Satan is fighting for what is right against a tyrant (God)

Post Reply New Topic

In other words there is no actual documentation!

Just tall tales and anectdotes about frozen mammoths that you cant attribute, and actual facts that are true but have nothing to do with proving your point ( like fossilized sea life in deserts, and fossilized jungles under modern ice caps).

Do me a favor. Just explain one thing: why do you bother to mention this "layer of chalk" in the Createceaous" that shows "much of the world covered in water"( which isnt news-everyone knows that there were alot of inland seas in the creteceous that dont exist anymore).

If you admit to the existence of anything "in the creataceous" then you're admitting that there WAS a "Creteaous"- Thus you're admting to believing in Modern Geological Stratigraphy. Which means you're admiting that the planet is billions of years old. Which means admitting that Genisis cannot be the litereal truth. Which means that you're using evidence against the litereal truth of Genisis to prove the litereal truth of a story IN Genisis! Which-doesnt make any sense!

Just because I belive in "modern geoligical stratigraphy, in that I belive layers of differant materials exist, which can be proved anyway, doesnt mean to say I have to belive the interpretation or ages told us by men in white coats paid to say such.
Hasnt the recent global warming scam revealed to you that these scientists are equally prpared to publish deciept for money and position as our polititions.

You might start on about such dates being "proved" by carbon dating, I would ask how can carbon dating be taken seriously if those scientists do not accept the existance of a water canopy around the world which, by reducing the amount of solar radiation to reach the surface, render all thier data invalid.

Its like dinosaurs for instance, supposidly extinct millions of years before man, yet we find carvings of them on temples in Cambodia, North American cave paintings, I even read 18th century English newsarticles on "dragons", ( which are what dinosaurs where previously known as), terrorising villages by digging up fresh corpses.

I now reject all this scientific theory, especially when they have to leave bits out that dont fit in with thiet propogander, and make my own mind up from the things percieved as to what is truth and what are lies.

Global warming is not a scam. There is clear evidence that at least some of the climate change can be attributed to man made activities. Certain industries like the oil industry and some politicians have an interest in it not being true.



Carbon dating has nothing to do with solar radiation, it has to do with measuring the amount and radioactive decay of Carbon 14 atoms in a particular sample. Also, there is no evidence that such a "water canopy" ever existed.



People knew about dinosaur bones for centuries before they were studied scientifically. That does not mean that dinosaurs ever co-existed with humans.



Says who? Scientists have to come up with theories that fit all known data. Creationists are the ones who ignore facts that don't fit their views.

Nambo, young earth creationism? Really? Be serious.

Carbon dating works quite well and has been verified many times.

There is no verifiable evidence to suggest the kind of coexistence with dinosaurs that YEC describes.

The universe is 13.7bn years old, approx. The world is about 4.5bn.

There is no date given for creation in Genesis, nor is there any reason to take it literally. If you want to read ancient history in the Bible, check out the book of Kings. Evolution may have some holes but neither it nor the age of the planet presents any obstacle to faith.

Is the Odyssey fiction? Is the Ramayana fiction? If you think they are fiction, what reasons do you have to think so? Can those reasons apply to the bible? If not, why not?

Carbon dating will not tell us how old the world is. For that you need radiometric dating such as Potassium-Argon dating.

ruveyn

Holy crap, I must be bored, I'm reading what you blow hards are arguing about in here. Then I almost got upset that Subotai stole my thunder, then I see the point remains to be made.

Notice the name. Perhaps it wasn't a rebellion against a tyrant but a mission as a double agent, which is why 1/3 of the hosts had to go to. See, it's like yin and yang, without the dark you can't tell what is light. Satan and his horde are actually double agents, and here to provide ample chance at free will, illuminating the path by defining the shadows. Perhaps that fiction story, since it was told by dudes hard up to have reason to steal each other's wives sheep and belief systems, has it all wrong.

They found the city of Troy didn't they. Be careful dismissing ancient stories as if they have zero truth to them.

Lucifer in the Christian myth is a little like the Greek Prometheus, except that rather than being grateful to the 'light-bringer' in the Christian mythos, they are supposed to feel guilty and denigrate him.
Likewise Eve.

Damn! I thought the dinosaurs were supposed to have all drowned in the flood because they wouldnt fit on the ark. But you're saying that some survived until the 18th centurey in Britain! Oh yeah, I forgot about the Loch Ness Monster!

Fine.
How do dinosaurs ( in the present tense because apparently theyre still around) know where to go when they die?
How do their bones know to go only to layers in the soil that are above the trilobites, but below the strata that have the remains of large mammals like mastadons?

Not only do they know not to mix with humans above them and to avoid trilobites below them, but they even know not to mix with certain other dinosaurs. The Jurassic ones dont mix with the triassic dinosaurs, nor with creteaceaous dinosaurs.
What guides dead fossils to the right strata in the soil?

The city of Troy is necessary but hardly sufficient to prove the oddissey's story.

A work 50% true is still fiction. Or do you think Abe Lincoln was a vampire hunter?

I think the first place you are going wrong is in your assumption that a modern definition of truth or fiction should be applied to ancient texts. In the case of the Bible one is dealing with many different books. If we treated the book of Genesis with the expectation to find history as we do the Book of Kings then that would be a mistake. The Bible has poetry, history, parable, prophecy and apocalyptic language; if you read it all the same way you would miss a good deal of the point.

As to your contention the a work of 50% truth still being fiction, then we could pretty much describe most historical texts before Charlamange as being fictional; surely you don’t think this is the appropriate definition for all of these works?

The story of the discovery of Troy was what I was hinting at. Heinrich Schliemann believed the story of the Iliad to be true. Most of his contemporaries considered this proposition to be rubbish and the Iliad to be pure fiction. Schliemann persisted in his attempts to find the city, and he did. Had he not taken the story at its word he would never have found it. So the message you can take from this is that even the strangest historical myths have some elements of history at their core. Now Schliemann also provides us with a good example of how one should not treat the subject matter. He was so keen to find the city that when he did he mistook some of the treasures to be those of Priam, so his confirmation bias also worked against him.

We also have no way to test the history of many elements of history. In the case of Troy a burned city from the era could be found in the location of the ancient story. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of being able to test every ancient historical event in the same way. We cannot confirm that two warriors Hector and Achilles fought each other at that time; we also have no way of denying it ever took palace.

by this reasoning, yes. i'd say honest abe was a vampire hunter.

we know he was real. we know he rocked some sweet suits and hats. we know his tomb has been the target of more than one plot.

and you can't disprove he was a vampire hunter!

excellent reasoning!

edit: wikipedia article

and the wiki entry is more believable than the wiki entry for the bible!

Ancient myths, be they from the OT, or from the Classical Greeks, can be taken as literature. That is- not as "true" stories, but as stories that contain truth- some truth about the human condition.

But some myths may also contain some actual historical truth.

There is nothing wrong with being open to the possiblity that some fantastic sounding tales might have a basis in fact.

Henriech Scheliman, and Thor Hyderthal became famous for seeking historic truth in ancient myths. They were both considered fringe flakes.

But there are noah's ark seekers who make claims far more fantastic than either shlieman or Heyderthal.

Schlieman used Homer as a guide and (to the astonishment of the academics of his time) actually found the city of Troy right where Homer said it was.

Like 91 said: he picked the wrong destruction level in Troy as the probable provience of the Trojan War ( later archeaologists found that), and its impossible to know if Hector actually went mano y mano with Achilles nor is it even possilbe (with present knowledge) to know if either of those guys even ever existed.

More to the point-The fact that it is now accepted that Schlieman proved that Homer was right about the existence of Troy has never been taken to mean that he proved Homer was right about the existence of the Greek Gods!

When looking for history in the BIble some folks go way beyond Henriech Schlieman and claim not only the reality of something like troy, but do the equivalent of claiming the Gods of Mount Olympus really existed!

Saying the Flood of Noah was based on a local flood somewhere in the ancient mideast is one thing. Saying the story is the litereal truth is something quite different. That is because for the story to be litereally true all of modern history, astronomy, physics, geology, and biology, would all have to be wrong.

Noah might have been purely fictional. Or he mightve been based on a real Neolithic tribal cheiftan who somehow got wind that a local flood was about to happen. So he got his clan and his flocks of sheep and goats together on to a makeshift raft. When the local flood happened this chief and his floating clan and livestock became the only survivors in the litlle flooded county.

Centuries later the memory of this local disaster and the home town hero is still alive, but it has become embellished and exagerrated into a tale of a patriarch saving all of humanity and all animals (wild and domestic) in one boat in a world flood. Finally the scribes put the story in writing and its preserved in the form we know today in the OT.

It may be flakey to claim the above but its really just an oridinary hypothesis that requires only oridinary proof.
One might look for physical evidence. Indeed Archeologist in the twenties stumbled over a thick layor of mud between two occupation levels in Mesopotamia that they thought might be evidence of "the Flood". That particular discovery has been disproved, but it would be the kind of thing to look for to seek some basis for the noah story.

But there are fundamentalists who go way beyond that kind of claim for biblical stories.

They make extroordinary claims like: the whole planet was once encased in a cloak of really big water balloons, and all of these big water balloons went pop all at once flooding the planet for fourty days in 3000 BC.

Extrodinary claims like that- demand extraordinary proof, but they fail to present even ordinary proof.
I could swallow the real existence of Zeus (he mightve been an ET) before Id buy into this "water canopy" thing.

If you reject those theories that have to ignore contrary evidence, you follow sound scientific principles.


A canopy would be a shell? A hollow sphere? Not a ring? How does a sphere of water stay up there, against the pull of gravity? I think the bible does mention the moon before the flood. Therefore that sphere of water must have been outside the orbit of the moon. How does the sphere avoid being disturbed by the gravity of the moon? How thick was a sphere with that radius? Where is all that water now? Can you give me an explanation that doesn't leave out things that don't fit?

This is where I want to say something atheist-y like: Hilarious nonsense! Could we perhaps talk about things that really matter like Psyche's challenge of plucking golden wool from the fire-breathing sheep?

I flat out don't believe there's any real distinction from an all-knowing/all-powerful creator and his/her/its creation. To believe that there is an agent of evil is to believe that the source of its life intended it, which means its nothing more than a tool and can be held no more accountable nor free in its decisions than we can.

In that case maybe Satan and the world's suffering is a sign that God's emo and may keep a razor-blade in his soap? If there is such a creature/being its just a big chess piece and perhaps served as a distraction for when we were in such low-level stages of thinking that we needed to believe that horrors awaited anyone who made any mistakes or brashly took what they wanted. At this point, for how the universe seems to work - many here seem to think there's no need for God, I'd just argue that while my own life experiences point toward a belief in deity I can't follow dualism, a theology may have some kind of merit if it doesn't say that God created the well of evil or at least that good/evil come from two deities of equal power, otherwise that type of theistic dualism just seems rubbish - especially positing God's omnipotence with being the source of everything and, admittedly, all variables on the table. If there's one thing that an omniscient and omnipotent deity is not capable of its ignorance.