Can a Christian Explain to Me...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

push is just trolling.

@chen continued;

The reason I pointed out that they both originate from a region with violent flooding, should pretty easy to discern. Flooding was a common problem the civilizations of the times dealt with. It wouldn’t be unrealistic, and is down right logical, to assume this is the cause of the flood myths in this area.

The fact that chronologically speaking, the epic existed first and was very popular in that area, lends credibility to the theory that the story was picked up and run with by bible writers. The differences can be explained by advanced knowledge the later writers had and the fact that monotheists tend to make their stories grander to show that their god is mightier or better in some other way; much in the same vein of heroes in ancient stories journeying to hell to retrieve something and inevitably failing to illustrate that death is inescapable, then hundreds of years later we get the story of Jesus descending into hell to free damned souls, and a bunch of Christians saying, “see our savior is better”.

Basically the flood myths of Mesopotamia ended up turning into a big fish story.

142

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:<<< I’m interested in reading <<<>>> one that isn’t obviously biased in one direction, or funded by a christian research group. >>>[/quote]How bout you find us one that isn’t biased in one direction and isn’t funded by a NON Christian research group. Oh but hold on. Non Christians are capable of a purity and objectivity of analysis and interpretation that obviously biased Christians clearly are not right?

143

Time for a break with the incomparable “Dizzi” (Rebecca). This girl is a mind boggling practitioner of the hammered dulcimer. A much overlooked, but majestic instrument indeed. She writes and arranges these songs herself. The one with her sister called “Cosmic Sister” is also awesome.

144

[quote]Experiment1 wrote: She never even considered the possibility that the floods were based off of common events in the area, instead of both being from one specific event.

Yes she admits a bias, but that doesn’t remove bias from her conclusion. Such as completely ignoring the last possibility I suggested.[/quote]
As I said before, the scope of her thesis is not all possible explanations, rather “to investigate the theory that the Flood account in Genesis was derived from the Gilgamesh Epic”, so there is no reason for her to mention it.

[quote]Experiment1 wrote: The reason I pointed out that they both originate from a region with violent flooding, should pretty easy to discern. Flooding was a common problem the civilizations of the times dealt with. It wouldn’t be unrealistic, and is down right logical, to assume this is the cause of the flood myths in this area.[/quote]The Genesis flood is a worldwide flood according to the plain reading of the text.

The similarities in the stories are about what might be expected with any 2 flood stories. The differences are so many, I’m afraid just to say Genesis was an improvement doesn’t seem to fly. Here’s a page with a good chart of these differences: Is the Biblical Flood Account a Modified Copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

[quote]Experiment1 wrote: It even mentions that the epic of Gilgamesh is written in
a language( Accadian ) far older than hebrew.

The fact that chronologically speaking, the epic existed first and was very popular in that area, lends credibility to the theory that the story was picked up and run with by bible writers[/quote]
A date for the Genesis flood of 2450 BC is given here: noahs-ark.tv | traceroute command The author of the thesis we are discussing puts the G Epic at about 100 years earlier. For our purposes, We can only say- about the same time. So I guess you must be referring to someone else’s speculation on making it significantly earlier. As far as Accadian being older than Hebrew, that in itself doesn’t prove the G epic was written earlier.

145

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:
How they existed. Specifically after all of humanity, outside of the ark, died after the biblical flood in Genesis(?).[/quote]

!!! Biblical stories are allegories for moral instruction. What is there to explain, aside from why you think that some Christian’s low reading comprehension is characteristic of all of them…

– jj

146

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

And he`s Probably a pseudo-progressive who thinks its inovative and original to argue against religion, like thats never been done before.[/quote]

Then he picked the wrong topic because there isn’t much here to dispute.[/quote]

Akshully, if you are truly Progressive, you should push that Native American creationist stories be taught alongside Evolution in class rooms because it is simply a racist, Western construct to assume that any Western theory has an advantage. So you get the extremely weird scenario of having various radical left-wing groups in the US walking lockstep with the goofiest fundis trying to undermine Science instruction.

– jj

148

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Push, I think the puddy tat is gone.

I forget…are you the godless pagan and I the bible butcher, or vice verse?[/quote]

Can someone please explain to me how pushharder can be so involved with Christianity but then go out and have foursomes?[/quote]

Read the bible. Abe and Isaac passed off their wives as their sisters. Rachel was a babe but the Lord rewarded Leah with children. If you heathens want to debate the bible at least get some of the basics down pat. I’m not going to try to defend or oppose Push’s interpretation of scripture but if I was going to do so I would read the bible first so at least I could sound like I know what I’m talking about.[/quote]

Agreed. It seems to me the bible is the only book you are allowed to criticize and critique with out having read the damn thing.

Of course then you have the ones who say they read it, but mysteriously doesn’t know a damn thing about what it says. Those are my favorites.

149

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:
How they existed. Specifically after all of humanity, outside of the ark, died after the biblical flood in Genesis(?).[/quote]

!!! Biblical stories are allegories for moral instruction. What is there to explain, aside from why you think that some Christian’s low reading comprehension is characteristic of all of them…

– jj[/quote]

Not all of them. That does exist, but it’s not the whole book. The bible uses allegories and a whole host of vehicles for the delivery of the message. There are historical, poetic, prophetic, etc. methods as well. It is a veritable cornucopia or literary devices.

150

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:
push is just trolling.

@chen continued;

The reason I pointed out that they both originate from a region with violent flooding, should pretty easy to discern. Flooding was a common problem the civilizations of the times dealt with. It wouldn’t be unrealistic, and is down right logical, to assume this is the cause of the flood myths in this area.

The fact that chronologically speaking, the epic existed first and was very popular in that area, lends credibility to the theory that the story was picked up and run with by bible writers. The differences can be explained by advanced knowledge the later writers had and the fact that monotheists tend to make their stories grander to show that their god is mightier or better in some other way; much in the same vein of heroes in ancient stories journeying to hell to retrieve something and inevitably failing to illustrate that death is inescapable, then hundreds of years later we get the story of Jesus descending into hell to free damned souls, and a bunch of Christians saying, “see our savior is better”.

Basically the flood myths of Mesopotamia ended up turning into a big fish story.[/quote]

However irrelevant this really is, it may occur to you that this flood may have occurred and may societies were at a loss to explain it.

The who got there first counter claim is a strawman. It does not speak in any way, shape or form to the validity of the Noah account.
It just doesn’t matter who, what and why somebody else had a flood story in their history. Maybe they had a flood too. Maybe they had the experience they had. Doesn’t mean diddly shit to Genesis’ account.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Push, I think the puddy tat is gone.

I forget…are you the godless pagan and I the bible butcher, or vice verse?[/quote]

Can someone please explain to me how pushharder can be so involved with Christianity but then go out and have foursomes?[/quote]

Read the bible. Abe and Isaac passed off their wives as their sisters. Rachel was a babe but the Lord rewarded Leah with children. If you heathens want to debate the bible at least get some of the basics down pat. I’m not going to try to defend or oppose Push’s interpretation of scripture but if I was going to do so I would read the bible first so at least I could sound like I know what I’m talking about.[/quote]

Agreed. It seems to me the bible is the only book you are allowed to criticize and critique with out having read the damn thing.

Of course then you have the ones who say they read it, but mysteriously doesn’t know a damn thing about what it says. Those are my favorites.[/quote]

It would still be pointless for the most part.

Every sect, heck even individuals have their own individual interpretation of scripture. Even if I read and studied the book fully and found passages that went against his lifestyle choice, he could simply state he interprets them another way.

The same is seen w/ respect to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. You can find passages that go against his position, and he can find passages that support his position.

152

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Push, I think the puddy tat is gone.

I forget…are you the godless pagan and I the bible butcher, or vice verse?[/quote]

Can someone please explain to me how pushharder can be so involved with Christianity but then go out and have foursomes?[/quote]

Read the bible. Abe and Isaac passed off their wives as their sisters. Rachel was a babe but the Lord rewarded Leah with children. If you heathens want to debate the bible at least get some of the basics down pat. I’m not going to try to defend or oppose Push’s interpretation of scripture but if I was going to do so I would read the bible first so at least I could sound like I know what I’m talking about.[/quote]

Agreed. It seems to me the bible is the only book you are allowed to criticize and critique with out having read the damn thing.

Of course then you have the ones who say they read it, but mysteriously doesn’t know a damn thing about what it says. Those are my favorites.[/quote]

It would still be pointless for the most part.

Every sect, heck even individuals have their own individual interpretation of scripture. Even if I read and studied the book fully and found passages that went against his lifestyle choice, he could simply state he interprets them another way.

The same is seen w/ respect to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. You can find passages that go against his position, and he can find passages that support his position.

[/quote]

True. You could do the same with any book really if you cherry pick and take things out of context, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
And yes, people do do that to justify the most abominable crap. But that is a misuse of the Bible not a use of it. Hell, some people have gone so far as to change the bible to make it say what they want. Again, it’s a misuse not a proper study.

I do not believe the bible can be used to justify anything and everything. People do it, but its wrong and it does a great deal of harm when it is done. There is plenty of room for personal meaning with out having to change it’s meaning.

I would argue that Fred Phelps doesn’t know shit about the bible. The crap he spews just ain’t in there in context. That’s just a fact. Being able to repeat some words in the bible doesn’t constitute “knowledge”.

Now to your point, the ragged “sola scriptura” experiment has yeilded some 36,000 protestant denominations most are in agreement on most things, illustrate a problem when you lack central authority and a core set of beliefs and values. Unity does matter.

153

[quote]pat wrote:

I do not believe the bible can be used to justify anything and everything. People do it, but its wrong and it does a great deal of harm when it is done. There is plenty of room for personal meaning with out having to change it’s meaning.

I would argue that Fred Phelps doesn’t know shit about the bible. The crap he spews just ain’t in there in context. That’s just a fact. Being able to repeat some words in the bible doesn’t constitute “knowledge”.
[/quote]

Actually the most important phrase out of all of this is inscribed on US currency: “In God We Trust”. Compare with other mottos, such as “In the name of Allah”. In the latter case, they are discharging what they think is God’s will. So this lets Muslim terrorists shoot you and tell you it’s all God’s fault. In the former case, this is bound with Calvinist ideas about free will and being good: You trust God to guide you, but making the decision is your choice. You will bear the consequences for them in this life (and maybe the next). “In God We Trust” is one of the most strongly secular political statements in history.

Oh and it follows the very specific separation of Church and State laid out by Christ himself (“render that unto Caesar…”). Yes, arguing for a separation of Church and State is a very Christian thing to do. There should be no expectation that non-Christian countries should have any idea about this separation, so hoping the Muslims or Hindus come up with it is laughable.

[quote]
Now to your point, the ragged “sola scriptura” experiment has yeilded some 36,000 protestant denominations most are in agreement on most things, illustrate a problem when you lack central authority and a core set of beliefs and values. Unity does matter.[/quote]

In the US, the reality is that it will be a cold day in Hell before the members of the local Second Presbyterian Church want those losers in the the Third Baptist Church to have any say in religous matters. Claiming “Christians want X” is a frankly stupid statement. No such thing as unity. No such thing as a national church. Even the Catholic church in the US knows to keep its mouth shut about most public religious squabbles.

Full of shit as always…

– jj

154

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I do not believe the bible can be used to justify anything and everything. People do it, but its wrong and it does a great deal of harm when it is done. There is plenty of room for personal meaning with out having to change it’s meaning.

I would argue that Fred Phelps doesn’t know shit about the bible. The crap he spews just ain’t in there in context. That’s just a fact. Being able to repeat some words in the bible doesn’t constitute “knowledge”.
[/quote]

Actually the most important phrase out of all of this is inscribed on US currency: “In God We Trust”. Compare with other mottos, such as “In the name of Allah”. In the latter case, they are discharging what they think is God’s will. So this lets Muslim terrorists shoot you and tell you it’s all God’s fault. In the former case, this is bound with Calvinist ideas about free will and being good: You trust God to guide you, but making the decision is your choice. You will bear the consequences for them in this life (and maybe the next). “In God We Trust” is one of the most strongly secular political statements in history.

Oh and it follows the very specific separation of Church and State laid out by Christ himself (“render that unto Caesar…”). Yes, arguing for a separation of Church and State is a very Christian thing to do. There should be no expectation that non-Christian countries should have any idea about this separation, so hoping the Muslims or Hindus come up with it is laughable.

Actually we Christians are more unified than you think. Just because a family fights it doesn’t mean they aren’t a family. Just because Christians fight, it doesn’t mean we aren’t unified. You mess with the bull you get the horns.

155

[quote]pat wrote:
Actually we Christians are more unified than you think. Just because a family fights it doesn’t mean they aren’t a family. Just because Christians fight, it doesn’t mean we aren’t unified. You mess with the bull you get the horns.[/quote]

Oh piffle. No you don’t. If I claim Jesus was a gay pederast peddling meth nobody gets riled, maybe a bit annoyed but turning the other cheek is what it’s all about. Say something unkind about Mohammed and you get killed pretty darned quick. By and large it is this forgiving nature that gets y’all so much bad press… I mean look at the OP and the entire line discussion here.

– jj