[Warung]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

More likely is that the stories originated in some proto-culture from which these other cultures later split off..

Yup, I believe this is probably true. Though I'm sure that the Babylonians and later the Jews did a lot of "editing" and "adjusting" to make the myths fit their purposes.

Regardless, trying to assess any "objective", original and universal laws of common moral conduct throughout history, by pointing to the "ancientness" of any religious text is complete and total nonsense.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Regardless, these stories were definitely around for a very long time, some of them probably for more than 5000 years. .

This might be the case. But it is highly unlikely that they didn't change substantially over time, to the point where they only have an almost unrecognizable amount in common with "today's" myths.

I'm not claiming that it's absolutely impossible that the stories told in the Torah might be somewhat older than what most people believe today. I'm just saying that extrapolating any "originality" in regards to the literalism of today's Bible's is completely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Though I'd be seriously impressed if you found documentation of anything from more than 5000 years ago.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Warung

What does "purposably" mean?

If you're not bright enough to figure out that he meant "on purpose," you should not be debating a topic such as this. Good job not arguing his point.

Originally Posted by Warung

Opinion? Yup, but certainly not as unsubstantiated and unintersted as yours.

I fail to see how you have substantiated your opinion. As far as I can see, you are both on equal ground: it is what you belive and cannot be scientifically proved (or disproved) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Warung

That's why your opinion doesn't mean sh1t. Anybody can spread FUD and claim their opinion is as good as anybody else's, - guess what? It's not true.

Um, thats not how this works. You have said, X, Y, and Z are true. The current understanding (status quo) in this thread is that X, Y, and Z are not true. Since you are the one changing the status quo, it is your responsibility to provide evidence, not his. You have not done this as far as I can tell. Therefore, at this point in time, it is your opinoin that does not mean sh!t.

Furthermore, where the hell is the FUD?? So we don't know when the OT was written. I can see where that is uncertainty... but fear and doubt? Come on.

Originally Posted by Warung

Why do you even participate in arguments you quite obviously know nothing about? Or are you only interested in spreading your fundamentalist, literalist crap?

You have not shown that you are more literate on this subject than Kevin or anyone else in this thread. Why do you participate in arguments if all you want to do is silence those who disagree with you? Clearly, he is expressing his opinion, as are you. If you are allowed your opinion, regardless of how much you think you know compared to him, why do you begrudge him his?

It seems to me that you are only interested in spreading your "progressive," nebulous, and equally unsubstantiated crap.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by loki74

If you're not bright enough to figure out that he meant "on purpose," you should not be debating a topic such as this.

Oh I guess he meant purposefully then!

Originally Posted by loki74

As far as I can see, you are both on equal ground: it is what you belive and cannot be scientifically proved (or disproved) beyond a reasonable doubt.

OMG. STFU. Some proof (a lot of evidence) (even if not written in stone) IS A HELL OF A LOT MORE than no proof at all, no evidence and literalist crap!

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NONE OF THIS STUFF HAS BEEN RESEARCHED?

/just shoutin' because I'm so sick and tired of this stupid fundamentalist argument.

Originally Posted by loki74

The current understanding (status quo) in this thread is that X, Y, and Z are not true. Since you are the one changing the status quo...

Errr, what "status quo"? Do you know anything about the subject matter? No? Because you sure haven't contributed anything substantial to this thread.

Originally Posted by loki74

You have not shown that you are more literate on this subject than Kevin or anyone else in this thread. Why do you participate in arguments if all you want to do is silence those who disagree with you?

Read nonhuman's post and my reply to it. That's how discussions are lead. Not just by coming in and saying:"...I don't really know sh1t about this, and I don't care either.' Just here to piss on what you believe, and spread "uncertainty" and "doubt". (Okay, maybe the fear thing doesn't fit)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um, most if not all of the Old Testament would have been passed on orally, perhaps for millennia, prior to being written down. And many of the stories can be found in other places as well. The story of the flood, for instance, is also found in Sumerian and Babylonian mythology in almost exactly the same form as in the OT. Of course that could just as easily mean that the Sumerians and Babylonians copied it from the Jews as the other way around. Or it could mean that they both got it from a common source.

Bingo

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

Opinion? Yup, but certainly not as unsubstantiated and unintersted as yours.

What does "unintersted" mean?

Why do you even participate in arguments you quite obviously know nothing about? Or are you only interested in spreading your fundamentalist, literalist crap?

I assure you, I know what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Warung

Yup, I believe this is probably true. Though I'm sure that the Babylonians and later the Jews did a lot of "editing" and "adjusting" to make the myths fit their purposes.

Well atleast you are phrasing it right.

Originally Posted by loki74

I fail to see how you have substantiated your opinion. As far as I can see, you are both on equal ground: it is what you belive and cannot be scientifically proved (or disproved) beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree with this.

Um, thats not how this works. You have said, X, Y, and Z are true. The current understanding (status quo) in this thread is that X, Y, and Z are not true. Since you are the one changing the status quo, it is your responsibility to provide evidence, not his. You have not done this as far as I can tell. Therefore, at this point in time, it is your opinoin that does not mean sh!t.

This is what I have been trying to tell him for months.

You have not shown that you are more literate on this subject than Kevin or anyone else in this thread. Why do you participate in arguments if all you want to do is silence those who disagree with you? Clearly, he is expressing his opinion, as are you. If you are allowed your opinion, regardless of how much you think you know compared to him, why do you begrudge him his?

I've been trying to get that out of him for months also.

It seems to me that you are only interested in spreading your "progressive," nebulous, and equally unsubstantiated crap.

Indeed. Which about sums up Warung's posts.

I have a feeling though, even after 3 people telling him the same thing, he will still claim he knows all.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What does "unintersted" mean?

uninterested

One entry found for uninterested.
Main Entry: uninterested
Function: adjective
: not interested : not having the mind or feelings engaged
usage see DISINTERESTED

Next time, you look it up big boy..mmmmkay.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I assure you, I know what I am talking about.

O RLY? What do you know about the subject matter that would support your POV?

Originally Posted by Kevin

I have a feeling though, even after 3 people telling him the same thing, he will still claim he knows all.

No, he infact knows he doesn't "know all". But guess what, it seems I know a heck of a lot more than you do.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

uninterested
Next time, you look it up big boy..mmmmkay.

Uh, you misspelled it. I wouldn't have said jack about it, but I was making a pun.

O RLY? What do you know about the subject matter that would support your POV?

I've studied it for about 10 years. I have also discussed it with people like you for longer.

No, he infact knows he doesn't "know all". But guess what, it seems I know a heck of a lot more than you do.

Obviously, from this thread, and many others just like you have participated in, you do not.

3 people haven't came to me telling me what I am saying is wrong. Actually, the opposite happened.



I am not talking in absolutes. I am saying we don't know.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Uh, you misspelled it. I wouldn't have said jack about it, but I was making a pun.

No, you were trying to be a smarta55 and took a dive.

I made a typo. Big deal. Woooo

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've studied it for about 10 years. I have also discussed it with people like you for longer.

C'mon. Let's hear it. (BTW, this is going to be my standard one line reply to all of your posts)

Originally Posted by Kevin

3 people haven't came to me telling me what I am saying is wrong.

Nobody, except you, "have came" in here and told me I was "wrong". *duh*

nonhuman just stated what he thought (“Regardless, these stories were definitely around for a very long time, some of them probably for more than 5000 years“) and Loki basically just trolled without saying anything of substance.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

No, you were trying to be a smarta55 and took a dive.

Just like you did in your reply to me... hence the only reason I did it. I was making a point.

I made a typo. Big deal. Woooo

Good, you understood my point.

C'mon. Let's hear it. (BTW, this is going to be my standard one line reply to all of your posts)

Lets hear what? Your reply was inane.

Nobody, except you, "have came" in here and told me I was "wrong". *duh*

Your kidding right?

"I fail to see how you have substantiated your opinion."

"Um, thats not how this works. You have said, X, Y, and Z are true. The current understanding (status quo) in this thread is that X, Y, and Z are not true. Since you are the one changing the status quo, it is your responsibility to provide evidence, not his. You have not done this as far as I can tell. Therefore, at this point in time, it is your opinoin that does not mean sh!t."

"You have not shown that you are more literate on this subject than Kevin or anyone else in this thread. Why do you participate in arguments if all you want to do is silence those who disagree with you? "

Re-read that Warung. Take a good hard look. It's just not me that is saying this. They are saying you stating something IS FACTUAL, when you have no proof, is indeed WRONG.

I am saying I believe one thing, but it's not factual because there is no proof either way.

Do you not undestand the difference?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am saying my belief isn't based on fact, because there is no proof either way.

But YOU are insisting your belief is based on fact. Even though there is no proof either way.

For some reason, you cannot STAND the thought of there even being a CHANCE that I am right, so you want to take a maybe, and turn it into a FACT just so that chance is not there.

Why you do this? Not sure. I don't have any FACTS.

But if I was to take a guess, I would say it is because you are insecure with your own beliefs.

Otherwise it wouldn't bother you that there could be an alternative idea.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

For some reason, you cannot STAND the thought blaaahhhh blaaah blaaaaahhhhhhh

C'mon. Let's hear it.

Oh, and BTFW "purposably" isn't even a word. So no, you didn't just make a typo. *duh*

[wdlove]

My a very heavy discussion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

C'mon. Let's hear it.

Lets hear what Warung? You aren't making any sense what-so-ever.

Oh, and BTFW "purposably" isn't even a word. So no, you didn't just make a typo. *duh*

Warung you again totally missed the point. Obviously you knew I meant purposely. Yet you still posted some silly post about me not getting it right. Then got all self rightous when I, in sarcasm did the same to you.

I usually don't point out such mistakes because everyone does it. And the people that usually point out grammar mistakes usually make a grammar mishap in the process, making them look like jackasses for correcting another's grammar. Just like you did.

And until you stop the bad habit of treating your ideas, or beliefs as solid facts, you are ALWAYS going to have people like me, loki, and nonhuman pointing such bad habits out to you.

So if you want that to stop, I suggest changing said habits.

[ambush]

He needs treatment. And prison.

Beware of the soap. In the shower.

Edit: so funny... each time I open a thread in here, there's always a lot of replies by Zimphire...
don't cease entertaining us, zimpy :-) .... we appreciate that you do it for free too :-)

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

The Bible is the New Testament and the Old. The New Testament is the core of the Bible for Christians because the New Testament is about Christ. It brings a new covenant that supercedes the old.

In effect, unless you are a Jew things like "eye for an eye" have been superceded by God in the New Testament. But then, if you are a Jew, your book is not called the Bible is it and why are you even talking about the Bible?

By referring to the Bible, you are referring to Christianity.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by tooki

The bible is wrong all over the place. But that's beside the point.

Only a lack of understang the Bible could lead a man to such a conclusion. The Bible is like the law. It is neither right nor wrong, that doesn't enter into it. It just is.

Then it is up to each individual to follow it and the Church.

cheers

W-Y

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Warung you again totally missed the point. Obviously you knew I meant purposely.

And it took you how long to pull this outta your a55?

Admit it, you didn't know what the fu<k you were talking about (as usual). Oh and grammar!=spelling, - which in your case is irrelevant, because as I said before, you used a word that doesn't even exist. And don't even pretend like it was a "typo".

Oh, and... C'mon, let's hear it!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

And it took you how long to pull this outta your a55?

Pulling something out of ones lower oriface infers that I just made it up on the spot. I surely hope you aren't saying I am trying to "lie" about my intentions.

Admit it, you didn't know what the fu<k you were talking about (as usual).

Why would I admit such a thing when it's not true Warung? Your ad-hominem attacks don't suddenly justify your behavior in this thread. It actually makes it worse.

Oh and grammar!=spelling, - which in your case is irrelevant, because as I said before, you used a word that doesn't even exist. And don't even pretend like it was a "typo".

I said it was a mistake. Are you saying you had no clue as to what I really meant? In the end it was an inane rant by you, and a strawman arguement. You are looking for something to divert from the original discussion. One that you've been told by three people now, that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I've never met someone so reluctent to admit they are wrong in all the forums I have been to.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Pulling...blahhhhh

C'mon. Let's hear it.

[Kevin]

Again Warung, for the 3rd time, What EXACTLY do you want to hear?

Why am I always having to repeat what I have said before to you?

It's irrelevent to the discussion I am sure.

You are just throwing a tantrum refusing to admit you are wrong.

Go ahead. You won the internet Warung.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Go ahead. You won the internet Warung.

Bwahaaahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

C'mon. Let's hear it.

[BlueSky]

Anyone care for a balloon?

[gerbnl]

I'm stumped!

It's totally incredible to me that a man can leave macnn for nearly a year, come back and find exactly the same drivel going on...

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Only a lack of understanding the Bible could lead a man to such a conclusion. The Bible is like the law. It is neither right nor wrong, that doesn't enter into it. It just is.
Then it is up to each individual to follow it and the Church.
cheers W-Y

Only a Christian believer would say that. How about the majority of humanity who are NOT Christians? sam

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by gerbnl

I'm stumped!

It's totally incredible to me that a man can leave macnn for nearly a year, come back and find exactly the same drivel going on...

You expected better?

Heh.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by SVass

Only a Christian believer would say that. How about the majority of humanity who are NOT Christians? sam

Perhaps, but there are atheists who have an understanding of the Bible, what it is and what it means. Whether one believes in what is written in the Bible or not is one thing, but claiming it is wrong about something is just broadcasting one's ignorance of what the Bible is.

For Christians it is law, for those who are not.. well then it is nothing is it? For neither group does it contain "right" or "wrong" things. For those who belive it contains their law of life and relationship with God and for those who do not belive it contains nothing.

The Bible isn't wrong about anything. In the case of Christians, for obvious reasons and for all others, because it has no meaning for them. Perhaps if those who are not Christian would be forced to live according to the Bible it could be considered "wrong" in their eyes, but no one is forced to. It is quite voluntary.

cheers

W-Y

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

For those who belive it contains their law of life and relationship with God and for those who do not belive it contains nothing.

Perhaps if those who are not Christian would be forced to live according to the Bible it could be considered "wrong" in their eyes, but no one is forced to. It is quite voluntary.
W-Y

In the past, those who did not believe were persecuted and killed. As one who was forced to attend a church service as a child against my will, I will point out that it didn't used to be voluntary.

As I said earlier, only Christians believe in doing "good" to their fellow humans. Only, it is whatever they define as good. Actually, this Christian nation believes in the death penalty which is an "eye for an eye" and that philosophy was rejected by the Jews over 2500 years ago after they grew out of it. sam

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by SVass

In the past, those who did not believe were persecuted and killed. As one who was forced to attend a church service as a child against my will, I will point out that it didn't used to be voluntary.

As I said earlier, only Christians believe in doing "good" to their fellow humans. Only, it is whatever they define as good. Actually, this Christian nation believes in the death penalty which is an "eye for an eye" and that philosophy was rejected by the Jews over 2500 years ago after they grew out of it. sam

In the past there were examples of persecution, though it was not the rule. There were periods of it. As a child one has to do things one doesn't want to. As a grown up one can do as one pleases, no? This doesn't just apply to religion or going to church. When one is a child one has to obey and trust one's parents. They mean well and as children, I dare say persons cannot decide if they want to be religius or not. Taking up religion seriously is as hard as committing to a relationship. One needs a mature and independant mind. It is voluntary but with responsibility.

I can only assume that when you say "this" Christian nation, you are referring to the USA. Please note that the world is larger and I for one am not a part of "this" nation. I live thousands of kilometers away. In addition, the USA is not a Christian nation. The largers religious part is formed by heretics. Only about 24% of the USA is Christian. Far too little to make it a Christian nation.

My nation and all Christian nations, even the semi-heretic Protestants in N-Europe reject the death penalty. As they should. It is utterly agains Christianity to take lives. Please do not confuse the heretics in the US with Christians. Remember, that many of the original inhabitants fled Europe to practice their heretic religion in peace. Not that they were persecuted in the lands they fled, for they came from N-Europe, where people at the time had already seperated themselves from the Church. They wanted to build a nation where anyone could practice any kind of religion they liked.

I am not going into the merits of religious freedom, but am pointing out what kind of religious people built the US. Only later in the 19th and 20th century came a wave of Christian immigrants to the USA.

cheers

W-Y

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

In the past there were examples of persecution, though it was not the rule. There were periods of it. As a child one has to do things one doesn't want to. As a grown up one can do as one pleases, no? This doesn't just apply to religion or going to church. When one is a child one has to obey and trust one's parents. They mean well and as children, I dare say persons cannot decide if they want to be religius or not. Taking up religion seriously is as hard as committing to a relationship. One needs a mature and independant mind. It is voluntary but with responsibility.

I can only assume that when you say "this" Christian nation, you are referring to the USA. Please note that the world is larger and I for one am not a part of "this" nation. I live thousands of kilometers away. In addition, the USA is not a Christian nation. The largers religious part is formed by heretics. Only about 24% of the USA is Christian. Far too little to make it a Christian nation.

My nation and all Christian nations, even the semi-heretic Protestants in N-Europe reject the death penalty. As they should. It is utterly agains Christianity to take lives. Please do not confuse the heretics in the US with Christians. Remember, that many of the original inhabitants fled Europe to practice their heretic religion in peace. Not that they were persecuted in the lands they fled, for they came from N-Europe, where people at the time had already seperated themselves from the Church. They wanted to build a nation where anyone could practice any kind of religion they liked.

I am not going into the merits of religious freedom, but am pointing out what kind of religious people built the US. Only later in the 19th and 20th century came a wave of Christian immigrants to the USA.

cheers

W-Y

I just want to say `thanks` for that post. Keep up the good work.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Warung

Oh I guess he meant purposefully then!

Glad you got that. Good job once again, not arguing his point.

Originally Posted by Warung

OMG. STFU. Some proof (a lot of evidence) (even if not written in stone) IS A HELL OF A LOT MORE than no proof at all, no evidence and literalist crap!

Oh, I'll buy "some proof" and "a lot of evidence." Once you provide it.

Originally Posted by Warung

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NONE OF THIS STUFF HAS BEEN RESEARCHED?

Oh, I'd be surprised if it hasn't been researched. Have I heard anything conclusive? Nope.

Originally Posted by Warung

Errr, what "status quo"?

Let me try this again, without using any "debate terms." Its like this:

You say X is true. You must prove X is true. Until you prove X true, X is assumed to be false. You need to show evidence, not me, not Kevin, not anyone else, but you. You make a statment and its YOUR job to prove it to US. Not OUR job to disprove it to YOU.

Originally Posted by Warung

Do you know anything about the subject matter?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Warung

Because you sure haven't contributed anything substantial to this thread.

Never claimed to have.

Originally Posted by Warung

Read nonhuman's post and my reply to it. That's how discussions are lead. Not just by coming in and saying:"...I don't really know sh1t about this, and I don't care either.' Just here to piss on what you believe, and spread "uncertainty" and "doubt". (Okay, maybe the fear thing doesn't fit)

If anyone has pissed on anything, you have pissed on Kevin and myself, and for that matter all who disagree with your unsubstantiated, preconcieved, and frankly narrow views. Please, grow up--if you want to level an attack on someone's credibility or the soundness of their argument, there is an intelligent and mature way of doing this. It seems you fail in both regards.

While I find your statement completely meaningless and unfounded... please, do enlighten me: How is it you have determined so certainly my level of knowledge on this subject, that you may say, "I don't know sh!t..." ? What power is it that puts you at liberty to know and to say how much I care about this topic? And most importantly, what is it that I cast uncertainty and doubt upon? Perhaps your less-than-mediocre arguments?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Taking up religion seriously is as hard as committing to a relationship. One needs a mature and independant mind. It is voluntary but with responsibility.

Well said. I agree.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

even the semi-heretic Protestants in N-Europe

Escuse me... if I recall properly, it was the Protestants and Lutherans (as well as others) who lashed out against the heresy of the church of the time. You say that taking up religion seriously is as hard as commiting to a relationship. I dare say, the money one buys an indulgence with is perhaps the single weakest form of commitment.

And in the end, who is one man to say, "My interpretation is right, and yours is wrong."? So be careful who you judge as a heretic--for all you know, you may be one yourself. For all we know, we could all be heretics.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

... reject the death penalty. As they should. It is utterly agains Christianity to take lives.

Au contraire... Did not the Lord Himself destroy Sodom? Did He not command his people to exterminate every last enemy they faced, as survivors would turn His people away from Him? It is true--this is what the Lord has willed and commanded, and you may say that capital punishment is not.

But let me ask you this, purely in theory: Correct be if I am wrong, but does the Bible not charge governments with the protection of its people? Could not capital punishment be considered protection of the people from those who want nothing but to destroy people? Furthermore, if Christians are to value life, should they not try to protect it from those who wish to take it? This is capital punishment. It is called "punishment." But I do not think it is. For me, it is protection, security, and safety.

I suppose I could continue, but for the sake of keeping on topic, I shall refrain from doing so.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Please do not confuse the heretics in the US with Christians.

Your prejudice and misplaced judgement disgusts me. After all, "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Can you say that you are sinless? Can you say for certain that you have not committed a single act of heresy? Unless you can, I advise you: do not be so harsh and quick to judge those you do not know.

May God bless you.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by loki74

Oh, I'll buy "some proof" and "a lot of evidence." Once you provide it.

and...

Originally Posted by loki74

Oh, I'd be surprised if it hasn't been researched. Have I heard anything conclusive? Nope.

"Conclusive"? LOL. Read what has been researched. Read the conclusions.

Nobody (INCLUDING ME) has ever said these findings are "completely and irrefutably" conclusive. BUT there is a heck of a lot of evidence out there from which people have CONCLUDED that, for example Judaism ISN'T the oldest religion on the planet, that the Jewish religion ISN'T the first montheistic faith, that Hinduism, for example, is older than Judaism...and that the beginnings of the Jewish faith date back roughly 5000 years (etc. etc. etc.)

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

Got any EVIDENCE to the contrary? Well? Then you're more than welcome to present it.

And no, "they basically don't know anything, and there isn't any "camera recorded" factual evidence", isn't an argument or evidence, but complete and total a55hattry.

Originally Posted by loki74

You say X is true. You must prove X is true.

Okay, let me make this as clear as possible to you, without using too much logic to throw you off.

I claim nothing more than what I have read and gathered through the years in text books, converstaions and various types of media. That's it. I know what the scientific method entails and how people arrive at these conclusions.

Now, you can harp on about how I am supposedly claiming that "X is absolutely irrevocably factual and true", - I'm not.

But if you're a dumba55 christian literalist fundamentalist and claim Y, I can assure you this:

X is a HELL OF A LOT more probable and likely than ANYTHING you might ever want to claim under Y (Y being anything you deduce through "literalist" method). And it is going to stay that way, until YOU prove otherwise.

Dig?

Originally Posted by loki74

If anyone has pissed on anything, you have pissed on Kevin and myself, and for that matter all who disagree with your unsubstantiated, preconcieved, and frankly narrow views.

O RLY? Seems like you two (christian fundis SURPRISE SURPRISE) are the only ones who I'm having an argument with.

Originally Posted by loki74

Please, grow up--if you want to level an attack on someone's credibility or the soundness of their argument, there is an intelligent and mature way of doing this.

Yes, and people like you and Kevin obviously don't know anything about it.

Originally Posted by loki74

How is it you have determined so certainly my level of knowledge on this subject, that you may say, "I don't know sh!t..." ?

Uh, you haven't posted anything concerning the subject matter. *duh*

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

Nobody (INCLUDING ME) has ever said these findings are "completely and irrefutably" conclusive. BUT there is a heck of a lot of evidence out there from which people have CONCLUDED that, for example Judaism ISN'T the oldest religion on the planet, that the Jewish religion ISN'T the first montheistic faith, that Hinduism, for example, is older than Judaism...and that the beginnings of the Jewish faith date back roughly 5000 years (etc. etc. etc.)

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

Got any EVIDENCE to the contrary? Well? Then you're more than welcome to present it.

You only believe it because you WANT to. There is no conclusive evidence EITHER WAY.

That is what we have been telling you this WHOLE THREAD.

You believe because you WANT IT TO BE TRUE.

Just like Christians.

Loki said it better than I

I fail to see how you have substantiated your opinion. As far as I can see, you are both on equal ground: it is what you belive and cannot be scientifically proved (or disproved) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Um, thats not how this works. You have said, X, Y, and Z are true. The current understanding (status quo) in this thread is that X, Y, and Z are not true. Since you are the one changing the status quo, it is your responsibility to provide evidence, not his. You have not done this as far as I can tell. Therefore, at this point in time, it is your opinoin that does not mean sh!t.

Again, you want it to be true, so you announce it's more than likely true.

Oh and stop with the silly name calling, and pretentiousness. It just makes you look more desperate to be right.

If you cannot discuss things civilly like and Adult, Maybe you need a break from the lounge?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You believe because you WANT IT TO BE TRUE.

Just like Christians.

C'mon. Let's hear it.

[Doofy]

:yawn:

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

O RLY? Seems like you two (christian fundis SURPRISE SURPRISE) are the only ones who I'm having an argument with.

nonhuman said the same things we are saying. Are you calling him a Christian Fundy?

NO ONE participating in this discussion is agreeing with you Warung. Not even the non-religious people.

Of course, nonhuman has always been secure in HIS beliefs. So it doesn't bother him to admit that.

Yes, and people like you and Kevin obviously don't know anything about it.

Obviously? Reading this thread shows otherwise.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

nonhuman said the same things we are saying.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


C'mon. Let's hear it.

[Kevin]

Sure thing.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um, most if not all of the Old Testament would have been passed on orally, perhaps for millennia, prior to being written down. And many of the stories can be found in other places as well. The story of the flood, for instance, is also found in Sumerian and Babylonian mythology in almost exactly the same form as in the OT. Of course that could just as easily mean that the Sumerians and Babylonians copied it from the Jews as the other way around.

Regardless, these stories were definitely around for a very long time, some of them probably for more than 5000 years. Though I'd be seriously impressed if you found documentation of anything from more than 5000 years ago.

And that is what I believe as well.

He isn't a fundi either.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure thing. And that is what I believe as well.

Bwahahhhhaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

LAMEASSSSS!!!

Did you honestly think I wouldn't notice the omission of this little part of nonhuman's post.

"More likely is that the stories originated in some proto-culture from which these other cultures later split off."



You are teh suXX0rz at this Kevin. Don't even pretend like nonhuman agrees with you on anything ("most likely").

C'mon. Let's hear what you really believe.

[Kevin]

Ah, I knew you'd go for the strawman.

I posted the parts we agreed with. The parts that went against what YOU SAID. The parts he disagreed with you on. Even thought you both have the same OPINION of how it went, he agrees his is just an OPINION, and not one based on facts. You however are saying because there is nothing saying otherwise your OPINION is based on fact. He disagreed with you.

He added his OPINION. Adding it would have been irrelevent. I too have an OPINION. It has nothing to do with the FACTS or LACK OF Which is what we are talking about.

You are acting like your OPINION is basicaly FACT. He is not. He claims there is no facts either way. You are.

That is were you two differentiate.

You claim to have some upper hand on facts about YOUR opinion. He says neither side has one.

Just like I did.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You are acting like your OPINION is basicaly FACT. He is not. He claims there is no facts either way. You are.

Nobody (INCLUDING ME) has ever said these findings are "completely and irrefutably" conclusive.

And now please just STFU, okay?

/Oh, and it's "are" not "is"

[Kevin]

Warung, no, I said you claimed to have some "UPPER HAND" on the "facts" about your opinion.

That your opinion is somehow more valid than mine.

It is not.

Neither have any facts to prove either one is correct.

That is what nonhuman was saying.

That is what he disagreed with you on.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Warung, no, I said you claimed to have some "UPPER HAND" on the "facts" about your opinion.

What is your "opinion" based on again?

I'm done with this thread.

[Kevin]

As me nonhuman and loki have been telling you these past two pages..

We BOTH get our opinions from BELIEF.

Not from FACT.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We BOTH get our opinions from BELIEF.

Not from FACT.

/I now return you to boredom

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by loki74

Escuse me... if I recall properly, it was the Protestants and Lutherans (as well as others) who lashed out against the heresy of the church of the time.

Lutherans and Protestants in general wanted the Church to go back to the roots, back to the Bible. They did not desire a split from the Church. Local lords used this discontent among local monks and priests to get them to split from the Church under their protection so they could make the reforms. Of course that was all to weaken the Church's power, take its lands and prevent its taxation. Martin Luther never wanted to seperate from the Church, but to reform it. In a way he succeeded and in a way he failed. The Protestants seperated, never to join again but the Church did reform.

There was no lashing out against heresy, for there was no heresy. What the Church did at the time was executing its power as the Kingdom of God on Earth to its extreme, but realized that their efforts would better be used for the religion itself rather than administration purposes. The "heresy" you would want to pin on the Church was that it was too powerful in the eyes of worldly leaders. This was a power battle. Not to mention the fact that the Church can commit no heresy. Only those who break from its teachings, i.e. Protestants (to a degree) and the American heretics (to a full degree).

Originally Posted by loki74

You say that taking up religion seriously is as hard as commiting to a relationship. I dare say, the money one buys an indulgence with is perhaps the single weakest form of commitment.

One cannot buy indulgence for money. End of story. Looks like you can in the heretic Churches of America though. "Send money to this adress!!" Hehe.

Originally Posted by loki74

And in the end, who is one man to say, "My interpretation is right, and yours is wrong."? So be careful who you judge as a heretic--for all you know, you may be one yourself. For all we know, we could all be heretics.

Perhaps. Sounds like the argument of atheists and agnostics. "Everyone could be beliveing in the wrong thing.." etc. It isn't a thought that leads anywhere. Look at it this way instead: There is an institution that has a history back to Christ. He gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and the Kingdom of God on Earth to sheperd until His second coming. The Church preserves the religion, history and interpretation of the Bible. They are an institution of the most devoted, the most learned and have offered their lives in order to serve God and work to spread His word and save mankind thusly. They are the ultra-conservatives and will brook no change to Christianity. It was they who collected the New Testament and thus even the basis for what every heretic believes in comes straight from the quills of the Catholic Church. It is the first Church of Christ, the only Church of Christ.

Originally Posted by loki74

Au contraire... Did not the Lord Himself destroy Sodom? Did He not command his people to exterminate every last enemy they faced, as survivors would turn His people away from Him? It is true--this is what the Lord has willed and commanded, and you may say that capital punishment is not.

He did and He did. When God commands, we obey. You are beginning to see where this is going right? When God commands any state to execute criminals then we can talk. He is the almighty and can do as He pleases. If He has tought us anything it is "do as I say, not as I do". When did God want us to strive to become Gods ourselves? Do you think you can do anything that God does or did? Do you think you should try?

Don't you think you should remember that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament? Heretics sometimes forget this, but these two books are *not* equal although inseperable. The Old Testament gives meaning and history to the New Testament, but it is in the New Testament Christians seek guidance and law. Otherwise they would be Jews, I suppose. Many of the American heretics think they are sort of "half Jews" of some kind. Well, perhaps you should then call yourself that instead of throwing sand in the eyes of people by calling yourselves Christians? The New Testament is Christianity. End of story.

Originally Posted by loki74

But let me ask you this, purely in theory: Correct be if I am wrong, but does the Bible not charge governments with the protection of its people? Could not capital punishment be considered protection of the people from those who want nothing but to destroy people? Furthermore, if Christians are to value life, should they not try to protect it from those who wish to take it? This is capital punishment. It is called "punishment." But I do not think it is. For me, it is protection, security, and safety.

Yes, Christians value life. And yes, the NT does tell people to obey their civil governments. It doesn't say the civil governments can kill or torture their citizens if the government so pleases. No, it talks about obeying the laws and paying taxes. The government in turn protects the people. Protection is defense. Killing is offense. People can not kill other people. It is strictly forbidden. Even in self defence, although I would not blame anyone for doing so. It is not my place anyway. No one is allowed to take lives. No person, no government. This is a commandment. They are ten. No wiggling through obscure loopholes in other texts in the Bible can change that. The commandments are our constitution as Christians (and Jews). Only God can take lives and if He would command us to do so, we would obey. But get this: Only God.

Originally Posted by loki74

Your prejudice and misplaced judgement disgusts me. After all, "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

You are beginning to grasp the concepts of Christianity, that is good. However you are forgetting that I am not judging you. The Church has and I merely convey its message. There always been heretics and there always will be. The biggest damage the heretics make is not just to themselves, but to Christianity. They undermine the seriousness and the commitment. They change their POV, they split their congregation, they make up new things at their leisure and they dare to call it Christianity at the end of the day. No, Christianity is 2000 years old and has taken less change in two millennum than in two decades in the hands of heretics. The Catholic Church is to protect, preserve and spread God's word.

I am not surprised you feign disgust and try to pin me as someone judging the heretics. I don't see a reason to make this personal and I hope you make an effort to refrain from that yourself. Not only is it against the MacNN rules, but it is poor tactic in debating.

Originally Posted by loki74

Can you say that you are sinless? Can you say for certain that you have not committed a single act of heresy? Unless you can, I advise you: do not be so harsh and quick to judge those you do not know.

Of course I am not sinless and I have strayed from the path many a time. I do try though and with whole heart. Like sins, heresy can be forgiven. I have strayed from the teachings of the Catholic Church, but I returned because it is never too late. Even for heretics. That is what the inquisition was all about. Correct the faith and regain the souls.

Originally Posted by loki74

May God bless you.

May God bless you too.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

One cannot buy indulgence for money. End of story. Looks like you can in the heretic Churches of America though. "Send money to this adress!!" Hehe.

Actually America doesn't have a monopoly on such schemes.

And it's not even close to being the norm.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually America doesn't have a monopoly on such schemes.

Of course. America (meaning the USA) was merely an example. I hope you do not take that personally. Even in my country I see heretics do what I described on TV. Religion is borderless. So is heresy.

cheers

W-Y

[loki74]

Weyland-Yutani:

I have been corrected as to your meaning with the word "heretic" by another forum member via PM. I should not have been offended, you have my apologies.

Regarding indulgences--
I was referring to the paper indulgences that Martin Luther objected to. Although, I would not entirely disagree with you about your comment regarding some churches here. Some are very greedy, and appear to be a modern day eqivalent of what was going on back then. Well, on second thought I've only seen one church that was like this. But I'm sure there are others.

Regarding "everyone could be believing the wrong thing..."--
That is true, the argument sounds quite agnostic. But I do not mean it as something that should take away one's faith. What I mean to say is that one should always allow for the possiblility that they are wrong--allow room for human error.

Regarding killing people--
That is a very powerful argument you make there. Although, it is my feeling (note I say feeling because this is the way it appears to me and I cannot say for 100% certain) that the 10 Commandments were targeted towards individuals. In most cases, a government simply cannot fulfill its duty of protecting its people without killing someone else. If allowing evil to take over one's people and killing to prevent it are both sins, which is greater? Is any one sin greater than another? ....I've heard this question asked, but I've never really heard a clear answer.

Regarding judgement--
I do not feign disgust. If I say I am disgusted, it is so. But my disgust was not called for, as has been clarified and as I explained at the beginning of this post. I would argue that your post did have a bit of a judgemental feel to it; almost as though judging America as a country.



=========================================


WARUNG:

Read what has been researched. Read the conclusions.

Um... NO. Let me amend my statement, adding this: If you say X is true, you must provide ecidence that X is true, and NOT just say "go find it yourself." Nope. That doesn't work. I'm NOT about to go and find evidence for YOUR argument. You know of conclusive research? YOU show it to me if you want be to believe it.

Okay, let me make this as clear as possible to you, without using too much logic to throw you off.

I claim nothing more than what I have read and gathered through the years in text books, converstaions and various types of media. That's it. I know what the scientific method entails and how people arrive at these conclusions.

Now, you can harp on about how I am supposedly claiming that "X is absolutely irrevocably factual and true", - I'm not.

But if you're a dumba55 christian literalist fundamentalist and claim Y, I can assure you this:

X is a HELL OF A LOT more probable and likely than ANYTHING you might ever want to claim under Y (Y being anything you deduce through "literalist" method). And it is going to stay that way, until YOU prove otherwise.

Dig?

Logic thowing me off? If your posts bear any semblace to a thing you call "logic," then you are not a logical person, and you have minimal understanding of logical argument.

I have not said "Y is true." You have said "X is true" and I have said "X is false." You have not provided any evidence for X and until you do X will remain in my eyes false.

I have not made any claims. You have. You must support those claims. You ask evidence of me, but I have no claim to provide evidence for. I have simply refuted your claim, and rightfully so because you have not provided any evidence.

Case and point--Unlike you, I need not prove anything.


..."Dig?"

[besson3c]

I'll trade you an eye for your Sammy Sosa!

[loki74]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'll trade you an eye for your Sammy Sosa!

besson3c, I often disagree with what you have to say in the PL, but I must admit this was pretty funny. Thanks for adding some levity to this thread!