Crackdtoothgrin

This thread is by far my favorite one on this entire site, so I kinda hope that it stays as-is, for the time being.

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?

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.

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...

Well, it's 310-or-so pages (different sizes depending upon the Word Processing program.) The only big concern I have is the possible transferrance of rights by posting it here. I know that some sites basically get to own whatever is posted on them, so my reticence to put it on here is largely based upon this. Well, that, and the fact that I still have about half the book to edit. The auto-correct went wonky on me with some contractions, but it's still legible. And, is the content of the book also a possible point of contention? It's transgressive fiction, so more along the lines of Palahniuk, Kerouac, etc. and contains some rather adult content (although not erotica, to be clear)...

I'm surprised that I never noticed this thread before... How would one go about posting things relevant to a novel? I wrote one (not published, working on that), but I don't think that it is posible to post it on here, haha.

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?

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.

Yeah. Generally most of the French/German/English/Northern Italian stuff will be about the same, for the rural houses at least. About 10m by 6m, the 'front' with the door being one of the long sides. The more snow received in the area, the higher the roof, too.

For anyone who's interested, within the next couple of weeks (or months?) I should have the following completed: 11th-15th Century Cruck Houses, in both English/Norman, French, and Germanic Style. 10th-13th Century Celtic/Celtiberian/Scottish Cottages 13th-15th Century Half-Timbered Houses in a variety of styles 11th-12th Century Wooden and Stone Motte and Baileys in Norman styles 10th-15th Century Moorish/Spanish Houses (Rural and Urban) 10th-15th Century Russian Khatas and Izbas, in Kievan, Novgorodian, Karelian, and Zaporozhyian styles There will likely be more, but those are the ones I can definitely get to work on. In addition to the usual angles, I plan on rendering them diagonally, in a variety of angles, so that people can use the model files with the different transit sets and custom lots... Unfortunately, I don't know what other angles besides the regular 45 degrees. Are one of the FAR's roads at 12.5 degrees? I think I saw that somewhere. And, most single-family rural houses of the time, as a guideline for others BATting, were around 10m by 6m. I hope this helps.

Originally posted by: blakesterville I don't think that the history of Judaism VS. the history of Islam make them mesh together that well. They seem to be two completely different religions to me. Some might say that Christianity erupted out of Judaism, and that is true, but the Jews knew the Messiah was coming. Christianity was really just Judaism in its fulfilled state. They did mesh together, unlike Islam and Judaism. quote> And Islam (supposedly) was the final revelation. If anything, it came from both of them. Supposedly everybody else was wrong, and twisted it all up, and Islam was like a 'correction' for God's word. Originally posted by: blakesterville Does God not care about us today? Well, let me explain my view, please. I know that God must care for us because of what Jesus Christ did for us. God didn't have to send Him. Instead, God sent His own son to us to save us, because He cares for us. quote> A non-falsfiable claim based upon a lack of evidence and logically innapropriate. I refer to my 'first Clause' statement a few posts up. Originally posted by: blakesterville Where is the evidence today? Well, for me, it is the work that God has done in my life. I have seen God's sovereignty in many ways. Over time, I have observed how God has made the impossible possible through circumstances that nobody would find to do such wonderful things. Seriously! I call this stuff a miracle. God has often provided for people in the strangest ways. I have heard a number of stories of those who had a need, took a step of faith, and observed how God provided for that need. Of course, there are people dying today, and that is normal, since we live in a fallen world. I have just observed how God has blessed me and others so much in strange ways, and these areas seemed so strange that I don't understand how they could have merely occurred by chance. quote> I'm glad that you are spiritually fulfilled and I understand that you sincerely believe and feel that this is evidence. On a personal level, maybe. Until I develop the power to jump into your brain, I can't know this 'evidence' you claim to have. Without a way to subject it to the rigors of the scientific method, it's still all hearsay. By hearsay, I mean that it has no more truth than me claiming to have witnessed God himself. If I told you that I felt God, and he said that the Bible and the Tanakh were wrong, would you believe me just like that without proof? Originally posted by: blakesterville I believe that the Bible is fairly clear on heaven and hell. It is very clear on the fact that those who don't come to Jesus go to hell, and those who do have eternal life. You may have different views, and I understand that, however, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on heaven/hell. I apologise if I am being offensive. I understand that my view here can be extremely offensive to many. However, if you know that a tornado is coming, then you would want to take cover immediately. If nobody told you that a tornado was coming, but instead didn't want to tell anyone because they "didn't want anyone to ruin anyone's mood", then it seems that soon enough, many people could get killed. I am not trying to force a belief on anyone. I understand that many haven't come to the conclusion of Jesus being the Messiah. I am not trying to force you to, but I am only explaining why I share Him with you. quote> That is a thinly-veiled attempt at argumentum ad baculum. The idea being that by dangling the punishment of hell in front of someone, it will convince them. Not necessarily that you intended that, but your statements carry the inertia of the soft option form of evangelizing, whether you believe that or not. Originally posted by: blakesterville Why are there many religions? Well, I cannot give a huge amount of answers here, but what I can say, is that, at least from a biblical world-view, that Satan is out to deceive people from the truth, and has gone to a point of influencing many religions to do this. That is why postmodernism can be so attractive. (Not that I am a postmodernist. By no means!) I don't have the time to explain evidence for Christianity now, but I might be able to explain my views more later on. quote> Why are there many religions? Because people were geographically disparate and came up with their own ideas. Everybody is looking for their own form of truth. Religion is an intensely personal matter, as it should be. Only, I might add. The addition of Satan is also a 'convenient' cop-out, in my opinion. That isn't an attack against you, but rather the ideology of inventing a bogeyman to explain all the wrongs and leaving out the chance for actual critique.

Originally posted by: Timmystwin /\ same, i agree that some people want realism, but im gonna put in a bit of fantasy lunacy in my models.quote> And that's fine. I'm not the God of Historical Gaming or some crap. But if your fantasy touch includes creating a building that isn't actually representative of medieval architecture in the slightest (not that you have, as this is a conjecture), then it might be worthwhile to change this idea to SimHistoric or something. Sure, that would cover a much larger time period, and it would allow the more fantastic models to be reasonably included. Ultimately, it's the downloader's choice to get any one building or the other. However, anything I make for this will be period-accurate and I will specify as to which period and where. (That is, assuming I ever finish anything or even get the time to do so.) On another note, I wish my BAT thread got this much attention. It's nice to see that this site is somewhat active, haha.

Originally posted by: jglei701 Which conflicting clap-trap would you be referring to? If you're talking about discrepancies between religions (say, Christianity and Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism) then there isn't really much of an argument there... They don't claim to be the same. In fact, they actually claim NOT to be the same. The argument that they are the same is being made by you, which is a clear contradiction. Perhaps you can go in depth as to how or why one is as good as another.quote> Well, deists support their belief in a God based upon evidence and personal observation. The average argument behind 'one is as good as another' is usually not a statement of belief in their literal similarity, but rather their common origins in having been created by man, and based on the interpretations of others, oftentimes without any hint of empiricism. Since they come from the interpretations of others, which may or may not be shared, they collectively offer no universal 'truth' to a deist, no matter which one is being discussed, as their claims to truth cannot oftentimes be substantiated. (Note: I'm not trying to speak for him, just continuing the conversation. I'm sure he'll correct any differences between this statement and his own beliefs when he gets to it.) It goes back to the 'First Cause' argument in that, if the world was created by something, there isn't any certainty as to which one or ones created it, what where the intention(s) in having done so, if it was accidental or not, or even if the creator(s) was/were intelligent. You seem to be playing a little bit of Devil's Advocate, and I'm interested in knowing what you believe yourself.

If you want the best way to make reflections, then making the windows with Arch and Design materials, having mr Physical Sky as a background, and having a plane on the ground with an image to be reflected would be the prime choice. If you needed more details, you could PM me. If you're using 3ds Max that is. IF you're using GMax, then, I don't know. :/

Originally posted by: jglei701 What better way to convert pagans than to teach them not to celebrate the birth of the sun but to celebrate the birth of the Son?quote> Or to just incorporate their beliefs in a giant steamroller to make it more palatable, and when that's finished, kill the dissenters, haha.