Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Re: [AvC] Re: ..."No! I don't think so." Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:38:16 PM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:


On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 12:27:31 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:

                           
                                                    My, my, you are beginning to sound threatened, how pathetic, As most posters who know of me will tell you I never ever admit to any expertise,


   Now you seem to claim expertise in not having any. Fascinating. The gerbils in your head must be on crystal meth.
 
                                                    to the contrary I know that I know nothing.
  
No, by your own admission, you can't possibly know that. ;)
Are you going to keep throwing these kinds of claims at me that keep committing suicide? I am feeling a bit guilty even having this conversation with you. I don't like to torture defenseless little animals either and I certainly don't like a conversation where I have all the advantages...it amounts to the same thing. My advice to you is to get a good book on logic and reasoning and study really hard.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Ancient writings

You have no evidence the Abram was Sumerian either. You have no evidence that all people living in Samaria were Sumerians in 2000BC. The Bible post up the reason for his family to leave was to escape Chaldeans, in which did not enter the area till after Abram would have been dead. The Bible is trash.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:32:13 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
What difference does it make where the precise location of Ur is? Abraham was Sumerian and Gilgamesh was Sumerian and Samaria was just upriver from the flooded Garden of Eden Persian Gulf.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:09:14 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:

How are you pinpointing where the Abrahamic Ur existed? The greatest linguistic mistake is to use like words or parts of words. The second greatest linguistic mistake is to characterize people, places and things out of correct timelime. The third and most disgusting of all is to claim you know for sure, when documented evidence is lacking. Some biblical regions can be documented while others lack methodological evidence. Ur is one that lacks methodological evidence. Depending on if Gen is referring to early written parts of Gen or later written parts of Gen, I would only theorize Ur as not being near Babylon, rather today's southern Turkey, northern Syrian border region. We also must be careful of where we think regions are located geographically on a historical timeline. Territorial lines can move 500-1000 miles from 1250 BC to 350 AD., depending on who won what war and if they did, what parts they chose to govern and what parts they gave back to the losers. 

  
On Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
It's very strong evidence the Bible is right about Abraham coming from Ur, where Gilgamesh is from. It pushes the historical part of the Bible back 4000 years.

Gilgamesh got it from the same place the Torah got it alright. Probably the flooding of Eden/Persian Gulf 8000 years ago, just downriver from Ur.

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:53:01 PM UTC-4, MarinaM wrote:
I would be interested in finding out the opinions of christians on ancient writings, pre bible, writings like the Epic of Gilgamesh where it speaks of a flood very similar to the one found in the bible,from: http://danielmiessler.com/writing/bible_fiction/

Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

  1. God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
  2. God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
  3. God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
  4. The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
  5. A great rain covered the land with water.
  6. The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
  7. The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
  8. The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
  9. The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It's not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon — hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

There are numerous other writings, osiris, mithra, all very much like the 'jesus' story.

What is your opinion on these? Do you think that the dates are wrong and these stories were copied from the bible, why the similarities, are they myths, but your stories aren't? I would really like to know!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Hubble peers to within a few 100 million years of big bang








On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:25 PM, e_space <espace1984@gmail.com> wrote:

what, hubble showed us proof of adam and eve walking around eden before they started wearing fig leaves? ... sorry for top posting ... ;-^)

Top posting is often the only way to post to AvC if you don't want your message to be lost in the quagmire. So no apology is necessary. I suggest you do it more often until Google gets its act together--which, of course, will probably be never. I'm sure there are many AvC members who never bother scrolling to the bottom of a long, convoluted thread--and I can't blame them. Google groups is a mess. 

LL

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:26:33 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
We've already seen the edge of the visible Universe. It's what proved Genesis right. 


[AvC] Re: Hubble peers to within a few 100 million years of big bang

what, hubble showed us proof of adam and eve walking around eden before they started wearing fig leaves? ... sorry for top posting ... ;-^)

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:26:33 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
We've already seen the edge of the visible Universe. It's what proved Genesis right. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: ..."No! I don't think so." Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.



On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 12:27:31 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:34:27 AM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:


On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 00:58:57 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Monday, October 20, 2014 8:45:00 AM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:

Even though sensible people today know it to be impossible......Do you honestly believe all this crap?

Well, there are well educated people...that accept it as a historical fact that Jesus existed and they are experts in that particular field. For goodness sakes, such people as J. Warner Wallace, a cold case detective, was an atheist and his research into the historical Jesus led him to the obvious conclusion that not only was Jesus a historical reality, but that he was who he claimed to be and subsequently he became a Christian.

                          And you call a turncoat a reliable expert. What crass ignorance is that?



 
What on earth are you considering suicide for anyway?


Actually, I was not the one that raised the suicide issue. It was raised by my fine debating opponent and I was simply responding to the issues surrounding the accusation on the part of that party that Jesus had committed suicide based on the evidence that I presented. This is not actually my view of the situation. After all, is it suicide when someone throws himself on a grande in a battle to save his C.O.? If it is not the sole thought of the individual in the act of doing that to take his own life through this means, then I would argue that it is in fact not, strictly speaking, suicide...though it may result in the same outcome as a suicide, the motives are different and it is the motive that makes suicide a suicide.
 

                            Suicide is a crime.

   Well, in our country maybe and in our time. But was it a criminal act two thousand years ago? I am not even sure that it is a crime in every country in the world. Would it have been a crime in feudal Japan where ritual suicide was customary, or would it have been an honorable thing to do? You are imposing your own values on other cultures with that statement.... it is not always a crime. The fact that you missed this point exposes a chink in your armor...you wouldn't be trying to commit suicide by debate...now would you? :)
 
If the character referred to; was as the story relates beyond sin, then you got that bit wrong for a start,

  Well, if the character was indeed who he claimed to be, he was the author of life and thus he had the right to do with life what he willed. Thus it was within his prerogative to do what he wanted when it pertains to life...it was not only his possession, but he was the legally rightful patent holder. So, he violated no moral law by infringing on that patent in any way whatsoever.

                        There is no such thing as the author of life. The crime of sedition was leveled against a man called Jesus.
 
didn't you. Second if he was crucified for  sedition by decree, it couldn't
                            have been suicide.

   You see more clearly than LL, who proposed an analogy of that kind. I don't think it was a suicide either, but he was not executed for sedition...heresy was the actual charge by the High Priest who then turned him over to the Roman authorities. That would be Joseph Caiaphas was the high priest of Jerusalem another real person in history as his ossuary was found in 1990.

                  LL does not speak for me nor  I for LL. and he was crucified for sedition:

                     The High Priest Caiaphas, a Sadducee priest and a Roman-appointee, actively sought to prevent open rebellion against Rome


   Yeah...there's the rub. Jesus was not exactly setting his students against Rome by telling them to pay their taxes. He was also not exactly claiming that his followers were defending his kingdom that was of this world that was in direct opposition to the Roman Empire. He made it quite clear that if his followers were defending such a kingdom, they would have taken up arms. The obvious conclusion there is that sedition had never crossed Jesus' mind, nor that of his followers.


                    > >  yar,

                                     It is even yet difficult to contemplate that anyone could demonstrate such appalling ignorance of their own alleged beliefs.

   One's beliefs cannot be alleged. If I were ignorant of what I believed, I would simply be following in your footsteps and I should think that would win your approval.

                           > > yar
                                          I have neither idea or interest in your beliefs, so perhaps apparent would be a better word than alleged if that suits a pedantic quest.
                                          my approval is not required

   Despite this fact, you insist that you are a greater expert on them than I am. Would you say that this is an arrogant attitude on your part?
What is more, if you are ignorant of and lack interest in my beliefs, why do you bother to engage in a debate with me?

                               > > > yar,
                           
                                                    My, my, you are beginning to sound threatened, how pathetic, As most posters who know of me will tell you I never ever admit to any expertise,
                                                    to the contrary I know that I know nothing. My interest is to find out how much you obviously do not know or seem somewhat confused about.

 

 

                                    For a start:
                                                         Ever since the Romans arrived on the scene in 64 BC, the Jewish people were divided over how to respond to
                                                         the rule of their often corrupt governors or the Herod family who served them.
 
So what? Division just makes them easier to conquer by Rome and keep them in check so that there cannot be an uprising against the empire.

                                               > > you show an alarming lack of historical learning, it is just as easy for you to read and research as it is for me instead of constantly complaining
                                                      about the lack of evidence why don't you research it for yourself.

     Well, it would seem to me that if we are in this conversation and you have evidence to support your views, you could at least present one piece of evidence. Surely, that would not be too burdensome for someone who has all the facts.

                                       I have not seen a scrap of evidence from you to demonstrate any authority for the claims you make.
                                      As for evidence from me, I can't make you study, when you insist anyway to follow the dogma of your belief. I've done my homework.
                                      that does not mean I am satisfied that I know enough and I constantly learn more and unlike you keep an open mind. In so doing it
                                      is as important for me to know your views, how else will I question them, it is always important to consider the views that one objects
                                      to as well as ones own. You are stuck in the groove of your overplayed record. I don't play records, I record for myself.

 

 

 
In case it escalate and endanger what little autonomy

    Let's see...they were divided and did not know how to respond in unison against the Roman empire and that would cause escalation?

                                             I cant help your ignorance, if you won't study history you will remain ignorant,

    I am pointing to your logic, and how it seems to be flawed. Simply learning facts about history isn't going to give you an understanding of the events in it. There is a whole slew of other things that you must also bring to your study...such as an ounce of common sense.

                                        > > > I might say precisely the same of you and that is why you are as putty in my hands. You should indeed do far more research.
                                                  The logic of an atheist is always an anathema to theists who are incapable of logic. Your confining dogma will only ever see flaws you cant fathom.


 
that is not ad hominem, that is as it is.ignorance on your part to help yourself.

   Well, so far you have not demonstrated those knowledge gaps I have that would support your claims of ignorance. That could be done on your part by showing historical evidence to support your claims. Will you be doing that in the future or will you just claim my ignorance without supporting evidence? Such claims are ad hominem without the evidence. You are obliged to prove my ignorance.

                                 In as much as you wrote the above you show an astounding amount of ignorance, you supply your own ignorance and are your own supporting evidence of it.
                                 There is abundant evidence of everything I claim. It is for you to do the study, I've already spent years doing my own. I am not about to do yours for you. you are as
                                 capable of referencing as I. what utter ignorance even to ask me to do your work, I do not ask you to do mine for me do I ? If you are too bone idle to study that's your amiss.

 
                                             If you look at it properly
   
   Meaning what? Look at it the way you do? You have to make a case for your way of looking at it as being legitimate. So, prove that your way of looking at it is not just an insistence on looking at history through a distorted lens.

                                  You are as ignorant as you are arrogant. Historians world-wide are increasingly saying the same thing but you of course know better do you? What a self deluded ignoramus you are.


 
and know the fact you will know that they could not possibly act in unison and that was a major problem

 
                                                         the Temple priests were given by Caesar Augustus.

   The temple priests could only come from the Levite line, in other words the patriarchal line of Aaron. The Romans showed little interest in these matters as was demonstrated by the response of Pilate. Matters concerning evil, which was the concern of the priests was not something Rome was interested in dealing with.

                                                            The High Priest Caiaphas, a Sadducee priest was a Roman-appointee. If you read history you would know that.

 
It was Caiaphas who sent out the Temple police to arrest Jesus, most
                                                         certainly on grounds that Jesus was seditious (rebellious)
against Roman authority.


  What do you offer as evidence for that claim? You make all kinds of claims that Rome had so much time on its hands that it could micro manage everything in its empire in those primitive times. How did they do that do you think? Through twitter?
                                                          
                                                        > > >    What a stupid comment to make:.. Once again demonstrating your arrogant ignorance. As I have remarked here-to-fore you do not even know
                                                                      your own biblical teachings.... and you dare to lecture me? TEMPLE POLICE should tell you that at that stage it had nothing to do with the Roman authorities.
                                                                      As I told you just above here..."IT WAS CAIAPHAS THE SADDUCEE WHO SENT OUT THE TEMPLE POLICE"
                                                     Are you being deliberately obtuse?

                                                                 Simple historical record devoid of religious influence.

You keep making astounding claims here and there and other places, but you offer no documentary evidence to support them. Please tell me one good reason why I should take your CONJECTURES seriously.

                                                                 I do not need to offer evidence for that which is common knowledge to anyone who has read history., try it for yourself you might even learn something
                                                                      

 

                                      Beyond that part of the story it is quite irrelevant what followed and who was guilty of what is of no account, it is all part of the allegory anyway.
                                     The story was made deliberately to show that all the culpability for the event was down to the Jews, as the story tells us and was meant to tell us
                                      Rome through Pilate washed his hands of responsibility for the death of the character Jesus with the direct  result that anti semitic  bias has
                                      reigned ever since and until this day is rife in parts of the world. This and this alone was the intent of the Romans .
                           The Jews were a disgruntled people, a waring fractious people not a turn the other cheek placid group,
                            as the Gospel stories relate. Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls were so Important? because they
                            were part of the original writings of the Messianic's at that time, that had been so ruthlessly destroyed
                            by the Romans and the writers slaughtered.

                            You pretend to know your history but only in as far as it agrees with your version of the dogma of religion. Josephus was undoubtedly a turn-coat.
                                      he had been a Messianic leader at the time of the wars and was captured by Vespasian and used by the Romans after have made a pact to
                                      kill himself at Galilee instead he willingly offered his services against the Jews. And you dare to tell me he was not a turn coat. Your arrogance
                                     shines through He went on and with the help of the only copy of the scrolls of the Jews captured at the temple of Jerusalem he set to with others
                                     to alter the gospels and parts of the OT to insert prophecies to suit the Jesus story and convince the Jews that the long standing messianic hope
                                     had been misunderstood and the savior was not one of their own out of Judea (Palestine). Well I know you don't like it, so lump it.
                            Your ignorance and arrogance has made a fool of you.  
You just carry on in your ignorant BELIEF. I'll stay with my KNOWLEDGE
                                      any day and pity you and those with  whom you indulge in your blissful ignorance. Good day to you. Wallow in the stench of lies and self deceit.
                            


  Jesus was arrested by the temple guards of the Sanhedrin,  not the Roman authorities. It is very strange that you did not  notice this:

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What [is that] to us? see thou [to that]. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:3-5)

It was Judas that betrayed Jesus to the high priest...Caiaphas...with not a Roman in view anywhere...and it was Caiaphas that had Jesus arrested. But you will have to do better than just making a claim that he was following the orders from Augustus in doing that. As I already pointed out, there was another incident recorded in John 10:31 to 10:33 where the Jews showed their hand as to the reason for wanting Jesus dead when attempting to stone him and that was not sedition, but for blasphemy in calling himself God, when he was in fact only a man. If you can show a similarly clear passage showing a charge of sedition...I'd be interested.
 

                      If the Gospel of John is to be our authority, his account disagrees with the Synopticists in that the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition,

  Actually...he did no such a thing. He questioned him regarding his teachings and Jesus told him that he did nothing in secret, but all his teachings were done publicly so that he can ask anyone what his teaching was and they could tell him. If sedition were his game, it would be very foolish for him to be gallivanting around running his mouth off about it. So, the high priest is not in fact shown to have charged him

When he was delivered to Pilate he asked those who delivered him as to what the charge was against Jesus. They answered him that he was an evildoer. It was not a charge of sedition and that is why Pilate told them to take him away and judge him according to their own laws...since he clearly did not violate any law against sedition against the Roman empire.

"36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom [k]is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not [l]of this realm.""

  Jesus here unequivocally denies any suggestion of sedition and Pilate agrees with him by stating that he finds no guilt in him shortly after this quote.

So, you are very badly mistaken in your understanding of what is in the primary source documentation on this subject. I suggest you go back to them and re-read them.

                      not blasphemy, as the Synoptic Gospels allege. Clearly, the pseudipigraphical author of John is not as ignorant of Jewish Law as are the Synopticists for his account is in context with
                      many other findings thus far.

  Well, you didn't exactly present any evidence to that effect. But please feel free to do so in the future.

 

                       I keep telling you the bible was edited and re-edited many many times.

    Well, that is a very interesting theory. Have you any evidence that through this "editing" there was distortion introduced?

 
Why don't you take note, you are not obliged to believe it, but at least take account of known facts what little there are.

The "facts" for your view do seem very slim...well, that would be generous on my part...there really are no facts so far to support your view, but I am waiting for some from you. I wonder when they will make their appearance.

 



What inane cods-wallop you do dream up. Get a life for pity sake.

I have two of them. What good would a third one do me? :) I'm just not that kind of cat.


                 
                         yar,

                                    and I imagine you think you have successfully acquitted yourself with the above play on semantic argumentation. Think again.
                                    What you fail to appreciate is that the OT & NT were written and altered many times to fool the likes of you.

   It is difficult to appreciate that which did not occur.

 
Both Flavius Josephus
                                    and Philo and many others rewrote the NT and altered the OT to match the prophesies. "In order that the prophesies may be fulfilled"


   Yeah...well, that you are obliged to provide evidence for. Considering the entrenched Hebrew culture in their old testament integrity, I think that it would be foolish to think that they would allow such a thing.

                           We have the accounts of Flavius Josephus himself who says he was given the Jewish Messianic Scrolls in order to re-edit, You may or may not recall that the Scrolls were taken from the temple
                           at Jerusalem when it was flattened by Titus and the scrolls were kept in their private palace when Vespasian ordered Josephus to rewrite them to favour Rome and disgrace the Jews. Which he did.
                           remember this was some 40 years after the event, and demise of the Jesus character.
 
<blockquote style="
...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Pope Francis says God is not afraid of new things



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:24:52 PM UTC+2, Kurt wrote:
His solution to the endemic homosexual child molesting in the clergy is to encourage homosexuality. 

No interest in ending the homosexual child molesting though. Not  a priority.  

I take it you're aware that the child molestation is mostly heterosexual?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] From Particles to People

Observer

Sean Carroll tells it like it is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bcVEADadvs


Enjoy

Psychonomist


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.