The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm just going to jump in here and mention that according to Dante, no souls achieved salvation prior to Jesus' death. Good people from before then went where virtuous non-Chrtistians still do - to Limbo, where they recieve neither eternal suffering nor eternal bliss.

Yes, I know La Commedia Divina is not canon (literally!), but it's culturally significant.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

There were other ways to get to heaven in the Old Testament times. I believe that this was through sacrifices and believing in God. This system no longer is active in the same form, since Christ has replaced it with a much simpler way of getting to heaven. Actually, He didn't replace it, He just payed for our sin Himself, which brought practical changes our way. That is my view.quote>

The Muslims believe a somewhat similar thing. It also happens within the Al-Qu'ran itself. This is called naskh. Apparently, God changed his message from time to time to replace outdated beliefs as the situation warranted. The phrases themselves are called (and I apologize for the transliteration) mansuukh (or 'Abrogated') and naasikh (or 'Abrogator'). There are four main schools of naskh.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Is there real evidence for Christianity though? I certainly understand that nobody wants to believe something that has no evidence for it. I wouldn't want to do that either. I, personally, seem to have a hard time with any other idea than Jesus being the Son of God. However, if I had no knowledge of any tornado, and told about it, it would be ridiculous! I believe that there is evidence, though. I believe that this is the resurrection of Christ.

quote>

You make an assumption from an assumption. If you want evidence to believe something, automatically assuming that the resurrection happened and making an assumption from that leads nowhere. It's not evidence. It's still faith.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Could the disciples have hallucinated Jesus, though? Well, if it were one, it might be possible, but even if it were only a few, it would be highly improbable. Rarely do two people have the same hallucination at the same time, and the idea of having many people, over 500, doesn't seem likely to me.

quote>

Based on yet another assumption. There is no evidence that any of this happened. In actuality, there are records of 19 Jesii around the time, not one from Nazareth (which didn't exist at the time), and none that performed any such miracles. Christianity is just a syncretic evolution of a messianic sect of Judaism (or several) that adopted Egyptian, Mithraic, Buddhist, and other other local religious beliefs and practices in a giant mix, and used clever politcal maneuvering to perform the greatest cover-up in human history.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Jesus' empty tomb is also evidence for His resurrection. We don't have Jesus' body anywhere. Plus, the disciples had a huge passion for what they believed. It seems most logical to me to believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and appeared to the disciples and many others after He rose.

quote>

Sad thing is, the story isn't original. It is an exact copy of much older myths.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

And is that evidence for God caring for us? Well, we see it everywhere, right? Suffering, pain, and so on... We (and I admit, I have asked the same question, more than once) often wonder how God could be loving if He allows this? Well, for one thing, I believe that God can always take our suffering and use it to good use when we are following Him. The other side of that is that we live in a fallen world. Fallen to sin, that is. Sin results in suffering. I am not saying that all bad things in life are a result of our own sins to be specific, but sin effects all of mankind. Everyone. When Adam first sinned, sin entered the entire world, not just one being. Now, we are all affected by this fallen world. Does that mean God doesn't care? Well, from a Biblical worldview, God didn't have to send His own son to the cross. In fact, we deserve hell from a Biblical standpoint. Jesus, however, got up from His seat in heaven, and came down to earth to live as a human. Considering how broken we are, it doesn't seem very predictable, but God was loving enough to send Jesus. Although we live in a fallen world, God gave us a way out of it -- Jesus Christ. Now this is from a Biblical view. I understand that some may have different views. I am simply explaining my own views. Now, if God certainly didn't have to send His son, doesn't it make sense that God is a loving God if He chose to anyway?

quote>

Here's the big ethical quandary... God supposedly creates this world. He puts people on it, and then arbitrarily decides to place the one thing capable of ruining everything right there (the tree). That's all fine. At that point, nobody had sinned, right? Well, Lucifer, but not on the Earth, or some such nonsense. Anyways, he creates the condition that allows suffering to be inherited in his perfect world. Then, when man decides to go on and mess everything up, using the supposed free will he was given, and thereby exercising his right to use said will, he, and everyone else for eternity are beholden to make up for this mistake. How is creating something with the gift of free will, and then punishing creation for using this gift ethically permissible? And how is a perfect being allowed to create the conditions for suffering and then just step back to avoid the blame? Sounds like a pathetic cop-out to me.

Somehow, this insanely powerful being, capable of creating everything from atoms to monstrous sustained fusion reactions in space and everything between, takes this tiny planet, with a smattering of universally insignificant creatures, and makes the entire focus of this mind-bogglingly-large universe the redemption of the actions of a few of these insignificant collections of molecules (because, on a grand scale of this universe, we literally are nothing but an infinitesimal speck in both size and time) thousands of years ago. But, rather than explaining the easiest way to do this, he reveals himself in cryptic bits and pieces, supposedly births himself and commits suicide to make a zombie-king doppleganger who absorbs our mistakes like a magic sponge, and then destroys all evidence that proves he exists. His own followers can't even agree on what salvation truly takes, or what 'his words' are supposed to mean.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The latest Christian dogma seems to be that hell is the absence of God and heaven is being in the presence of God.  The idea of Limbo has been denigrated for a long time in the Christian faith except for people like Obelisk and Dogmatix.  If you are going to have hell at all, I prefer this model. 

The idea of suffering in a lake of fire applies only to people from warm countries.  The Norse myths have hell as a place of eternal absolute zero ruled by a goddess named Hel.  Both seem to be derived from deprivation of shelter in extreme weather conditions. 

In the Norse mythos, we again have the tree of life (Yggdrasl (sp?)) to which is tied the Fenris wolf who was placed there by the Asgard (Heimdahl to be precise, and it cost him his hand).  When the wolf is released, Ragnarok (Armageddon) follows.  Sound familiar?  Christians/Jews/Muslims take note.  The Norse peoples were completely out of contact with the Mediterranean world and built similar myths, eh?

[Darth Apple 54]

Is there evidence for Jesus' existence? Umm... what evidence can I give for Aristotle, Plato, Atlantis ( You can see that I am going down that path.) Muhammad, and so on? Well, it is believed historically, by historians, that these people really did live because history suggests so. Well, historians also know that Jesus at least existed! It is simply historical fact, and historical fact can't disprove it.

Even science suggests that something had to create matter and energy. It had to be a god of some sort. I have lately been using other-than-scientific evidence, but that is scientific evidence? I have said this before too, multiple times: The second law of thermodynamics causes me to question how the universe could put itself in order. It seems most logical to me to believe that God put it in order.

Is this a cop-out around Adam and Eve? Well, it doesn't make much sense for man to turn from God. Yes, that is stupid. I believe that all of us have turned our backs on God too. God did give us a free will.

However... if someone is at a bus stop, and is thirsty, very thirsty, say, and then someone comes up, to and suggests that he go and steel, because the machine there is poorly designed. Would this person want to steel, if no one is watching? Well, most would. That is sinful human nature, and I believe we picked that up after the first sin in the Garden of Eden. God gave us a free-will. It is part of who we are. I am sure God didn't want us to sin, but I believe that He allowed us to because He gave us a free will. He is true to Himself. I don't seem to think that this is a "cop out". It isn't pleasant, but it is true. God is also a righteous god. He punished us for our sin because He is true to Himself, but Jesus took our place on that cross. Those who place their trust in Jesus don't have to bear God's wrath because Christ already paid for our sin and bore the wrath of God, and this was the wrath and punishment I deserved. I call that a God of mercy!!

These are my views.

[saltandsauce 0]

according to some documentary i saw, there is no such thing as absolutley nothing, because the universe is accelerating in the speed it expands, in other words, the big bang is still banging. personally i find it curious that people beleive a mathematical formula where 60% of matter is undetectable in any way whatsoever and this gap has been proven and HAS to be fill for the universe to work. i.e. there is a methematical gap sort of like 1+74+x= 274. they have the 1, the 74 and the 274 but they cannot find the 199 but it HAS to be there. yet nobody beleives in a romantic (perpendicular to rational not opposite) idea of the world making sense (and in a lot of places where justice ultimatley prevails even after they die) and has no numbers involved and people scoff at this.

it's a curious thought.

to me anyways.

(btw. i am not a creationist or a "pick n' mix" Christian, i have a book with the requirements on this subject and i follow them and they are not pure creationism in the slightest way other than "God made the world and it was good" and "God made man and it was very good" or words to that effect. therefore i have no internal conflicts over this issue (like you care). in the same way that i have no objections to stem cell research. it is the obtaining of stem cells from the feotus is where the moral dilemma starts. stem cells from adults are not objectionable to most groups.

get your facts right. (i'm talking to both of you)

now scroll past this post and ignore it's contents and "remember" the sections which make me look like a prick, yes i know you do that.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Is there evidence for Jesus' existence? Umm... what evidence can I give for Aristotle, Plato, Atlantis ( You can see that I am going down that path.) Muhammad, and so on? Well, it is believed historically, by historians, that these people really did live because history suggests so. Well, historians also know that Jesus at least existed!

quote>

Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE) and Plato (428/427 BCE to 347/348 BCE): Both way earlier than Jesus... You're not seriously saying these men talked about a not-yet-born person, are you?!?!?

Muhammad, as portrayed in the Al-Qu'ran is likely also nothing like the real Muhammad. That's another topic, though. And, they used the Bible for their information, since Islam was another syncretic evolution from prior sources.

The only person to mention Jesus specifically, and as a somewhat conteporary, is Josephus. However, this was proven to be a fake.

Other pseudo-contemporary claims are based upon misinterpretations of the word 'Chrestos' into 'Christos,' sometimes proven to be a literal forgery. (FYI, 'Chrestos' means 'the good' or 'the appointed' in the apppropriate texts).

The most simple fact about it is this:

There is no evidence at all.

All the actual historians at the time recorded none of the whole debacle. Given the supposed importance of this event, I find it highly unlikely that they would just ignore it, given that they documented much less-significant things with regularity. Occam's razor my friend... It didn't happen.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Even science suggests that something had to create matter and energy. It had to be a god of some sort. I have lately been using other-than-scientific evidence, but that is scientific evidence? I have said this before too, multiple times: The second law of thermodynamics causes me to question how the universe could put itself in order. It seems most logical to me to believe that God put it in order.

quote>

 

I already hit the Second Law of Thermodynamics earlier. You seem to have ignored it. It just furthers my belief that you don't actually read most of what we post...

Just so you don't have to go back and reread it, here's the short version:

The 'order' you are describing is NOT the same thing as the physical quantity called 'entropy.' And, the entropy can lower on a localized system and be offset by a raise elsewhere. This Earth is NOT the only place in this universe... And, the universe is a lot less 'ordered' compared to when it was created then you think it is.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

Is this a cop-out? Well, it doesn't make much sense for man to turn from God. Yes, that is stupid. I believe that all of us have turned our backs on God too. (No, I am not trying to attack anyone. I am expressing my beliefs.) God did give us a free will.

quote>

I think it is a cop-out. Shoulder the responsibility onto your little worker-bees and step back to demand tribute? The Bible does a terrible job of showing an omnibenevolent being.

Originally posted by: blakesterville

However... if someone is at a bus stop, and is thirsty, very thirsty, say, and then someone comes up, to and suggests that he go and steel, because the machine there is poorly designed. Would this person want to steel, if no one is watching? Well, most would. That is human nature. God gave us a free-will. It is part of who we are. I am sure God didn't want us to sin, but He allowed us to because He gave is a free will. He is true to Himself. I don't seem to think that this is a "cop out". It isn't pleasant, but it is true. God is also a righteous god. He punished us for our sin because He is true to Himself, but Jesus took our place on that cross. Those who place their trust in Jesus don't have to bear God's wrath because Christ already paid for our sin and bore the wrath of God, and this was the wrath and punishment I deserved. I call that a God of mercy!!

quote>

You seem to think that 'stealing' and 'sin' are 'human nature.' Have you stopped to consider the alternate? What is 'human nature' really? Is it not the product of societal conditioning? The necessity for crime is a by-product of scarcity (which could very well lead me to start another topic about monetary systems etc...). Have you ever been so down-and-out that you had to steal to eat? I think you'd change your black-and-white view of this if you had to live it. (I've been out-on-the-street-homeless three times, and have been exceptionally poor most of my life. The world isn't so clear-cut.)

EDIT: saltandsauce: Who the hell are you talking to?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

You seem to think that 'stealing' and 'sin' are 'human nature.' Have you stopped to consider the alternate? What is 'human nature' really? Is it not the product of societal conditioning?quote>

Human nature is, well, nature. Innate things that we're just born with and can't change. Societal conditioning, meanwhile, is nurture. Things we learn and teach each other. The two have a yin and yang sort of relationship. No causality is involved.

As for sin being human nature, well... many of the things that are considered sinful are human nature in one way or another. Nature drives us to do some things that we do not do because our sense of right and wrong stops us. The fact that we are capable of having those morals is part of what makes us human.

But, the concept of sin itself, while commonly associated with religion, can also be understood in a secular manner. Few people will deny the existence of morals, regardless of what they do or don't believe in. Indeed, I may be an atheist, but there are things I would consider "sinful". Murder is wrong, but I don't need God to tell me "thou shalt not kill". I can figure that out on my own.

The ideas, then, that there was an "original sin" that we've all inherited, that we need to have it cleansed from our souls, and that Jesus died for it are Christian accessories which are not vital to the underlying concept itself. As for things which are "sins against God", God is not a necessary peice of the puzzle there, either. All offenses "against God" can be expressed in terms of offense against other people, or simply said to be victmless offenses.

The necessity for crime is a by-product of scarcityquote>

People are driven to commit crimes out of a need for something they do not have. But, that can be anything. It's not necessarily "needing to eat" or anything so basic. Higher needs on Maslow's hierarchy can drive crime just the same.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Human nature?  What is that?  Can anyone define it?

I suspect this is just an excuse, in this case, for anti-social behavior.  Your nature is what you have been conditioned to by your parental group including parents and teachers.  Whether this nature falls into the class of human is moot.

Sin is a transgression against current mores.  These days not much of a personal nature is sinful.  We condone all sorts of things that are condemned by earlier mores, even those as late as the 1950's.  We condone sodomy, for example.  What did you think gays do when they have sex?  In the Old Testament the writers are clearly against it.  Sodom and Gomorra were nothing compared to the current trends.  I am not anti-gay, but merely choose this as an example of how mores have changed.  The ancient Greeks thought nothing of it, nor the Romans, but in the middle ages you could be imprisoned. tortured and/or burned at the stake.

If you are a Christian, there are only two commandments, given by Jesus.  The old ten are history and comment after Him.

Other religious codes have other interpretations.

The seven deadly sins are merely admonitions.  The most common of these is greed (avarice) in its many forms.  This seems to be the main infection of the corporate types.

Of course, the criminal code sets out a group of crimes against society which could be considered sins in a way, but the punishments are secular.  Most codes of law are against murder, and even go so far as to classify it by degree.  Foo!  Murder is murder!  Hairsplitting over whether there was intention and/or planning is a matter of differing between mortal and venial sin.  It is very hard in most jurisdictions to commit a mortal sin, since this requires full intention on the part of the sinner with full knowledge of the consequences (if any).  One could go on, and on, ad nauseous.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

The Bible was handed down through oral traditions - oral tradition that were sacred and not one word could be mis-interpreted. Jewish scholars were and still are evidenced, to commit the entire Torah to memory and entire communities would do the same, so if anyone missed even a single word, 100's of listeners were there to correct them and would have been offended, if it was found to be intentional. Yet, we should take into account, stone tablets with words from Isaiah have been discovered and dated to 2600 years old - 600 years before Jesus' earthly life began. Copper tablets of many other books are dated to 2300 years old.

Can anyone direct me to similar stories, with written evidence, that are clearly dated as older than 2600 years?

Matthew - a tax collector and merchant, who was called by Jesus into the ministry. A businessman.

Mark - an evangelist who traveled with Peter an eye-witness to Jesus' ministry on Earth.

Luke -  a physician and historian, who's Greek writings are still considered some of the most beautifully written and very accurate.

John - a direct eye-witness of the transconfiguration and crucifixion of Jesus. an ordinary fellow and a fisherman.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/141396/case-for-christ?c=News-and-Information/Documentary-and-Biography

Any of us who wish to understand the implications of these four very eclectic scholars, should watch the program I have linked above.

Three of the gospels were written withing 50 years of Jesus' resurrection. Many direct eye-witnesses of Jesus' works, were still alive, at the time they were written. Only Lukes gospel is considered to be a later accounting, around 300 years after.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Can anyone direct me to similar stories, with written evidence, that are clearly dated as older than 2600 years?

quote>

Yes, I can. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains several of the same stories. Also, the funerary writings on the temple walls of Sakkara are both older.

Oh, and the Greek Eleusinian myths which were written in 1,400-1,800 B.C.E. depicting the same 'hero cycle' with Dionysus...

There are a lot of these. The Bible isn't anything original, at all.

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Three of the gospels were written withing 50 years of Jesus' resurrection. Many direct eye-witnesses of Jesus' works, were still alive, at the time they were written. Only Lukes gospel is considered to be a later accounting, around 300 years after.

quote>

And those three can't be properly sourced, even from each other ("Q", or two-source hypothesis, Gospels according to the Hebrews...). Neither can they be reliably dated. The earliest I have seen is 65 CE (the lowest scale of an estimation), but you may correct me.

If the Gospels were written within fifty years, yes, there would be some living witnesses. However, there are no extra-biblical sources to corroborate the story. The sheer number of extra-biblical sources that make no mention of any of the events is astounding. Certainly the events would have inspired contemporary writers to chronicle it? Yet, they didn't.

There is mention of a Jesus ben Stada being crucified at the hands of the Romans in the dawn of the second century. And Jospehus makes mention of about 19 Jesii in his works, but not a single one of them from Nazareth, which didn't even exist in the First Century...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

From what I have seen recently in the media, archeology is catching up on the religious myths of the past, especially in Israel and the middle east.  A lot of historic buildings reported in the Bible are being uncovered, including much of the buildings of Solomon, who seems to have actually been authenticated.  David's house has been referenced in some inscriptions found among the Babylonian and Assyrian ruins.  Recent Old Testament stuff seems to be fairly historical, so why is there a hiatus at about the time of the Maccabean revolution?  The Romans were pretty pissed off, but they couldn't have destroyed everything.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Yet, we should take into account, stone tablets with words from Isaiah have been discovered and dated to 2600 years old - 600 years before Jesus' earthly life began. Copper tablets of many other books are dated to 2300 years old.

quote>

Which stone tablets are these you are referring to? The only artefacts dating to about 2600 I've heard of are the silver scrolls which contain a portion of the priestly benediction. Its not the whole of Isaiah, they were just two small amulets. The only whole Isaiah manuscript I know of dates to 100 BC only.

The copper scrolls I know of date to 20-100 AD.

There are Mesopotamian clay tablets found in the city of Nineveh which tell how the gods decidede to wipe out mankind with a flood, and how Utnapishtim,his family and animals were saved. One of these versions dates between 1300 and 1000 BC although there are older versions. However there are many original and distinct sources

There's also the Sumerian creation and flood stories knonw from a tablet dated to the 18th Century BCE.

You can find a translation of part of the flood legend here: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.7.4#. Sumerian is the oldest language for which there is written evidence and literature and it dates from the late 3rd and early second millenium BCE. The previous link will get you to a database of translations.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Human nature?  What is that?  Can anyone define it?

I suspect this is just an excuse, in this case, for anti-social behavior.  Your nature is what you have been conditioned to by your parental group including parents and teachers.quote>

Nonono, nature doesn't involve anything anyone has ever been taught or conditioned into. That's the nurture part, and it will vary from time to time and place to place.

Some things, meanwhile, we are born with and don't need to be taught. For instance, facial expressions. People smile when they're happy and frown when they're sad.... always, everywhere. It's innately known, no conditioning necessary.

Well, in the same way... people are naturally driven tooeither fight or flee from threats (physically and psychologically). People are naturally driven to want to reproduce. People are naturally driven to want revenge on those who they feel have wronged them. And so on. We have our primitive instincts and tendencies just like any other animal. They tend to take over in moments of passion, but they're always there regardless.

At any rate, "human nature" (you can drop the "human" and just call it "nature", really) is not just an excuse. It is, psychologically, the root cause for an awful lot of things. And it's something we cannot change.

Now, that doesn't mean we can't hold people accountable for failing to properly control themselves. We absolutely can, and do.

"It's just human nature" is merely an explanation, not a justification.

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Can anyone direct me to similar stories, with written evidence, that are clearly dated as older than 2600 years?

quote>

Yes, I can. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains several of the same stories. Also, the funerary writings on the temple walls of Sakkara are both older.

Oh, and the Greek Eleusinian myths which were written in 1,400-1,800 B.C.E. depicting the same 'hero cycle' with Dionysus...

There are a lot of these. The Bible isn't anything original, at all.

quote>

But they're cyclical in nature, not linear in their measurement of time.  The Old Testament is a HUGE diversion from the concept of time of the day.  That's one major distinction that cannot be ignored.

Many Christian Old Testament scholars will tell you that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be literally read in the same way that the remainder of Genesis is (and, for that matter, the majority of the rest of the Bible).  We could reopen the can of worms of creation and if it was 7 24 days or 7 periods... but that isn't the important part.  The important part of creation is that God is the Initiator and the main Character.

And really, though there are similarities between the first 11 chapters of Genesis and other period documents like the Epic of Gilgamesh, there are far more differences.

There was a great flood in both and a person is warned by a deity to build a boat so he can be spared.  He builds the boat, the storm comes, the waters recede and the boat ends up on a mountain, and a bird is sent out to see it if's safe to embark.

But the type of boat is different, as is the length of the flood, the people who were saved, the landing place of the boat, the outcome for the hero, and most important, the role of the gods.  Scholars have concluded that a literary dependence between the sources can't be demonstrated.

What's more likely is that there is either a common source or more ancient literature or it was just a different interpretation of the actual event.

In any event, the archeological finds show a social structure in Palestine that went from semisedentary to more urban toward the end of the Middle Bronze era (1900-1700 B.C.), which supports the Biblical description of Abraham's travels to a sparsely populated land.

And this is the ultimate purpose of the book of Genesis... to tell how and why Yahweh came to choose Abraham's family and make a covenant with them and through this line the human race would be redeemed.

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Three of the gospels were written withing 50 years of Jesus' resurrection. Many direct eye-witnesses of Jesus' works, were still alive, at the time they were written. Only Lukes gospel is considered to be a later accounting, around 300 years after.

quote>

And those three can't be properly sourced, even from each other ("Q", or two-source hypothesis, Gospels according to the Hebrews...). Neither can they be reliably dated. The earliest I have seen is 65 CE (the lowest scale of an estimation), but you may correct me.

If the Gospels were written within fifty years, yes, there would be some living witnesses. However, there are no extra-biblical sources to corroborate the story. The sheer number of extra-biblical sources that make no mention of any of the events is astounding. Certainly the events would have inspired contemporary writers to chronicle it? Yet, they didn't.

There is mention of a Jesus ben Stada being crucified at the hands of the Romans in the dawn of the second century. And Jospehus makes mention of about 19 Jesii in his works, but not a single one of them from Nazareth, which didn't even exist in the First Century...

quote>

There are more sources than this...  In addition to Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus, as do writings from Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Lucian.  They confirm that Jesus lived, became a public figure, and then was put to death under Pontius Pilate and within a few dozen years of hid death, the worship of him had spread as far as Rome.

Remember, Israel is about the size of New Jersey, this occurred 2000 years ago, and there were no newspapers of the day.  It also was in a rather obscure corner of the Roman Empire.  There were no printers, no computers, no internet.  Everything had to be hand-written and stored someplace where it would not be destroyed over time.  That we have as many documents as we do is really pretty remarkable.

I'm not sure where you get that Jesus only had two commandments... he had dozens and did not negate the 10 commandments (as a matter of fact, there were far more than 10 Jewish commandments... there were actually 613).  Several of these were negated by Christ, specifically the ones about sacrifice, as Jesus became the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.  Many of the old Jewish practices were annulled (i.e. you didn't and don't have to become Jewish to become Christian).  The Epistle to the Galatians discusses this.

There's tons more to be said about this, but it's bedtime!

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Can anyone direct me to similar stories, with written evidence, that are clearly dated as older than 2600 years?

quote>

Yes, I can. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains several of the same stories. Also, the funerary writings on the temple walls of Sakkara are both older.

Oh, and the Greek Eleusinian myths which were written in 1,400-1,800 B.C.E. depicting the same 'hero cycle' with Dionysus...

There are a lot of these. The Bible isn't anything original, at all.quote>

All I can find is this date:

The story of King Gilgamesh, thought to be a ruler in the 3rd millennium B.C, was gathered into an Akkadian poem long afterward, with the most complete version extant today preserved on twelve clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century B.C.E Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. That equals 2700 years.

It's a new discovery: The 2600 year old clay tablet, I was referring to, containing exact duplicate of a portion of Isaiah, was just recently dug up, in an archeological dig site in Isreal, near Jerusalem. The article was posted to MSN and Yahoo News, just last month, but I will need to see if it is archived.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"... full of sound and fury

"signifying nothing."

All this talk fails to persuade me or anyone for that matter.  I'll stick to my deism.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: jglei701
But they're cyclical in nature, not linear in their measurement of time.  The Old Testament is a HUGE diversion from the concept of time of the day.  That's one major distinction that cannot be ignored.


Many Christian Old Testament scholars will tell you that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be literally read in the same way that the remainder of Genesis is (and, for that matter, the majority of the rest of the Bible).  We could reopen the can of worms of creation and if it was 7 24 days or 7 periods... but that isn't the important part.  The important part of creation is that God is the Initiator and the main Character.
quote>

You probably didn't read the original post I put up about this several pages back, but to save myself from reposting it, the idea that the Old Testament is meant to be taken in a pick-and-mix fashion is not the view held by the majority of Hebrew scholars. It's favored by the apologists who want to work backwards from the evidence. It is, quite literally, meant to be taken word-for-word as correct, and the 'days' are, in fact, meant to be interpreted as the 24-hour cycles of this planet along its ecliptic.

Originally posted by: jglei701
And really, though there are similarities between the first 11 chapters of Genesis and other period documents like the Epic of Gilgamesh, there are far more differences.

There was a great flood in both and a person is warned by a deity to build a boat so he can be spared.  He builds the boat, the storm comes, the waters recede and the boat ends up on a mountain, and a bird is sent out to see it if's safe to embark.

But the type of boat is different, as is the length of the flood, the people who were saved, the landing place of the boat, the outcome for the hero, and most important, the role of the gods.  Scholars have concluded that a literary dependence between the sources can't be demonstrated.
quote>

For this last piece of information, this 'scholar's conclusion' or whatever, I would like to see a source.

Actually having read them both, I find the list of similarities to far ounumber the differences.
(Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 1949)

Originally posted by: jglei701
What's more likely is that there is either a common source or more ancient literature or it was just a different interpretation of the actual event.
quote>

The common source idea is one that can't be discounted. Neither can the 'interpretation' scenario, given there is evidence of a localized Mesopotamian flood that could be the basis (but no evidence for an actual worldwide flood, since it did not happen). It's far more likely that the biblical story was just a syncretic retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by: jglei701
In any event, the archeological finds show a social structure in Palestine that went from semisedentary to more urban toward the end of the Middle Bronze era (1900-1700 B.C.), which supports the Biblical description of Abraham's travels to a sparsely populated land.
quote>

It would work only if the story was really contemporary. Sounds a lot like loose revisionism, or 'fishing' if you would, to make it fit. Genesis was likely written and compiled over a four century time-span from 950 to 540 B.C.E. by many authors of several traditions. (C.M. Laymon, The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible, 1991). That's quite a large time difference.

Originally posted by: jglei701
And this is the ultimate purpose of the book of Genesis... to tell how and why Yahweh came to choose Abraham's family and make a covenant with them and through this line the human race would be redeemed.
quote>

And here, I can't disagree with you. I can however, refer to prior posts dealing with the intended inerrancy of the texts, and the relative paucity of evidence to prove it being damning.

Originally posted by: jglei701
There are more sources than this...  In addition to Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus, as do writings from Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Lucian.  They confirm that Jesus lived, became a public figure, and then was put to death under Pontius Pilate and within a few dozen years of hid death, the worship of him had spread as far as Rome.
quote>

Josephus' reference in the Testimonium Flavianum is a later interpolation, and has been proven to be so for some time. If I have to, I'll explain why. You could easily look up why yourself.

And, since you bring them up, let's do the other ones.

Pliny the Younger: First, not a contemporary (61 C.E.-112 C.E.). But, let's see what he wrote.

"Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." (Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97).

There is no reference to Christ being an actual figure, only the belief in him as one. To say that this proved his existence would be like saying believers in Santa Claus or Bigfoot proved their existence. It's not a reference to a flash-and-blood man named Jesus from Nazareth. Trajan's reply is quite funny, to boot.

"They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it -- that is, by worshiping our gods -- even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance"

Also, of the 247 letters that Pliny himself collected and published, the relevant letters, 96 and 97, are the only ones to be published anonymously, and posthumously... Interesting, no?

Suetonius: Again, not contemporary (69 C.E.-140 C.E.). In his biography Life of the Caesars, about Emperor Claudius, (112 C.E. when written), he says this:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome"

So, Jesus is in Rome in 54 C.E.? I don't think so. However, looking at the name 'Chrestus' in the original Greek, you find that in English, it translates to 'The Good,' which was a name frequently given to freed slaves and is attested for in dozens of Latin inscriptions. It is not an indication of Christ.

Later, in Life of Nero, he is said to mention Christians again.

'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief ...' (16.2)

Really? The Gospels had not yet been written (54-68 C.E. for Nero's reign), and up until the later third of the 1st Century C.E. the Christians would not emerge as a separate sect from Judaism, with another notable historian (Cassius Dio) referring to Christians (in the lates 90's) as atheists and those adopting Jewish manners. Up until Acts (written in the 2nd Century), Christians as a separate entity from Jews do not bear any historical mention that isn't shown to be an interpolation, and even then in the story that contains "began in Antioch" (11.26). Add to this, the fact that in the 2nd Century, when Christians become more popular in Rome, they are not called 'Christians' but rather named after their leaders (Marcionites, Basilidians, etc.), which isn't being referenced at all here. And, this isolated sentence appears in the middle of Suetonius' list of Nero's good points. Obviously added later.

Tacitus: Contemporary? Nope. (55-117 C.E.) In two places, he mentions 'Christians.' The longer of the two says this:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race. 

Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight."

 (Tacitus, Book 15, Chapter 44)

Really interesting... However, the term 'Christian' would not have been in use in Rome during this time. They would have been viewed as part of the greater grouping of Jews, and would have been involved in the attacks against them. Funny, too, how Nero is bing portrayed here. He wasn't in Rome when the fire started (he was in Anzio), and he even gave homeless residents shelter in his own garden after the fire ended. Hardly the actions of such a ruthless tyrant, amirite?

Even more interesting is the fact, that, in the numerous debates and criticisms of theological points, religious councils, etc. that used published biblically-related work, this amazing passage does not show up until the early 5th century by Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed in with other myths, including raising the dead and personal visits from both Jesus and Satan. (Life of St. Martin) He was credited with having a knack for "the ancient hand" and put it to good use.

You might ask, why go through all the trouble? Why would he change this and is there evidence of similar forgeries?

Actually, yes. The oldest extant manuscript of Tacitus' work (Second Medicean, Laurentian Library, Italy) contains a deliberate forgery of the word "Chrestianos" to "Christianos". I guess that takes care of the second mention of 'Christians' in Tacitus' work. The most-likely source of this interpolation's fouding can be traced to an inscription dated 318 C.E. in Deir Ali, that refers to Marcionite Christians following the works of Jesus the Good (using Chrestos).

For more information on the science behind the forgery:
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf

Lucian: Definitely not a contemporary (125-180 C.E.). He makes no mention of a Jesus at all in the two relevant quotes in his Passing of Peregrinus. He also does not get his terminology right. For instance, he says the 'sophist' (assumed by apologists to be Jesus by method of inferrance) to have been 'impaled' in the original manuscripts (changed to 'crucified' in later translations). Also, his sources would have been from Christians themselves, which hardly constitutes a non-biased font for information.

Talmud: Once again, also not contemporary. There is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth at all, in the mostrous collection of writings. In the Mishnah (the study that the Talmud is later a commentary of), the closest we get is in Mishnah Yevamot 4.13 which says:

"Simeon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written: That so and so is a bastard son of a married woman."

This 'so and so' is not named (and probably a poor translation from the original Herbrew word 'peloni'), and this passage is actually a rabbinical counter to the manufactured geneology of the good ol' JC in Matthew in the early 2nd Century. Hardly proof.

Later, in the 2nd or 3rd Century, in Mishnah - Baraitha Sanhedrin 43a we hear of a 'Yeshu' being hanged (not crucified) on Passover, and that he had five disciples (not 12),  named Todah, Netzer, Mattai, Naqai, and Buni. (Hardly the names we know about today).

In the 3rd Century Tosefta - Chullin 2.23 we hear of a Yeshu ben Pandira being invoked to cure a rabbi of a snake bite.
Assuming I keep giving examples, we find that the writers of this (who would only have knowledge  of Christianity from other Christians) mentioning two Jesii, a 1st Century Yeshu ben Pandira and 2nd Century Yeshu ben Strada. This of course ignores the fact that these works were compiled in the 5th and 6th Centuries...

Rabbinical counters to Christianity were manufactured much later in Christianity's history to attempt to discredit it. For instance...

In Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a, Jesus is supposedly the child of an adulterous hairdresser named Miriam Megaddela and is executed in Lud.
In Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, we see the magician Jesus worshipping a brick during the 1st century BC reign of John Hyrcanus...

If we want to take more evidence into consideration, the pagan opponent of Christianity Celsus, in Contra Celsum 1.28  (2nd Century) tells of a rumor from the Talmud where Jesus is the result of a love affair between a Miriam and a Roman trooper named Pantheras. This Miriam was driven off by her husband for this affair.

The Talmud doesn't seem to indicate a historical Jesus in any contemporary sense, and rather gives multiple conflicting accounts of the figure, multiple figures, was written much later, in direct response to counter Christianity as it was founded. Rather than just deny his existence (which would've been the equivalent of throwing in the towel) they too just made their own stories up. The incongruity between this all is rather convincing against an historical Jesus.

Originally posted by: jglei701
Remember, Israel is about the size of New Jersey, this occurred 2000 years ago, and there were no newspapers of the day.  It also was in a rather obscure corner of the Roman Empire.  There were no printers, no computers, no internet.  Everything had to be hand-written and stored someplace where it would not be destroyed over time.  That we have as many documents as we do is really pretty remarkable.
quote>

Indeed, the fact that we have as much as we do should inspire thanks to the wonderful Islamic scholars who preserved the majority of classical work after the early Christians burned most of it as heresy. The simple fact is, that there were several prominent historians (whose work we do have) living in the area at the time, and we have not one scrap from them. Other historians, who were not local, but certainly contemporary, and writers of many things of much less note, also make no metion of him. There are about 27 writers within 100 years who don't mention him. The silence of Philo of Alexandria alone is enough.

Take into account the church stance on lying directly and forging evidence for their case, and you can see why modern inquiry is unraveling the truth. This last paragraph is not based on an opinion, by the way. Look up the machinations of Bishop Eusebius for example.

Originally posted by: jglei701
I'm not sure where you get that Jesus only had two commandments... he had dozens and did not negate the 10 commandments (as a matter of fact, there were far more than 10 Jewish commandments... there were actually 613).  Several of these were negated by Christ, specifically the ones about sacrifice, as Jesus became the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.  Many of the old Jewish practices were annulled (i.e. you didn't and don't have to become Jewish to become Christian).  The Epistle to the Galatians discusses this.

There's tons more to be said about this, but it's bedtime!
quote>

Huh? I never said Jesus had only two commandments. I may have mentioned that he says there is only one unforgiveable sin, but without going back pages to double-check, I can't be certain. In either case, it's irrelevant to my argument.

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh
All I can find is this date:

The story of King Gilgamesh, thought to be a ruler in the 3rd millennium B.C, was gathered into an Akkadian poem long afterward, with the most complete version extant today preserved on twelve clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century B.C.E Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. That equals 2700 years.
quote>

There are pottery shards and partial stone tablets with portions of the story dated to around 2,000 B.C.E, I think that's 4,000 years. The most complete copy is the one from Ashurbanipal's library, but it's not the oldest. Several Sumerian writings go back to as far as 3,300 B.C.E., so the story could be even older than the 4,000 year old portions we've found. Writings from 2,600 B.C.E. mention some of the figures brought up in the story, which aids in the historicity of at least Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh
It's a new discovery: The 2600 year old clay tablet, I was referring to, containing exact duplicate of a portion of Isaiah, was just recently dug up, in an archeological dig site in Isreal, near Jerusalem. The article was posted to MSN and Yahoo News, just last month, but I will need to see if it is archived.quote>

This I'm interested in.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

Can anyone direct me to similar stories, with written evidence, that are clearly dated as older than 2600 years?

quote>

Yes, I can. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains several of the same stories. Also, the funerary writings on the temple walls of Sakkara are both older.

Oh, and the Greek Eleusinian myths which were written in 1,400-1,800 B.C.E. depicting the same 'hero cycle' with Dionysus...

There are a lot of these. The Bible isn't anything original, at all.quote>

All I can find is this date:

The story of King Gilgamesh, thought to be a ruler in the 3rd millennium B.C, was gathered into an Akkadian poem long afterward, with the most complete version extant today preserved on twelve clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century B.C.E Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. That equals 2700 years.

It's a new discovery: The 2600 year old clay tablet, I was referring to, containing exact duplicate of a portion of Isaiah, was just recently dug up, in an archeological dig site in Isreal, near Jerusalem. The article was posted to MSN and Yahoo News, just last month, but I will need to see if it is archived.quote>

No, that's the date of the library and the reign of the king who collected the tablets (rather like a modern museum would collect artifacts), not the date of the piece of literature. Early Sumerian versions of the Gilgamesh poems date to 2150 BCE and Akkadian versions date to early second millenium BCE.  If you look at the first reference below it discusses in depth the relationships between the versions from the various artefacts.

The 12 tablet version apparently contains the name of the editor, Sin-liqe-unninni who apparently dates to between 1300 and 1000 BCE according to the scholars I've read. Poems in both the Babylonian and Akkadian forms were used as school copy texts for the Mesopotamian scribes, so there are many copies of some of the poems.

For a recent scholarly treatment of the numerous artifacts try this (you can access some of the interesting bits via Google Books if necessary):

George, AR (2003) The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts Volume I, Oxford University Press

Also some interesting bits here:

Dalley, S (1998) Myths from Mesopotamia: creation, the flood, Gilgamesh, and others, Oxford University Press

If Wikipedia is more to your your liking thing try these:

Wapedia - The Epic of Gilgamesh

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Wikipedia - The Gilgamesh Flood Myth

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

Also I found this quote interesting from De Villiers, G 2006, 'The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament : parallels beyond the Deluge', Old Testament Essays, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 26-34.

Ecclesiastes 9:7-9 displays striking similarities to the speech of Siduri, the barmaid (which is recorded in the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, but omitted in the Standard one - Abusch 1993:1 provides an OB transliteration as well as an English translation). Haggard and worn, a grief-stricken Gilgamesh, desperately in search of life everlasting arrives at the seashore of the Waters of Death where Siduri lives. She tells him that only the gods live for ever, human beings all die, sooner or later. And she advises him to fill his belly, to be merry day and night, to feast, to play, to wear clean garments, to wash his hair, bathe himself, to take notice of the little one who holds his hand, and to enjoy his wife. This almost literal resemblance between the two texts is remarkable, given the fact that the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic probably dates back to the time of the reign of Hammurapi (Schrott 2001:14), or at least somewhere between 1700 – 1600 BCE (George 1999: Ix)

quote>

for comparison:

Ecclesiastes 9:7-9

 7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.

Gilgamesh

The ale-wife said to him, to Gilgamesh:

'Gilgamesh, whither rovest thou?

The life thou pursuest thou shalt not find.

When the gods created mankind,

Death for mankind they set aside,

Life in their own hands retaining.

Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly,

Make thou merry by day and by night.

Of each day make thou a feast of rejoicing,

Day and night dance thou and play!

Let thy garments be sparkling fresh,

Thy head be washed; bathe thou in water.

Pay heed to the little one that holds on to thy hand,

Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom!

For this is the task of mankind!

quote>

Originally posted by: frndofyaweh

It's a new discovery: The 2600 year old clay tablet, I was referring to, containing exact duplicate of a portion of Isaiah, was just recently dug up, in an archeological dig site in Isreal, near Jerusalem. The article was posted to MSN and Yahoo News, just last month, but I will need to see if it is archived.quote>

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

This I'm interested in.

quote>

quote>

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Who knows the most, says the least.

[CyanideCloud 0]

Well, for me I am an atheist and so are the majority of my friends. I have a few religious friends and we get along pretty well.

To sum up what I could say, I offer this quote.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

"... full of sound and fury

"signifying nothing."

All this talk fails to persuade me or anyone for that matter.  I'll stick to my deism.

quote>

You can't convince someone who is dead set against being convinced... but that's not necessarily the point.  I was addressing questions and challenges to my beliefs.

 

But I also don't know that you can speak for everyone.  

 

I, for one, can attest to God working in my own life and in the lives of several people I know.  This flies in the face of a deistic belief that God made the world then took off like a deadbeat dad.  If this leads to your insinuation that the tale I sing signifies nothing, then I don't appreciate being called an idiot.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

jglei701:  One displays a general garment.  If some one claims it fits, so be it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: CyanideCloud

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Robertsquote>

Now this I like.

[jglei701 8]

And suddenly this is a snipe fest. Thanks for ruining a good things guys.

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: jglei701

And suddenly this is a snipe fest. Thanks for ruining a good things guys.quote>

Can atheists/agnostics/etc. not express a common solidarity without being accused of persecution? Rather than attempting to refute any of the points I expressed, you just claim that this is now a 'snipe fest.'

How is it any different when theists express commonality? And if it is different, is that not elitist?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: jglei701 

I, for one, can attest to God working in my own life and in the lives of several people I know.  This flies in the face of a deistic belief that God made the world then took off like a deadbeat dad.  If this leads to your insinuation that the tale I sing signifies nothing, then I don't appreciate being called an idiot.  

quote>

Where did anyone call you an idiot?  

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: jglei701 

I, for one, can attest to God working in my own life and in the lives of several people I know.  This flies in the face of a deistic belief that God made the world then took off like a deadbeat dad.  If this leads to your insinuation that the tale I sing signifies nothing, then I don't appreciate being called an idiot.  

quote>

Where did anyone call you an idiot?  

quote>

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

"... full of sound and fury

"signifying nothing."

All this talk fails to persuade me or anyone for that matter.  I'll stick to my deism.

quote>

 

Originally posted by: jglei701

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

"... full of sound and fury

"signifying nothing."

All this talk fails to persuade me or anyone for that matter.  I'll stick to my deism.

quote>

You can't convince someone who is dead set against being convinced... but that's not necessarily the point.  I was addressing questions and challenges to my beliefs.

 

But I also don't know that you can speak for everyone.  

 

I, for one, can attest to God working in my own life and in the lives of several people I know.  This flies in the face of a deistic belief that God made the world then took off like a deadbeat dad.  If this leads to your insinuation that the tale I sing signifies nothing, then I don't appreciate being called an idiot.  

quote>

 

 

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

jglei701:  One displays a general garment.  If some one claims it fits, so be it.

 

quote>

 

(for some reason, the quote didn't format right)

Here is the original quote in some context (From Shakespeare's MacBeth):

Act 5, Scene 5:

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

This was the implication.

If something else was intended, then it should have been clarified. That quote is well-known, as is the implication.

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: Crackdtoothgrin

Originally posted by: jglei701

And suddenly this is a snipe fest. Thanks for ruining a good things guys.quote>

Can atheists/agnostics/etc. not express a common solidarity without being accused of persecution? Rather than attempting to refute any of the points I expressed, you just claim that this is now a 'snipe fest.'

How is it any different when theists express commonality? And if it is different, is that not elitist?

quote>

I didn't have an opportunity to address it before the snipe fest ensued.  I didn't say that it came from you.

I can certainly disagree with people without bringing in insinuations like the one that was made.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: jglei701

This was the implication. quote>

That is rather roundabout insult but I see your point. 

Name calling is not acceptable, even if implied Shakespearen quotes are used in the process.

NOB, you know better. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

1. I aplogize if anyone was offended by a general remark.
2. It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but to the amount of wrangling that has been going on over picayune matters.
3. Of course the Shakespeare is well known, but the words are applicable to all religious arguments.  Most have a furious point of view, but each needs to be taken with a grain of salt (or common sense, if such exists).
4. Sorry, Meg.  I did overstep a little.  After reading some of the stuff on this thread, one tends to froth at the mouth.