looking into...
> 
> Jehovah Unmasked!





Precarious said:


> All I'm knocking is taking myth as history. That will lead you in circles and you'll never find truth that way. Not to mention we have no ancient WOODEN artifacts for a reason. Biological materials decay (if they are not fossilized), which is why we are left with only STONE artifacts. That's how archaeologists get away saying ancient cultures didn't have metal tools or pottery! Metal and pottery decay over a much shorter period. Incidentally stone artifacts can only be dated by biological materials found around them, which is not a very sure method considering what I've pointed out above.
> 
> I don't recall the Bible mentioning Noah's stoneworking skills and there is no Judaic iconography at Gobekli Tepe so there is no evidence of a connection between the supposed arc and Gobekli Tepe. Ararat is nearly 400 miles from Gobekli Tepe. That's not exactly close. Besides that, Gobekli Tepe is estimated to be 11,000 years old. According to Biblical scholars the world is only 6,000 years old!  Even if you tie the Noah myth back to the Babylonian _Epic of Gilgamesh_ that only takes us to about 2150 BC!
> 
> Stevie, you can't just mix and match without looking more closely at the facts like they do on Ancient Aliens. I mean _you can_ but I will call you out. I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm just pointing you in the right direction.


Ok so your telling me that petrified wood does not exist and that carbon dating it fake? Also I know the bible doesn't talk about Gobekli Tepe but that IS a place of worship... 400 miles is also a lot closer to Turkey then anywhere else. Coincidence then right? Everything we know of is just "coincidence" then? Obliviously not if we were wrong about the ancient history people we thought we knew. Again this isn't new news... It just because we're not informed. The Ark supposly found, it made petrified wood. You think it's perfectly good wood? Come on now.... Also if you've ever been to the Museum of Natural Arts down here in New Mexico there are hundreds of WOODEN and METAL artifacts from back in the day... So I don't know where you got that idea from that wood just decays.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

meaganelise9 said:


> Another good book is The Bible as History by Werner Keller- talks a lot about archeological finds, if you're interested in that and real scientific explanations for things people thought were miracles. I find stuff like that interesting, and that's about the extent of my interest in the bible..


I myself am Buddhist, but I think everyone has the right to believe in what they want to believe in. I just rather think that we're going to live and something miraculous happens other then Plant X to come down here and reck havoc on earth and we there's another great flood. Weather you like it or not, Planet X is real and it is going to be within our planet come Dec 21, 2012.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> Ok so your telling me that petrified wood does not exist and that carbon dating it fake? Also I know the bible doesn't talk about Gobekli Tepe but that IS a place of worship... 400 miles is also a lot closer to Turkey then anywhere else. Coincidence then right? Everything we know of is just "coincidence" then? Obliviously not if we were wrong about the ancient history people we thought we knew. Again this isn't new news... It just because we're not informed. The Ark supposly found, it made petrified wood. You think it's perfectly good wood? Come on now.... Also if you've ever been to the Museum of Natural Arts down here in New Mexico there are hundreds of WOODEN and METAL artifacts from back in the day... So I don't know where you got that idea from that wood just decays.


I guess you didn't read where I mentioned fossilization. Petrified wood is fossilized wood. A simple search would have cleared that up for you. Google, it's a modern miracle.  

The oldest North American metal artifact dates to no later than 2155 BC, but there is evidence of metal working as far as 10,000 BC in the middle east. That doesn't mean we have many/any metal artifacts from that era. And wooden artifacts are extremely rare. But that's neither here nor there.

If you want to believe God told a man to build a big boat and fill it with animals, that boat landed on top of a mountain in Turkey and, against all odds, still exists, even though Christian Evangelicals, those who want to believe the most, have pointed out it is a hoax, then go for it. :tt2: 

You're talking to someone that believes the official histories are bunk. But I don't believe what this freakazoid says...







I can see I'm talking to a wall so I won't waste any more effort.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

I didn't miss that part where you mentioned fossilization I was just pointing things out. Let it be what it is then, If it's a hoax then let it be a hoax. So if you don't believe in God or what the ancient Sumerians believed then what do you believe created man?


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> I didn't miss that part where you mentioned fossilization I was just pointing things out. Let it be what it is then, If it's a hoax then let it be a hoax. So if you don't believe in God or what the ancient Sumerians believed then what do you believe created man?


What I believe is not easily explained because I do not identify with any specific tradition.

I understand that much of religion is based on astrotheology so the myths contain a lot of allegorical references to knowledge about heavenly bodies. That being said, I can find value in most religious writings when viewed from that perspective. Spiritually I vibe most with the early Gnostsic Christians. You know, the ones the official church did their best to erase from history? There is good reason for that. They did not believe in the tyrannical, vengeful deity of the Old Testament, which they referred to as the Demiurge. They understood, as the later Hermeticists and Alchemists did, that consciousness is the universal source of all that there is, that consciousness is our link back to source, and that the journey to truth is a unique, individual experience - so inward is where to look for knowledge. The church would rather you look to them, so they corrupted the Gnostic message by merging the Old and New Testaments. That's why the Bible is a mess of contradictions. They combined completely opposing messages. Is God love or a god of war?

So to me what others refer to as God is the accumulated wholeness of all awareness, of which we are each a fragment. That's about as basic as I can get. I dread even stating that because it sounds corny and generic without all that I've learned to back it up. Science is slowly catching up with these ideas - at least theoretical physics is. The bottom line is you don't need religion or authority figures to find truth. Everything external to self is a distraction from truth, unless you view the world with a mature discerning eye won by prolonged self-analysis and honest, rational assessment.

You are the key to freedom. What you think and how you see the world is what creates your particular reality. I'm not talking about consensus reality, but your personal perspective on the world. No one can touch that unless you allow them to, it's the Holy of Holies, the inner sacrum, so if you fail to find truth it's because you allowed yourself to be mislead rather than struggle to find your own way.


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 12, 2011)

I absolutely LOVES IT! If you have never heard Dr. Wayne Dyer, I would suggest reading or viewing "The Power of Intention". I was just blindly flipping through the channels some years ago and stumbled upon this playing on PBS. I was in AWE at how I was feeling all my knowledge boil and bubble. I had so many "OMG" moments, pardon the pun, that I called up PBS during the pledge break, went the whole nine yards and donated the MAX. In return I received the "thank you" gift, "The WHOLE Enchilada"(as Dr.Dyer called it), of "The Power of Intention". Give it a go and tell me you don't get a good amount of "A-HA" moments out of it. If you do, I will have nothing else to say to you about it. :lol:


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm watching it right now... AWESOME STUFF! Have you ever heard of the "Laws of Attraction"? More power to me to who ever doesn't believe... Nuff said!


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

patrickfraser said:


> I absolutely LOVES IT! If you have never heard Dr. Wayne Dyer, I would suggest reading or viewing "The Power of Intention". I was just blindly flipping through the channels some years ago and stumbled upon this playing on PBS. I was in AWE at how I was feeling all my knowledge boil and bubble. I had so many "OMG" moments, pardon the pun, that I called up PBS during the pledge break, went the whole nine yards and donated the MAX. In return I received the "thank you" gift, "The WHOLE Enchilada"(as Dr.Dyer called it), of "The Power of Intention". Give it a go and tell me you don't get a good amount of "A-HA" moments out of it. If you do, I will have nothing else to say to you about it. :lol:


Thank you, Very deep stuff...


----------



## Precarious (Dec 12, 2011)

patrickfraser said:


> I absolutely LOVES IT! If you have never heard Dr. Wayne Dyer, I would suggest reading or viewing "The Power of Intention". I was just blindly flipping through the channels some years ago and stumbled upon this playing on PBS. I was in AWE at how I was feeling all my knowledge boil and bubble. I had so many "OMG" moments, pardon the pun, that I called up PBS during the pledge break, went the whole nine yards and donated the MAX. In return I received the "thank you" gift, "The WHOLE Enchilada"(as Dr.Dyer called it), of "The Power of Intention". Give it a go and tell me you don't get a good amount of "A-HA" moments out of it. If you do, I will have nothing else to say to you about it. :lol:


Never heard of Dr. Wayne Dyer but it appears he is just tapping into Hermetic ideas that have been around since ancient times. I haven't watched much of the video but that is my initial impression. Intention is the core of everything, but there is so much more to know. Things like The Secret are the empty fast food version of serious Hermetic philosophies. Take a look at the Kybalion if you want a serious rundown of Hermetic philosophy.


----------



## meaganelise9 (Dec 12, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> I myself am Buddhist, but I think everyone has the right to believe in what they want to believe in.





StevieHification said:


> So if you don't believe in God or what the ancient Sumerians believed then what do you believe created man?


If you're a Buddhist, why are you assuming someone/something created man?


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 12, 2011)

meaganelise9 said:


> If you're a Buddhist, why are you assuming someone/something created man?


Because Buddha did not create the Universe... Also I don't look at Buddha as a god a teacher if anything. Actually most Buddhist look at him at a teacher and not a god...


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 12, 2011)

I will check out The Kybalion. It looks like a lot to take in and digest on a full stomach.  Maybe when I get hungry, I'll delve deeper into it. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 12, 2011)

You'll find the Kybalion pretty straightforward and quite modern; I think that was first published only about a hundred years ago. What often puzzles me about folks who look for "answers" in ancient mystical texts from distant lands like Israel or Tibet, is how they understand the context of what they read. It took me about seven years of steady work to understand the politics, art and social norms of England in the C19 and I was born and raised there.

If you are looking for a practical way to seriously improve your life, I warmly recommend Michael Pollack's_ In Defense of Food._

Perhaps the biggest differenmce between this and rhe philosophical wonders of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is that to make it work, you actually have to do something.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 13, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> You'll find the Kybalion pretty straightforward and quite modern; I think that was first published only about a hundred years ago. What often puzzles me about folks who look for "answers" in ancient mystical texts from distant lands like Israel or Tibet, is how they understand the context of what they read. It took me about seven years of steady work to understand the politics, art and social norms of England in the C19 and I was born and raised there.
> 
> If you are looking for a practical way to seriously improve your life, I warmly recommend Michael Pollack's_ In Defense of Food._
> 
> Perhaps the biggest differenmce between this and rhe philosophical wonders of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is that to make it work, you actually have to do something.


It's all just about getting a different perspective on things. And like you said, the Kybalion is a modernized presentation of ancient ideas which eliminates many of the contextual issues. You don't need to know who came up with an idea, where/when they lived, or what they had for diner to understand that idea. Especially when we're discussing what could be considered universal principles. I mean, Sir Isaac Newton was a well know Alchemist and Hermeticist but that doesn't matter when engaging his more traditionally accepted works, right?

I know you don't believe anything you can't see and quantify, so I don't expect this to ring true to you, but when I find an idea that resonates with me and reflects my personal experiences none of those degrees you covet mean much. I don't care about the education of who said it so long as it speaks to me and makes sense. We've seen plenty of recent examples of experts not knowing their azz from a hole in the ground regarding the economy, global warming and so on. We have plenty of examples from history of self-taught individuals that changed the world. Nikola Tesla didn't have a degree. He dropped out. And you don't have to be an expert to read articles and opinions written by experts. That's what a lot of these researchers do. They read and collate data from diverse sources to form a perspective outside of the mainstream.

Some people take responsibility for their own education which allows for a clean break from the status quo and without that we'd likely see less innovation in the world. I guess it's a matter of choice. Personally, I've ALWAYS had issues with authority figures, and my punk rock roots encouraged me to question all authority. Those ideas felt right to me, so I embraced them. Even though the lyricist didn't have a degree in philosophy, musical theory, or poetry, and I didn't know the context in which he chose to write them, where he lived, etc. None of that matters if the ideas connect with you.

Man, I've got diarrhea of the keyboard today. That's what happens when I only get 4 hours sleep. :sleep1:


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 13, 2011)

Sleep deprived or not, Henry, that sounds like a very persuasive manifesto. As for your statement that I don't believe in anything that is not tangible and quantifiable, I think that that is pretty accurate, though I have a fairly well developed aesthetic sense, so I can enjoy music (Sunny and i are into psy right now, but i can't get her excited by classical music) the novel and poetry, though I am very academic and rigorous in my analysis and a number of my kids' HS teachers have driven me wild with their ignorance.

And yes, of course, our outlook on the world, however well rationalized, has a huge emotional component. Sunny and I, by a curious chance both suffer from a disorder that makes us very bad at reading the expressions of others or sharing their emotions, and are to an extent, emotionally constricted as a condition, not a response. Our end of the spectrum is usually accompanied by a very high verbal IQ and an above average math component, so we have decided that the trade off is in our favor.

Predictably, I strongly oppose the Paterian (WWalter Pater, Wilde's professor) dictum that we should be true "not to mere fact but to our personal sense of fact". That for me is just solipsistic rubbish.

But no, I think that it really does help to know that while Newton was familiar with and perhaps persuaded by the philosophy of his day, including certainly alchemy (I really haven't read his thoughts on hermeticism), and that he wrote his Optics to the greater glory of God., a fact (I just checked!) not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, an omission that removes us slightly from what the man was saying. I think that you summarised the wasted time at the end of Einstein's life when he was trying to demolish the quantum theory. You will remeber, though, that a major reason for this futuile recvisinism was his belief that "God doesn't play dice with the universe". Again, an understanding of a man and his period can help us understand what he is saying. In the last chapter of Gulliver's Travels, Swift maintains his story is the absolute truth and quotes Sinonen from the Aeneid: -NEC SI MISERUM FORTUNA SINONEM FINXIT, VANUM ETIAM, MENDACEMQUE IMPROBA FINGET. I'm sure that we could translate that on Google, but unless we've read the Aeneid we won't know that when Sinonen protested his veracity to the sceptical Trojans, he was lying in his teeth.

And so it goes. Always a pleasure, Hennry, and perhaps I need a little sleep , too.


----------



## ismart (Dec 13, 2011)

It was so nice of those aliens to help Noah with his ark!  :lol:


----------



## Precarious (Dec 13, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> Sleep deprived or not, Henry, that sounds like a very persuasive manifesto...


Well I could certainly agree with all of that. And, no doubt, context is very important and adds a whole new level of appreciation for any subject. Hope I didn't overstate my case that even without context there is much value to be found in ideas.

I've got to comment, too, that you are the most well read person I've probably ever met. It's rare I find someone who is up on so many subjects in such great detail. Even if you do research spot checking as you go, like I do, to double check. I like to do that to make sure my memory isn't lying to me. It's good positive reinforcement. That being said, yes, I totally understand the context under which Einstein struggled against the mysteries of the quantum world. And kudos that you even know the "dice" quote. One of my favorites. It impacted me deeply when I was first reading up on Quantum Physics. I left all of that out of my little joke about Einstein's sanity for simplicity's sake.

Yeah, I'm with you. A "personal sense of fact" is bull. Very similar to the Neo-Conservative dictum "Lie until people start to believe you". If what you believe doesn't make sense even to yourself you are just lying to yourself - and that's not TRUTH. That's my concern: truth. Even still, my sense of truth varies greatly from the consensus reality version of truth.

I think I know what you're talking about. I'm up on Aspergers. Self-diagnosed, but with some qualities at odds with general symptoms, mainly hypersensitive empathy. I'm overly perceptive to others' emotions to the point I was emotionally crippled. (I wonder if most others instead shut down perception to compensate?) All better now, but I would agree the passion for research is a huge asset. How do you think I picked up on photography so fast? *OBSESSION!*

As far as Newton goes...

You can't have Alchemy without Hermetics. It is a branch of Hermetics, the art of physically expressing higher spiritual realities that they may be observed directly, under the assumption "as above, so below". You may already know that the term "hermetic seal" originates with the Hermetic art of Alchemy.

Ha-ha! Funny about the psy-trance. That's all I listened to for more than a few years. First thing in the morning and as I fell asleep each night. I was part of a production company in Philadelphia that put on psy events so I had access to everything my DJ buddies had. Fun scene. I'm partial to the dark, hard stuff as well as the more abstract, stripped down flavor coming out of France for a while there (3.turn,

.


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 13, 2011)

StevieHification said:


> I didn't miss that part where you mentioned fossilization I was just pointing things out. Let it be what it is then, If it's a hoax then let it be a hoax. So if you don't believe in God or what the ancient Sumerians believed then what do you believe created man?


I have no idea what created man, but I am perfectly okay with leaving it at that. I doubt anyone will ever KNOW how man was created either. If I had to guess though, I'd say there is some sort of scientific explanation.


----------



## crucis (Dec 14, 2011)

i don't think man needed creating, any more than a mantis needs creating. In the big picture, humans are functionally similar to any other multi-cellular organism out there - we aren't really special in any way. Assuming there had been a creator, I suggest that He stuck around just long enough to make sure proteins worked and the most basic of cells could replicate (things like these are the true miracles). Then He went on to do other more important things.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 14, 2011)

Man is essentially a permanent and immortal principle; only his bodies pass through the cycle of birth and death. The immortal is the reality; the mortal is the unreality. During each period of earth life, reality thus dwells in unreality, to be liberated from it temporarily by death and permanently by illumination.

_Manly P. Hall - The Secret Teachings of All Ages_


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 15, 2011)

http://www.christian-apologetics-resources-and-education.com/Purpose-of-Man.html

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"...So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26a, 27

"Did God create to have companionship? Yes He did, but not for the reason commonly thought. God is not lonely without mankind, because He is in an eternal relationship within the Trinity. He did not need mankind in order to fulfill Himself or any need, because He is by definition 'needless'. He created because that is what a Creator does, and He created man so that He could express His Loving nature by giving:

Now this is really interesting. Here is a gentleman who not only knows the mind of God but knows it better than those who "commonly think" otherwise. He may be right. Manly P. Hall may be right, though whether or not we agree with them has no bearing on the accuracy of their worldly or heavenly view. On one level, it may be delightful to embrace the world view of someone we revere, but in doing so, we have to reject as flawed or nonsensical (read up on much Scientology lately?) just about everyone else's

I could argue that Man was created a little lower than the Mantis. The mantis maintains his place in the biomass, neither increasing nor decreasing significantly over time until conditions change to cause his extinction on the species level. Mantids do not destroy their environment. Man, frequently with a higher birthrate than deathrate, continues to swarm over the planet willy nilly, destroying natural resources and driving more species to extinction than any creature has done before. Mantids may kill each other for food. Men kill each other for fun ot hate and seldom eat their kill.

But. This afternoon I went to see young Sunny on her return from visiting her boyfriend in LA. As usual, we talked solidly for the four hours that I was there. We settled several important world problems as well as a couple of personal issues and made an interesting concoction of shrimp simmered in diced tomatoes, "creamed" with coconut milk. As I left, I said how good it was to talk to her again after her week's absence, and she said "We'll talk again tomorrow, right?" Mantids can't do that yet.


----------



## Orin (Dec 15, 2011)

Precarious said:


> ...Old Covenant vs Christ's New Covenant. There is great conflict between the old and new.


 Then you have not read both. There is no truth in your statement.


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Dec 15, 2011)

If we knew who or what created "Man" we would need to be a much more advanced form of life than we are now, and would have obtained knowledge by then that would be very close to infinite. Hunger, greed and war would be a long forgotten bad dream. But for now were just like pre-schoolers wanting knowledge that only someone with a doctoral/MD degree has, its a work in progress, and till then we can believe or not believe in anything we see fit.

Well that my view on things anyway, as I believe in GOD but I'm not sure what that really means I'm believing in? And that's OK by me.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 15, 2011)

Orin said:


> Then you have not read both. There is no truth in your statement.


I know apologists do mental gymnastics to try to make sense of it. Seems pretty straight forward to me. No point in debating beliefs.

*Old Testament*

"Jehovah is a Man of War, Jehovah is his name."

Exodus 15:3

"For you must not prostrate yourself to another god, because Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, he is a jealous God."

Exodus 34:14

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives raped."

Isaiah 13:15-16 (discussing "the LORD and the weapons of his wrath")

"So therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Numbers 31:17-18 (Moses commanding the Jews after they conquered the Midianites.)

*New Testament*

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Matthew 5:9

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Corinthians 13:4-7

"There is no fear in Love; but Perfect Love casteth out all fear because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."

John 4:18


----------



## Orin (Dec 16, 2011)

Precarious said:


> I know apologists do mental gymnastics to try to make sense of it. Seems pretty straight forward to me.


You simply posted some unrelated posts out of context. Some speak of war and some of love and you haven't even tried to come up with related subjects.


----------



## Colorcham427 (Dec 16, 2011)

where am I???? Is this real????


----------



## Precarious (Dec 16, 2011)

Orin said:


> You simply posted some unrelated posts out of context. Some speak of war and some of love and you haven't even tried to come up with related subjects.


Under what context are the acts described in the Old Testament quotes acceptable to you? They were done at the command of Jehovah.

You are welcome to produce quotes that counter those I've posted. Let's hear what Jesus had to say about war. Was he into smashing the heads of children and rape? No.

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues."

Matthew 10:16-17

Synagogues, where they worship Jehovah. The wolves are the ones who like to smash the heads of children and rape. You may remember them from the Old Testament.

He did speak of a sword, but a sword is not war. It symbolizes cutting ties, as in turning people away from the old way - Jehovah.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

Matthew 10:34-36

So you either follow Jehovah or Christ, the old paradigm or the new one, and that will come between families.

Earlier he mentions this:

"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!"

Matthew 10:24-25

Who do you think he is referring to here as "Beelzebub" as he goes on to discuss dividing families because members still follow Jehovah, and "the head of the house has been called Beelzebub". If you think he meant Satan then why didn't he say Satan? Because they are two different characters in this story.

"Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? _And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out?_ So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Matthew 12:25-28

What did he mean by "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out?" Sounds a lot like he is saying they follow Beelzebul, especially when taking into consideration the preceding statement. REMEMBER: _he was stating this to the Pharisees._ He is also then stating that demons serve Beelzebul (i.e. Jehovah). Read it again and remember who he is talking to.

Earlier...

"Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?""

Matthew 12:9

A man in a synagogue, where they worship Jehovah, looking for a reason to accuse him. Do you seriously not see how the followers of Jehovah are cast as evil throughout the New Testament?

Bare in mind, I'm not a Biblical scholar. Nor am I even Christian. I do not see it as the world of God. It was written by men and made official by other men - Constantine and his cohorts. And men always have motives for their actions. In Constantine's case it was unification of Rome's conquered lands - convert or die, I might add. I can look at all of this in the spirit of Logic (the real meaning of the purposefully mistranslated Logos) because I am not tied to a specific interpretation dictated to me by tradition.

I have no intention of changing your opinion. I'm only stating my own. You can be assured that I have done much research that led me to these opinions. Considering I've seen what there is to see in that book and found obvious meaning for myself it would be very difficult to shake my conclusions. I will always, however, remain open-minded but they would have to be very logical and convincing ideas.

That being said, I hope you are not offended by my opinions. That is not my intention at all.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 16, 2011)

Orin said:


> You simply posted some unrelated posts out of context. Some speak of war and some of love and you haven't even tried to come up with related subjects.


Here are a few quotes from the Old Testament concerning Jehovah, the dweller in darkness, to think about. Remember that when you see "lord" in all caps it said "Jehovah" in the original texts. I used the King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) for the quotes since later versions were cleaned up quite a bit to help hide the connection between Jehovah and darkness.

This first one sounds an awful lot like the classic Devil's deal...

"And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call _thee_ by thy name, _am_ the God of Israel."

Isaiah 45:3

"Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness."

1 Kings 8:12

"Then said Solomon, The LORD hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness."

2 Chronicles 6:1

"Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end _is_ it for you? the day of the LORD _is_ darkness, and not light."

Amos 5:18

"The great day of the LORD _is_ near, _it is_ near, and hasteth greatly, _even_ the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of ruin and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness..."

Zephaniah 1:14-15

"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him _were_ dark waters _and_ thick clouds of the skies."

Psalm 18:11

"And the people stood far off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was."

Exodus 20:21

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."

1 Kings 22:23

Does this sound like the good guy to you? Sounds more like Darkness from the movie Legend.


----------



## minard734 (Dec 16, 2011)

I don't agree that the Old and New testament contradict. I DO see where you are coming. You are a very educated man and I see that you have studied this subject a lot. I just don't agree.

God is the Lion and The Lamb. Also, there were prophesies of a messiah in the Old Testament and Jesus fulfills them. One more thing... The happening of Christs death drastically changed things. We are no longer slaves.

Just my 2 cents.

You are all entitled to your own opinion if you have looked deep into the subject and continue to dig deeper. One should never EVER say that there opinion will not be budged at all. Often details change due to digging deeper.

Interesting thread. I don't think it's Noah's ark though. It is probably a ship that was used to send livestock from shore to shore. I could be wrong though. It just seems to me that it would be deeper under the ground. Ey?

You see I don't think what most Creationists think. This world can not be 6,000 years old. Some Yew trees are actually said to be older than that (though their ages have not been confirmed like the 4,500+ year old Bristle-cone pines). Carbon dating isn't the best method so I don't believe this world is billions of years old. I mean... just my opinion. Seems far too old. Carbon dating past a certain age is really not accurate. But yes. This world must be over 10,000 years old. There are things we can trace back to then and it seems like civilization was already well established. So yeah... it's even OLDER than that!

Just my opinion. Feel free to point out mistakes above in my text or inaccuracies. Would love to know.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 16, 2011)

Ryan Minard said:


> Just my opinion. Feel free to point out mistakes above in my text or inaccuracies. Would love to know.


The followers of Jehovah did not accept Jesus as the fulfillment of their prophesies. That's why we now have Jews and Christians.  

I look around me and see a world enslaved. I also see the people beginning to rise against the oppressors, and I would agree that is the spirit of Christ awakening within them. But I see Christ as Truth and Logic, rather than the person mythicized within the Gospels. The Gnostics understood this.

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

The Gospel According to Thomas

I'm just glad we can all agree to get along!  

See how mantids bring us all together?

Word origin:

*mantis*

1658, "type of insect that holds its forelegs in a praying position" (esp. the praying mantis, Mantis religiosa), from Gk. mantis, lit. "one who divines, a seer, prophet," from mainesthai "be inspired," related to menos "passion, spirit" (see mania). The insect so called for its way of holding the forelimbs as if in prayer. Also used in Gk. for some sort of grasshopper (Theocritus).

Fun stuff! More fun things to think about...

I would have to agree with you on Carbon dating. Especially considering the recent discovery that _emanations from the sun are effecting the rate of radioactive decay!!!_

*Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?*

When probing the deepest reaches of the Cosmos or magnifying our understanding of the quantum world, a whole host of mysteries present themselves. This is to be expected when pushing our knowledge of the Universe to the limit.

But what if a well-known -- and apparently constant -- characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?

This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are _changing_. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values _aren't supposed to change_. School textbooks teach us this from an early age.

This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.

...

As the Earth is closer to the sun during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere (our planet's orbit is slightly eccentric, or elongated), could the sun be influencing decay rates?

In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun.

Did the sun somehow communicate with the manganese-54 sample? If it did, something from the sun would have had to travel _through_ the Earth (as the sample was on the far side of our planet from the sun at the time) unhindered.

The sun link was made even stronger when Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, suggested that the Purdue scientists look for other recurring patterns in decay rates. As an expert of the inner workings of the sun, Sturrock had a hunch that solar neutrinos might hold the key to this mystery.

Sure enough, the researchers noticed the decay rates vary repeatedly every 33 days -- a period of time that matches the rotational period of the core of the sun. The solar core is the source of solar neutrinos.

...

http://news.discover...y-particle.html


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 16, 2011)

I never thought that i would have the pleasure of seeing two of the more prominent correspondents on this forum debating the merits of covenantalism and dispentationalism. The following dialogue just about summarizes my own views on the debate and the attitude of Christians towards each other., and if it may seem humorous, its point is very sad.

The scene : Two East end [of London] blokes in their late teens have been discussing beatbox dubstep and looking back to the "old" days (mid nineties?) when dubstep was making a splash in England. They recall English performers, and their relative merits.

Tom:Yeah, well, Forward was important, but I think that Martin's "God" was the real groundbreaker, earth shaker..

Jerry: Then you haven't listened to them both. That kinda talk is just B.S.

T [changing subject] Oh I went to fix the speaker console at that R.C. place, Our Lady of Perpetual Gloom. They were having some kind of ceremony. A guy in a long dress was standing up front and asking the rest of the people questions and they answered all together and kept bobbing up and down and kneeling to him. And the place sure smelled of incest.

J; Onanism? Or the kind that they set on fire and then try to put out by swinging it over their heads?

T Didn't look that close, i wanted to avoid an "occasion of sin". Tell ya what, though. We all know about the "perfidious Jew" and the antichrist muslims who are trying to sell white girls into slavery in Manchester, but these so-called "Christian" sects like the RC's and the Unitarians and Presbyterians and all that lot, are all darkness [a term used by my dear mother to describe Christian sects other than the Strict Plymouth Brethren] so far as i can see.

J Yeah. I sometimes wish that i had lived in the Reformatioon when Protestants all spoke with one strong, clear voice, instead opf like now, when even so many denominations have fallen away from the True Faith. Like when you were talking about that performance at the RC place. A lot of denominations who are covenantalists believe in church services like they had in the O.T. If tjhe R.C.s are anathema, i have to wonder about them, too.

T: Did you know that they are still a majority of Protestant Christians? But considering that God only revealed the truth of dispensationism less than 200 year's ago, the True Word is catching on fast.

J: You're right there, but even so, although we might agree on something lke soteriology, there are still a few old-school Scofield followers out there, and therir prophetic readings of Revelations are pretty far out.

T: Oh, I con't know, I think that some of them are pretty interesting, just my two pence, you know. Like that one about Revelations describing helicopters as signs of the last days,,,

J:: Come off it mate. There aren't going to be many of us True Believers in heaven (many are called but few are chosen), anyway; I don't want to be the only one!

T. Well all this talk has made me hungry let's get a vindaloo. AsianDawn makes the best chicken vindaloo around here.

J. Then you obviously haven't eaten Habibi's, or you don't recognize a good kebab when you taste one!

"And the peace of God that passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ our Lord."


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 16, 2011)

These were all written in a time when people KNEW the world was flat. They also DIDN'T KNOW where the sun went at night time. They were written by primitive men who believed there was an invisible man who lived in the sky who watched and controlled everything that happened. No different then lighting bolts coming from Zues, or tidal waves coming form Neptune. Modern science was nearly 2000 years away, at a minimum. It's crazy what you can get people to believe if you threaten their afterlife, no matter how whacky the stories. It's also a good business to get into..... a burning bush told me so.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 17, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> I never thought that i would have the pleasure of seeing two of the more prominent correspondents on this forum debating the merits of covenantalism and dispentationalism. The following dialogue just about summarizes my own views on the debate and the attitude of Christians towards each other., and if it may seem humorous, its point is very sad.
> 
> The scene : Two East end [of London] blokes in their late teens have been discussing beatbox dubstep and looking back to the "old" days (mid nineties?) when dubstep was making a splash in England. They recall English performers, and their relative merits.


What a load of [email protected]! Dubstep didn't even exist in the 90's. It was Jungle, Break Beat, then TECHstep. Dubstep is a much more recent phenomena, but essentially the sounds of Techstep with a half-time beat and different structuring. The references to Dubstep artists in the 90's is completely unfounded since they lack the characteristic wobble bass, which is the defining aspect of Dubstep in addition to the "drop" portion in which mayhem ensues.

There was no equivalent to this in the 90's...

So, though the roots of Dubstep are inexorably linked to the trinity of Jungle/Rave/Glitch it did not manifest until the passing of the new millennium. It represents the new covenant between technology and music, and a fulfillment of the style prophesied by the Old School Techno sects.

Or did I miss your point? :tt2:


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 17, 2011)

I enjoyed your rant so much, Henry, that i'm happy to overlook the fact that i never said when it started, for good reason. Love that wobble, but I see the genre defined by that drum note followed by a pause --usually -- and then a base note that was sometimes an octave or more lower, or, as we musicologists would say, "someone dropped a clanger". The question, and it is harder to pin down than many religious arguments, is when its precursor, Brit garage morphed into dubstep. I remember in a visit to my home town, London, around 1998 doing a pub crawl through the usual riverside establishments and hearing what sounded a lot like the dubstep that emerged into the US consciousness in the early C21 when I was in SD.

Of course, you must also remember that the US often tends to be a few yars behind Britain. The Beatles were a hit in England before they were "discovered" on their first US tour. And remember WWII? Declared in December of 1941 for you chaps, I think, when Hitler declared war on you 4 days after Pearl, with no engagements until Spring of '42. The Brits declared war on Germany in 1939.

That was such fun that i really must have a chat with you later about your lack of trust in radioactive carbon dating.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 17, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> The scene : Two East end [of London] blokes in their late teens have been discussing beatbox dubstep and looking back to the "old" days (mid nineties?) when dubstep was making a splash in England. They recall English performers, and their relative merits.





PhilinYuma said:


> I enjoyed your rant so much, Henry, that i'm happy to overlook the fact that i never said when it started, for good reason.
> 
> ...
> 
> That was such fun that i really must have a chat with you later about your lack of trust in radioactive carbon dating.


I was just having some fun using a rant to make fun of my previous rants. I don't know when Dubstep started but considering it's hitting big in 2011 and previous trends generally hit within about 5 years of inception, I would doubt it goes back very far. Not that it matters in the least. Just saw it as a good reason to jump on you and make fun of myself. :stuart: 

Do fill us in on whether or not the latest changes found in radioactive decay rates have any effect on carbon dating. I'm not up on the technical end of the process.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 17, 2011)

HoldThePickle said:


> These were all written in a time when people KNEW the world was flat. They also DIDN'T KNOW where the sun went at night time. They were written by primitive men who believed there was an invisible man who lived in the sky who watched and controlled everything that happened. No different then lighting bolts coming from Zues, or tidal waves coming form Neptune. Modern science was nearly 2000 years away, at a minimum. It's crazy what you can get people to believe if you threaten their afterlife, no matter how whacky the stories. It's also a good business to get into..... a burning bush told me so.


I'm with you. Religion is a racket. Still some interesting wisdom in select texts, but if you take allegory as literal history it loses all value.

I would have to strongly disagree about the ancients not knowing the world was round or where the sun went at night. Don't mistake allegory using heavenly bodied as characters with the extent of their astronomical knowledge. Mankind had likely been tracking the course of the stars and planets for hundreds of thousands of years. Their survival depended upon accurate prediction of the seasons, and hunters used the advantage of full moons to track prey at night.

There is no question ancient cultures understood the earth was round and revolved around the sun. They couldn't have built megalithic structures able to predict eclipses and other astronomical events otherwise. It was only after formation of the Catholic church and their declared war on knowledge that mankind entered the Dark Ages. The Holy Roman Empire did all that it could to wipe out any records of previous human knowledge. They collected documents to hoard for themselves that still rot in the bowels of the Vatican vaults.


----------



## jrh3 (Dec 17, 2011)

i see one answer, can you prove the bible to be wrong? no questions or replies, i dont think you can.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 17, 2011)

jrh3 said:


> i see one answer, can you prove the bible to be wrong? no questions or replies, i dont think you can.


That's not even a legitimate question. Wrong about what???

Can you prove Star Wars is wrong?

Can you prove the color green is wrong?

Can you prove Bugs Bunny is wrong?

Can you prove committing evil is wrong?

"No questions or replies, i dont think you can."

...

Technically, you can't prove a negative.

*Argument from ignorance*, also known as _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

*Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.*

More:

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

...

The real question is, can you prove the Bible is right? That's a big NO.


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 18, 2011)

Right or wrong is just an individual's interpretation of the situation based on their past experiences and teachings as to it's "rightness" or "wrongness".

Precarious is RIGHT!


----------



## Orin (Dec 18, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Under what context are the acts described in the Old Testament quotes acceptable to you? They were done at the command of Jehovah.
> 
> I have no intention of changing your opinion. I'm only stating my own. You can be assured that I have done much research that led me to these opinions. Considering I've seen what there is to see in that book and found obvious meaning for myself it would be very difficult to shake my conclusions. I will always, however, remain open-minded but they would have to be very logical and convincing ideas.
> 
> That being said, I hope you are not offended by my opinions. That is not my intention at all.


Usually people who come up with wild theories about the bible haven't read a word of it but you seem to at least pull quotes and yet they don't seem relevant to your argument. How do I argue the irrelevance of something that's already that way? That's an interesting tactic. Jesus uses dozens of words and phrases to describe the devil including the prince of lies and your thought that each and every description is a different deity is a child of lies. I find it interesting that you mention that in the beginning was logos and the logos was God and yet you look and you can’t see. Isn’t the logic of men foolishness?


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

Orin said:


> Usually people who come up with wild theories about the bible haven't read a word of it but you seem to at least pull quotes and yet they don't seem relevant to your argument. How do I argue the irrelevance of something that's already that way? That's an interesting tactic. Jesus uses dozens of words and phrases to describe the devil including the prince of lies and your thought that each and every description is a different deity is a child of lies. I find it interesting that you mention that in the beginning was logos and the logos was God and yet you look and you can’t see. Isn’t the logic of men foolishness?


Yes, the logic of men is foolishness. So then why believe what other men wrote in a book and claim God wrote through them, instead of using your own god-given faculties? Your faith boils down to that. Whether or not you believe that a collection of texts gathered from diverse location and across thousands of years, in some cases offering alternate and conflicting versions of the same "events", are the inspired word of God, and that other texts from the same period or before, upon which the New Testament Gospels are based, are false because a Roman emperor decided not to include them as he gathered his mechanism of social control intended to consolidate the conquered world. Sounds reasonable to me.  

You dropping a line here and there just stating that I am wrong without supplying any evidence to back your claim, other than pointing out things were "already that way", does not do much good to defend your position. I guess it doesn't matter since this is really a discussion of belief and belief is a matter of choice;


Do you choose to believe what tradition tells you to believe? Or the evidence of your own eyes and mind?




Do you believe in Logos as "the word", written law, open to interpretation and manipulation? Or Logos as "logic", the power of reason, and key to TRUTH?


To my eyes it appears Christians have been tricked into worshiping the very "god" Christ came to turn them from.

Jehovah/Yahweh is a jealous god, full of contempt for any who won't fall to their knees and worship him. He is prone to fits of rage that sometimes end with the destruction of the population of nearly the whole planet. He appears as a column of smoke and fire, and dwells "in thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12, 2 Chronicles 6:1, 2 Samuel 22:12, Zephaniah 1:14-15, Exodus 20:21, to mention a few). He makes promises of "the treasures of darkness" in return for worship (Isaiah 45:3), and plants spirits within his enemies that cause them to lie (1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:18-22, Judges 9:23, Ezekiel 14:9). He tricks his own worshipers, in some cases to almost murder their own children. He is fed the blood of animals during secret ceremonies. He commands destruction, the murder of children and the rape of women (Isaiah 13:15-16, Numbers 31:17-18, to mention a few).

Even as far back as Genesis he lies to Adam and Eve, telling them on the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they "will surely die", yet they do not. It was his attempt to prevent their acquisition of higher knowledge that they will "become like us". Do you believe mankind capable of becoming a threat to the real God?

I am fine that this began with you thinking I'm just a random crackpot with nothing to back my statements, because this world is full of crackpots that spout nonsense of which they know nothing. I am not one of them. My conclusions are based on reason and the evidence within your own Holy Bible. Pick it up and double check my quotes. Or better yet, go HERE so you can see all the various version side-by-side. It would appear you have nothing to back up your opposition to my ideas, which, though they are new to you, are very old indeed.

And to be clear, there is no mention of your "prince of lies" in the Bible. Satan is once referred to as the "father of lies" (John 8:44). But to suggest I am wrong to tell you Satan and Beelzebul are two distinct characters is an expression of your ignorance of the Bible. Satan, according to the old Testament, is merely a position within Jehovah's hierarchy of "angels" representing the tempter or adversary. Beelzebul is "Lord of the Flies" and later a prince of heck. It is true that tradition has warped these two into a single character but that is a recent dumbing down of the facts. I even supplied you with a quote of Jesus speaking of them as two distinct characters (Matthew 12:25-28). But, as in most cases involving modern Christians, you chose to believe "tradition" over the very words of Jesus.

And that, my friend, is the story of Free Will, why we have it, and how we judge ourselves by choosing our own path; either that of the sheep who follows blindly without thought, or one who struggles internally towards TRUTH.


----------



## MantidLord (Dec 18, 2011)

The people on this forum attacking Christian/Judaism should be ashamed of themselves. Stop attacking others' beliefs, I have yet to see a thread where Christians try to convert or preach on this forum, so why come out of no where and attack them? This forum is about mantids and when you act foolish and attack others' beliefs, it causes an unnecessary division within our community. If you don't agree with something, keep your mouth shut and take it to the forums where you can rant about christians all day long. You can argue against the Bible all you want and have your OPINIONS, but when you start attacking the belief and calling it "myths" and comparing it to easter bunnies, you do nothing but make yourself look bitter and pathetic. I'm saying this, not to really change the behaviors of those who CONTINUE to do this (because I doubt they'll listen anyway), but as a message to the mods of this forum to not allow this gross behavior to continue. I'm personally offended and letting my grievances known by posting on here: STOP ATTACKING RELIGIONS AND KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 18, 2011)

STOP TRYING TO PROMOTE RELIGION!


----------



## MantidLord (Dec 18, 2011)

I should've known I'd get an idiotic response from you. Anyone with half a brain can see I never supported religion. If I had, I'd respond to the statements above that were posted to contradict it. I simply don't want people's beliefs to be criticized as if they're sub human for having different beliefs. If you can't do that, or see where I'm coming from; and if you take offense to what I'm trying to do, then you obviously have nothing better to do than stir up trouble. Get a life man. I'm not being drawn into this argument to defend my beliefs, so stop being immature.


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 18, 2011)

Whatevs, GOD bless you and your beliefs.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

MantidLord said:


> The people on this forum attacking Christian/Judaism should be ashamed of themselves. Stop attacking others' beliefs, I have yet to see a thread where Christians try to convert or preach on this forum, so why come out of no where and attack them? This forum is about mantids and when you act foolish and attack others' beliefs, it causes an unnecessary division within our community. If you don't agree with something, keep your mouth shut and take it to the forums where you can rant about christians all day long. You can argue against the Bible all you want and have your OPINIONS, but when you start attacking the belief and calling it "myths" and comparing it to easter bunnies, you do nothing but make yourself look bitter and pathetic. I'm saying this, not to really change the behaviors of those who CONTINUE to do this (because I doubt they'll listen anyway), but as a message to the mods of this forum to not allow this gross behavior to continue. I'm personally offended and letting my grievances known by posting on here: STOP ATTACKING RELIGIONS AND KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.


I'm not attacking anything. I'm being rational and sharing information. People are free to believe whatever they want.

Are you implying I don't have the right to an opinion? Or that others are too weak to deal with the fact I may not agree with them?

This has been nothing but a civil discussion. Orin is an admin. He didn't choose to delete it. He participated.

You can just choose not to participate.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

MantidLord said:


> I'm not being drawn into this argument to defend my beliefs, so stop being immature.


You chose to involve yourself. And no one asked you your beliefs or to defend them from some perceived attack.

I'm pointing out the difference between tradition and really digging into ancient texts. And what I've found is very different from the mainstream interpretation. Big whoop! Who am I? Believe it or don't. Embrace it or move on. No big deal either way. You seem to want to make it into a big deal.

Ain't nobody changing their belief system because of a forum post.

Have a pleasant SUNday...


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Dec 18, 2011)

I like turtles! HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL !!! (needed to be said?)


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 18, 2011)

MantidLord said:


> The people on this forum attacking Christian/Judaism should be ashamed of themselves. Stop attacking others' beliefs, I have yet to see a thread where Christians try to convert or preach on this forum, so why come out of no where and attack them? This forum is about mantids and when you act foolish and attack others' beliefs, it causes an unnecessary division within our community. If you don't agree with something, keep your mouth shut and take it to the forums where you can rant about christians all day long. You can argue against the Bible all you want and have your OPINIONS, but when you start attacking the belief and calling it "myths" and comparing it to easter bunnies, you do nothing but make yourself look bitter and pathetic. I'm saying this, not to really change the behaviors of those who CONTINUE to do this (because I doubt they'll listen anyway), but as a message to the mods of this forum to not allow this gross behavior to continue. I'm personally offended and letting my grievances known by posting on here: STOP ATTACKING RELIGIONS AND KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.


Grow up.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 18, 2011)

jrh3 said:


> i see one answer, can you prove the bible to be wrong? no questions or replies, i dont think you can.


My goodness John, Scott and Henry didn't leave much for me, did they?  Still, I'll do what i can. Let's be clear on your question. If you are asking us if we can prove that the bible contains false statements, then that is easy enough. Can we use the edition of the bible with the King James and New International versions in parallel? That's the one I usually use, but if you prefer one with an Imprimatur, I have the New American Bible that Sunny gave me (she didn't think that a good jewish girl should keep a catholic bible in her bedroom). Do you also agree that if the bible contains two statements that flatly contradict each other, then one or both must be false? How about statements that contradict what is normally considered to be undisputed fact?

In the second class, Lev 11:6 "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud" makes the hare (in the KJV and rabbit it in the NIV or either and both in the Torah) describes the hare/rabbit as a ruminant, which he clearly is not. I have read protestant exegeses (you'd be amazed how bored we sufferers from ADHD can get, sometimes!) which claim that back in them old days, "chewing the cud"was a "less restrictive" term than now, and talked learnedly about bunny poo, buit i have three modern translations that all use the phrase and it is these translations that we have to go by. More to the point, why does this sacred, infallible (to some Christians) admonition find its way into a the Christians' Book, when no Christian follows it and doesn't even know the distinction between Kosher and Traif? Pretty odd, huh?

O.K., I'll just give you the citations for the other type of error, internal contradiction. Gen 32:30 has Jacob calling the place of his famous meeting "Peniel; for I have seen God face to face." In John 1:18, the author makes an important distinction between the world before Christ's death and after it:" No one has ever seen God." For the sake of fairness, I quoted this from the catholic translation. They gloss the line without a comment on Genesis 32:30, but say "the translation above follows the earliest and best manuscripts." Seems as though there are different early versions of the material that comprises the infallibly "right" bible, doesn't it, though a true-blue fundamentalist could dismiss the last as the misinformation of a cult (Catholicism) that practises idolatory and whose members will not get to heaven, anyway.

So there you go, John. You didn't ask for an argument, merely evidence that the bible is not "true", and that is all I have given you. Philosophically, Henry is quite right, of course, when he says that the burden of proof lies not with the disbelievers but with those who claim that it s absolutely true. If I may make a suggestion, I would suggest that you embrace your simple and comforting faith tightly for your own soul's salvation and not use it as a challenge for those who know a lot more about biblical exegesis than you, even if, in your god's eyes, they are bound for everlasting fire..


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> If I may make a suggestion, I would suggest that you embrace your simple and comforting faith tightly for your own soul's salvation and not use it as a challenge for those who know a lot more about biblical exegesis than you, even if, in your god's eyes, they are bound for everlasting fire..


Ha-ha! Yeah, but if Satan is the ruler of this world then technically we're already in He11...

"Now is the time for the judgment of this world to begin. Now will the ruler of this world be thrown out."

John 12:31

OK, I'll stop. :blush: I was just kidding. I know what that passage really means.

By the way, I gave the wrong link in my earlier post. This is the best site to look up passages because they show all English versions at once for comparison plus cross references! Woo-hoo!

http://bible.cc/

And I probably should have posted this at some point:

*Logos* (




/ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος _logos_) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason," it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.

In ordinary, non-technical Greek, _logos_ had a semantic field extending beyond "word" to notions such as, on the one hand, language, talk, statement, speech, conversation, tale, story, prose, proposition, and principle; and on the other hand, thought, reason, account, consideration, esteem, due relation, proportion, and analogy.

Despite the conventional translation as "word," it is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term _lexis_ (λέξις) was used. However, both _logos_ and _lexis_ derive from the same verb _legō_ (λέγω), meaning "to count, tell, say, speak".

In English, _logos_ is the root of "logic," and of the "-logy" suffix (e.g., geology).

As you can see Logos means a lot more than "word". It implies _meaning_ which is sometimes expressed through words, but it's core is related more to information/intent/reason as can clearly be seen in the definition above. To limit translation simply as "word" robs it of much of its power and meaning, and opens the door to convincing people to follow the letter of law, generated by man, as if this is the intent of its usage within religious texts. So the key to our individual freedom, thinking for ourselves, making good use of our god-given Free Will, is instead twisted into a means by which authority controls the people.

Logos flows through me and exposes the lies that occlude this world. *In my heart there is nothing but Logos and Eros for all of you and all living creatures.* I apologize if my words (_not Logos_) upset or enrage you. I only seek to speak TRUTH.

You cannot know God through words alone, and that is the trick. Memorization of text means NOTHING if the meaning is lost in literal interpretation. Think for yourself, be fair and open, and you will be doing your job as a good human being. Anyone can agree with that, no matter their religion or whether they even believe in God.

E.N.D. R.A.N.T.


----------



## Termite48 (Dec 18, 2011)

Somethings like this will be better understood by us later. Now we should keep to the bugs in this forum, eh?


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 18, 2011)

Rich S said:


> Somethings like this will be better understood by us later. Now we should keep to the bugs in this forum, eh?


I really enjoy religious discussions/debates, why should we have to avoid it?? Besides, the description of this forum is "Discussions not relating to mantids or mantid keeping."


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 18, 2011)

Rich S said:


> Somethings like this will be better understood by us later. Now we should keep to the bugs in this forum, eh?


You mean after we're dead, Rich? I doubt that it will do us much good then! Besides, the "other discussions" forum was designed, surely, to give us a break from folks asking how many nymphs will hatch from their Chinese ooth. You don't have to play if you don't want to, but let us have our fun!


----------



## Orin (Dec 18, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Ain't nobody changing their belief system because of a forum post.


I don't imagine you'll suddenly develop the ability to read the scripture on its own merit, I just thought it seemed fair to explain that your argument while full of words and posturing has no truth. Your spouting off lies as old as history itself as though they're some mystical theory discovered recently, nearly all the heretical texts are just a few incoherent paragraphs but you pretend there's a whole secrete code. Sorry prince of this world and father of lies are just a few of many names. I would suppose the dozens of names for Christ in the New Testament are speaking of multiple people in your discerning eyes. The God of the Old Testament didn't let Abraham's son be sacrificed but let his own son be crucified in the New Testament. If anything the New Testament Jehovah is less kind. I can't tell if yours is a sick sense of humor or you’re really that blinded.


----------



## MantidLord (Dec 18, 2011)

"Grow up."

Don't talk to me like that Pickle. Especially when I haven't said anything to you or anyone else (besides patrick) in particular. Show some respect or don't post at all, just keep your mouth shut.

The sarcasm that's I'm reading about religion on this forum has been going on for some time and I'm sick of it. Precarious, I wasn't specifically talking to you. I have no problem with a "civil" discussion. But when you liken someone's beliefs to easter bunnies and mock it, that goes beyond "discussion". I honestly couldn't care less about your opinions (I do like your pics and videos), like I said, and you said, it won't change anyone. Just please show some respect when you state your opinions, because what you and others said can be taken as offensive.

I fail to understand why my post has generated all of this negative backlash. I didn't call someone out, so those that are responding to it are obviously the ones that have taken offense and realize that they are wrong. Throw a dog at a pack of dogs, the one that barks loudest is the one that got hit. People are free to have their own opinions, although I haven't stated mine on this thread at all, just have respect is all I'm saying. If someone mocked atheism or islam, or anything else, I'd feel the same way. Have a good day.


----------



## gripen (Dec 18, 2011)

mantidlord has a point, you don't have to accept someones opinion but at least respect it. speaking as an atheist i can still appreciate religion. it is not wise to just dismiss religion, it has its time and its place and you should respect that.


----------



## Orin (Dec 18, 2011)

HoldThePickle said:


> Grow up.


If you're going to make argumentative comments to other members without even including a little discussion or explanation at the beginning or end please do not post.


----------



## Termite48 (Dec 18, 2011)

What I mean Phil and others who might wonder what I mean by "later", is "soon" we will know positively what we should know now. If the truth about all the stuff herein discussed does not easily come to some or most, it will as time runs a little longer. There will always be unbelief, even when very obvious truths are presented. So please conjecture on, but not much will be resolved. Because some of us (not I) are very expert in Mantidology does not make us very expert in Theology, Eschatology, or Philosophy. So when one who has earned his stripes on this Forum as a great breeder, macrophotographer, or bug hunter, he/she has not earned anything in the studies of the origin of mankind, Theology or the Bible and other ancient writings. We are equally confused.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 18, 2011)

"I fail to understand why my post has generated all of this negative backlash. I didn't call someone out, so those that are responding to it are obviously the ones that have taken offense and realize that they are wrong."

@mantidlord: Sadly, I believe you. I suspect from your posts here and in the recent past, that you often find the world to be an incomprehsible and and hostile place. If I am wrong, then you can save yourself a lot of grief by not reading threads like this,. I believe that you are now in college and not keeping mantids, so you will not lose anything by avoiding this particular forum while still staying on the board.

If I am right, I suggest that you copy off this thread and show it to someone, a minister or counselor, perhaps, whom you trust, and seek their opinion and advice on resolving this problem and saving yourself a lot of mental and emotional anguish.

This is offered as a friendly suggestion. I hope that you can take it as such.


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Dec 18, 2011)

I'm starting to think that a few of you, if you lived close enough to each other, there may be some house egging going on soon? Or would it be a burning bag of  on the door step?

I'm going to have to ask my Uncle if he still has some of those hippie love beads from the 60's and start mailing them out.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 18, 2011)

The last time that Sunny came back from LA, she made me an orange and black raver kandi bracelet. Does that count?


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 18, 2011)

LAME! I will continue to monitor this "discussion". It appears _someone _needs to grow up and step out of Sunday school for a bit and experience some of the real TRUTH the world has to offer..


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 18, 2011)

MantidLord said:


> "Grow up."
> 
> Don't talk to me like that Pickle. Especially when I haven't said anything to you or anyone else (besides patrick) in particular. Show some respect or don't post at all, just keep your mouth shut.
> 
> ...


Seriously??? You seriously "fail to understand why your post has generated all of this negative backlash"?? There was a discussion going on, point for point, and you're the first one to chime in demanding that the mod's shut down the thread because you don't like some people's opinions. Nothing was heated, insulting, or crude. You're demanding things to be censored just because you don't agree with it. Now one of the actual faiths you claim were being "attacked" was even offended. As others have said, if you don't want to be involved, then don't be. I won't "show respect" to someone with absolutely no tolerance. Maybe I'm offended by your username being MantidLORD??? Ya know what?? I am... and this message is to the mods to BAN this user because he is making a mockery of my religious beliefs.



Orin said:


> If you're going to make argumentative comments to other members without even including a little discussion or explanation at the beginning or end please do not post.


Sorry, I didn't think explanation was needed in this instance. I find it very immature to try halting a debate, a friendly one at that, which was interesting, informative, and free of swears, slurs, hatred, or even hard feelings.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

MantidLord said:


> Don't talk to me like that Pickle.


I just included that because it is an *awesome* quote!  



MantidLord said:


> I fail to understand why my post has generated all of this negative backlash.


I think it was the emotional tone of your post that generated the responses. It came off as a plea for moderators to kick us out or delete the post. People don't like to be demonized. I'm pretty sure Phil is a Satanist and even he didn't like that.

I'm sorry but I recognize symbolism and allegory for what it is. I don't know why you have a problem with the word "myth". What do you call the Greek myths? Do I offend Greeks when I call them that? Or don't they count because that religion is out of fashion? A story filled with allegorical symbols is a myth. If someone wants to believe something, that doesn't mean I have to as well. Ridiculous...

Most religious lessons are called parables, right?

*par·a·ble*

[par-uh-buhl]

noun

1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

*myth*

[mith]

noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

...

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Uh-oh! Now what?

And just for the record I was only kidding about the Easter Bunny. He's fur realz.



Orin said:


> I don't imagine you'll suddenly develop the ability to read the scripture on its own merit, I just thought it seemed fair to explain that your argument while full of words and posturing has no truth. Your spouting off lies as old as history itself as though they're some mystical theory discovered recently...


That's kind of the disappointment. You haven't "explained" that my argument while full of words and posturing has no truth. You just stated it and left it at that. As if your judgment is final and requires no elaboration. Again, no counters to the quotes. No specifics. Meh...

I've stated these are not new ideas. I've stated the Catholic Church tried to erase them from history. They failed. Even after burning all those innocent people at the stake. So much for "love thine enemy" or "turn the other cheek." Maybe they didn't get the memo.  



Orin said:


> ...nearly all the heretical texts are just a few incoherent paragraphs but you pretend there's a whole secrete code.


No secret code. It seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe hiding in plain site? Hidden behind tradition?

As far as heretical texts, the official canonical books were not even decided until the Council of Florence in 1443 AD. Until that time there was continual debate as to which would be regarded as scripture. There was nothing but disagreement even till the bitter end. In fact, the council's decisions were only binding to the Western portion of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian and Syrian churches all have _different_ gospel lists than the Roman.

A group of men, who were at war with the Pope, decided by vote which would be accepted and which would be rejected - one thousand, four hundred, and forty-three years after the crucifixion. That's how the New Testament came to be. Look it up. That's only nine years before the invention of the printing press.

What's more, there are many books not included, not just fragments as you stated. Over 50 full texts were found at Nag Hammadi alone, but there are hundreds that have been around since the very beginning. You're thinking of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are actually fragments of known gospels.

But none of that matters because I'm wrong. You said so.


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 18, 2011)

Precarious said:


> I just included that because it is an *awesome* quote!


I'll be honest, I was the one getting yelled at, and I thought the same thing.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

angelofdeathzz said:


> I'm starting to think that a few of you, if you lived close enough to each other, there may be some house egging going on soon? Or would it be a burning bag of  on the door step?
> 
> I'm going to have to ask my Uncle if he still has some of those hippie love beads from the 60's and start mailing them out.


Nuthin' but luv coming from me... :wub: and maybe just a smidge of acidic humor. I'm sorry, but Orin is right about my sick sense of humor. I'll give him that. I'm just glad most people can deal.

I'll say it again, I LOVE everybody here! I'm not afraid to say it...


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 18, 2011)

O.K. Time for a break like the Allies and Germans had in the trenches in 1915 -- remember that? But we can't play a carol, because that would be unfair to us Satanists (and thank you, sir, for giving it the capitalization that it merits) so how about a touching song that Everyone knows, the Nyan Cat Song. Ah, but there have been millions of viewings of that already, so how about something slightly different? Our Henry has already described dubstep for the 1% of forum members unfamiliar with the genre on this very thread, so how about a Nyan Cat Dubstep song? You want me to link you? I thought you'd never ask!


----------



## Precarious (Dec 18, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> O.K. Time for a break like the Allies and Germans had in the trenches in 1915 -- remember that? But we can't play a carol, because that would be unfair to us Satanists (and thank you, sir, for giving it the capitalization that it merits) so how about a touching song that Everyone knows, the Nyan Cat Song. Ah, but there have been millions of viewings of that already, so how about something slightly different? Our Henry has already described dubstep for the 1% of forum members unfamiliar with the genre on this very thread, so how about a Nyan Cat Dubstep song? You want me to link you? I thought you'd never ask!


AWESOME!!! I love the original the Nyan Cat Song and this was a great adaptation.

Hey, wait... I think you just called me a Nazi! I'll have you know I shaved my mustache like this by accident.


----------



## Orin (Dec 18, 2011)

Precarious said:


> That's kind of the disappointment. You haven't "explained" that my argument while full of words and posturing has no truth. You just stated it and left it at that. As if your judgment is final and requires no elaboration. Again, no counters to the quotes.
> 
> No secret code. It seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe hiding in plain site? Hidden behind tradition?
> 
> But none of that matters because I'm wrong. You said so.


You're asking me to disprove a few random quotes taken out of context. You're asking me to prove that your Big Foot isn't real when you haven't shown any proof that it is. It may be how you try to win arguments but it's dishonest.

As to your regurgitated misinformation on the gospels I could have qualified the few paragraphs at best with the word contradictory.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 19, 2011)

Orin said:


> You're asking me to disprove a few random quotes taken out of context. You're asking me to prove that your Big Foot isn't real when you haven't shown any proof that it is. It may be how you try to win arguments but it's dishonest.
> 
> As to your regurgitated misinformation on the gospels I could have qualified the few paragraphs at best with the word contradictory.


Ah, you're no fun. All judgement, no explanation. I'm just wrong and promoting lies and misinformation. Very enlightening. I wasn't asking you to disprove anything. Just thought you might have something interesting to say.

So you're saying everything I wrote, including the histories, are misinformation? Nice, I'd say I'm not the one choosing to believe in Bigfoot. Didn't realize you were one of those guys that denies even known history. Yikes...  

We'll leave it at that. But do watch out if you hear a rustling in the brush when wandering in the woods.

*Indisputable proof!*


----------



## Orin (Dec 19, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Ah, you're no fun. All judgement, no explanation. I'm just wrong and promoting lies and misinformation.


I offered you explanation but you assume it needs to be followed by tons of erroneous statements as in your posts. Your 'histories' are only fragments of truth just like your quotes you assemble don't say what you try to make them say. You know what you're doing so I'm not trying to convince you. You admit you have no interest in a serious discussion but later you pretend you do as part of your argument style. Is your user name related to the position of your argument style? Maybe we should change your username to last word no matter what?


----------



## warpdrive (Dec 19, 2011)

I hope you guys don't mind me saying my piece about this thread...

here are some fun facts that I know are true:

1) today is my birthday. I'm 45 today.

2) I still don't have any new mantids yet, but soon that will change.

3) both Phil and Henry are far too smart for their own good. don't get me wrong guys, I love you both.

4) what a great post and a bunch or great replys. I learned a lot from most of you today and I'm greatful for this.

5) I'm in no way religous and much of my spirituality that I try to practice is more aimed in doing to others as I would want the world to treat me.

6) off topic talks on a mantid forum can be fun regardless if your views on such matters may be offencive to you.

7) my spelling stinks...I blame my teachers.

8) what were we talking about again? oh yeah, Ozzy rules. Black Sabbath forever (with Ozzy of course. Dio was cool, Gillion was OK too. but nothing compares to Ozzy.) ...before today I've never heared of Dubstep. you learn something new everyday I guess.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 19, 2011)

Orin said:


> I offered you explanation but you assume it needs to be followed by tons of erroneous statements as in your posts. Your 'histories' are only fragments of truth just like your quotes you assemble don't say what you try to make them say. You know what you're doing so I'm not trying to convince you. You admit you have no interest in a serious discussion but later you pretend you do as part of your argument style. Is your user name related to the position of your argument style? Maybe we should change your username to last word no matter what?


You are correct in that I do not want to debate belief. But that's ALL you are arguing. That's why I'm disappointed. Yes, I'm discussing my beliefs but I supply evidence supporting what I believe in the hopes that you may counter _the evidence_. But you can only say "I believe you are wrong, lying and dishonest". So you can't support your statements, only slander my fine character. That is the tactic of someone lost at sea, and that sea is logic and rational thinking. Conversely, I am expected to reply by stating you are childish for believing fairy tales, which I am not saying, because that would be debating belief, which is pointless name-calling.

Let me clear some things up for everyone...

I believe 100% there is intelligence behind the universe. I have zero doubt. Why? because I have directly experienced it (Gnosis) and I see supporting evidence everywhere I look.

And I can get behind nearly everything stated by the character of Jesus in the New Testament. He wanted to bring down the corrupt religions and governmental institutions around him, eliminate usury because it was known throughout the ancient world as the root of all evil for it allows parasites to prosper by the suffering and toil of others. He thought we should love one another, regardless of our beliefs, or even if we offend each other. And he told us to forgive. Look at what's going on in the world around you. Do you not think those are reasons enough for those in power to eliminate you? They (banking, government, corporations, media) control us by dividing us. They (banking, government, corporations, media) profit from our work and our misfortune.

What I don't believe is that Jesus was supporting the Old Testament god. I believe the complete opposite, and for good reason. Those he fought against represented that god. They are the ones that ended up killing him. Why? Because he spoke of a higher God, one of love and peace, the antithesis of Jehovah.

So feel free to do the mental gymnastics necessary to wrap your beliefs around that. I can assure you that will not find you TRUTH.

*Christ on the Cross Between Two Thieves, by Pieter Pauwel Rubens (1619 A.D.)*






Just as Jesus hung between two thieves, we are robbed of TRUTH if drawn too far from the balance of center.

PS - I am PRECARIOUS. I walk the line.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 19, 2011)

warpdrive said:


> 1) today is my birthday. I'm 45 today.
> 
> 2) I still don't have any new mantids yet, but soon that will change.
> 
> ...


Happy burt-day!

I love Sabbath with Ozzy, but judging by the footage I've seen from Black Friday, Black Sabbath-era Dio was right - THE MOB RULES!


:angel:​


*R.I.P.*
​



unk: *DIO* unk:​


*Black Sabbath - The Mob Rules*
​


Close the city and tell the people

That something's coming to call

Death and darkness are rushing forward

To stamp light from the wall!

Oh! You've nothing to say

They'll drag you away!

If you listen to fools,

The mob rules, the mob rules

Kill the spirit and you'll be blinded

The end is always the same

Play with fire, you'll burn your finger

And you'll lose hold of a flame, oh!

It's over, it's done

The end is begun

If you listen to fools,

The mob rules

You've nothing to say

Oh, They're breaking away

If you listen to fools

Break the circle and stop the movement

The wheel is thrown to the ground

Just remember it might stop rolling

And take you right back around!

You're all fools!

The Mob Rules!
​


----------



## Orin (Dec 19, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Yes, I'm discussing my beliefs but I supply evidence supporting what I believe in the hopes that you may counter _the evidence_. But you can only say "I believe you are wrong, lying and dishonest".


You did not supply evidence, you supplied unrelated quotes and hype about hidden gospels that don't exist in the way you portray them. I explained that you misunderstand the multiple names and of course you couldn't counter with an explanation for the many names of Jesus. I also offered you the most compelling evidence that the God of the Old Testament and New are not so different. You don't attack the substance but rather focus on a misplaced word here or there in your attack. In your quote above you made up a sentence I did not write and put it in quotes as though I said it. That is extreme dishonesty. You should apologize.


----------



## lunarstorm (Dec 19, 2011)

> I also offered you the most compelling evidence that the God of the Old Testament and New are not so different.


Where and what exactly is this compelling evidence? I missed it.



> In your quote above you made up a sentence I did not write and put it in quotes as though I said it. That is extreme dishonesty. You should apologize.


Where is the error? I don't see it.

Thanks for helping me better understand your perspective Orin.


----------



## Orin (Dec 19, 2011)

lunarstorm said:


> Where and what exactly is this compelling evidence? I missed it.
> 
> Where is the error? I don't see it.
> 
> Thanks for helping me better understand your perspective Orin.


No problem, for you first question read post #73. Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets." but Precarious was not concerned with what Jesus said but rather a perceived difference in personality and that is what was addressed.

For your second question it is not an error. He *made up a fake quote *and placed it in quotation marks "...", post #92.


----------



## lunarstorm (Dec 19, 2011)

Orin, regarding the fake quote on post #92, are you referring to line that I've highlighted in bold below?



Precarious said:


> But you can only say *"I believe you are wrong, lying and dishonest"*.


I don't see him using the quote tags to falsify your comments, so I can only guess that it's the above line. I believe he was trying to summarize the point of your posts, based on your following comments (I apologize for posting them out of context as snippets, but they should illustrate his word choice):

Am I missing something?


----------



## Orin (Dec 19, 2011)

lunarstorm said:


> Orin, regarding the fake quote on post #92, are you referring to line that I've highlighted in bold below?
> 
> I don't see him using the quote tags to falsify your comments, so I can only guess that it's the above line. I believe he was trying to summarize the point of your posts, based on your following comments (I apologize for posting them out of context as snippets, but they should illustrate his word choice):
> 
> Am I missing something?


You do not have my permission to take my quotes out of context as snippets.


----------



## lunarstorm (Dec 19, 2011)

You edited my post when I did not break the rules? That's poor form and abuse of moderating powers. You owe me an apology.


----------



## Orin (Dec 19, 2011)

lunarstorm said:


> You edited my post when I did not break the rules? That's poor form and abuse of moderating powers. You owe me an apology.


You did not ask my permission to quote me out of context. I would be happy to remove them and give you warn points if you did that to someone else and they reported it. Seeing as it's my quotes you cut up I didn't give you any points.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 19, 2011)

My own constricted view of the world has blinded me to the fact that while many members have expressed a credo, Orin's tacit but unmistakable and Henry's explicit, I have not done so, and I am sure that many of you must have been waiting eagerly for such a statement.

I have never seen anyrthing to make me suppose that there is a god, let alone a minority (in terms of worship by population) one like the Christian Yaweh/Jehovah. Nor do i suppose that the universe is controlled by an "intelligence". Intelligence is hugely overated and has caused much more harm on earth than any other source. I find the god of the OT to be disgusting and that of the NT nothing more than the owner of a travelling faith healing show who made obviously false (e.g. "the kingdom of god is at hand") prophecies and was rescued from well deserved obscurity by Saul of Tarsus ("no mean cirty") who explicitly supported slavery, and later by Henry's favorite, Constantine and his mom.

So how do I see eternity? I don't. On my death , I expct to enter "that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns". But I have a cop out. If I am wrong, a few of my molecules will hang around until Sunny, The Kid, dies. Our molecules will then hook up and we'll hang out, talk our heads off and maybe catch a show on the Food Channel.

What's that? No I AM NOT JOKING. What is the stronger love, the love of a slave (euphemistically "servant") for his master or a sheep for his shepherd, or that for someone who has your back and knows that you have his/hers?

Edit: Yay! This thread is now in triple digits!


----------



## Precarious (Dec 19, 2011)

Orin said:


> You did not supply evidence, you supplied unrelated quotes and hype about hidden gospels that don't exist in the way you portray them. I explained that you misunderstand the multiple names and of course you couldn't counter with an explanation for the many names of Jesus. I also offered you the most compelling evidence that the God of the Old Testament and New are not so different. You don't attack the substance but rather focus on a misplaced word here or there in your attack. In your quote above you made up a sentence I did not write and put it in quotes as though I said it. That is extreme dishonesty. You should apologize.


Interesting. I'm not relying on any hidden gospels per se. I said these _ideas_ have been around since the beginning. That's a big difference from using or sighting a specific text. I merely mentioned there were many rejected from the official canon to express why there may be info outside of it worth pursuing.

*Or:* Obey the WORD of people much holier and much smarter than your lowly self. I mean, who are you to decide what does or doesn't make sense to you, ya serf? I mean it's only your eternal soul at stake, right? &lt;- WARNING: self-righteous, Papal-inspired humor

So I'm not sure what you're trying to say by all that. But it is apparent you haven't studied the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi. And why would you? The devil probably planted them in that cave to test your faith. Just like them darn dinosaur bones! OK, low blow. Sorry.

And to state the Gnostic tradition is undocumented is slightly more than a little nuts. Yes, it was forced underground for almost 2,000 years so adherents weren't burned at the stake by our wise and fair Papal overlords. (I missed that commandment: Thou shalt burn all witches!) But there is plenty of documentation of their writings and theology, which was really very advanced in too many ways to mention here. Elaine Pagels has written some really good books on the subject, for instance The Gnostic Gospels, and all you need to do is a search to find info if you don't want to waste money on getting an education.

Your comment about Jesus being called by various names was hardly a rebuttal. More like putting words in my mouth. All the sun-inspired accolades of course go to Jesus (i.e. light of the world). After all, he is the solar hero in the story. And oddly enough Jehovah gets all the darkness references. Oops! There goes my silly brain putting two-and-two together again.

*Old Testament*

"And the people stood far off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was."

Exodus 20:21

*New Testament*

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

1 John 1:5

Hmmm... :whistling: 

But anyway... We are talking about the difference between descriptive accolades vs proper names. Jesus Christ is a proper name. Light of the World is an accolade. Likewise, Satan and Beelzebul are obviously proper names.

And saying that the New Testament God sacrificed his son in order to redeem all of mankind can hardly be compared with dashing the heads of children, raping women, and committing genocide against the whole world. In fact, you could say it is the *COMPLETE OPPOSITE* of that! Jeeze...



Orin said:


> No problem, for you first question read post #73. Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets." but Precarious was not concerned with what Jesus said but rather a perceived difference in personality and that is what was addressed.


You need to go back and look. That quote is not included in post 73. Would have been nice though. That's what I'm looking for. Actual rebuttal.

I'm guessing your quote was intended to be:

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 5:17

Which is a very wishful mistranslation contained in the *New Living Translation (©2007)*. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the year 2007! :blink: 

Here is a more accurate translation from the *King James Bible (Cambridge Ed. 1611)*:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Matthew 5:17

And that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, people. Tweak it to imply what you want it to say and forget what it really said. See that's why I check all passages at http://bible.cc.  

First of all, You are offering a modern translation intended to twist the meaning of the original text. *BAD ON YOU!*

Concerning the original text, Jesus taught tolerance and wanted mankind to have the opportunity to choose to follow the path of light or darkness, so he had no intention of destroying existing religions. His mission was to turn us away from evil by our own choice, not force us by destroying what came before like the Church decided to do. Secondly, this is by no means a glowing endorsement of Jehovah or the Old Testament. He's merely saying he didn't come to destroy the law or the prophets. It's quite a leap of logic to say that means he is the son of Jehovah and thinks you should hold the old covenant as sacred. And third he's talking about fulfilling prophecy which came from prophets, not Jehovah.



Orin said:


> For your second question it is not an error. He *made up a fake quote *and placed it in quotation marks "...", post #92.


Now it is you who needs to be told to grow up. It is common practice to compile the gist of another's words into quotations. But to be nice I will fully apologize.

Did you hear that everybody? I'm sorry! Orin never said those things. He only implied them. Very implicitly and clearly, but he never said the actual words. :surrender: 

But don't blame me. The Devil made me do it! :devil: Or maybe Satan. Possibly Lucifer or Beelzebul. Whatever...I'm pretty sure he had horns. Um, now I'm confused. Was it Batman? :batman:


----------



## Orin (Dec 19, 2011)

No problem. :donatello:


----------



## Peter Clausen (Dec 20, 2011)

Since we're all sharing...

I have no need to believe there is any God. It's fun to think about for a minute or two, but life is too short to spend much time inside the mind when there is so much in the natural world to observe. It's just not nearly as interesting to me to play make believe. For this same reason, I don't much like to "escape" by watching movies. Escapism in general is slightly uncomfortable for me and I find myself just wanting to get back to my reality. When it comes to anything paranormal, my BS meter runs hot.

If somebody wants to devote a seventh of their life to understanding the subject or many years reading about the similarities of the thousand religions human cultures have created, that's their prerogative (at least in this country). We've left many of history's misconceptions in the dust, as science has explained mystery after mystery. I personally see no reason to _creat_e (use the imagination) explanations for anything when we have a scientific methodology for understanding them. What we can't prove now, we can usually compartmentalize and offer a very likely scientific explanation for that future scientists will continue to work on. It's okay to know that we don't know everything. We are smart enough to admit we've got a lot to learn still. Scientists live for such mysteries.There doesn't have to be an answer to everything right now. Most certainly, though, the answer is not "God created this and everything". Anybody who gives that answer to any question is doing the opposite of what science aims to do. Think, learn, solve and build on our knowledge. The God explanation is a default switch that (some) people throw when they do not know the answer to a question. It is the easy way out, frankly. God and religion were probably important survival tactics for us at points in the past (or by-products of them), but their usefulness wanes now, as they continue to create more division than unity (see some parts of this thread).

Most people don't like reality. I am personally, plenty interested and amused and satisfied with my own interaction with nature (and human nature, mine and others'). When the J. Witnesses knock on my door twice a year, they stare at me with mouths open when I tell them I am perfectly happy without God. They cannot conceive of how that can be. But it is true. They almost seem to shudder when I say it. They look at each other, perhaps for reassurance, or perhaps to see if maybe it is a good time to leave before lightning bolts strike the porch. But yes, I am completely happy without their God or any God. It's a really curious thing to know they are human beings, seemingly convinced that their way is the right and only way and to see and know that they are very, very sincerely sad for my current and eternal existence. It is truly odd to me. And it is sad that ten houses on one block can have such disparate views on a subject we've all thought about since the beginning...of thought. And it can incite so much hatred and divisiveness!

I went through my ten year Art Bell phase with a very open mind, put my time in and got out. An open mind isn't something many religious people ever have, on account of being born into a particular religion. Well, it's not!

Space in general bores me in comparison to what we have right here at our fingertips. I don't have any questions about aliens or God or ghosts. Life on other planets? I'm sure somebody is going to classify a new mantis species on December 21st, 2012 while survivalists are holed up in caves waiting for the Mayan apocalypse or whatever. I don't even have any questions left for the people that believe in such things.

The burden of proof is on believers, but they don't have to prove anything to me. They can't. They don't even prove anything to themselves. They admittedly make facts on faith and wait for their everlasting reward, selling their consciences for a false hope. And I don't have to prove anything to them. The whole question of God is ridiculous. I don't consider myself an atheist because the whole question of God's existence is embarrassingly silly to me. To be _labeled_ (an atheist) as a non-believer of something that doesn't exist in the first place is just plain silly and is really rather offensive. Many atheists take pride in the term, but I feel it is mostly used for derogatory categorical purposes by "non-atheists". Seriously, why am I ever going to consider having faith in one of a thousand religions that this planet has created and call the other 999 wrong? That's offensive. I mean, you can't be right about your religion or it makes everybody else wrong. Any person who says other religions are wrong is being offensive. At best, the nicest thing you can do (assuming nice is a goal) is to say "I'm not sure about the other 999". Of course, you can always learn about them. It's interesting also to consider how many people lived in times BC. So clearly, any person adopted as a child into another country with a different religion is likely to adopt the beliefs of the new country. Odd? Curious? Yes.

As a teenager, there was a point where my social circle included but was not limited to a Muslim, Hindu, Chinese Christian, a Mennonite, and a few other Christian types I cannot recall. They were all nice boys, born into their respective religions. It would be quite unfair for some of them to be offered different eternities on the basis of being born, say, in the green house instead of the blue one next to it.

I don't care about the God that created the God that created God, ad infinitum. Sure, I'm quite satisfied with the conclusion that science is in the process of explaining the origin of life on this planet and the planet itself. I'm quite certain that everybody reading this was created by their parents. We've come a long way in a short time, but the steps are clear to anybody who kept their mind and ears open during those 3 hours of exposure to evolution during high school biology. Yeah, three hours is all we get and most people in class aren't paying attention because nobody really wants to be in class when they are 16.

Science can explain the process for the divergence of life on Earth. Creation is an act of the human imagination, unless you count ooths.

The need to "believe in something" is ubiquitous across cultures. Our species has evolved the ability to think and ask questions about the world around us. We created different answers. New religions are STILL being created all the time! It's really interesting...if you find it interesting. Why not shop around for a new religion? Admit it, you'd get bored raising the same species of mantis all the time!

By the way, many churches undeniably provide wonderful services to communities. Many of my favorite people are strong believers. The differences are interesting in that "variety is the spice of life" kind of way, but less and less interesting to discuss once two people know each other, not because the discussion becomes more and more contentious, but because you get that they hold different beliefs and it doesn't affect the many reasons you do like the person.

I only chimed in to represent a viewpoint that seemed under-represented in this discussion. A single entry doesn't mean I'll have the time or energy to play again (re-creation), but I've enjoyed the discussion for the most part and wanted to say so.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 20, 2011)

well said sir....well said.


----------



## Orin (Dec 20, 2011)

Peter- I've seen people trashing Christians on this forum more times than I like to count. I generally don't chime in because I don't know that I can accomplish anything positive in the exchange.

Precarious - You choose to believe the words of Jesus as you think he meant them, not in the context they were written. He came to accomplish the law and words of the prophets through his atoning death on the cross. You ignore the fact he called the Temple of Jehovah his father's house and Jehovah his father. I tend to think you're pretending not to understand in sarcasm but if you really don't I'm sorry to misread your intentions.


----------



## lancaster1313 (Dec 20, 2011)

I tend to naturally wonder about the question of our (life of all kinds on this planet) existence. Discussing it with others usually makes me uncomfortable because of the strong feelings most people have about their beliefs. I try to tell myself not to worry about these things, and not be uncomfortable (like many others seem to be if I even mention the way I feel) with my lack of faith in things that I can't feel or see for myself, and therefore can't believe.

Post #104 makes me comfortable, for a change. I like the perspective. ^_^ Thanks Peter.

Btw, I have love for all life, large and small, even humans, regardless of their beliefs.

@ Phil: I enjoyed the Nyan cat dubstep video.


----------



## Peter Clausen (Dec 20, 2011)

Orin said:


> Peter- I've seen people trashing Christians on this forum more times than I like to count. I generally don't chime in because I don't know that I can accomplish anything positive in the exchange.


I've seen people trashing Christians, and I've seen people trashing people for every factor of difference under the sun. I haven't seen much "trashing" in this thread, this time, though. Like a few members have said, this is the "other discussions" category and everybody is entitled to an opinion as long as they don't cross the line with personal attacks, etc. I think everybody can accomplish something, at least for themselves, by sharing their thoughts and feelings.

Members here feel mantises make great pets, but we are all in that minority among humans. We are hobbyists, but we are all exposed to some science as way play and talk around with the various species in this hobby. The array of species occasionally, necessarily and naturally causes some of us to ask "why?". Hence the relevance and frequent emergence of this subject. It may seem like Christian trashing, but that is partially a function of Christianity being the predominant religion of familiarity among members and that group's methodology for participating in an intelligent discussion up to the point faith enters into the discussion. To give an analogy, many thoughtful people will accept that some of the 3000+ species of mantises are very similar. Some are more similar and are more closely related, like children to their parents and like the people of neighboring countries to each other, and like people to mammals (I think, by now, all people accept we are mammals, at least). Most people can see this relationship. In fact, it is obvious to the point of being intuitive. Yet, some people are taught from an early age to rebuke the obvious and instead attribute or credit what is obvious to some divine hand. Did that divine hand create 3000 species of mantises? Did that divine hand create the original mantis species? Well, science says no. Mantises are, themselves, closely related to other groups and the pattern of similarity and relation is traceable back to the earliest form.

I love Indian food. Recently, I tried a new place and the man behind the counter was from Senegal. I'd never met anybody from Senegal and it was very exciting and _positively_ interesting. We talked about many things, but I sure enjoyed his company more than I'd enjoy the company of somebody just like me. And the food, as always, was amazing!


----------



## Termite48 (Dec 20, 2011)

Is this nymph a female or a male? I don't know, why don't you wait until it is obvious so we all don't look foolish. But it is obvious. To some, things are obvious and to others, they are way out. Can you put that in your philosophical pipe and smoke it. Yes! Let's all do that and try to improve mantid culture.


----------



## patrickfraser (Dec 20, 2011)

HUH? I'm not into _philosophical _pipe smoking. :lol: I don't get the point. :huh:


----------



## HoldThePickle (Dec 20, 2011)

I like your belief system, Peter. It's very much like my own as when I have to fill in the "religion" category on social networking websites, I simply write in "Mother Nature and Father Time".


----------



## Precarious (Dec 20, 2011)

Rich S said:


> Because some of us (not I) are very expert in Mantidology does not make us very expert in Theology, Eschatology, or Philosophy. So when one who has earned his stripes on this Forum as a great breeder, macrophotographer, or bug hunter, he/she has not earned anything in the studies of the origin of mankind, Theology or the Bible and other ancient writings. We are equally confused.


I am not confused in the least.

It is true that expertise in one field does not transfer as expertise in any other. I don't think anyone, including myself, is suggesting that. Conversely, nor does acceptance of tradition or blind faith make one an expert on anything - other than submission to questionable authority. But just to put things into perspective; I've been keeping mantids for only a year and a half now, and I just bought myself this camera last Christmas. You could say I'm am a 'fast learner' and rather effective researcher, which is why I have excelled at these endeavors. Now consider, I have been studying religion, spirituality, symbolism and esoteric traditions for over 20 years and I do not limit myself to traditional boundaries as most others do. Of course, one premise does not equally support the other. I merely intend this to serve as example of my commitment and diligence.



Orin said:


> Precarious - You choose to believe the words of Jesus as you think he meant them, not in the context they were written. He came to accomplish the law and words of the prophets through his atoning death on the cross. You ignore the fact he called the Temple of Jehovah his father's house and Jehovah his father. I tend to think you're pretending not to understand in sarcasm but if you really don't I'm sorry to misread your intentions.


We all choose to believe what we want. You think your contextual view is more accurate than mine. I disagree, and understand the conflicting nature of the message is multiplied by manipulation of the texts. The prophets represent the future, correct? That is why Jesus is aligned with their message. Jesus came out of the Judaic tradition yet represented a break from it. In John 2:16 he was reclaiming the temple. That's the whole point of that parable. That makes it his father's house - _the one true God_ (more on this below) of his message.

What's even more telling, though, is what he says later in the parable:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 2:19-22

So you tell me, was he referring to the literal or figurative temple? His body is the true temple. Hmmm...

To his eyes the temples all belong to his Father though they are claimed by the usurper. I understand you will see it how you will. And there is no passage where Jesus calls Jehovah his father. Perhaps in your 2007 sanitized version, but not in the original texts.

Which brings up another point of conflict between the Old and New Testaments; The New Testament is Monotheistic, while the Old Testaments is Polytheistic or Henotheistic at best.

mon·o·the·ism

[mon-uh-thee-iz-uhm]

noun

the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

pol·y·the·ism

[pol-ee-thee-iz-uhm, pol-ee-thee-iz-uhm]

noun

the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

hen·o·the·ism

[hen-uh-thee-iz-uhm]

noun

1. the worship of a particular god, as by a family or tribe, without disbelieving in the existence of others.

2. ascription of supreme divine attributes to whichever one of several gods is addressed at the time. 

Did you ever wonder why Jehovah is so jealous of "other gods"? Why be jealous of other gods if they are no believed to be real?

A few examples:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image..."

Genesis 1:26

"Who is like unto you, O LORD, among the gods?"

Exodus 15:11

"Now I know that the LORD _is_ greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly _he was_ above them."

Exodus 18:11

"For the LORD your God _is_ God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"

Deuteronomy 10:17

You can't have a "God of gods" or "a great God" if there is only one god. You'd just say "God" since there is no other to compare with. There are a ton of references (I engraved them on lead plaques and weighed them) to the other gods in the Old Testament. Do your apologist dance around that all you want but it doesn't change a thing.

...

I have but one simple rhetorical question to ask true believers. To my eyes, the world has not become a better place due to the inception of the consolidated Catholic Church. It has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisitions, suppression of knowledge, suppression of free thought, destruction of the records and traditions of entire cultures (South American especially) - just war, destruction, suffering and bloodshed. And now the corrupt institution you trust with assembling the accepted canonical texts and dogma is embroiled in scandal after scandal involving the rape and abuse of children. It appears this has been an ongoing undercurrent in the body of the church for a very long time and the institution has used its power to cover for known child rapists. I do not assume any of you believe this to be acceptable behavior.

So my rhetorical question to you is:

*After 2,000 years to come to fruition, do you really believe the message of Christ has brought the change that, at its core, it represents, or do you think there is some possibility it has been subverted and corrupted?*

Look around you at what the world has become and be honest with yourself. The message has failed and it did so by design, the design of those who worked so hard to pervert the message by merging it with the current it was intended to oppose. We can argue semantics over ancient texts that have been misinterpreted, edited and altered these past 2,000 years. But what it really comes down to is *can you eat the bitter fruit you see around you?*

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither _can_ a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:15-20

Thus ends my ongoing rant on the gospels, unless there are responses directed at me... because I always get the last word.


----------



## Precarious (Dec 20, 2011)

I love Peter's post! It's a good way to look at the world. If you have no interest in religion there is no reason to waste time on it. Same goes for any subject. I get something out of my interests, which is why I am compelled to engage them. I have no interest in sports, or most things the majority embrace. So to each his own. The important thing is to keep an open mind and continue to learn.

Once ideas are incorporated into dogma that cannot be questioned they are no longer rational. Even science does (or should) allow that its ideas/theories be debated, tested and proven/disproved. Not that spiritual ideas can ever really be proven in the empirical sense, but just as Einstein used thought experiments (The ancient Greek *deiknymi*, or thought experiment, "was the most ancient pattern of mathematical proof", and existed before Euclidean mathematics...) to find potential answers, the same can be applied to all aspects of life and consciousness. To not directly question beliefs is accepting that you are not worthy of grasping truth.

*EVERYONE is worthy of TRUTH! EVERYONE!*

So never sell yourself short and blindly accept an idea. If it holds particular importance in your life consider its source, investigate its origins, and always take a look at alternate interpretations. Weigh it against your personal experience and existing body of knowledge. Only after that can you make an informed decision. It's fine to use your gut as cursory examination, but a gut feeling is a far cry from actually understanding the meat of a topic. Plus the more you know about a subject the more convincing your convictions become, both to yourself and others.

I have always had great interest in spiritual matters, which led me to the study of symbolism, allegory and the esoteric side of things. (Esoteric - "understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge" vs Exoteric - "suitable for or communicated to the general public") The things I've stated here are not the result of reading an article online or a single book, or adopting the ideas of others. What others have discovered for themselves and committed to print can be immensely helpful, but true understanding seldom comes from submissive acceptance. It is won by hard work and direct experience.

*There is no substitute for direct experience.*

So all the gospel debating aside, in the end it's not so much about converting anyone to anything. I don't even identify myself with any particular group! It's about inspiring you to think about things you've been trained from birth _not_ to think about. Believe me, you will not be struck by lightning. But you may be struck by a moment of discovery - an "ah-ha!" moment in which something that had previously been mysterious is understood. It is those moments that best serve as the defining framework of our character, because those are glimpses of enlightenment we earned for ourselves.

If there had never been a book written on religion, or spiritual matters I truly believe I would still have come to the same conclusions I have now, because they are based on personal experience and deep self-analysis. We can be our own greatest teacher because only we can know for sure if we are being honest with ourselves. And without that, what do we really have?

Love and peace to everyone! Have a great holiday! Enjoy your families and the time you are given to celebrate the beauty of life!


----------



## Peter Clausen (Dec 20, 2011)

We don't have to wait until the end to tell the gender, and we certainly don't have to guess. It's not a matter of philosophy or religion at all. That's guesswork. Let's just count the segments (it's easier if you're sober)! Simply, it works.



Rich S said:


> Is this nymph a female or a male? I don't know, why don't you wait until it is obvious so we all don't look foolish. But it is obvious. To some, things are obvious and to others, they are way out. Can you put that in your philosophical pipe and smoke it. Yes! Let's all do that and try to improve mantid culture.


----------



## Termite48 (Dec 20, 2011)

To Peter and to all. The above was stated with tongue in cheek. I did not suggest waiting until the end. With some species it is easy to tell after a few molts. With some, you are taking your chances if you are sure too early and a sale is predicated on the sex. So wait a little is all I am saying. Surely not till there is an ooth. Thanks for the comment.


----------



## Termite48 (Dec 20, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Love and peace to everyone! Have a great holiday! Enjoy your families and the time you are given to celebrate the beauty of life!


The same to you Henry. We all love your stuff, dude. The music you put as background to your videos is great.


----------



## Termite48 (Dec 20, 2011)

Because one cook makes a great meal, does not mean that all things that that cook makes are wonderful to all. We all excell at something or more than one thing if we are really blessed. When our life nears its end as in case of perhaps a few of us old guys here on the forum, it is nice to look back and see where we have helped others and made the angels smile. That is my hope for myself. I will not convince too many people of walking along the exact path I have walked, nor would I want to. For advise on how to raise BBs from a few pupae, or wild flies, I will look only here on the Forum as see all that I need. For spiritual advise I know that I will not come to the Mantid Forum. That is all I will say about that.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 20, 2011)

As Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind".


----------



## MantidLord (Dec 20, 2011)

Several things before I go eat.

1) If my op sounded like a "plea" to cut off the forum, it wasn't. Simply a call for there to be some respect for both sides. Like I said, no one's opinion's will be changed from this, but let's just keep it "clean". I'm not a censorship type person. (Look at my avatar! It's from Alice In Chains' "Man in the Box", a song about censorship).

2) Phil, you're half way right. One, I rarely if ever go to church (I'm not considered an "orthodox christian" or anything of the sort) and I don't have a counselor- I forgot about this post an hour after I posted last, and logged back on half expecting to be yelled at by other members. Luckily I wasn't. But anyway, I still keep mantids in college, only thing keeping me off the forum is lack of time (I'm on break right now). I still appear and browse the forum just to see what's going on. Don't worry phil, I don't see your post as an attack or anything, just clarifying a couple of things.

3) Hotpickle, I was going to ignore how idiotic your post was, but I won't. For one, I never claimed my beliefs were being attacked and I never "demanded" the thread be closed. Open your eyes and read over all (what three?) of my posts and point out when I demanded the thread to be closed. Second, when in the world was I not "tolerant"? You're trying to make me out to be like some intolerant, censored human being, when I'm not. If you READ, you'd see that I'd say the same thing for atheism, islam, Phil's religion of the Great Mantis Goddess, whatever. And finally, I couldn't care less if you're offending by name, because I AM THE MANTIDLORD.

4)Patrick...read.

5)precarious and pickle, I actually hesitated on what to say or how to word that sentence, glad you liked it.

Time to go eat. And the thread isn't adding any stress to me. But I've seen threads such as this (and with other topics) spiral into nothing but insults, lack of respect, and lack of thought.

3) Patrick, I never went to sunday school.


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 20, 2011)

Peter Clausen said:


> The need to "believe in something" is ubiquitous across cultures. Our species has evolved the ability to think and ask questions about the world around us. We created different answers. New religions are STILL being created all the time! It's really interesting...if you find it interesting. Why not shop around for a new religion? Admit it, you'd get bored raising the same species of mantis all the time!


LOL Rastafarian...


----------



## StevieHification (Dec 20, 2011)

Also you can't forget Pastafarian either.


----------



## lunarstorm (Dec 20, 2011)

> You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.


----------



## Orin (Dec 20, 2011)

In answer to your question Precarius maybe you have subverted the meaning of the Gospel but the message has a single purpose and if you ignore it that's your choice. John 3:16


----------



## Precarious (Dec 20, 2011)

Orin said:


> In answer to your question Precarius maybe you have subverted the meaning of the Gospel but the message has a single purpose and if you ignore it that's your choice. John 3:16


It's not about me subverting anything. I didn't write those gospel passages. And I certainly hold no direct power over the state of the world, and it was to that the answer to my question hinges upon. Instead of blaming those who hold the power you instead blame me. Instead of looking to the groups that have failed you, you will blame me.

I have found both the meaning and purpose, and I enthusiastically embrace it. What I've written here does nothing to denigrate the message of the New Testament. It's only your version of it that has suffered. And any story we cling to is disposable, as are all WORDS. But LOGOS is eternal.

We can see the fruit of the powerful organization that control society, and have for so long, all around us, and it doesn't look good. 2,000 years is a long time to effect change and that mission was forfeited to the gullibility of the people on all levels. Religion is one of those levels. The inability of the those crippled by atrophied critical thought processes are more to blame, even as victims of their own intellectual and spiritual sloth, than myself, who actually looked into things, identified the problem, and took the time to inform you.

I can tell you are hurt and I am sorry. The truth is painful. Realizing something we thought was the answer is instead a deep riddle is a horrible experience, but one we must all weather in order to find truth. It's worth the trouble. But instead of seeing that what I'm saying does make sense, even within the context of your own texts (I used no Gnostic texts), and deserves investigation, you will blame the messenger. Sounds like a familiar scenario.

I'm thankful Papal authority has corrupted its own base of power or I would have been burned at the stake by now. But there is no honor among thieves and grubby hands, never getting enough, devour even themselves.

Peace to you, Orin.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 21, 2011)

Well, this is probably my final post on this extremely well attended and entertaining thread. I doubt that anyone converted anyone else, but that is par for the course. I was rather sad, Orin, that you saw the debate, which i thought was the advocates of religion, any religion, against the apostate, against the goyim against the giaur, as "Christian bashing". Actually, Christians in the US do pretty well. I don't think that a Jewish or Muslim or an Atheist U.S. president is on the horizon, and it is Muslims, not Christians who get profiled and insulted by ladies on the internet. Until recently, one Christian sect, not yours of course, referred to Jewry as the "perfidious jew", I'm sure that no one speaks of "perfidious Christians". I mention this only in the hope that we atheists/agnostics have persuaded you that much as we may disbelieve in yr relligion, just as you disbelieve in the religion of all other sects, we have no animus against its practitioners, and certainly not you.

Indeed the opposite is the case, at least for me. I have always been delightedto be invited to the religious festivals of my friends. Over half a century ago, in London, I celebrated Eid-ul-Fitr, the feast that ends the fast of Ramadan with a bunch of Pushtu friends (and I remember celebrating it with you and your brother and father , Mija habibi, wherever you may be). The salah is supposed to be said in a field or open place and we ended up on the (flat!) roof of the hotel where we were boarding. We sang songs and imbibed rather non Muslim beverages until about 0300, when we heard the urgent sound of a police car and decided that discretion was the better part of valor. I have attended midnight mass and walked home in the snow in Chicago singing Latin carols: "Adeste fideles, laudum triumphantes" which is about what you'd expect from a group in the 43rd ward. Today, I took a carton of frozen chicken livers and some schmaltz to Sunny's house and we made chopped liver on rye. Sunny's mom lit the first menorah candle of Chonokah and we sung the apropriate prayer, "Baruch atah Adonai, Elohainu Melech Ha-Olam"

 followed by the Israeli national anthem (it was lifted from Smetna's Moldau, so I couldn't go wrong, even though I didn't know the words) and a seriously good time was had by all, not because I believed in the religion behind the ceremonies, but because I believed in and loved the people.

So Happy Holidays to all, and may you all find the truth and comfort that you seek.


----------



## Orin (Dec 21, 2011)

Sorry Phil, I shouldn't have mentioned it since it seemed to be in reference to this thread but wasn't. Peter mentioned unrepresented views and I was referring to past threads I've observed to explain that on this forum at least Christianity has been the underdog. Did you know the first historical reference to the celebration of the rededication of the temple or the feast of lights known as various spellings of Chanukah was by Jesus in the New Testament?

Precarious- I don't think I would say hurt exactly. I am sad that your lack of understanding is masked by your feelings of intellectual superiority and that I can't help you. Maybe I feed bad because I'm not 100% certain the hours it would take to explain your misinformation would be wasted but I choose to err on the side of near certainty.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 1, 2012)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just stumbled onto these quotes that really are too good not to share.  

"And *Satan* stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel."

1 Chronicles 21:1

"And again the anger of *the LORD* was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah"

2 Samuel 24:1

The original Samuel texts says "Jehovah" which they translated as "the LORD". So here you have two versions of the same story contained in the Old Testament. One sites Satan as the character involved. The other sites Jehovah. I don't know what else to say about it. Read it for yourself.

http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/21-1.htm

http://bible.cc/2_samuel/24-1.htm

Then do yourself a favor and read the commentaries below each version to see how the oppologists try to cover for the interchangeable use of the words "Satan" and "the LORD". Fun stuff!

And remember...

*Old Testament:* *Rape, murder, destruction, darkness*

"Happy _shall he be_, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Psalm 137:9

"Jehovah is a Man of War, Jehovah is his name."

Exodus 15:3

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives raped."

Isaiah 13:15-16

"And the people stood far off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was."

Exodus 20:21

*New Testament:* *Love, mercy, forgiveness, light*

"The thief *(Jehovah)* cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have _it_ more abundantly."

John 10:10

"You have heard that it was said *(by Jehovah)*, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

Matthew 5:43-45

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God *(obviously not the children of Jehovah)*."

Matthew 5:9

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that *(unlike Jehovah)* God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

1 John 1:5

Does it sound like Jesus was _representing_ Jehovah or _denying_ him? Seriously...  

End trasmision.


----------



## crucis (Jan 5, 2012)

ah well.. people alter and reinterpret their religions to suit the spirit of the times (and the progress of empirical knowledge). What that has to say about the credibility of it all, i do not know and am not qualified to comment.


----------



## Orin (Jan 5, 2012)

The only thing impressive about your quotes is that you think your misinterpretations hold any merit. You can't just insert words to change the text and pretend to understand meanings with no context. Repaying your enemies with kindness comes from the Old Testament though most people credit the idea to Jesus.


----------

