Topic awaiting preservation: Genesis Explained/Debated

Belladonna. I posted this because I think all could benefit from a post on this site.

I know there is many Chapters and we don't have to go thur all of them, but I wanted to know how you see the first two chapters.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvGene.html

(Edited by jade on 06-27-2005 15:46)

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/holytestament/falacy.html

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm

http://www.cygnus-study.com/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

horrible code

Jade, why are you asking this? It's a Hebrew traditional creation story, it is not in any way different than Native American creation stories, Aztec, Incan, Egyptian, Norse, Shinto, Babylonian and Sumerian ( many even predate Hebrew story of Genesis). Hebrew theology on Yawishim was nothing more than a development from ancestral pagan beliefs, there was another monotheistic competitors who followed Baalishm also sprung out of the same people, eventually the victorious group of Yaweh worshipers eliminated all the competitors and here you have Judaism what it became.

Why do you have to bring this shit up again and again and again...it's all been covered.

Mostly of all Jade I have advice for you and for Gid,

If you are obsessed with something, you see it everywhere no matter what it is and it definitely doesn?t make it "true" or "right" simply because of your and another million people obsession with such things.

http://www.pantheon.org/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Diogenes, exellent link

found this two articles, anyone cares enough to understand Jewish myth or just get an insight on creationism take look:

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/creation_myths.html

Jade--I haven't been ignoring this topic, just trying to decide how best and appropriately to answer it.

I think, first, I should say why I think Genesis is accurate historically. This may be long and boring for some, but Jade, you asked, and I have a lot to say on the subject. So here goes.

I think the bible can be viewed as three books in one. History. Laws (both Human and "Godly") and lastly, Spiritual. I think we can all agree that the bible has been tampered with by those who want to dominate people's thinking to further political causes. The Roman Catholic Church has really done a number on it's laws. Not to mention Christian festivals. I think it is the Laws that were most tampered with, followed by the spiritual aspects running a close second in order to back those laws up. The history would have been left alone for the most part. Why? Becasue changing the history (other than the more detailed history of Jesus himself) would prove pointless in the "cause". Also, an accurate history would give more clout to the accuracy of the laws and spiritual parts of the bible in the common people's mind.

Not to say there are not conflicts in even the historical facts of the bible--you have to remember that history is written from the perspective of the writer. But cities like Ur, which were previously thought fictitious, have been found and are being excavated. All in all, the bible has been an excellent source of ancient history, and guided the acheological world in which direction to go looking in.

Now for the story of creation itself. There are many many creation stories in many many different cultures. And they are all very fantastical. But studied carefully, you can see that all these different stories have had an evolution all their own. They have branced out and grew more fantastical and mixed together as they evolved from one tribe to another, spreading throughout the globe. Getting more fantastical the farther from the "source" as you go. But they all go back to an original story or two or three somewhere in the beginnings of mans history.

Sumer and Nubia are the oldest civilizations found to date. Sumeria has the oldest form of writing, cuniform, to date. Abraham in the bible came from Ur--which was in Sumer. (Shinar in the bible)

Now all histories were handed down orally, and were probably considered ancient, before writing was invented. Given the history of the Jews, and the Hebrews before them, of strictness in transcription of the torah, I have no problem believeing that the line that led to the Hebrews were just as strict in handing down oral stories and histories. This cannot be prooven, but it is a semi-logical assumption to make considering "assuming" is all we can really do. The very fact that the Jewish still cling to the Torah today shows how important to them their history and lineage is and was. It is not something they take lightly at all.

So I think that the creation in Genesis is the most unchanged version of the "original story" that we have in existance today.

Changing the story in Genesis later would serve no purpose politically--except when you get to the part of original sin. Metaphors and a small change could place all blame on woman, which DID serve a big purpose. Even in the time of Moses. A purpose that we are still fighting to this very day. But that's an entirely different topic.

Back to the creation itself. The order given in Genesis can't be disputed. With a few exceptions, it generally follows the same path that evolutionists take. The clearness of this is what has led to the Intelligent Design theory. Genesis and Evolution mesh very well. And the bible is even scientifically correct. Genesis says of creation that after man "It is finished". Also the bible says later after creation that "there is nothng new under the sun". These statements agree with the first law of thermodynamics. It is also said in the bible that "the heavens and earth will pass away" or "are passing away". This is in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics. It cannot be disputed that every living thing is born (created) then grows old and dies. There are also facts like the circumcision covenant. Every male was to be circumsised eight days after birth. It is a medical fact that babies don't develope all of their clotting potential until roughly a week after birth. Granted, they are done much earlier now. But it doesn't explain how the ancients knew this. Or the order of evolution. (Which to me is only saying that you can't have insects until there are plants for it to feed on, and you can't have animals that eat insects until there are insects. Not that evolution occured) Or the laws of thermodynamics. Either they were much much smarter than we give them credit for, or someone told them.

The problem between evolution and creation is the time periods. Verses one and two of Genesis do not give a specific time period. The Lord could have moved over the face of the water for a very long time contemplating. Who knows? Verses 3-10 can be viewed as a construction of the earth from a watery void and an atmoshere so cloudy that it blocked the view of the sun and moon and stars. There are arguments and disagreements of the translations of the original Hebrew words. Some sources say a more true translation gives the impression that this was a reconstruction of the earth, that it was previously destroyed. That the earth wasn't void from the beginning, that it BECAME void.

Also, most sources that I have read say that the second chapter is a recount of the first chapter dealing more specifically with man. I don't agree with that. It says in chapter one that "male and female created he him"

I think the second chapter deals with the creation of agricultural (i.e. a more intelligent) man. God made a garden, and made a man specifically to tend it. This would explain lines like the Neanderthal, who are proven genetically to be no relation to us. That they were a different line that got killed off. Perhaps that was the downfall of man. The original sin. The killing of our own species, also made in a likeness of God, simply becasue we were smarter than they. Who knows?

So that leaves dinosaurs. Man couldn't have lived with those beasts, we'd have been killed off--at least that is the general belief. I personally think man lived side by side with the dinos.

Please read this link. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Read ALL of it. Some can be explained as myth, some could be hoaxes, but there are some that are very believable. I find it interesting that a scientist stated that it may come to finding human fossils along side the dinosaurs. And I also have no doubt that if that happened, it would NOT be made known to the public. Not readily, anyway. And that if it leaked, then there would be an explanation quickly formulated by the science world.

Carbon dating? I'm not going to get into that. I don't know enough about the specifics of dating methods. Only that they don't agree sometimes. And that fossils are mineral deposits that took the place of bone. (so you are really, technically, dating the minerals of earth, not the actual bone) And that many fossils aren't dated themsleves, but rather the earth they were found in was dated and the fossils labled according to that date. If it is true, that the earth was destroyed before, and a re-construction took place--then the minerals of the earth could be a lot older than life. There are also accounts of dinosaur bones (one case being a T. Rex) being found that aren't fossilized. That were actually bone, with red blood cells. So one has to ask how a true bone could survive for millions of years without fossilizing or decaying. Of course, these accounts aren't as accessable to the general public or widely re-printed like other records are, although they are just as scientific: found, examined and written by scientists. Hmmm, I wonder why?

And this is why I believe Genesis.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

The only thign I want to touch on is this -

quote:

---

ut it doesn't explain how the ancients knew this.

---

This is the type of issue that many bring up as some sort of stumbling block.

It really is very simple though. Observation.

There are a great many things that have been 'known' to man for eons. We can offer scientific explanations of them *now* that we could not offer before. But it was known anyway, through observation and trial and error.

A lot of the herbal remedies that have been used for longer than we can trace are a good example. We are now finding that a lot of these remedies do in fact have a great deal to offer, and we can label this scientifically. 20-30 years ago, it was looked at as some new-age hippy nonsense. But these things have been used forever, without a sceond thought, because they work. How did ancient man know it? Observation. Trial and error.

How did he know not to cut a baby before 8 days? Observation. Trial and error. How did he know things wasted away? Observation of the world around him. Etc etc etc.



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-01-2005 18:22)

Yes, that is one way DL. There's no denying that.

Which would mean they were much much smarter than we give them credit for. They just didn't have the technical MEANS to do (or explain) what we can today.

The Mayan calendar and the great Pyramid tell us they were much much smarter than we'd like to think too. The bible also makes a mention of the "circle of the earth". A fact that must have gotten lost somewhere just to be proven correct when Chistopher Columbus made his famous voyage.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Which would mean they were much much smarter than we give them credit for.

---

Than *who* gives them credit for? There is nothing to indicate they were less intelligent than we are today, and no reason we should think that.

quote:

---

The bible also makes a mention of the "circle of the earth"

---

As do many other sources. Big difference between a circle and a sphere though

Here's evidence of ancient batteries

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2804257.stm

Which in and of itself isn't really remarkable to me. What is remarkable is that, if these were in fact batteries, the knowledge was forgotten for a long period of recorded history. Until Ben Franklin harnessed electricity. Which makes me wonder if we're not really learning anything new, just re-learning ancient stuff and are able to apply it better.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

This is just my ramblings, DL

I don't know about you, but I grew up thinking cave people were, for lack of a better word, stupid. But they obviously could pass info along to each other, which means they could communicate with each other on more intellectual levels that just a "me tarzan, you jane" kind of level.

Stupid is a harsh word. No where near our sophistication I guess is closer to what I mean. They picked up stones and sharpened them, but didn't know anything else. But now, because of things I've read, I think they were very smart.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

There is no evidence to suggest they were any less intelligent than we are. In many cases (look around you! ), it is quite evident that with all of our techology and scientific advances, the world is filled with very stupid people.

It must be remembered that right now we are truly 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

What we know now, we know because it has been passed down by previous generations, for thousands of years (and as you've mentioned, many things were known, forgotten, rediscovered, etc...).

If we were left to start from scratch there is most certainly no reason to think we would start at a 'better' place intellectually than men were at 6,000 yaers ago. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to say we'd be worse off as a whole.



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-01-2005 21:49)

quote:

---

There is no evidence to suggest they were any less intelligent than we are.

---

Exactly.

This is why I don't believe intelligence evolved from a mutation in the genes of some primitive primate millions of years ago. An ape in the deepest jungles can bang a rock on a tree or hard nut to get at the meat inside, but he is still not intelligent like man is. Like man ALWAYS was.

(just my opinion here, no need to re-hash all that. I know very well where you stand on all that)

quote:

---

If we were left to start from scratch there is most certainly no reason to think we would start at a 'better' place intellectually than men were at 6,000 yaers ago. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to say we'd be worse off as a whole.

---

This is interesting. Elaborate more please.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I wish to first intercede here - the "first civilizations" that we know of, are the Aborigines of Australia, that go back (measured) 50,000~60,000 years. It is speculated that it goes back much, much further - some evidence indicates 250,000+.

Examining their culture (which was unbroken, until Europeans came), one can see that Mankind has held the relatively same "intelligence" i.e. the ability to think, reason, dream, and connect actions with consequences.

quote:

---

Back to the creation itself. The order given in Genesis can't be disputed. With a few exceptions, it generally follows the same path that evolutionists take. The clearness of this is what has led to the Intelligent Design theory. Genesis and Evolution mesh very well. And the bible is even scientifically correct. Genesis says of creation that after man "It is finished". Also the bible says later after creation that "there is nothng new under the sun". These statements agree with the first law of thermodynamics.

---

I disagree here. It follows the same path that evolutionists take? I think you really need to clarify this! What "path" are you talking about? And the "clearness" of it has led to the Intelligent Design theory? Theory??!! It's definitely not theory. Hypothesis at best.

The bible is scientifically correct? This is so far from the truth, I'm not sure where to begin. It really bothers me to no end, the amount of facts and evidence to the contrary, there is always some...one who thinks they know better, that comes here, and posts such junk on these boards...

I'm sick and tired of having to point these things out. Go research the issue, before trying to discuss it.

Even doing a search of these forums, will turn up links and evidence to the contrary.

To put it bluntly, we have already proven that the Bible is not always scientifically correct on these forums.

I see, BD, that you are showing your true colors, more and more.

This is particularly ignorant

quote:

---

This would explain lines like the Neanderthal, who are proven genetically to be no relation to us.

---

That is just not true! They have found in DNA a mixing of BOTH! Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. So genetically, it seems that they were pretty closely related, at least enough to mate and produce offspring. I even posted a link about this recently.

I tell you what - I'm sick and tired of crap like these threads. It is one thing to say "Well, this is what I believe" - ok. Fine. That is what you believe.

It is another to present things that simply are not true, as if they were (for example, that the bible is "scientifically correct", the Neanderthal, who are proven genetically to be no relation to us, etc, etc, etc!).

So, go on, use this thread, this topic, to get it all out of your system.

Go on, post away!

Lol, Belladona you can apply science to native American creation myths and say that they are scientifically correct. You can make it fit anyways you want, you can take any mystical passage turn it into metaphor as it pleases you and make it look and sound as scientifically accurate as you want it to sound...

And you are right, a lot of things were relearned, for example Ancient Greeks almost invented a steam engine, few Roman doctors almost understood modern medicine, Democritus was more accurate about what we are made of, he pretty much introduced idea of atoms, Aristotle figured out that earth was oval... and really none of this people were "Christian" or "Jewish" and none depended on "bible" or supreme mystical entity "god" yes many of them were pagan, some rejected beliefs in Deities...it all goes back to observation...

hell I don't see anyone bashing theory of gravity, there is so much not known about it and possibly it wont always remain consistent as it is now, but we accept it...no one bitches just because we don?t know where it comes from or what exactly is the source of this particular force...

There is so little know about lighting (I think) yet no one claims it is Zeus on Mt. Olympus throwing thunders.


it's just that, just because you believe in something that comforts you doesn?t make it so...

I am pretty certain I posted some links here which quite definitely refute most of all BD (it is a poison y'know) claims re: genesis etc.

It appears she either does not read or does not accept anything which confuses here world view with facts.

I was of the impression she was a seeker of truth, but the last page or two has me thinking she is more like jade than not.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Wow, here I was reading a nice dialogue between some people then BAM! There goes the neighborhood. Seriously WS, take a chill pill. You know as well as I do that there is absolutely no possibility that any human being knows everything out there. And who knows, some belief structures can change dramatically from new findings. We will just have to wait, ponder, watch, and hope for the best.

BTW WS, I looked up the dates for the Auzzies. You are right they did come up in the 50,000 to 60,000 range. Unfortunately that was only the largest range. Did you know that from a piece of Auzzie clothing the observer got 7 different dates? Ranging from 60,000 to 100 years ago? Granted that was one observation, but that at least makes me weary of just blindly believeing what someone says about a date they found.

Hey Bell, I have a theory. I think that mankind was at its highest at the first people (Adam and Eve), and are regressing from there. Actually a valid point because we have built machines now to the point that we are needing our bodies (cars anyone?) and minds (calculators anyone?) less and less. And when you stop using a muscle, it deteriorates.

I love playing the what if game: What if Aristotle (right Greek?) had actually taken the next step and applied his toy steam engine to a useful purpose?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Did you know that from a piece of Auzzie clothing the observer got 7 different dates? Ranging from 60,000 to 100 years ago?

---

*sigh*

Then keep on searching. As I mentioned, that date is confirmed - meaning, that it has been confirmed with a NUMBER of different dating systems - all coming in around that date.

Other, older dates are unconfirmed - that means, that results and conclusions drawn from the preliminary findings differ.

Of course, most YECs scream about the 50,000+ years - which, according to them, is impossible.

And I would hope, that those who post opinions here on this board and cite what they believe to be factual information, would first take a bit of time to make sure that what they believe to be factual, really is. Sometimes one is wrong. It happens to us all. In csuch a case, one should accept that, corrigate the position, and move on, having LEARNED from the experience.

BD has been caught in such a position (as have you, Gid) multiple times. One would think, that a few such experiences would make one a bit more cautious in future posts.

OR

State your opinion, period, without trying to "back it up" with what one believes to be facts. Such as "I believe..." Now that is fine, one is merely stating what one believes.

But stating that and then citing what one believes to be factual information, leads to the point being examined critically. And should the supposed factual information prove to be refuted, it throws the whole belief into the realm of the unrealistic, the illogical. And that is a pretty embarassing position to be put in, not to mention a non-credible one.

Such as you, Gid - you have shot your credibility to shreds on this board.

Now let us take a look at other, opposing positions - Bugimus and DL-44.

Both have researched the material soundly. Both have a sound grasp on their positions, and can logically and reasonably back up their positions. The big difference being the conclusion, for example (there are other differences, but that is the main difference).

I have had the great honor to be able to participate in a number of discussion with and against both (though it is rare that I have an opposing position to DLs, it does happen). I can honestly say, that I have learned much from them, and a number of other, respected (and not so respected, as one sees it) members on this board.

I have been "flamed" (though I prefer to call it "being called out") by more knowledgible members here, and I had to suck it up, and learn from it. It used to be a grand tradition here, that brutal honesty was the order of the day - and it is one of the best learning tools that I know of. Face to face with the stark reality of things. You want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

Though most of the minds of yore have moved on to other pastures (not sure if some of those threads still exist anymore - maybe in the Archives) - I would suggest to anyone new to these boards, to take a walk down the aisle of the Archive, and check some of them out - astonishing stuff. The old Asylum was full of such stored threads - as I first joined this board, I read them greedily, sucking up the knowledge, the information.

Incredible stuff.

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-02-2005 11:48)

I think for once Gid may be partially right.

There is certainly some evidence on these pages that certain members of the race are regressing.

Fortunately, the affliction is not universal.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WebShaman--the only thing I have to say is that that whole spill about why I believe Genesis was just that, my belief. It was directed at Jade because she asked for it. From me specifically. You didn't need to read it, and you most certainly did not have to comment on it----as it was not directed at you.

I did, however, put it in a public forum, so therefore you are entitled to comment and tear down anything I say.

My beliefs have nothing to do with "comfort". It is far more "comfortable" on your side of the fence. Wouldn't you agree? After all, I haven't attacked any of your personal beliefs, I have only questioned and searched and have stated what I've found. I'll probably continue searching til the day I die. But if anyone mentions God in any way shape or form, he or she is immediately attacked and pounded, called names like ignorant, and is basically told they need to go back to school.

So you're telling me that it is a scientific fact that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal DNA are mixed? That we ARE related? Well, I'm telling you, that it's a scientific fact that Sapien and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has proven that we are of NO relation to each other. Don't ask me to cite it. I have read so much that I don't even know where that came from now. But it shouldn't be too hard to find. Just do a search on mitochondrial DNA.

My point being, so WHICH scientific fact was right? Well, lets see.....

on a whim, I did a quick search and this is what I found on the very first shot.

quote:

---

In 1997 Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Penn State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans? Neanderthals are not our ancestors."² Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings.³

---

So how are our DNA mixed?? Please tell me. I must have missed something in all my biology classes.

There are all kind of phrases like--"commonly thought to be" or "the accepted theory is" when it comes to Sapien and Neanderthal having a common ancestor further back in history. But if one UNDERSTANDS the difference in nucleic DNA and mitochondrial DNA, it's pretty clear that we are not related.

The "theory" is that we have a common ancestor further back. The "fact" is, that they are a totally separate species of human from homo sapien. Even if you look at it from an evolutionary stand point, it doesn't make sense. Look, even if it's because of evolution that they were a separate species, Neanderthal should have been closer to us than chimpanzees, separate species or not. But they weren't-not according to science anyway. Science is going to tell me that my DNA is what? 99.8%? (something like that) the same as a chimpanzee-so we are kin to them, but I'm NOT A DESCENDANT or a RELATIVE of Neanderthal? Who was human? Sorry, but I interpret that as "double speak" and I find an awful lot of it in evolution.

Oh, I don't doubt there are countless ways to turn that around with words, but the fact is, words don't make it so. And it doesn't make sense to me no matter which way I look at those statements.

As far a the Aussies, I was talking about modern civilization when I spoke of the Sumerian and Nubian. You know, writing, business transactions, a FULLY DEVELOPED society. With a WRITTEN history. The point was writing down stories of creation that had been passed on only orally before them.

Anyway, it's all been my opinion of Genesis. I have no real idea of what happened back in the day, because I wasn't there. My opinion was given to Jade becasue she asked me. Throw it in the trash if you want to. I honestly don't care what you believe. But don't dis me personally for it. And don't presume to know that I need to go back and research anything. You have no idea how long I've worked and searched into this matter. You have no idea of my biological background that I apply to the things I research. You don't know me at all. Only what I post. And if I tried to post all of my own findings, well, I'd be typing forever. And unless you worked in biology, you'd never grasp it. No more than I would understand computer programming or calculus.

Gideon--I don't know if we are regressing or not. As much as man likes to fight wars, if ancient man had the technology for nuclear weapons, it's entirely possible that we wouldn't be standing here today. Hell, we killed off all the Neanderthals--how is that any different from what Hitler did to the Jews? Other than the obvious fact that he didn't succeed with his goal and Ancient man did succeed? Genecide is genecide, no matter when it happened. But I don't think that the fact that we stopped Hitler or refrain from the use of nuclear weapons today is a sign that we are "progressing" in any way either.

Man is no more peaceful than he was when he first walked on this planet. We are just more technical. More "sophisticated", more fearful of consequences--there is a difference in "fearing" the consequencs and "respecting" the consequences and respecting other human life. We have a pride and an arrogance to "be the better man", but that doesn't make us any less dark in our hearts. It just makes us better at fooling others. We are a race of "pretenders". We are still fighting over territory, possessions <cough>OIL<cough>, and power. Even the "gang-land" scene is the same basic thing, just on a smaller scale and more violent passage. Gangs fighting for territory, more power than the other gangs. What Nation does to Nation is no different, they just wear a tie when they do it.

The one thing I do see is that man is becoming more "individualized". Our hearts are hardening toward other men, even those in our own families. I could never throw a child of mine away in a garbage can. But it is happening. It may have always happened. It probably did always happen. We have media now to show us these things when in the past, we haven't. But in my heart I believe it has gotten worse. That is just what I feel, there is no proof that it really is worse than it ever was.

I could start waxing philosophical on a very high soap box here, but I'll spare some of you and jump down while it's still very small.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Just a quick note:

quote:

---

Like man ALWAYS was.

---

Like man has been since becoming what we can call 'man'.

You *must* understand that the timeframe of man's existence is quite small in comparison to the evolutionary chain.
It is silly to think that in that short timespan, our intellectual capacity - as a species - would change much if at all.

Once our species became...our species....it was equipped with the same physical and intellectual tools that we have today.

Somehow, I knew you were going to say that

But at least we agree that man always was intelligent.

You say toMAHtoes, I say toMAYtoes, but in the end, they both make ketchup.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-02-2005 19:19)

I posted this link in this thread (of which you were a participant - obviously, you did not read it) -

Human Evolution

quote:

---

In 1999, the skeleton of a child was unearthed in Lapido, Portugal. Dated to around 25,000 years ago, the remains show a mixture of Neanderthal and modern features, suggesting it may be a hybrid. But small fragments of Neanderthal DNA extracted from three different specimens show that they were not closely related to any present day human populations.

---

Blocks are mine.

The DNA extracted shows that they are not closely related to any present day human populations - but it does not exclude the possibility of hybrids (as the blocked part shows).

More research along these lines will be necessary.

I'm sure there was some cross-breeding at times. Thank God for genetic structure, or there'd be sheep-men and chicken-men running around in the backwoods of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Alabama today. Maybe a few dog-men in the cities.

You can cross a horse and a donkey. The mule hybrid is sterile.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I saw on the news one day, can't remember the location of the incident, that a woman killed (or tried to kill, been awhile back that I saw this) her husband becasue she found him trying to get it on with a chicken. <EEEWWWW>

I wouldn't have killed him. I'd have taken a picture, kicked him out, and humiliated him for the rest of his life. That's just plain disgusting.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Oh, and what does "not closely related" mean? That I'm your 3rd cousin twice removed? Or that somewhere back down the line we may have a common ancestor? Just how "not close" are we "not closely related"?

The phrase "not closely related" is a clever way of making "the THEORY is that neanderthal and sapiens have a common ancestor somewhere down the line" sound like we are closer than we are.

But I do agree that more research is needed.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Belladonna: you know you can use the button to modify your posts, provided they are less than 4 hours old.

quote:

---

Oh, and what does "not closely related" mean?

---

Investigate it, research it, and find out!

quote:

---

Investigate it, research it, and find out!

---

Why should I when you're here, and you've been so quick to point out and educate me on things you think I don't understand?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

educate me on things you think I don't understand

---

No, this is sadly mistaken.

My reactions are based on what you have posted.

If you are not interested in researching it...

*shrug*

I was joking WS.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

As I said, my reactions are based on what you post - if you are joking (or not being serious) - on the left there, are Slimies. They are a great way of presenting meaning

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I believe you have her stymied WS.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Belladonna... for future reference, when some posters get kind of ugly or rude and maybe even condescending and even resort to name calling, thur experience I see it as they never learned to get along well with others. I also think it stems from immaturity. Sometimes a lot of the nasty rebuttals stem from pride. But nobody knows everything. Some don't understand every post is appreciated even if its not what we want to hear. Your first post on Genesis was very enlightening. I learned very much from it. Very well thought out. I hope you decide to stay on the forum for a long time.

On Genesis creation story:

No one human person witnessed the creative 7 day effort of God. So one can qualify with the exact true story of creation.

I wonder why so often persons think the holy bible could be used as a science book to prove facts. The bible was not meant to used that way. It was written and kept in circulation for spiritual purposes. The bible is a spiritual book not a science book to support facts. When the early magisterium of the church complied the writings together and made it a canon of spiritual meaning, they did not intend for it to be used as a tool of argument to prove itself scientifically against the evolutionist theory. The number 7 is used throughout the bible in many stories to represent fullness/completeness. Especially in the Genesis story it is used to relate that God created all in its completeness with nothing lacking. If I am not mistaken I believe the early bible writings were written by priestly writers. Their meaning was to convey in the spiritual view. God did not appear in front of these persons and tell them what to write. God could of left a book down here to give us the answers. But the God of the OT always uses man to relate to other men to reveal who he is most of the time. Why God can't just show up and appear and tell us?? Who knows why. But this I do know, God meant us to co-exist peacefully, like in a perpetual garden setting with many fruits to nourish us and keep us living spiritually.


7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Could this possibly go along with the evoutionist theroy?

8: And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9: And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10: A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.
11: The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12: and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
13: The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush.
14: And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15: The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.


[/i]16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

[i]In the story of creation, the writers main purpose is to relate how Gods perfection extended to create what God is, so "man" was created in Gods spiritual image with the free will to love him or not. An this is where God breathed into man, his spirit.

God does not want to force us to love. God wants us to do it willingly. The writers want to relate how man in its perfected state should be and tells you how it was. In the story of the "Garden of Eden" the writers are relating how beautiful the soul was.. Eden represents the soul. Because a good soul produces many fruits. The Garden was peaceful and beautiful and very fruitful. There could of possibly been other fruitful humans at the time. But in all our beauty God wants us to know it comes from God and no other sources. All the tangibles in the story from the tree of wisdom to the apple, snake are possibly metaphors. The tree of wisdom represents God who is the supreme intelligence of all things living and not living. God thur Holy scripture writers wants us to know how beautiful we can be and how we can loose that beauty. In the original translation of the bible the name Adam means "mankind" God is neither male nor female, but if we are an extension of who God is spiritually, God has a feminine face also. The story of Eve being the temptress and making man fall is a story of seduction to pride, because pride is the root of all evil. Eve just represents the bad deed. Both fall. Women today shouldn't get the bad rap for Eve's behavior. The writers of the OT Genesis knew way back then how we can become too prideful when we think all God works generate from mans intelligence and not God. In other words we think we know it all and we should attribute nothing to God.

I believe the original writers never intended us to interpret the seven days as literal. They were just trying to get a point across in that every created thing comes from God. And that was its purposes. The story has been picked on and prodded and stuied as factual basis for scienctific creation and that is not near what the real intent is for. IF you opposed to the story of Genesis as fact thats ok and you are not in any danger of losing your soul. And if want to believe in the theory of evolution thats ok too, but if you don't get the message from the story the writers are trying to convey in the Book of Genesis in regard to the spiritual creation thats when it gets serious. And this is that God is at the origin of all things.

(Edited by jade on 07-11-2005 18:23)

Bell, I am an amateur Roman historian. I love reading about their history and cich culture. Unfortunately the overall murderous intentions of the people in Rome far out reached those of the western culture today. Abortions were wide spread, people could be murdered for speaking up at the wrong time, or violating certain laws. Capitol punishment was particularly gruesome. Looking at their cultrue, I am happy to be an American. Unfortunately, it does appear that we are slowly digressing back to that state of mind. It is a pity.

I thought you might like that one D-man.

Jade, do you believe that the Creation story recorded in Genesis is just a metaphor or a bunch of symbols? If so, could you tell me when you think a man is considered a man in the evolutionary line in order that he is able to be in God's likeness? That is something that has been troubling me for a while about that perception of Genesis. It doesn't really fit...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gideon. I believe man was created in Gods spiritual image. The human person you are created as doesn't' t mean you took on God's physical being. We are created in the image of God. God is pure spirit. Just his spiritual essence which is the most important part of your creative self is why you were created. I am not saying I believe in the theory of evolution as factual. I do believe in the story of Genesis in the message it gives. There could of possibly been an Adam and Eve, but in my understanding of scripture the message the story gives is more important that the actual specifics. God breathed his spirit into man. At this point God made man aware of who God is by God telling Adam the laws of Paradise which represents the soul. I believe where Jesus references a Paradise that's in the place where God is. And God does live in the soul.

The story too is about today. Mankind (Men & Women) are still falling away into sin because of pride and arrogance. And even though they do fall there is still hope for salvation in the world in which we keep polluting with sin. The part about Adam and Eve being naked after they ate the apple, does not mean they were really naked or they partook of the same apple.

The story is suppose to convey how does it feel when you feel so guilty and ashamed in front of your piers for committing a horrible crime. When you have been stripped of dignity and feel embarrassment. Piers can see you for what you really are. You feel naked. And that is what the writers are trying to tell you how Adam and Eve felt. They were in a deep friendship with God. God was their personal friend and they knew God loved them dearly. When they did not trust God and went against his wishes the saw what they really did as a violation of the friendship they made with God. They felt remorse and were deeply sorry so God forgave them and gave them another chance to redeem themselves.

Look at the question in scripture when Jesus was asked about forgiveness by Peter. " How many times should I forgive? Jesus answered 70x7. And what about the scripture of story of the seven bridesmaids or in Revelations regarding the seven churches, seven scrolls, lamp stands. etc. Do you see how 7 is used to represent no limit? That is way I really don't get focus on the actual number of days in the creation story, because I feel that is not the essence of the story. But we do have a 7 day week systems of days that originate from the bible and that I believe is the maybe the reason God put 7 days. And to remind us how the 6 days of the week are incomplete until you fulfill the obligation to give thanks to the Lord on the 7th day. What do you think? Do you take the story literally.
We have to know that where God is there is no time, so why is so important for us to take the story so literally regarding the 7 day creation story in reference to evolution. We were created. We exist and that is the most important thing to remember.

(Edited by jade on 07-12-2005 15:36)

Why don't you two get a room?

Better still, start you own forum and take your smug, self-congratulatory attitudes there and enjoy your mutual mind-f**k in peace and delusion?

There is no hope whatsoever of either one of you achievieng intellectual maturity.

As it is with any other type of addict, you will never get better unless you want to.

Shoo, get away now.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

On the same token, there is nobody forcing you to come in here and read this, diogenes.

It's pretty silly to tell two people having a conversation which for all intents and purposes doesn't concern you that they should stop having the conversation.

quote:

---

Unfortunately the overall murderous intentions of the people in Rome far out reached those of the western culture today. Abortions were wide spread, people could be murdered for speaking up at the wrong time, or violating certain laws. Capitol punishment was particularly gruesome.

---

Are you saying that you don't believe that this same stuff doesn't go on today--or especially in America? But it IS going on here. Has been from day 1 just about. We tried our damndest to wipe out the American Indians, and we whooped and hollered at public hangings. We enslaved a whole race of people based on the color of their skin and faught a war that was partially about wheather that practice was right or wrong. And now here we are, having a war that is said to be for freedom, when we are just shoving our type of government onto another country. And oh yeah, being lied to about the reason for that war to boot. America is no less a bully than any other nation, and Americans are no less cruel than people of other nations at any point in time. And we've done it all in 200 years.

No, we do not give capital punishment lawfully to people for saying the wrong thing, or thinking the wrong way anymore. And the key word is lawfully. Although we did. A man could be killed in the old west for stealing a horse. And a duel to the death was acceptable for any reason the persons agreeing to said duel wanted. A black person could be hanged by a lynch mob just for the color of his skin. And this was all happening way after the Constitution was written. Now you go into an inner city. Doesn't matter if it white, black, mexican, latino, or asian. And you see if people arent killing each other over the theft of a vehicle, the color of their skin, and you see if a lot of this is not ignored by law enforcement. It is. You check and see if the wealthy don't buy their way out of crimes even in the court.

No, we have never in America been any different from the Ancient Romans who went to see Gladiators get killed for sport. We are a new country. And we hide behind the facade of peace and freedom and say we are civilized. And sometimes, we even try really really hard to play that part for others to see and can even sometimes believe it is the truth. We are not really digressing, our facade is just crumbling down and the pretense is slowly being stripped away law by law and right by right.

Now, while I don't believe that people are anymore evil today than they were from the beginning, I do believe there is a growing number of evil (for lack of a better word) people. I guess you could say a shift in the balance? From spirtiual to non spiritual. From respectful to disrespectful. From care to neglect. From the good of the whole to the good of the one. However you choose to look at it. And I do believe that when the balance has shifted too much, the earth will cleanse itself. Weather you call that cleansing an act of nature, an act of man, or an act of God will all depend on your beliefs. But it will happen eventually. And those who survive will start over greatly humbled and renewed in spirit and a sense of "right" not to make the same mistakes. Idealism goes over big after a huge shake-up. Unfortunately, people's seperate ideas of idealism get in the way once the population takes off.

I didn't intend to give you my philosophy in a generic nutshell, but it just kind of flowed in that direction so there it is. The basic jist of it anyway.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Trouble reading DL?

I suggested they start their own Forum of Foolishness. There are others here who post much more rationally on the same subject (if rationality and religion belong in the same sentence at all). These latter are often worth reading. These two give some credence to the Tower of Bab(b)el myth.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

But you knew who this thread was aimed at. You knew who would be here. You can see form the opening post what the topic is, and how it is oriented.

There's no reason to trouble yourself (and others) the way you do in the post I repsonded to.

Just leave it alone.

~shrug~

quote:

---

Trouble reading DL?

---

Not in the slightest. I see, and saw, exactly what you wrote...

Well DL, my opinion is as valid as anyone's here, more so than some, as good as others and possibly somewhat less meaningful than others.

Nevertheless, as do you, I shall express it.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Sure.

But then, there is a difference between merely expressing your opnion and going out of your way to be an ass.

FWIW.

Oh, it is not out of my way at all. Besides it is also a matter of perception. No?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Jade, thank you for sharing your beliefs about the Creation story. It is refreshing to hear another view point about it. It forces my nogin to start thinking about different angles I have not looked at yet.

I don't really know how loosely you interpret the Creation, but if God had created everything and then let it evolve, then give man the breath of life, there are a few problems that I see with it.
1.) When did this breath of life enter into the human history? If He did give it to use, could He have given the same kind of spirit to other species? Can He do it now? If He only gave the breath to some, then they sinned, then is it possible that there are people who did not descend from Adam, and thus have not had original sin? Thus meaning that they do not need the salvation of JC?
2.) When God looked back on Creation and said it was "good," what about death? In a literal translation of the Creation story, death doesn't factor into the equation until after man sins. If it is a figurative story, then could God view death as "good?" If so could their be a death after Jesus comes back?
3.) If Creation is a story or a metaphor, what keeps Revelation from being a story or metaphor?

Those are just a few questions that come to mind if Creation is taken figuratively. I don't excpet you to answer them, because that could take way too long , but I would like you to just ponder those for a moment. If the literallity of the Creation story is questioned, then that opens the door for other literal aspects of the Bible to be questioned...

Bell, I don't think that the US is quite yet to the wide spread rampant perversion experienced in the Roman Empire, yet. I believe that one baby aborted is horrifying. But I have to say that Romans knew how to commit evil. Read some Roman history, Paul Maier is a good start, and then tell me that America is worse. America is terrible now, but she can still go a lot further. As soon as President Bush starts a mass orgie/rape cruise like Nero did, then I will concede, but even look at other countries. We are still better than some, but I will say that if America lasts much longer, then she has a definite potential of becoming as bad as communist Russia/China, or even the Roman Empire.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gideon--Yeah, I guess we really aren't as rampant as the Romans were. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are just as capable of becoming that rampant and are on the way to becoming that rampant. The "facade" that I spoke of is all that has kept us from becoming that rampant, and that the "facade" is now slowly coming down.

And this is where people who are not religious are free to tune out--or not. You don't have to believe in God to see the patterns of history.

This brings me to Revelations. Take a good long hard look at our Government. And the way our government started out, and how it is changing. And WHY it is changing. And how--and I thank Ramasax for this bit of my thinking, because I did not realize that democracy and republic weren't the same until he pointed it out--our forefathers were idealistic and did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past--but yet here we are 200 years later well on our way to acting just like those ancient empires. We have spread out as far as we can on our own turf, now we are forcing our "democracy" on other parts of the world, no different from what Communists tried to do to a point, even worse I think than the communists did. And we are saying that we are advocating freedom and peace--and therefore have a better chance of other people wanting a democracy, where a lot of nations resisted communism. Also, there is the factor that most other nations are "simulating" the west. They envy our culture and "freedom" and look at us in awe or in hate. Some countries follow our lead by their own choice, some like Iraq don't. We speak like a lamb and act like the dragon. We spew "peace and freedom" out of our mouths while we basically rape other countries that don't believe like we do. I don't think it will end with Iraq.

So open your eyes Gideon, your last paragragh IS getting started.

I am not going to start saying that Bush is the Antichrist, or "Repent for the end in at hand"--because I don't really have any idea that that is what is going on. But I would be lying if I said that I didn't feel deep down in my heart and bones that everything is coming to some kind of head. There is no more room in the world for us to spread out in anymore. Government has been established on every inhabitable piece of land in the world--America being the last great government that has sprung up. True, we stole the land from the Indians, but they did not have an established Governmental institute. The only choice now is for Governments to try and overtake other Governments. And America seems to be leading that race. I don't know. I'm not trying to be a "doomsayer" at all. It may take a long long time still for things to get to that point, but I am saying that history repeats itself, and we've gotten to a point where the whole world is getting out of balance, not just one area of the world.

So, take what you will from all that. But it sounds a lot like what is written in Revelations to me. The book could just as well be called "Revolutions", because it reads just like a revolution, only on a global scale rather than a national scale. It's scary, I try not to dwell on it too much.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-16-2005 03:24)

[side note: a little pet peeve of mine - it is "The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ" it is not plural. Just a pet peeve.]

Yeah, I have been sensing something like that too. Like all around me things are starting to crumble. Our "great country" is bullying other countries. America is starting to get more and more away from God, and towards secularism. The occult is also rearing its ugly head more and more. Nations are grumbling with each other, suicide bombers are striking everywhere (and now Britan has had a few big hits). I truly think that something big is going to happen. Is it Jesus coming back? It really looks like the end times He described.

Although, this could just be a little tremor. I personally think that human kind can do a good job of wiping ourselves out. That may be what I am feeling.

But whatever it is, it is coming, closer and closer...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

I personally think that human kind can do a good job of wiping ourselves out

---

That's the truth. Men have been wiping men out since the beginning of humans, there's no reason to think that's going to stop any time soon.

And on a side note, I didn't mean to come across that I hate my country, in case I sounded that way. I don't. I just am not very pleased with the way we've been acting as a country.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

It really looks like the end times He described.

---

Oh come on man...

life has *always* resembled the 'end times'.

In fact, according to Jesus and all the early christians, *that* was in fact the 'end times'. It was preached unilaterally that men must prepare *now* because the end is coming *now*. Not metaphorically, as in one must always be ready.

The whole reason the 'end times' bullshit has managed to stay relevent to people is because every time period feels like it.

Man has been wiping man out since the beginning, with or without your savior.
And of course, don't forget that the 'occult' predates your religion...

quote:

---

And on a side note, I didn't mean to come across that I hate my country, in case I sounded that way.

---

It would only come across that way to someone who confuses country with government. Many fail to make that distinction in todays charged climate. You can be the most anti-state person in the world and still sincerely love your nation.

Thomas Paine, I think, could have been some other dead guy, once wrote, "Love you country, fear your government," and that is some advice we should all take to the bank.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

The religious mad have been carrying the "The End Is Near signs since time immemorial.

The most recent example of this mindless stupidity came at new years 2000.

The "New Millenium" was to be the end prophsised by the bible and Nostradamus...who was clearly a chalatan.

Of course, anyone who can count to ten would have known 2000 was the end of the last decade/century and 2001, the start of the new century...BTW in case it escaped the notice of any...2001 was not the end either.

More obvious to all but the religious, the year is more like something, something billion...the dating from the alleged birth of some mythological messiah is just another fallacy imposed on the world by religion.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Diogenes, I agree with you that "religious nuts" have always been claiming the "end of the world". And I sincerely hope that you don't think I was doing that. The "end of the world" is not going to happen til the sun blinks out, and you're right, the sun probably isn't even half dead yet. That is not a guarantee of anything though. Mother Nature can be a moody bitch when she wants to be. But, according to the earth's layers, there have already been two mass exticntions on the earth already since it's birth. And if you want to think that the earth is not going to go through another one-- and/or that humans won't be included in it-- until the sun blinks out, then you go right ahead and think that. But the odds are that humankind "as we know it" will be long gone before the earth itself is.

People tend to think that when prophecy says the "heavens and the earth" that it literally means the earth is going to explode...and one day it will--far far far far in the future when the sun goes supernova. And when they read that the sun will go dark, that it means some supernatural event. And it very well could mean that. It could aslo be that the atmosphere is so mucked up that you just can't see the sun and the earth gets very little light. At any rate, I read "heavens and earth" as "atmosphere and life". Mass extinction. A renewal. It could happen tomorrow, or it could happen 2000 years or 10,000 years from now, but it will happen. At this point, I'm afraid we are in more danger of a possible nuclear war breaking out. But I'd say it would not happen in my lifetime-- if that ever happens at all. I'm not planning on building any fallout shelters in my basement or stocking up on canned foods, put it that way.

quote:

---

In fact, according to Jesus and all the early christians, *that* was in fact the 'end times'.

---

Sorry DL, I have to disagree with you on that one. The things I have read made it sound like the followers of Jesus thought that the end times were at hand, but that Jesus himself really said different if you listened closely to what he was saying. Anyway, it can be argued that the actual words of Christ that are written in red in the bible were written way after his death, and are probably changed. But, I choose to believe the actual teachings of Jesus himself are written correctly. The things that are written (in red) that he was supposed to have said were far too wise, and far too cryptic, to have been purposely changed to read that way. He could speak volumes with just a few short sentences. Volumes that had a stark and plain truth about them without bias or judgement. The parts that seem tampered with and re-interpreted, to me, are very plainly biased and judgmental with obvious motivational reasons behind them. That's just the way I see it though.

Also, on a side note. When I speak of balance, and a global unbalance, as far as government and a so called "way of life" goes...I really believe that the native americans were one of the last great nations--if not THE last-- that came as close to perfect balance that you could get. I am one quarter cherokee, and have studied their (and other native american) culture deeply and intensely for a few years now, and it really took me by surprise. Yet "white man" called them savages. They acted more Christian in their hearts than the Christians who shoved them aside, and they didn't even have the same kind of religion or ever heard of Jesus. It's really funny in a sad sad way.
*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-17-2005 10:34)

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-17-2005 11:42)

Bell - for exaple:

(speaking in regard to the 'end times' and all that will happen, form Matthew 24):

quote:

---

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

---

mark 1:15

quote:

---

15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

---

mark 9:1

quote:

---

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

---

There are several places where jesus states that the end will come within the lifetime of those present. These are a couple of examples.

DL

How I read it....

quote:

---

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

---

We are still even today under the generation of the Patriarch Jesus Christ. We will be until he comes again--and even then, still so. The bible makes clear it's use of the word "generation" and patriarchal society. Read the very first verse of Matthew. The "generation" of David ended with the start of the "generation" of Jesus, which continues. This first verse of Matthew is the last place in the bible that you see the words "These are the generation of.....(so and so)"

quote:

---

15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

---

The same verse in my bible reads--"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

It IS at hand. "The time is fulfilled" not becasue He was here on earth right then in 33 AD or what ever year it was, but becasue He is getting ready to ascend to His throne in Heaven as King of the Earth by His death. Jesus's death was His blood covenant to His bride (believers--his church) His ascention was the beginning of the Kingdom of heaven as true prince of the earth, his later descention will be the end of His rule of the heavenly kingdom and beginning of his rule of the new earthly kingdom.

quote:

---

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

---

And He spoke true. Some standing there with him that day DID see His kingdom come with power--by witnessing His ascention to the Throne of God. This is when Jesus's kingdom came to power....in HEAVEN, Later, that power will be brought to earth.

Now:

Matthew 24:14--"And the gosple of the Kingdom shall be preached in ALL the world for a witness unto ALL nations: and THEN shall the end come."

24:19--"and woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in THOSE days" (not THESE days There are many of these verses in this speach of the end times where He says "those days")

24:29-30--"Immediately after the tribulation of THOSE days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and THEN shall ALL the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

24:6--"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for ALL these things (which his is about to name in the next verses) must come to pass, but (still even after then) the end is not yet"

And there are many more places where Jesus says the end will come like a theif in the night, comparing it to the days of Noah--where people made merriment right up until the floods actually stole upon them unawares. So to be prepared, because "no man knoweth save the Father in heaven" And this could possibly include that Jesus himself does not know the actual day that God the Father will say "enough is enough, wipe them out now Son."

Well, one could still say that I interpreted the verses that you quoted MY way....but I think that OTHER verses show that Jesus is clearly pointing to a future date.....So it does not make sense that He would contradict himself in the very same "speach" to his disciples in several different places. So I have to stand by the way I'm reading it to mean. <shrug>

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-18-2005 02:57)

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-18-2005 03:35)

Regardless of anything else - jesus was asked directly when the end would come, and he told them that it would happen in *their* lifetimes. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Not in his lifetime, which can then be turned metaphorical.

And the early christians took that to heart...

As for the 'those days' that can quite easily refer to any point after the current time - a month down the road, a few years down the road, etc.

Yeah, "those days" could mean anytime.......the idea I get is that it will happen when it is LEAST expected. And it is obviously still "expected" even today by the largest majority of the earth.

I don't know, to me when he told his disciples that the gosple had to be preached to the entire world and all nations before the end would come....well, it would take longer than even the disciples great grandchildren to even preach it to the "then known" world. Now, if you are inclined to believe that Jesus is God's son, then you believe that HE knew how big the world was. But his disciples, they were just men. So they had no idea. And what good would it do for Jesus to try and tell them? Don't some people even now still think the earth is flat? You can show them a globe, take them on a trip in an airplane around the earth, and they still won't buy it. And still there are people in remote places of the world that still today have not heard the gosple. So, I guess it's just a matter of your perception.

Anyway....just to let you know....my mind is very logically oriented, and my mind has a very very hard time grasping the reality of Jesus coming back to life and taking off into the clouds to wait and come back in a "blaze of glory surrounded by angels" My mind screams to me that this part of it all is impossible, that ALL the supernatural things in the bible are impossible. while my mind has no problem grasping the logic of some things in the bible, such as the morality parts, the nature of man, the patterns in history, so on and so forth. But....when I listen to my heart, it says that I may not understand it, and it may make no sense, and it may seem impossible, but somehow or another, it IS all true. And I've never been a person who could dismiss what my heart says no matter how much my mind screams at me. So, that's where I am right now with my belief in God.

The warlike God of Abraham and Moses? Logic tells me that a lot of that was really the warlike mind of man, writing down words to control the masses, and to justify their invasion of a territory--not unlike Bush telling the people of today that we are doing the right thing for peace and freedom to invade Iraq. Which, of course, is part of the same land Abraham and Moses fought over. Did God really promise them that particular piece of land? Maybe. I don't know. Maybe Abraham just saw it, and wanted it, and then said God promised it. I wasn't there. Maybe God promised it, for a future generation, and then (just like the disciple under Jesus--who thought he meant NOW) couldn't wait and used God's name for war to take the land. People have been justifying their reasons to do evil things by using God's name forever. So. I don't see that Abraham's generation should be any different from what happened during the crusades, or what is happening today. The arena and context has just changed from religious to political. (But THAT's not entirely true when you consider that religion WAS politics back then. Religion has had it's own slow evolution into politics as we know it today over time. From mostly religion with political reasons underneath, to equal religious and political motivations, and today it is political with religious reasons underneath)

But considering that people have been fighting over that particular piece of land, the fertile creasent, since the dawn of mankind, tells me that there MUST be something to it that we just can't see or figure out. It's a DESERT for God's sake. Why fight over it when there are much better and prettier and more fertile pieces of land? Oil? That's a good reason to say why we want it so bad TODAY, but what about then, when people didn't use that kind of oil so much? And what about other fuel sources? We can get to the moon and to Mars, but can't come up with a feasable alternate energy source? Come on, we know that's a lie that's fueled partly by money, even though I would think that ANY alternate energy source could make just as many people rich as oil has. So, frankly, I'm baffled by it. What is it REALLY about the mesopotamia and Isreal that certain people and nations have always been so obsessed about?

Does that sound logical to you? Or does it just sound stupid and superstitious and like I'm reading too much into it? I'm not being flip...I'd really like to know some opinions here. Doesn't mean you'll change my mind, but I'd like to hear other opinions anyway to chew on.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-18-2005 16:25)

Well, if you take into account that Jesus never fullfilled the requirements for a Messiah, according to the rules laid out by God to the Jewish people...

How exactly do you deal with THAT conundrum?

It is the main reason, why the Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

But....

when asked directly, when it would happen - Jesus told them that it would happen before they died. It would happen in their generation.

How do you explain that?

We can't move on to other interpretations of other passages until this issue is dealt with...

Well, WS. To tell the truth, prophecies in ANY culture confuse me. Particularly biblical prophecy. Some seem clear, some seem that they can mean two or three different things, some sound like they couldn't possibly mean anything except nonsense. Some of them I wouldn't even realize are supposed to BE a phophecy unless somebody pointed it out to me. And, I try to keep in mind that, even if some started out true bona-fide God-given prophecy, people have a tendency to turn them into what they WANT them to be and mean.

As far as the Jews, from the best I can tell (and you may know more about this than I and can point to other requirements that weren't met) they didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah mainly because he didn't destoy Satan and deliver them RIGHT THEN in a war that brought back the peace and serenity of Eden. The prophecy didn't say that the Messiah would come first, and then a second time. That he would do it RIGHT THEN when he showed up here. They had built up the notion that he was going to be born, and that he was going to take over the world as some great king like Alexander the Great and crush the enemy in one fell swoop. Not some lowly carpenter who wore rags and ate by charity alone and ended up nailed to a tree. The Messiah a hippy? No way, not possible in thier mind.

But me, well, I attribute the Jews reasonings to the impatience and war-loving nature of man. A person can take the death and resurection of Christ and say it was a story that was made up just to make it look like the prophecy was fulfilled in an "out of the box" manner. And believe me, my mind tells me this is perfectly logical--my heart definately says otherwise. Or a person can look at the nature of man and how he has always wanted immediate gratification and justification and believe that Jesus really DID fulfill the prophecy in the last possible way expected. As a second chance to realize our war-like, judgemental, spoiled-brat behavior (that the Old Testament had grown into, a history that reflected the war-loving nature of man that only HID behind God) is only leading us further from the truth. And a tangible blood covenant that justification is coming--just be patient a little longer. The world at that time was not even half taken over by governmental society, and alot of the world was still in (what I call) a sense of balance back then. It was "not ripe for the harvest" yet. Only half grown. Maybe not even half.

So, that's how I look at it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

DL--I have already explained to you why I don't think Jesus was saying it would happen at that exact time, and why his followers took it "the wrong way". People always hear what the WANT to hear and not listen to what other people are really saying. Is that not so? The disciples were ALWAYS questioning Jesus for a more clearer meaning of the things he said--where if they LISTENED the first time, they could really get it without having to ask for another explaination.

You can say that I am only hearing what I WANT to hear....and that's fine for you to say and think. But it's only the things that "I" hear that matter to "me".

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

***I'm putting this in another post because I don't know if you have read my other post***

In other words WebShaman--Men using only the old testament as their source of who God was (which is, in my OPINION a completely WRONG testamony, written by men who used the name of God for war) built up an image of what the Messiah should be like based on thier history of a war-like God, which was only a REFLECTION of war-like men.

The nature of man is NOT peace and love. The nature of man is war and selfishness. And until the New Testament, the nature of God was taught to be the same as ours--war-like and vengeful. The nature of God is Peace and Love. Therefore, any God who came down in HIS true nature, would naturally be disregarded as an imposter.

Man fell away from the nature of God in the beginning. Death--just a separation from God, not a physical death. Physical death always happened, that is the nature of EARTH--was our punishment.

Anyway, that's the only explanation my brain can come up with to try and grasp the craziness of it all and believe the same way my heart believes. But my mind still doesn't like it completely....

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

So....are you saying that what is written in that passage is simply not accurate?

One passage about when the end will come is not accurate, but a different passage in regard to the same subject, by the same author, is right on the money?

I certainly would call that kind of interpretation "hearing what you want to hear" from the bible.

If that's not what you meant, then you will *definately* need to clarify, without so much conjectural tangent....

No DL. You are still not hearing what I am saying.

And I honestly don't know how better to explain what I am saying over these forums. If I sat down with you face to face, with the verses on hand, maybe I could at least make you understand what I am trying to say. You may still not believe it, but at least you would see where I was coming from.

But let my try one more time anyway, because I really hate to be misunderstood.

In my view of what Jesus is saying, When asked by the disciples when the end was going to come, Jesus said, My Kingdom will come to power in your (specific) lifetime. But the end times--the time of renewal for the earth, not the "end of the world", will come later in the future.

This is how I read Matthew chapter 24. Not just how I "interpret" it. To me, it is very plain and up-front that this is what he was saying. And it is also plain to me that it is easily misunderstood unless you actually study the bible yourself to first, realize that a "generation" is under the patriarchal system, second, realize that Christ spoke cryptically so that his words would not get changed, therefore you have to pay close attention to what he is saying, and three--pay very close attention to the tense of pronouns in context to what he is saying.

It is also plain to me that man is very impatient, and don't listen, and want what they want right when they want it. And they EXPECTED and WANTED Jesus to "deliver" them right then, in their lifetime. So that is all they HEARD. Well, he DID deliver them. Just not the way they wanted, and DEFINATELY not in the way they had always expected.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

As far as the Jews, from the best I can tell (and you may know more about this than I and can point to other requirements that weren't met) they didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah mainly because he didn't destoy Satan and deliver them RIGHT THEN in a war that brought back the peace and serenity of Eden. The prophecy didn't say that the Messiah would come first, and then a second time. That he would do it RIGHT THEN when he showed up here. They had built up the notion that he was going to be born, and that he was going to take over the world as some great king like Alexander the Great and crush the enemy in one fell swoop. Not some lowly carpenter who wore rags and ate by charity alone and ended up nailed to a tree. The Messiah a hippy? No way, not possible in thier mind.

---

Uhhh...what are you talking about?

Haven't you researched this?!

Goodness...this is really most telling.

The Jews had a number of potiential Messiahs, from varying walks of life. Quite frankly, it didn't matter much from what walk of life one came, as long as the Prophecies were fulfilled!

I'm frankly quite shocked at your lack of knowledge in this very crucial area, Bd.

This area is the most crucial, because it establishes whether or not Jesus was a Messiah according to the laws laid down by God himself, according to his chosen people!

And according to the laws handed down by God to his chosen people, Jesus could not have been a Messiah because he did not meet the requirements.

So, the question becomes one of who has the authority to decide if Jesus was a Messiah or not?

That which was written after Jesus' demise, or that which was written before!

The Jews choose what was written before. Most xians choose after.

But the problem with choosing after, is that everything else in the Old Testament then becomes questionable.

I have extensively researched this area (and some of my findings and results are posted on this Board). If you so wish, I can even point you in the right direction - just start looking for sources like the Talmud, and what defines a Messiah according to the Jews.

Well, WebShaman, I stated my confusion with the prophets, and research that I have done really hasn't pointed me to any other "requirements" that were questioned as much as the deliverence itself. This shouldn't be too surpriseing, since I really didn't know much about God until my early adulthood to begin with other than childrens stories....My earliest interests were science, then more occultic things dealing with magic and so forth. So my Christian beliefs have been last....and there were MANY other things about it I had to reconcile myself with before I could even accept as much of it as I have. Starting with believing ANYTHING of the bible, and how it could possible have more of the truth in it than I thought, and if so, then why it contradicted itself so much, especially in the sense that the Old Testament spoke of a vengeful and killer God, and the New Testament was just the exact opposite. A loving and sacrificing God.

Therefore, my study of the prophets is fairly new in my "conversion". And most of the sources that I have seen and heard of so far are christian in nature anyway. So they talk a lot about the ones that match up. Or seemingly match up, if you'd rather put it that way.

So instead of patronizing me....just give me a list of the unfulfilled requirements that you are talking about. Don't point me to webpages, or tell me certain things to research. I am very capable of doing an unbiased research on my own if I know what I'm looking for to begin with. You have obviously researched the Messiah aspect far longer than I, so just tell me exactly which requirements that YOU yourself are in agreement that WEREN'T fulfilled, and then I'll look into them gladly.

You seem to be a very intelligent person, who researches anything you are interested in thouroughly and, most importantly, without bias, so I feel like that any prophecies that you can see that weren't fulfilled are definately worth looking into.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Please excuse the long post.

Bd, all this material was posted here, before. I'm putting a lot together, for you, because you don't seem to be inclined to find it yourself.

Okay...here is what Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein has to say about it.

quote:

---

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder and president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, said that the theology of Evangelical Christians has an ?exclusivist? nature to it ? believing in the ?centrality of Jesus? in order to obtain salvation ? which runs counter to many other religions, and even other denominations of Christianity. For example, Eckstein notes that in Judaism, one can be considered a good person without being Jewish by observing the Noahide laws outlined in Genesis.

---

from here Bush clarifies his
stand on Jews, heaven

Then we have this

quote:

---

A Rabbi?s perspective
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp
by Rabbi Shraga Simmons

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.

The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

________________________
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

Scriptures from teh Qur'an 4:163-165
163 Lo! We inspire thee (Muhammad) as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms;

164 And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses;

165 Messengers of good cheer and off warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Robage

---

From Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

But there is something else to consider - and that is what the Jews are saying.

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies that were given to the Jews from God himself through prophets (according to the Jews).

quote:

---

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

---

Blocks are mine. The Jews have other books, manuscripts, and teachings that are far older than the NT, btw. Apparently early Xians didn't include them into the Bible and the NT (I wonder why? Because they show that Jesus could not be The Messiah?).

I find this more than telling, especially when one combines it with the information that DL has posted. Just "conviently" leave out those manuscripts that show that Jesus cannot be The Messiah. Interesting.

Why would God lie to his Chosen people, and exclude them from Heaven? Is any Xian seriously suggesting that Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah, Moses, David, Joshua, etc did not go to heaven?

And it would seem that the Mormons and JW are accepting the view of the Jews to a point (concerning the human properties of Jesus), moreso than the Evangelist Xians.

And who are Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi? I need to do some research on these two. It would seem that the Jews have more information on the actual events of that time, than what is revealed in the NT.

Pretty interesting stuff!

Bar Cochba - Under the leadership of Bar Cochba, or Barcochebas, the Jews revolted in Palestine during Hadrian´s reign (A.D. 117-138). They persecuted the native Christians for refusing to join the insurrection.

Shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jewish warrior Bar Cochba led a short-lived rebellion against the Roman occupation of the Land of Israel (80-83 CE). Maimonides describes Bar Cochba as "a great king whom all of Israel, including the great sages, were convinced was the messiah" (Hilchot Ta'aniot Ch. 5, Hilchot Melachim Ch. 11). In fact, one of the reasons that the solemn fast of Tisha B'Av (the ninth of Av) was instituted - in addition to the destruction of the Holy Temple - was to commemorate Bar Cochba's downfall.

This is crucial to a proper understanding of the role of the messiah. From Maimonides' words, we understand that Bar Cochba's attempt to restore the kingdom to Israel and return the nation to its land is clearly defined by Jewish law as a messianic manifestation. Thus a fast was decreed for all generations to mourn the failure of this process. In other words, the attempts of Bar Cochba had messianic potential.

Bar Cochba was the Jewish leader of the disastrous rebellion against Roman occupation in 132 A.D. Bar Cochba believed he was a messiah and descendent of King David. The rebellion was put down savagely, and Bar Cochba was killed in battle

This makes for fascinating reading - Mashiach: The Messiah especiallythis part

quote:

---

What About Jesus?

Jews know that Jesus could not possibly have been the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both of which are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as Jews have always understood it. Jesus neither did any of the things described above, nor did he bring about the anticipated messianic age.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, and harsh military figure. Among others, Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the mashiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold, of course. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach (as Jesus' followers should have done with their pretender to be mashiach).

Throughout Jewish history, there have been many people who have claimed to be the mashiach, or whose followers have claimed that they were the mashiach: Shimeon Bar Kochba, Shabbtai Tzvi, Jesus, and many others too numerous to name. Leo Rosten reports some very entertaining accounts under the heading False Messiahs in his book, The Joys of Yiddish. But all of these people died without fulfilling the mission of the mashiach; therefore, none of them was the mashiach. Thus, the mashiach and the messianic age lie in our age or in a future age, not in the past.

In our generation, thousands of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's followers claim that their brilliant Rebbe was the mashiach. But his more sensible students have now, after his death, expressed disappointment that it turned out that the Rebbe just did not fulfill the expectations described above in his lifetime, and admit that we are still waiting for the real mashiach to come.

---

And what about Shabbtai Tzvi?

quote:

---

The Doenmeh roots go back to the immense messianic crisis of the 1660s. Across the Jewish world, Shabbtai Tzvi, an Izmir-born kabbalist, was accepted as the promised redeemer of Israel. It was a turbulent time for Europe's Jews, who were looking for deliverance in the wake of the devastating massacres in Ukraine and elsewhere. Tzvi declared himself the messiah in 1665, and prepared to lead the Jewish people to the Holy Land. He also told his followers that the Ottoman sultan would become his slave.

In response, the Ottomans arrested Tzvi and gave him the choice of conversion or death. The messiah chose apostasy, and converted to Islam the next year. While the great majority of Jews subsequently renounced him, some - the ma'aminim, or "believers" - secretly kept their faith in him. About 200 families of believers - the original Doenmeh - followed Tzvi into Islam. In secret, they practiced their own form of Judaism, based on the "18 precepts" supposedly left by Tzvi - essentially the Ten Commandments (with a very ambiguous replacement for No. 7), along with a ban on intermarriage with true Muslims.

---

from Jewish Whistleblower

Interesting.

I find it particularly interesting, that followers of other "past" Messiahs continued to believe in them afterwards. Sects, if you will.

But the mainstream Jewish faith is still waiting for The Messiah to come.

I'll leave this brief, as there's no need to dwell on the point -

quote:

---

No DL. You are still not hearing what I am saying.

---

I'm hearing it....I just disagree completely.

quote:

---

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

---

All those requirments have not been met as yet because they have not happened yet.

There were plenty of messianic prophecies which have been fulfilled by Him, and as for the rest, humanity sorely lacks patience. http://thechapel.org/html/point-by-point_fulfillment.html

Aww hell, what am I doing. I'm not getting sucked into this.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Like I posted here Ram -

quote:

---

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

---

I am aware of what the xians say - but what they say, is based on what was written after, not before. And just like the xians like to do, they "fit" the pieces according to what they believe, and not vice versa.

quote:

---

All those requirments have not been met as yet because they have not happened ye

---

Uhhhhh.....yeah, that's kind what is meant by "haven't been met".


Obviously your intent is to emphasize the 'yet' part in relation to Jesus' return. Ok. Sure. When it happens, drop a line - we'll discuss my erroneous judgement then

quote:

---

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

---

Missed that line. Sorry.

From my knowledge, that is the only counter I can offer as well, and to me personally it makes sense. Just because the term "second coming" was invented post OT, does not in any way mean it is not prophesized, albeit not given such a precise name. There are verses in the OT indicating that the Messiah would be crucified, resurrected, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, despised, ect ect. (page with lots of cross-referenced prophecies) and the time frame between those events and the fulfillment of remaining prophecy is not indicated. We are talking God here, and I don't think 2,000+ years is of much consequence.

Surely for the "good news" could not be spread throughout the world overnight while accounting for the free-will that God bestowed upon man, it would take many many years, in fact millenia for something like that to happen, and I still think there are tribe in places that have not been introduced. It would have been nice for it to happen in a more peaceful way, but that is neither here nor there. (Just finished reading Zinn's the "People's History of the US", and there was some rather disturbing stuff in there)

Now granted, I'll admit the possibility that the NT could have been been crafted and or manipulated in such a way that it appears to fulfill the prophecies and bring into the picture a second coming for those that were not, but that is where I take my leap of faith, and arguing faith is futile. Probably why I try to stay out of these threads...

quote:

---

Obviously your intent is to emphasize the 'yet' part in relation to Jesus' return. Ok. Sure. When it happens, drop a line - we'll discuss my erroneous judgement then

---

ROFL, yep, I'll make a note.

As an aside, I really wasn't calling anyone's judgement erroneous. If I came off like that it was unintended. I never profess to be right in my beliefs with regard to religion, as that is what they are, beliefs. Some go for it, some don't. If I am wrong, I'll rot six feet under and that will be that, I'll never know it, but at least I had a good philosophy to try and live my life by and something that made me feel good inside.

(BTW: I took up the recommendation on Imperfect God. About halfway through and thus far it has been very enjoyable. Thanks.)

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Great information WebShaman. I must admit, I haven't done much research into the Jewish religion, which now seems stupid on my part NOT to have done, since Christianity grew out of the Jewish faith. Needless to say, I *will* be doing more research on it.

Anyhow, here's my response to your post. And mind you, this is *pre-indepth-researh*, but I can still give you a feasable response at this time to what you have posted:

Bar Cochba--I will have to look more into this later, but just from what is written there in your post confirms my belief that the Jews were, and still are, expecting a messiah who will make war to free them, or to give them their land back and bring all the Jews back home. (I should have said "war with Rome" in my earlier post instead of "war with satan"--haste on my part. sorry) I don't see where this guy filled any of the OTHER requirements, (but I will have to look more into it), but yet they were ready to accept him simply becasue he claimed to be from the line of David, and he was physically trying to free them from Roman rule.

Shabbtai Tzvi--This guy chickened out and denied even his OWN claims, converting to Islam to save his own neck. Why he may still have followers is beyond me. But, this one I'll have to look more into also

Now for the requirements of the Old Testament:

I could say something very sarcastic here, about how I figured you of all people could show me something new, but I'll refrain, since now I can see that I didn't make myself clear about what I had read about already and what I hadn't, and just say, I've read all about these before.


A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

I know the usual arguments--that Jesus stated he will "tear down and rebuild the temple in three days". But that he meant metaphorically speaking. By his Death and resurrection--hense the three days. So christians say this is a metaphor. And it can be said that He DID do this metaphorically speaking. But let me tell you what *I* think--and you may or may not have heard this view before. Ezekiel is speaking to God, getting a vision from God himself. The whole chapter makes no mention of the messiah, or that the messiah is going to do this. It says HE (God) is going to do it. And I think HE is going to do it at the end times of THIS heaven and earth. Because the temple will not be rebuilt until after the Jews are ALL reunited--that won't happen till the end times. Now one thing I do know, is that the Jews say the messiah is of earthly birth,--that he will be a man no more than you or I are, not devine at all. So, if the Jews believe that the messiah is going to be an ordinary man, then why do they accredit this passage as a prophecy requirement for the messiah, when it clearly says that God himself is going to do this?

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Once again, no mention of a messiah in this passage--it was stated by God to Isaiah that He would bring Isreal back together again. The jews believe that messiah is a man--why would they accredit this as a requirement?

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

Once again--stated by the Lord God himself, and it actually says "in the last days". No mention by God that a man from the line of David will do this, but rather HE will do it.

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Again, no mention of a messiah, just the Lord God himself will do all these things. Plus, it is a very long stretch for the Jews to say that being King of the world means that universal knowledge of the God of Isreal will take place, and that all humanity will be as one.

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Here in this passage, it is told of a man from the line of Jessie, (so we're talking about a man, the messiah) And that the spirit of the lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of council and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord. It does not say that he will be a prophet. It says, well, it says exactly what Jesus was. A very wise and God-fearing man. It says a Branch will grow out of his roots. And you could say that it did--a new religion. It says that he will not judge with his eyes or ears, but with righteousness--and Jesus passed judgement on sins that were pointed out to him by his heart. It was He who kept the fornicating woman from being stoned when the "law" said she should be killed. Although these were not "final" judgement. It says that the Gentiles will seek him. It also says that the wolf will dwell with the lamb and the cow shall eat with the bear so on and so forth. This did not happen when Jesus walked the earth.....but to me speaks that He had supernatural powers, and was not just a mortal man. Just becasue he didn't make it happen THEN, doesn't mean he didn't have the POWER to do so. He sure did do a lot of OTHER things that showed his power.

Do you see where I'm going? The Jews use this passage to say messiah was a man, not divine. But anyone who can make wild animals eat together instead of eating each other--which can be taken "as written" or metaphorically as bringing peace--would HAVE to be of God. No MAN is going to bring peace, men can SAY they are bringing peace, but they say it while they are WARRING for peace. They also use this passage to say He was a prophet--and Jesus wasn't viewed as a prophet by Jews, but I'm sorry but Islam identifies him as a prophet, and he did prophecy of the end times. Yet they claim he wasn't a prophet for reasons that regard Isreal alone.


B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

This is a tough one. I have no qualms that the messiah is of the line of David. But then how is Jesus this if he is born of a virgin and not Joseph himself. Christians point to the curse of the serpent in Eden to say that it will be a virgin birth, because it says "her" seed. And women have no seed. But that interpretation is a huge stretch to me....it is of the same calibur as the Jews saying the messiah is a man, yet point to all these things that the Lord God said HE would do. Bullshit, in other words. And I've already stated in the above paragraph that I think the messiah is of devine nature. So, how could it be, if he was of David's seed? I really couldn't tell you, this is one of those "supernatural" things my mind has a hard time grasping, but since I believe in God, it is not hard to say that God just sort of mingled with Joseph while he and Mary.....made a baby. This is a blasphemous thought in the mind of a WHOLE lot of people, not to mention a thought that is considered pagan--bringing Zeus to mind.

But, still, I DO see this one as a loose thread in my reasoning. I just have to deal with it. I have to keep looking into this one. For the time being, I have to accept that EVERYONE believes that Jesus was from the line of David, even the Jews don't deny that. So why not my "pagan" belief that Jesus had TWO fathers. Also, by all accounts, the geneaologies were destroyed in 70 AD, so any one born now I don't see how it could be proved that he came from the line of David. Unless there is a hidden record somewhere, which could just "pop-up" when the one who the Jews THINK is the messiah shows up. This is an interesting theory of how the great false prophet in Revelation will make his "authentic" claim. Who knows?

Also is that fact that the very chapter that talks about the messiah being a man from the line of david, speaks of his peace bringing powers. So, there IS a passage that says he will be BOTH of man AND of God.

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

I don't see where Jesus denied the Laws of Moses. I see where he CLARIFIED them from where the priests over the centuries, and even Moses himslef according to Jesus, changed.

I'm going to be straight up honest here, I read the old testament before I read the new testament, or the words of Christ. And I can tell you, from the VERY FIRST TIME that I read of Moses and his laws, I believed that God spoke to him, but I also saw that Moses was a politician and was trying to control a huge mass of people. People who were haveing to travel a long way, over a long time, by foot. I saw that all the long drawn out laws didn't quite match up to "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery" and so on and so forth. And I saw Moses as the very first Evangelist the world has seen. Give me your gold and finest cloth, and this and that to build the tabernacle. I saw that the priests set themselves above everybody else.

In my opinion, they took the Universal God of EVERYBODY and made him into what they wanted him with words. Did he speak to them? Yes, I think He did. But does he speak to them anymore? No. And I have reasons for thinking this. They set Isreal above everybody else in the world. And the strictest Jews STILL do this today. Saying the Laws are only for them. Saying that "understanding" will be only for them. But this is what the Jews have learned from thousands of years of learning it. So I don't hold it against them at all.

But I felt from my VERY FIRST TIME OF READING that the "line of priests" used their God Given status to make what they wanted to out of what they were given. It does not take a genius to see that. And Jesus called them out on it to their faces in a very BIG way. So big, they plotted to KILL him. So much for "thou shalt not kill" from the oh-so-law abiding priests.

Well, I could say a whole, whole, lot more on this subject, and exactly why I think it, but it would take a whole book, and my post is way too long as it is. So. That's all I'm going to say. I don't see where the Jews can say for sure where Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies other than the virgin birth vs. normal birth. And even that is questionable to me.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

It would have been nice for it to happen in a more peaceful way, but that is neither here nor there.

---

Neither here nor there?
I'd say it's a pretty damn important part of it.

The opening chapter od Zinn's history of our nation is a good summation of the type of action that has soured my view of christianity. It demonstrates with absolute clarity that you can spread the word without getting the message.

And - let's assume that this chistian thing is real for a moment - if the goal is to spread the message of Jesus' word and love, and the method we use is the abuse, enslavement, and genocide of those different from us, because we view them as lesser beings, not worthy of the most basic human rights, then I'd say we have spread only one message, and that message has nothing to do with holiness, with good acts, with love, with forgiveness. It has only to do with the absolute extreme of selfish arrogant evil.

Yes, many people in the world have now heard of Jesus.

But we have not spread any 'good news'.

So, if that is one of the criteria....we'll never see the kingdom of god.

quote:

---

As an aside, I really wasn't calling anyone's judgement erroneous. If I came off like that

---

Not at all - my own words, adressed generally to the overall...

quote:

---

DL: Neither here nor there?
I'd say it's a pretty damn important part of it.

---

Well, there is a distinction to be made between the actual teachings and the actions of those who have claimed to be followers. Clearly there have been men of great influence (and small) who have tarnished the teachings of Christ, using Christianity simply as a means to an end, but rather than turn me away from or sour my view of Christianity it turns me away and sours my view of humanity in general.

You can't blame the original teachings of Christ, which are of love and doing no harm (that is what I get from them), for the actions of humans, who are apt to war and violence and selfish motivations. Had they not had Christianity to use, can you say with certainty they would not have found another excuse? I believe they would have, as long as they could quell their conscience with something.

We destroy everything that is good and pure, it is what we do best, and I cannot blame the Bible or Christianity for that, I blame the faults of mankind who are easily tempted by evil.

I think far too often we tend to focus on past atrocities commited en masse in the name of such by those who litter our history books and fail to recognize the good it has made in so many billions of others on an individual, family, and community level.

That's how I see it anyway.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

You misread me.

I don't blame the 'original' teachings for anything.

I blame 'chistianity' for raping those teachings and 'spreading the good news' through attrocious acts of violence and cruelty throughout the centuries.

If christianity weren't there, there would most certainly still be the violence. That is a human condition that will never go away.

What religion does is fortify the transgressor with the thought that his actions are mandated by god, and not only is he entitled to do so, he is required to do so. Obviously this is *not* part of the 'origianl' teachings - but that's my point.

quote:

---

I blame 'chistianity' for raping those teachings and 'spreading the good news' through attrocious acts of violence and cruelty throughout the centuries.

---

Ok. I did misunderstand. We are in total agreement, aside from the belief/non-belief part.

When people refer to 'Christianity' I always consider the term to mean the original teachings and philosophy aspect, not the institutionalized religion aspect that came later, thus my confusion.

To use the term 'Christianity' to refer to Roman Catholisicm (Romanism) or any other institutionalized variation in which words and teachings are twisted for whatever end always seemed a contradiction to me.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

DL--you ARE right of course. There's no doubt about it--but if you choose to let the nature of mankind make you bitter and resentful toward people who claim religion, then I can only feel sad for you. Because not everybody who claims religion acts like the "masses". And I'm sure you probably know some people who claim religion and are good people. It's the masses that you let decide your opinion.

In the mean time, I'm still waiting for a counter to my post. That the "requirement" list the Jews go by is crap because the the Messiah is supposed to be an ordinary man from the line of David, yet they say he is going to do all these things that GOD said he'd do himself, NOT "through" an earthly man from the line of David. It would be one thing to say God was going to do all that "through" someone on earth if ALL the passages said that, and there was no mention of a MAN whatsoever. But it's not like that.

So, I don't know if I haven't got a counter becasue A)nobody read it B)everyone thinks it's ignorant so deem it not worthy of an answer or C) nobody has a counter or D) I'm just too impatient and should give it a little longer.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I haven't let such things make me bitter and resentful. My view of organized religion is formed by many things - first and foremost education. Part of that education is a view of the evil done by organized religion. There are plenty of other parts, which I have expounded on many times around here (check out the FAQ, if you're in the mood for digging through old posts on the subject...).

Obviously there are exceptions to any rule.

But damn...we're talking close to 2000 years of violence, cruelty, oppression, murder, torture, etc etc etc.

That's an awful big legacy for the occasional exception to overcome.

As for the prophecies - I have stayed out of the subject for the most part. It is not an area that I am particularly knowledgable in at this point.
I do know that I often hear (and read) christians expounding how amazing it is that Jesus *did* in fact fulfill all the prophecies, to which I can only respond: oh please.....
But I can't get into more detail at the moment

quote:

---

In the mean time, I'm still waiting for a counter to my post.

---

Because you haven't posted anything that is outside of the "normal" xian answer. This is what you post :

quote:

---

That the "requirement" list the Jews go by is crap because the the Messiah is supposed to be an ordinary man from the line of David, yet they say he is going to do all these things that GOD said he'd do himself, NOT "through" an earthly man from the line of David. It would be one thing to say God was going to do all that "through" someone on earth if ALL the passages said that, and there was no mention of a MAN whatsoever. But it's not like that.

---

Blocks are mine. The requirements were handed to the Jews by God himself, through the Prophets. If you call this crap, then everything else in the Old Testament, is also crap.

The Jews say that their sources are from Prophets - as are all the writings of the Old Testament. If you (as xian) believe that one is true, then they all must be - otherwise, throw the Old Testament out the window, and just stick with the New Testament.

This is what the Jews are basically saying.

I could personally care less.

I just find it fascinating, to see how some can believe in something based after the fact, in the light of evidence (if you will) to the contrary, based on before the fact.

Especially considering how the New Testament came to being, and under what conditions.

What I don't really understand, is how you can call one thing coming from the Prophets as "crap", but you are more than quite willing to believe others (like Genesis). In essence, you are picking and choosing whatever you don't consider to be "crap", and just discarding other parts.

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-19-2005 21:56)

DL--fair enough. I can totally dig your view of things. And you are right. Christianity does have one of the most violent and bloody passages through history, if not THE most. It has had the unfortunate aspect of making itself look bad. So I can understand. And I'm glad to hear that you know there are exceptions. (being the exceptions are so few)

WebShaman--Uh, I think you misread my entire post. I never said, nor implied, that I thought the prophets were crap. What I said was, the Jews screwed up their interpretation. Anyone with half a brain can read the Old Testament and see that the coming of the Messiah and the "end times" are two separate events. Forget about the passages that the New Testament could have been constructed around, and just looking at the very passages the Jews point to to create their "list", clearly shows they combined the Messiah and the "end". Isaiah chapter 11 says it all. I'm not even a student of theology, and figured out what that chapter meant before I ever read or heard any other Christian interpretation of it. Hell, before I even knew the Jews HAD a list of requirements they say prooved Jesus wasn't the Messiah!

What I find facinating is that people just go right along with what the Jews say regarding the list, as if only the Jews can read and figure out what it's saying, as if they have a monopoly on interpretation and are infallable.

Oh well, since it doesn't matter one way or the other to you, there's no point in discussing this.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-21-2005 12:52)

Odd how some can deflate their own argument.

BD sez:

quote:

---

What I find facinating is that people just go right along with what the Jews say regarding the list, as if only the Jews can read and figure out what it's saying, as if they have a monopoly on interpretation and are infallable.

---

Substitute the word "Jews" with the word 'Xian" and you may see what I mean.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bd, you are quite frankly "conviently forgetting" who wrote the present-day Bible, and who decided what would be included into it.

The Jews have Holy Writings which didn't get included into the Bible by Xians...I mentioned this before.

quote:

---

What I said was, the Jews screwed up their interpretation. Anyone with half a brain can read the Old Testament and see that the coming of the Messiah and the "end times" are two separate events. Forget about the passages that the New Testament could have been constructed around, and just looking at the very passages the Jews point to to create their "list", clearly shows they combined the Messiah and the "end". Isaiah chapter 11 says it all. I'm not even a student of theology, and figured out what that chapter meant before I ever read or heard any other Christian interpretation of it. Hell, before I even knew the Jews HAD a list of requirements they say prooved Jesus wasn't the Messiah!

---

Blocks are mine. According to...you?

Of course

Interpretation of WHAT is here the question.

Obviously, the Jews didn't "screw up" the interpretation of Genesis, or all the other writings in the Old Testament (they made it in) - just that other stuff, like that which proves that Jesus is not the Messiah, conviently gets left out (must be screwed up...hehe - it contradicts what the xians believe, after the events).

*shrugs*

Believe what you wish.

Thats what I said.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

The Jews have Holy Writings which didn't get included into the Bible by Xians...I mentioned this before.

---

Whatever WS. If you are talking about the talmud, the midrash, or kabbalah, these works, from all accounts--even Jewish sources--, are no more than human interpretation and search of "hidden meaning" of the actual inspired written words of the tanakh. And I can find no evidence of any written work that the Jews included in the tanakh that was left out of the Old Testament.

In other words:
JEWISH: tanakh------->(interpretation-based on "hidden meanings"or "what God was REALLY saying here.." using kabbalah as a means of interpretation)----->Talmud, midrash

Christian: tanakh------>(interpretation-based on a person who lived)----->New Testament

So in essence, the interpretations of the Jews and the interpretations of the Christians cancel each other out, leaving only a common denominator of the Tanakh. Called by Christians the Old Testament, but the very same words nonetheless.

If you know of any actual jewish writings that the Jews included in the WRITTEN tanakh, that christians left out of the old testament, please tell me, because I certainly can't find them. They would be of utmost importance, and I'd wish to read them. If not, then there is really no point in continuing patronizing me.

EDIT: And as a side note, I understand that the very thing I have a problem with the "List of Requirements" about-- the fact that the Jews attribute works God said He would do to a mortal man--are based on Kabbalah, that God himself cannot "interact" directly with the things of the world, and must interact "through" other things--in the case of the messiah, he does these works at the "end" through the mortal man somehow. But, to believe the Kabbalah, one must believe that the Jews actually figured out and know the very nature of God. And I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. The problem with the Kabbalah view of God is, that it discredits the whole Mt. Sianai scene, where the entire Jewish nation saw and heard God speak. If God is unable to interact with the world in a direct manner, then how did that take place at the Mountain? The whole Jewish religion is based "as fact" to the Jews because the entire nation saw and heard God himself.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-22-2005 01:39)

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-22-2005 03:06)

quote:

---

JEWISH: tanakh------->(interpretation-based on "hidden meanings"or "what God was REALLY saying here.." using kabbalah as a means of interpretation)----->Talmud, midrash

Christian: tanakh------>(interpretation-based on a person who lived)----->New Testament

So in essence, the interpretations of the Jews and the interpretations of the Christians cancel each other out, leaving only a common denominator of the Tanakh. Called by Christians the Old Testament, but the very same words nonetheless.

---

I'm not going to go into the Kabbalah here, as it is very, very complex. I am also by no means an expert in its teachings.

The main point is, that one has the Old Testament - which is basically the Tanakh. This the xians (well, most of them - some have only excepted the New Testament) accept that the books of the Old Testament (the Tanakh) are true and accurate.

And according the the rules that the Jews use (they say handed down by god, through Moses) the Old Testament is also true and accurate. These SAME rules also say who is and is not, a Messiah.

Thus, if you say that the rules are not correct (that Jesus is the Messiah), then the entire Old Testament is also incorrect. If you say that the rules are correct (the Old Testament is true and accurate), then Jesus is not the Messiah.

Mixing the two according to personal opinion and whim is not a logical, reasoned approach.

Obviously, the xians CANNOT accept that Jesus was not the Messiah. So, they have to try to bend, skip, break, and discredit the rules that govern how to determine what information is really from god (that the Jews say they received).

This is the point that I am raising. It is not solvable, and contradicts one another. There is no solution to it - otherwise, the Jews would have found one. When it comes to all things related to the Bible, I have more trust in the reliability of the Jews (especially in the area of preserving information), then I do in the xians (who have without a doubt bent, skipped, cut, etc things to fit their own view of things). ZThe Jews have proven that they stick to their rules, that their information is preserved in a pretty reliable form, down through the ages.

The xians, on the other hand...they can't even decide among themselves, exactly what they believe, what is true and accurate, and what is not.

One more thing -

quote:

---

The problem with the Kabbalah view of God is, that it discredits the whole Mt. Sianai scene, where the entire Jewish nation saw and heard God speak. If God is unable to interact with the world in a direct manner, then how did that take place at the Mountain? The whole Jewish religion is based "as fact" to the Jews because the entire nation saw and heard God himself.

---

I suggest you take that up with a Rabbi. I could probably hazard a guess - but you wouldn't accept that, would you? Best to discuss this with one more knowledgable than I am in such things. The Kabbalah view of God doesn't discredit the whole Mt. Sainai scene as far as I know.

Now, if I am understanding your postion correctly, you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, is that correct? Thus, the rules that the Jews follow to determine that which has come from god, you are dismissing, is that also correct?

*Sorry in advance for the long post*

quote:

---

Now, if I am understanding your postion correctly, you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, is that correct? Thus, the rules that the Jews follow to determine that which has come from god, you are dismissing, is that also correct?

---

Yes and No respectively. I understand what you are saying, that looking at it in black and white like that, that if I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then I would have to dismiss the Jewish "rules" therfore negating the Old Testament. But to me this is not so. And it is very difficult for me to explain why, because my thoughts are in concepts and not in words.

For one thing, reading my quote back to myself in your post, I realize that I misplaced kaballah in my equasion. I will explain. Kaballah, from my understanding of what I have read so far, is basically no different from any other form of mysticism. From the Native Americans to the Hindus and everything in between. And mysticism, by definition, is the "pursuit or discovery of what is believed to be the direct experience of union with divinity, God, or Ultimate Reality or the belief that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge."

So my equasion should have been:

Jews: Tanakh (received through kabbalah)--->interpretation---->talmud, etc.

This equasion obviously makes much more sense.The word Kabbalah itself means to "receive".

Kabbalah was not handed down by God through Moses. Moses was the greatest master of Kabbalah so far in the eyes of the Jews, this is how he was able to communicate directly with God, rather than through the aspects of God, and receive the torah. Abraham is considered to be the (probably) first Jew to use Kabbalah, because he is the first Jew (monotheistic) and he did communicate with God. Although the Jews say both of the statements that I just wrote, they also say that the Oral Law was given to Moses also on the mountain. Then in another place they will say that the oral law is the kabbalah.

It makes much more sense that Moses first LEARNED kabbalah before he used it to receive the torah. And the truth is,I think everybody has a bit of mysticism in their soul. I know I have always felt that all things had a sense of balance. I see patterns within patterns when I look at the world,or think deeply about the universe, and I see continuums in all things. Some feel it more than others, and some almost shut it out completely, but I believe we all feel it to some degree. I'm not going to get into that, but my point is that the Jews were not given Kabbalah at Mt. Sianai, this I can guarantee.

Mysticism, if you believe in it, and learn it, can give you the keys to receiving visions and instructions. But the interpretation of said visions and instructions are entirely up to the individual reading them. I could have a vision and write it down, then you may interpret it a whole different way than I do, and the "rules" have nothing to do with that part of it. That part is entirely human, and subject to being wrong. The Jews got their "requirements" for the messiah by interpreting the tanakh, which they received through Kabbalah. Interpretation is entirely up for grabs. They may have used some Kabbalahic principles to come up with those interpretations, but that is not the same thing at all as kabballah itself and its rules of how it works. Any mysticism is really wide open for interpretation itself. That is why there are so many kinds, but they are all BASICALLY the same.

I'm not going to get into it here of how I think Jesus was not only greater than Moses, but LIVED and PERSONIFIED the very ideas. You have to realize that the first Christians were Jews, and I'm sure they knew Kabbalah teachings too. Yet they believed he was the Messiah. I think the fact that Christianity doesn't study mysticism (other than like, fasting or the Holy Ghost, but they really dont' teach you how to USE it properly) is why it has had such a bloody and violent past. It is why people can't find what they are truly looking for and branch out in so many different denominations. That's my opinion anyway. One of the basic principles of Kabbalah that I HAVE grasped so far is that everything turns out the opposite of how it is first perceived.(That's the story of my LIFE ) And this has certainly been the case with Christianity, from peace to violence. And Jesus said it would happen.

That principle can also explain how the messiah turned out to be the LAST thing the Jews expected. If one believes that Jesus is the messiah, that is. I'm not going to argue that point with you anymore, it is my belief, and I intend to keep it, and looking at all these new things I have looked at over the past week only confirms it in my mind even more. I plan to keep looking into these mystic beliefs of the Jews, and if I change my mind about the messiah, I'll let you know. But I'm not expecting that at all.

quote:

---

I could probably hazard a guess - but you wouldn't accept that, would you? Best to discuss this with one more knowledgable than I am in such things. The Kabbalah view of God doesn't discredit the whole Mt. Sainai scene as far as I know.

---

As I don't know any Rabbis, I WOULD like to hear your guess. That is unless you were just messing with me. Can't guarantee I'll agree with your guess, but I might, and even one I don't agree with is better than none at all.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

You have to realize that the first Christians were Jews, and I'm sure they knew Kabbalah teachings too.

---

But this was also a very small number of Jews. A very definite minority, a splinter group.
There were many such splinter groups, many people claiming to be the messiah, many groups with alternate views, etc.

The group that we call Jews today are the Rabbinical Jews - just one of many of the major groups of Jews at the time of Jesus.

There were also, as we have discussed here in the past, a rather large (in comparison) number of such groups, all claiming different things about jesus, all with different gospels, all with different claims in regard to what jessu was, what his message was, and what path you needed to follow to 'right' with Jesus.

What *we* know as christianity today is but one of these groups, and the views that they hold were not solidified (if they can even be called solidified to day) until after the 4th century.

So bringing modern christian beleifs out, and using the ciricumstances of the first christians as a basis for those beliefs, or as explanation or support of those beliefs just doesn't work.

FWIW



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-22-2005 20:45)

I find this a pretty knowledgable source - as far as I can tell, anyway Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism from Judaism 101.

Most of what I know about Judaism stems from one of my Ex-stepfathers (who was Jewish) - my mother delved heavily into Jewish faith and tradition in those days.

Start with this part - Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot

quote:

---

According to Kabbalah, the true essence of G-d is so transcendent that it cannot be described, except with reference to what it is not. This true essence of G-d is known as Ein Sof, which literally means "without end," which encompasses the idea of His lack of boundaries in both time and space. In this truest form, the Ein Sof is so transcendent that It cannot have any direct interaction with the universe. The Ein Sof interacts with the universe through ten emanations from this essence, known as the Ten Sefirot.

---

This part clearly explains (well, clearly is a subjective matter in this sense) this

quote:

---

The problem with the Kabbalah view of God is, that it discredits the whole Mt. Sianai scene, where the entire Jewish nation saw and heard God speak. If God is unable to interact with the world in a direct manner, then how did that take place at the Mountain? The whole Jewish religion is based "as fact" to the Jews because the entire nation saw and heard God himself.

---

At least, it does for me.

But, perhaps I am missing the intent here, but...but...everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

While I appreciate the theory and fun of debate, I am unable to take seriously any discussion which is predicated upon a myth.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0514300.html

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Simple solution: Then don't.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ram,

Can you provide any rational and reasoned excuse for any of you to continue the discussion?

Bearing in mind that religion has no basis in either rationality, reason or reality?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Can you provide any rational and reasoned excuse for any of you to continue the discussion?

---

Since when do we need a rational or reasoned excuse to discuss something?

quote:

---

Bearing in mind that religion has no basis in either rationality, reason or reality?

---

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. Rationality and reason are subjective.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I s'pose one does not require a rational and reasoned excuse to have an irrational and unreasoned discussion.

Reality however is another issue.

If I burn your hand with a hot object and then burn mine I rather suspect the reality is the same for both of us.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

But, perhaps I am missing the intent here, but...but...everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

Blocks are mine.

Uhhh...I beg your pardon?
Are you suggesting that what I post here is conjecture?! I am comparing two different (and incompatible) views with one another, to determine which one is logically and reasonably more sound, Irregardless of what they may be based on.

Are you also suggesting that what DL has posted in this thread is also conjecture?

For example, I may say "The Moon is made of green cheese". Ok, but someone else might say "No it isn't. It is made of Blue Cheese!". Irregardless of whether the Moon is really made of cheese or not, examining the process(es) that lead to the conclusion that it is either green or blue cheese is what I am doing here, to see which one makes the better argument.

Climb back down from your pedast.

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-24-2005 00:19)

Dio -

As I said before - there's no need for you to be in the conversation if you don't feel it worthy of you.

~shrug~

The green cheese discussion would make more sense than arguing endlessly about 5000-10000 year old stories which have been endlessly re-written, re-invented, re-interpreted, adjusted to reflect the views of various church leaders and monarchs. mis-interpreted both accidentally and intentionally, to the point no one living has any idea what they originally intended or said.

As well argue angels on the head of a pin as they don't exist either.

Not demeaning either of your arguments, merely questioning what possible use there is in them.

DL, this is my contribution, if you don't mind.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Not demeaning either of your arguments, merely questioning what possible use there is in them.

---

Bullshit.

You can turn it any which way you wish, but I am calling you on what you actually posted

quote:

---

everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

I stand by that.

I meant I was not demeaning the fact you are arguing it and doing it well. In fact on the points side you and DL do a scholarly job of it and far exceed the other posters on the topic.

My point is, aside from the academic excercise, it is a total waste of time, as the subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology. Might as well be arguing green cheese, Sinter Klaus and the tooth fairy.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

My point is, aside from the academic excercise, it is a total waste of time

---

What is considered a waste of time to you might not be a waste of time to others, another subjective thingy. I am sure there are members in the Asylum who think this entire sub-forum is a waste of time, and rather than pop in and criticize people for doing so, they simply don't take part. Are you that much of a control freak? Are you the new Phillosilly Czar who deems what is a "waste of time"? The new self-appointed dictator of worth?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Gee Ram! I am terribly sorry.

I thought this was a forum where folk were encouraged to speak their mind.

It seems to me, you are far more interested in 'control' than I might even imagine since you appear to be trying to control my view on this issue.

A view, thought less scholerly and informed than yours or DL's, is in my view equally valid.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Gee Ram! I am terribly sorry.

---

Apology accepted.

I'm not trying to control you BTW, just giving you a hard time. Hence the () and the () faces.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-24-2005 07:41)

I stand by that.

Ok.

Why don't you go somewhere else, where everyone only talks about things that make sense to you?

Obviously, this thread is below your niveau.

DL posted (among other things) this :

quote:

---

But this was also a very small number of Jews. A very definite minority, a splinter group.
There were many such splinter groups, many people claiming to be the messiah, many groups with alternate views, etc.

The group that we call Jews today are the Rabbinical Jews - just one of many of the major groups of Jews at the time of Jesus.

---

I see nothing in that, that can be considered

quote:

---

everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

I see WS, dissenting voices are not welcome?

The cold hard light of reality is not permitted?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

get

over

your

self.


"cold hard light of reality" ???




Ok, can we move on now here?
There was at one point an actual conversation going on....

(Edited by DL-44 on 07-25-2005 03:09)

quote:

---

I see WS, dissenting voices are not welcome?

The cold hard light of reality is not permitted?

---

That has nothing to do with what you posted here

quote:

---

everything posted here(save by me) is conjecture based upon conjecture and fundamentalism, confused by mis-intepretation, theory, fallacy, linguistic errors and sheer wishful hope...plus a desperate, unrealizable desire for it all to be true.

---

Blocks are mine.

In fact, the above post is the opposite of the cold, hard light of reality, as shown.

Dissenting voices not welcome? I find that a strange statement/question. Different views are more than welcome here.

That still has nothing to do with what you posted.

Had you posted "most of what is posted here is...blah,blah", well, that would be your opinion, your view, whatever.

But that is not what you posted. You posted "everything posted here (save by me) is...blah blah" - maybe a small, but deciding, difference.

And yes, I would like to move on, as well.

quote:

---

My point is, aside from the academic excercise, it is a total waste of time, as the subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology. Might as well be arguing green cheese, Sinter Klaus and the tooth fairy.

---

That is the point of the argument. The subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology, but many people still believe in it! The goal is to try and get these people to see the light!

Careful, you will have them seeing only Lucifer.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

That is the point of the argument. The subject matter is entirely in the realm of mythology, but many people still believe in it! The goal is to try and get these people to see the light!

---

Out of curiosity, why is it so important, in your opinion, to get people to 'see the light' on this issue?

How do you go about helping someone 'see the light' on a personal belief? Religion aside, what is wrong with belief and why is it so important that everyone conform to one set thereof, even if you think it foolish? Why set out to kill diversity and difference in a manner much like those who try to get others to convert to religion? (For clarification, the last question is referring to the intolerance of the few who seemingly deem themselves intellectually superior, and is not directed at any specific individual here)

Don't try to change belief, just try to change dangerous ideology which has grown from man-made institutions, because it is that which is truly dangerous.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-25-2005 23:00)

Getting back to the Genesis debate here. Sorry Gideon, I have been on vacation. But wanted to also note that when you ponder about the first fall from grace, if you relate it to our modern times, it will make you wonder. For example, in my family unit, if my husband robbed a bank and did't tell me and kept the money and spent it, would I be an accessory to the crime? Or if he told me, and gave me some of the money and I spend it, I would be an thief too. Right? Now the way the Genesis story is explained is that we are all guilty for the sin of two persons we didn't even know and were long dead before we were born thousands of years ago. So why should their sin be our sin? Why are we contaminated with evil for their will to go against God. We had nothing to do with it. In the robbery, me and my husband partook of, my children, immediate family and friends and relatives would be guilty too of the crime we did and by the law should be punished too. This doesn't seem fair, yet it is the literal meaning of the story of Adam and Eve. The story has a deeper theological lesson. I believe the story is timeless and refers to us today in that when we go against God's love, we hurt each other.
My sinful act affects all by degree. The more evil in the world measured, the more power evil has in the world. I believe its not measured by one person, but as it is a whole human race. Does this make sense? That's why we are told by the bible to be our brothers keeper, because what he or I does affects humanity. And that I believe is what the writers of the story of the fall are trying to convey.

Ramasax, I don?t think it really has to do with changing peoples beliefs but rather understanding of what exactly mythology is. Good example would be Joseph Campbell, it is something people don?t want to look at. Understanding myth is juts as important as understanding everything about this world and humanities. We cant let blind ideologies justify unjust actions. Look at National Socialism in Germany, as a political buff you are I think you would agree that High Ideals without sense and acknowledgement of history and humanities leads to an absolute disaster.

If we can at least convince political world on understanding the concepts of mythology and it's myth, maybe we wouldn?t have this bullshit like Intelligent Design pushing silly crap in science classrooms.

Sure we see Greek Paganism as interesting and wise source of Literature, but Jewish myth isn?t that different.

The trouble is not whether you chose to believe or whatever your neighbor goes to church to worship JC. The trouble is the refuse of understanding of nature and using Jewish myth to justify it politically.


P.S. ohh and nice to see you making a progress with your web design, keep up a good work.

quote:

---

Understanding myth is juts as important as understanding everything about this world and humanities. We cant let blind ideologies justify unjust actions. Look at National Socialism in Germany, as a political buff you are I think you would agree that High Ideals without sense and acknowledgement of history and humanities leads to an absolute disaster.

---

For sure, blind ideology, as I said above, is probably one of the most dangerous things to a collective of human beings.

I simply disagree that myth, or belief in myth (which I do not think JC falls under, but for arguments sake, and to not create yet another side discussion which I have no intention of taking part in, I'll use the word) is a large factor in that.

Am I not proof of that? I am able to hold my beliefs, but also able to be a realist with regard to the nature of science and the world around me. Now granted, I was not always like that, but my drive for truth, and hunger for knowledge, led me there. I do not see science as a threat to my belief -- in contrast I simply accept science as part of the created world. Obviously can't prove it, but I believe it and it won't change. As I said before earlier on, if I am wrong, I lose nothing (or at least never realize it ), but gain a personal philosophy which is a part of who I am and helps me deal with life on that level. That might make me seem weak to some, to need something like that as a 'comfort blanket', but oh well. It is a reassurance that there is meaning to life. Without it, I see no meaning. My faith is self-induced, and I have no problem admitting it, and feel that should have any impact on the way I am viewed.

The problem is always the institutions and the politicians who use the myth to manipulate. Instead of trying to tell people that they are wrong in their belief, simply help them realize that they are being led to manipulation, being taken advantage of through their belief. I have had a great success rate as of late among many of my family and friends of the Christian persuasion, by simply showing them and helping them understand that they are being led like sheep. It was not always easy, actually had one relative accuse me of giving up on God because I turned on Bush, but with enough persistence, you can make even the most ignorant person come around, if they choose to be receptive of course.

When people believe in something so deeply, down to their core, they are not going to give it up. By directly opposing them and telling them they are dumb or stupid, you lose more ground than you gain and also widen the division. But, if you show them that their belief is not threatened by new ideas, only their religious institutions are, and help them realize the distinction between the two, you can get a lot further than by using the Diogenes approach (no offense intended D ).

I really don't know enough about intelligent design, but since it involves God, who's existence cannot and will not be proven by men, it has no place in the science classroom where fact or what is percieved as fact at this given time is the curricula. Perhaps a solution would be to offer an elective course on theological belief, but that would open another can of worms of course. God forbid the course covers belief A and not belief B, or even covers both A and B.

I can be honest in saying that although I do believe Christ is the messiah of Jewish "myth", I see the world's religions as spokes on a wheel, all falling back to one point. Thre is a lot I do not understand, a lot I do not know, and a lot I am skeptical of with regard for the penchant of men to reorganize ideas to suit agendas.

quote:

---

The trouble is not whether you chose to believe or whatever your neighbor goes to church to worship JC. The trouble is the refuse of understanding of nature and using Jewish myth to justify it politically.

---

Exactly the point I was trying to make. This is the equation I see, rather simplistic, and try to stay away from (belief + politics = religion --> trouble)

If you looked at my site, you probably noticed it is political, yet I do not touch on belief. I do rant about degradation/excess/lack of a moral code and its causes/effects on modern society, but that in itself is not necessarily on the spectrum of belief or religion, but more along the lines of a common human moral code (pedophelia, beastiality, murder, etc.) I try to keep them separate, in both my inner thoughts and outer writings and words.

Hopefully some of this makes sense. Too tired to try and make it any clearer right now.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-26-2005 05:38)

quote:

---

I can be honest in saying that although I do believe Christ is the messiah of Jewish "myth"

---

I don't know how you can say or believe this, when the Jews do not hold that to be true - rather, they hold the opposite to be true. Xians believe that it is true.

I think that has been pretty much shown, in this thread. Or do I need to post more about this?

Miswording on my part. Strike Jewish, add xian.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ramasax my comments were not directed at you, I am aware of your capability to discuss politics and scientific issues and not trip over the small shit. But just because you can, doest mean majority in this world can. Keeping politics stricly secular in terms of decision making is what I wish to happen in the near future.

Also I have never treated mythical theologies as stupid, in fact I look at them that as a core of development of humanities. Diogenes is simply an example of another extreme side of bashing. But eye for an eye wont get you no where. I would recomend you to check out some of the Joseph Campbell materials, the videos are pretty good and so are the books. He talk about the idea of how important is myth to humanities...

(Edited by Ruski on 07-26-2005 17:17)

The enemy is at the door...YOUR door!

From: The NY Times


Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and BARBARA NOVOVITCH
Published: August 1, 2005

HOUSTON, July 31 - When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public schools.
Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum.

The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state.

But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."

The dispute has made the curriculum, which the national council says is used by more than 175,000 students in 312 school districts in 37 states, the latest flashpoint in the continuing culture wars over religious influences in the public domain.

The national council says its course is the only one offered nationwide. Another organization, the Bible Literacy Project, supported by a broad range of religious groups, expects to release its own textbook in September.

According to Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, which published "The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" five years ago, "The distinction is between teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible - it has to be taught academically, not devotionally."

The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools says its course "is concerned with education rather than indoctrination of students."

"The central approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a foundation document of society, and that approach is altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of secular education," it says.

Elizabeth Ridenour, a commercial real estate broker who said she formed the nonprofit organization in 1993 after deciding that she had long been "duped" into believing the Bible could not be taught in public schools, said the course has stayed within legal limits. "Our teachers are not to say, 'This is the truth,' or that the Bible is infallible," she said. "They are to say, 'This is what the Bible says; draw your own conclusions.' "

But in Odessa, where the school board has not decided on a curriculum, a parent said he found the course's syllabus unacceptably sectarian. He has been waging his own campaign for additional information on where it is being taught.

"Someone is being disingenuous; I'd like to know who," said the parent, David Newman, an associate professor of English at Odessa College who has made a page-by-page analysis of the 270-page syllabus and sent e-mail messages to nearly all 1,034 school districts in Texas.

The Texas Freedom Network, which commissioned its study after the vote in Odessa, is sharp in its criticism. "As many as 52 Texas public school districts and 1,000 high schools across the country are using an aggressively marketed, blatantly sectarian Bible curriculum that interferes with the freedom of all families to pass on their own religious values to their children," it said.

In one teaching unit, students are told, "Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, the majority of men living in the Western world have accepted the statements of the Scriptures as genuine." The words are taken from the Web site of Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries' Prophecy on Line.

The national council's efforts are endorsed by the Center for Reclaiming America, Phyllis Schlafly's group the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, among others.

But Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other groups have warned school districts against using the curriculum because of constitutional concerns.

Mike Johnson, a lawyer for the national council, cited a 1999 legal opinion by four lawyers calling the course permissible under constitutional guidelines.

Apart from a showcase school in Brady, Tex., the national council does not disclose the schools using its course because it wants to spare them the disruption of news media inquiries, Ms. Ridenour said.

Only a summary of the course is available on the Internet, and printed copies cost $150.

A highly critical article in The Journal of Law and Education in 2003 said the course "suffers from a number of constitutional infirmities" and "fails to present the Bible in the objective manner required."

The journal said that even supplementary materials were heavily slanted toward sectarian organizations; 83 percent of the books and articles recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative Protestant organizations, it said.

Among those included are books by David Barton, on the council's advisory board and the vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, who favors "biblical inerrancy," said William Martin, a Rice University historian and the author of the book "With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America."

Ms. Ridenour said the course was revised six months ago. But the freedom network's study concludes that the curriculum's section on science teaches creationism with no mention of evolution.

The course's broad statements about the Bible being the blueprint for the nation are askew, said Mr. Haynes of the Freedom Forum, part of a nonpartisan ecumenical group promoting the Bible Literacy Project textbook. "If the Bible is a blueprint for the Constitution," he said, "I guess they haven't read it," referring to the Constitution.

Some of the claims made in the national council's curriculum are laughable, said Mark A. Chancey, professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who spent seven weeks studying the syllabus for the freedom network. Mr. Chancey said he found it "riddled with errors" of facts, dates, definitions and incorrect spellings. It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings.

"When the type of urban legend that normally circulates by e-mail ends up in a textbook, that's a problem," Mr. Chancey said.

Tracey Kiesling, the national council's national teacher trainer, said the course offered "scientific documentation" on the flood and cites as a scientific authority Carl Baugh, described by Mrs. Kiesling as "an internationally known creation scientist who founded the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Tex."

The battle of the Bible course is not over in Odessa, where John Waggoner, a real estate appraiser, presented petitions with 6,000 signatures in support of the Bible class - many of them on printed forms of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools - to the school board of Ector County at its April meeting.

The assistant superintendent, Raymond Starnes, said he wanted to examine the Bible Literacy Project's textbook before recommending one for the 2006 school year.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by WarMage on 08-02-2005 16:48)

I am fine with the offering an elective course on bible studies. I have absolutely no problem with this. However, they must then also offer an elective courses on the Torah, the Koran and all of the other religious books that are available.

I would even say that it would be fine if you limitted this to religions that are currently being practiced. You might only have to offer a couple thousand additional electives.

Dan @ Code Town

I'm not fine with it.

Religion simply does not belong in the Public School System, because

quote:

---

they must then also offer an elective courses on the Torah, the Koran and all of the other religious books that are available.

---

is not realistic.

This is the entire idea behind the seperation of Church and State - to avoid such problems.

Let us be perfectly clear here.

We KNOW, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that when people feel that their religious beliefs are threatened, or that the ability to teach their children (and pass on) their religious beliefs are threatened, that it inevitably leads to violence.

Because without another choice, or way, it is the only option they can see, that is open (or going to a place where on CAN practice ones beliefs).

The seperation of Church and State allows government and religions to co-exist peacefully.

Allowing the teaching of xian beliefs in Public Schools, especially as a national curriculum, goes against this principle.

quote:

---

I would even say that it would be fine if you limitted this to religions that are currently being practiced. You might only have to offer a couple thousand additional electives.

---

Why, WarMage, is that a hint of sarcasm I am detecting?

Thanks for the laugh. You also touch on the impossibility which ensues from such activity; you cannot offer one elective without then catering to everyone else and someone else and someone else, ad infinitum. Even the flying spaghetti monster worshippers with their parrots and eye patches must be represented for sake of equality.

I've done a lot of thinking about this specific topic. As much as I personally dislike the notion of a Godless nation, which is the eventual outcome of our public schools combined with adults who are too busy "making ends meet" to hand down teachings on their own, I think the key word here is public. Public, at least in this instance, means government controlled and funded.

Being that government controls and funds the public school system with taxpayer dollars, not only would it be unfair for the non-religious to fund such practices (or any other combination; Muslim/Jewish, Jewish/Christian, Christian/Wiccans), it would be a direct violation of Constitutional separation. Indeed, it is dangerous to lay religion in the hands of any arm of government. I think we can definitely take a lesson from the past, and even the present -- in certain parts of the world -- on that.

I would go further to say, though, that in my interpretation the founders never intended the government to be in control of any educational institutions in the first place. It not only leads to conformity and detracts from true individual thought, it is also in government's interest to keep a populace content and supportive of its whims. They keep that in mind while shaping young minds.

Our school system in America is rampant with underachievers who will never reach their true potential because they are not taught essential skills like critical thinking. Rather, skepticism and curiosity are obliterated in exchange for memorization of "fact" which is crafted by the insitution. They are taught only as potential future drones for the workforce. Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength, etc?

This is why I'm a big supporter of government tax credits so that anyone can send his/her child to any school of their choice. The government should never be allowed to run an educational-industrial complex. Permitting such is just as dangerous as mixing religion and government, as it leads to an eventual totalitarian state.

Unfortunately, now that the control is there, being the idealist that I am, the Constitution must be followed.

To remove public control of the school system in its current form would mean a total restructuring of society. A restructuring that would be impossible for even the most intelligent social engineer to handle. The only way to go back to simple and basic logic is to tear everything down and start anew, which is inevitable, as all societies crumble and are born anew eventually, and I think ours is coming to a crux.

quote:

---

Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to ensure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.
-- Benjamin Disraeli, 1874

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.
-- H L. Mencken

To entrust the government with the power of determining the education which our children receive is entrusting our servant with the power to be our master.
-- David Nasaw

Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
-- Joseph Stalin

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!
-- Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935

---

bleh

edit: I'm sure this one will rile you guys.
Bush endorses teaching 'intelligent design'

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 08-03-2005 06:12)

Well, everybody, I'm a newbie, take me with a grain of salt:

I just read the entire string in the last hour and have tried to retain as much as I can. I have to say that all of you who have given comments to forward the conversations and debates have earned my respect. I was raised christian and know a good amount of the bible, but now classify myself as agnostic.

As far as the oiginal topic of the thread, I have come to my personal conclusion that the basis for the events that occured through creationism and evolution could be almost interchangeable. As stated before both theories follow a common timeline as to what order the events occured. The first dicrepency is how long it actually took, 4 billion years? 4 thousand years?

I believe the bible fully supports the possibility of an Earth that is billions of years old. We have no scale as to how long a day is for God/Creator, and as stated before 7 is used many many times throughout the bible to portray an infinite number. What I find most interesting though, is an idea that was told to me while I was attending a christian boarding school. As follows: If God created Adam and Eve as adults, why couldn't he create an Earth as old as he saw fit? Just something to get the mind going.

Beyond this is where the vast discrepencies arise between the two theories, which is what they are theories. Due to this fact none of us, I feel, will know the actual truth, because as stated before, none of us were there. It is because of this that I have to once again commend all of you for making this an interesting, non-cutthroat thread to read.

Now, if the online person to completely slam my views is Dio, then I hope that means that i am welcome here.

Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound
-Ray

Don't call me Dio. I believe that is Spanish for god. There is no god therefore the implcation is there is no Diogenes, yet...here I am.

That is a nice bit of rationalization and self-justification

quote:

---

why couldn't he create an Earth as old as he saw fit?

---

.

He? You risk the wrath of wimzlib.

I believe the operative phrase in your piece is

quote:

---

I believe

---

.

Believe away, it is what faith is all about.

That and ignoring reality.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

...Believe away, it is what faith is all about.

That and ignoring reality

---

Ignoring reality is very bad indeed, but perceptions alter the acceptance of reality; and ignoring perceptions can leave reality bland and boring.

As for my beliefs, you must realize that when you say there is no God:

quote:

---

There is no god therefore the implcation is there is no Diogenes...

---

...You are stating your beliefs, which is respectable because at least you have beliefs, but it is still a belief none the less. If it was not a belief, but cold, hard fact, I doubt you would have trouble throwing any believers of God into loony bins.
Oh, and for the record, I didn't say I believe in God, I said that I believe the two theories are compatible to a certain extent.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-03-2005 16:38)

quote:

---

I said that I believe the two theories are compatible to a certain extent.

---

once again, if people continue thinking this way...how the fuck will we ever separate science from religion?

I said it before and I will say it again:



may we all be blessed but Flying Spaghetti Monster...and Ramasax I personally don't like Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterless Nation =(

Ruski, that is a work of art!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

indeed, I just hope you didnt assume I made it.

Whoever made it, it is neat! I see our god has balls too. I also note the supplicant has his own noodle.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

All I am saying is that neither side can show a completely fact-based arguement to prove that the other is completely false. I am not saying that by being compatible to an extent, that they are the same thing. Both theories are just different ways of explaining how and why the process happened. Science is of course very real, but has yet to find a way to disprove any relgious idea beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, religion (any religion) has the catch-22 of being able to say that the laws of science were put in place by their deity.

No matter what you believe on the subject, calling somebody ignorant for having different beliefs will accomplish nothing but the perception that you have resulted to name calling. No two people will agree on every subject, every time. The point of debating is not to prove someone wrong or get them to say you are right, but to get your perception across so others can hear your opinion. I, personally, will be biased against the opinion of somebody if they have said that somebody elses opinion is void or ignorant, no matter what side of the arguement they are on.

quote:

---

...if people continue thinking this way...how the fuck will we ever separate science from religion?

---

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was the goal we were working towards.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

All I am saying is that neither side can show a completely fact-based arguement to prove that the other is completely false.

---

Bulls**t.

Evolution IS based on facts and observances. ID is based on...what? Opinion, and suggestiong, conjecture. And that is all. Evolution is a scientific theory, and ID is just a "general" hypothesis, not even worthy of being called a theory, let alone a scientific one.

You need to go look up the definitions of those, I am afraid.

quote:

---

Science is of course very real, but has yet to find a way to disprove any relgious idea beyond a shadow of a doubt.

---

This is so full of bulls**t, that it is hard to decide where to start first.

The Earth is flat? Wrong, disproven through Science, and exploration.
The Earth is the Center of the Universe and the Sun and the Heavens revolves around it? Wrong, proven to be quite the opposite by Science.

And on, and on, and on, and on....

Next time you post, rethink, re-examine, and corregate, ok?

All I know is that for either side to prove themselves in this debate, somebody is going to have go back in time and witness what happened. Until then, no matter how much science proves anything, the religions have a catch-22 to say that their deity put those laws in place.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

All I know is that for either side to prove themselves in this debate, somebody is going to have go back in time and witness what happened. Until then, no matter how much science proves anything, the religions have a catch-22 to say that their deity put those laws in place.

---

*sigh*

There is no "Catch-22" - there is the denial of facts and observation, that is all. Does Evolution exist? Yes, we have seen it, it is documented, and it is a FACT!.

Science doesn't rely on "excuses, denial, and/or miracles, greater power, yadda yadda yadda" as a basis for examination and explanation.

Can any Religion prove, scientifically that their Deity exists?

No.

That puts them all on the same level of belief, really. One without evidence, fact, or reliable experiment.

Belief in the Great Spaghetti God is just as VALID as any other religious belief.

On the other hand, Scientific explanations are subject to critical examination, on observance, and reliable, repeatable experiments.

So, your religious belief can deny that the Earth is round - but Science has already factually proven that it is round. That still doesn't stop humans from believing differently.

And ID isn't even in the debate. There are no observances, or facts, or reliable, repeatable experiments that lend ID any credibility, whatsoever.

It does not belong in a serious, scientific learning environment.

It belongs in the realm of philosophy, and religion.

And that is the huge difference between the two (not to mention that Evolution says absolutely NOTHING about Creation!).

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-05-2005 15:30)

The religious claims there IS a god or gods...I believe it is a scientific axiom that those making a claim in the affirmative must provide the proof there-of.

This is an intersting analysis of ID from the NY Times:

quote:

---

Design for Confusion

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 5, 2005
I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.

You might have thought that a strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results could work only in soft fields like economics. But it turns out that the strategy works equally well when deployed against the hard sciences.

The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?

Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close.

Finally, the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us.

Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Albert Einstein and Ideology:

From Einstein's response to a letter written by a Sunday school student:

quote:

---

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

---

I whole-heartedly agree that an individual that says evolution is not true because God created the world is naive. What I have been trying to say is that both science and religion can co-exsist, not symbiotically of course. Science has proven that evolution is very real, and that the universe is constantly changing. However, evolution can be taught in schools without discrediting religions.

The main problem that I see with Creationism, is that it would most definitely be taught from a judeo-christian perspective. Religion has always been at odds with science, which is something that will most likely never end, but without teaching from a standpoint that can include the insight of other religions is ignorant and wrong. It would be impossible to give equality to all religions, as there are so many of them, and they all have certain aspects that must be included in their telling of creation. I was raised in a pentecostal household, were I was told that the Smurfs, Scooby-doo, and Lucky Charms Cereal were considered evil (Trust me, I'm glad to be out of there). My mom definitely let me know that she did not completely agree with evolution, but she admitted that this was mostly because it is portrayed as a tool to attack religion.

I believe an individual can be taught evolution and believe in God at the same time. Discrepencies arise when religious leaders feel that they are losing their power to science. A lot of problems stem from religious leaders, as apposed to religious followers (Maybe a topic for a different thread). On the other hand, many atheists do want to use science to prove all religion wrong. Overall, it is not ideology or science that are at odds with each other, it is the individuals that want to find ways to just bring down those that they don't agree with.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Einstein may have many credentials in matter mathematical, though I hear some of his theories are now being challenged in the light of more recent discoveries, but on the matter of faith he was merely expressing an opinion and hardly speaking for

quote:

---

every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science

---

.

Religious leaders could not cause problems without the support of their flock.

There may be some aetheists who wish to 'bring down' those they don't agree with, just as many mythists want to bring down aetheists, however I think most aetheists really don't give a damn what those bedamned by myths believe.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

You are right, I definitely think religious individuals go against those without opinions more than those that aren't, and they tend to be more close minded, I know this, because I was raised around them. The only thing I am trying to get across is that you can have reality without disputing faith and vice-versa. It is the ignorant flock that follows whatever the religious leader says, and it's always more rewarding to keep an open-mind (without ignorance).

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

The only thing I am trying to get across is that you can have reality without disputing faith and vice-versa. It is the ignorant flock that follows whatever the religious leader says, and it's always more rewarding to keep an open-mind (without ignorance).

---

Most on this board already realize this - but it is nice to see that you have come to this conclusion, as well.

Thanks

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Good to see things don't change much around here

i find interesting the need to reconcile two things that really aren't out to prove the same thing. science can't tell us why and religion can't tell us how...why try to make them? the debate is fun and a learning experience on both sides for those who are open-minded enough to actually listen, but no one's mind is actually going to change with regards to their basic belief. i've learned that in the long run details like this really don't matter too much, evolution vs creationism vs whatever doesn't have any major daily impact on my faith.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Well, I'm back momentarily. Only to say that it has been a long strange trip for me during my absence. I had a few things to look into to satisfy my curious mind. And I've got to say that I have learned a lot. I also have to say that everything I learned led me right back to the Bible. And with even more conviction in Jesus Christ than I had to begin with. In short, He has surpassed becoming just a belief for me....He is a fact for me. Undoubtable, Unshakable. And yes, I'm still firmly grounded in reality, believe it or not. And no, I still won't try to force Him on you in any way, shape or form.

I know the crowd here well enough to know what kind of reaction to expect from that, if there's any reaction at all. But I did want to come back and say it anyway. Just to let you know I hadn't forgotten about any of you. And to thank you. All you "non-believers" really helped me by pushing me.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Fig - and if all christians took a view like that, there would be no problem.

The problem becomes a *very* serious one when religious dogma is being pushed into our public school systems as science.

Surely you can see that this is indeed a serious problem?

These discussions are not simply an acedemic exercise - they arise because a group is attmepting to use law to push religion into science class, to be taught as actual science.

If that's not a terrible insanity, I don't know what is.

Bell - i can honestly say that is pretty depressing to hear. It seems as though you've moved from a person of reason, with religious beliefs as well, to someone who is closing the door on reason altogether. Very sad direction to go in, calling anything like this 'undoubtable, unshakable'.

Nice post, DL. I agree, whole-heartedly.

DL--please don't feel depressed on my account. I am by no means closing the door to reason. And honestly, I don't understand why I have come to see Jesus as a fact for myself changes my reasoning abilities? That is just one thing in all the world. By no means am I going to start thinking the earth is flat, or the moon is made of green cheese, or that there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I've already stated that I believed in God, the supernatural. How does believing as a fact that that same supernatural being came to this earth as a man change my reasoning abilities to any degree that should make you say "that it depresses you"?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

You did not simply state the belief - you stated that it is an "Undoubtable, Unshakable" fact.

That brings things to a whole different level, and in a whole different direction.

To me, it is sad when someone takes that step.

quote:

---

How does believing as a fact that that same supernatural being came to this earth as a man change my reasoning abilities to any degree that should make you say "that it depresses you"?

---

I think that says it all.

Maybe you mean to word that differently? That you believe that it really happened, but have no proof of this, and therefore, no facts of any kind (and therefore, cannot with absolute certainty say it is a fact). It is just your belief.

OK, let me put it clearer-- it is my belief that it is a fact. I can say with absolute certainty that I believe it really happened. There is no doubt in my mind that it happened....but not everybody feels that way and that is their perogitive.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

it is my belief that it is a fact. I can say with absolute certainty that I believe it really happened. There is no doubt in my mind that it happened.

---

Exactly as portrayed in the New Testament? (in other words, literally?)

Yes, and which of the 4 books is the correct literal one?

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

There is no doubt in my mind that it happened...

---

Of course not BD. There cannot be allowed even the tiniest doubt, even a scintilla of reason or reality allowed in there or everything you believe, your whole life, becomes a vast and empty lie.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

No Diogenes, I can say for sure that you are wrong about that. My life was not vast and empty by any means before I believed it. If anything, this belief adds a bit of a burden to my life. But one that I'm not unwilling to carry--I can honestly say that my life has not become overly guilt ridden either.

Honestly, I can say that it keeps me a little bit more humble, and a lot less apt to point fingers at other people. If it worked that way for everybody, maybe Christianity wouldn't have such a bad name. But wish in one hand...

As for the Gosples---they seem like a bit of a documentary don't they? And just like if you interview four different people about one person, you are going to get four different stories, four different view points, and four different accounts of the person's in quenstion life. But you aren't going to get the whole story ver batim from birth to death from any of them. Any cop can tell you that stories that match exactly from different people are more suspect to be made up before hand by the people involved. You have to read between the lines and make up your own mind about the person. And that's hard to do sometimes, especially when the person in question has been dead for 2000 years.

It's like detective work. I know if my daughter runs in the house with three of her friends and tells me about something that happened at the park to them, I'm going to get four different accounts of the same event, even though they were just there, and they all saw the same thing. It has happened numerous times, in different situations. And it's always the same way.

I also know there are Gospels that were written by others....like the Goslple of Phillip, the Gosple of Mary, that the Church decided not to put in the Bible. I haven't read those yet, but plan on it if I can find them. I'm sure they will be different from the four I am more familiar with, but I'm also sure that they will still portray the same person. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (especially John) vary in degrees from each other, but at the core, they all portray Jesus as he was as a person, and His words may vary a little from account to account, but the general message doesn't change at all.

So it's just like anything else....you read what people had to say about the person and you make up your mind what YOU think about the person. The loose ends make it more real for me, takes away the ring of conspiracy. That may not be true for everybody.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-11-2005 17:25)

You haven't answered my question, Bd.

Does it matter? When you are just going to tear what I say to shreds, no matter which answer I give? For someone who doesn't give much credence to "belief" and only to "fact", you sure do press me to state my beliefs--and then want them on your terms of "black or white".

Yes, I believe that the gosples TOGETHER paint an accurate picture of Jesus as far as what was most important about him--his ministry and who he was. No, I believe the Gosples do NOT paint a COMPLETE picture of Jesus at all.

If you are trying to get to a point, just say it instead of beating around the bush trying to trap me into a neat little category of yes or no. Not everything about a person can be pinned down as black or white consistantly and in perfect agreement by every other person who runs across them. Not any person in history, and not any person in the here and now.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Well...

Calm down.

I just wanted your position on that clarified.

Thanks.

Geez BD, ya know what they say about heat and kitchens.

Your position is as untenable as Gids and that poor catholic woman from texas whatsername's, only slightly better argued.

You will be questioned and challenged at every turn of the way here.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

You will be questioned and challenged at every turn of the way here

---

I don't mind. I love a challenge. I can stand as much heat as you throw me.

quote:

---

Well...

Calm down.

I just wanted your position on that clarified.

Thanks.

---

Sorry WS--I came across wrong. I wasn't upset, just exasperated.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Genesis?
It's anti-sience.. burning witches all over again..
As long as we can't actually ask God, that book is nothing but paper and ink.
If you do get to ask him and he says "it's so", then shame on me, but I still havent murdered thousands of people by being wrong.
I can appologize and be on my way again.
On the other hand, if he says Genesis is a croc, then all these christians are murderers and an appology wont help much then, will it?
Therein lies the difference.
Christians seldomly restrain themselves to just debating this, they enforce it, like islamists do.
I can accept Genesis as a theory, albeit nutty, but nothing more.

(^-^)b

Amen.

Ditto.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Recently I saw the History channels new story "Ape to Man', and they showcased this newer idea, but only a the end of it, as I suppose the scientific community still has doubts about it. They explained that Neanderthals, and homospaiens existed at the same time in Europe. And by DNA standards, in todays age, anyone human sitting next to another human has about 4 or less differing genes that sets the 2 apart, ancestorially. Neanderthals having about 18. So they surmised that they were NOT an ancestor, but more of a cousin. They explained it as, a long ago ancestor originating in Africa migrated to Europe, becoming, after thousands of years, NMan. That same ancestor, left a remaining descendant, that stayed in Africa, and after evolving over time, they too migrated to Europe, = HMan. So they showed how that Neanderthal did not contribute to the homo-sapiens of today, and Hman even helped eliminate NMan as a species, because the HMan was much smarter at surviving, which the under-developed social structure of NMan could not compete, and died out. Never ADDING to our gene pool. But clearly we both came from a common ancient ancestor.

quote:

---

BelladonnaWell, I'm telling you, that it's a scientific fact that Sapien and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has proven that we are of NO relation to each other.

---

No it is not a fact, but it is possible. MDNA is maternal, so who is to say that the ancestor of NMan was not the same as Hman, if Hman's mother had a son. Even though it can happen in males, it is extremely rare. And you forget about random mutations which have altered the genetic code over the millennia.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-18-2005 23:25)

quote:

---

Christians seldomly restrain themselves to just debating this, they enforce it, like islamists do.

---

I just love the blatant generalized stereotypes which seem to be widely accepted in here. First off, how do you refer to people as Christians who do not fit the predetermined description of a Christian? Of all the teachings of Christ, I consider the base theme to be one of doing no harm and loving others. It is the one thing repeated over and over. If a white guy is running around saying he is black, that does not make him black, and if a murdering fool with no conscience is running around saying he is working for Jesus, when he goes against everything that Jesus taught, it does not make him one. It only makes him a mentally ill zealot. To judge the whole body on the actions of people like that is ignorant and just plain wrong.

Sorry, but being a Christian I find it incredibly troubling how easily we are all condemned in these generalized ways because of the actions of the hypocritical and lying manipulators. Not being able to make the distinction here in your arguments is nothing but intellectual sloth.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

It may be unfortunate, but it is a simple fact of life that when large numbers of a group of people have conitnually made headlines over issues that people like myself take as very negative, that negativity is going to attach itself to the name.

Christians have been bahving very unchristlike since...well, since the time of christ. If christianity has been acting this way since the beginning, then we cannot realistically say that to be a christian one must be christlike.

The name belongs to those who use it...not those who fulfill what can be considered its true meaning...

Think of it in terms of the way the term Federalist was used by the oponents of federalism in the 19th century

And, keep in mind - what was referred to in the post you quoted was the majority; not the whole.
While you may take exception, I find the statement fairly accurate, from personal experience.

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-19-2005 00:09)

quote:

---

It may be unfortunate, but it is a simple fact of life that when large numbers of a group of people have conitnually made headlines over issues that people like myself take as very negative, that negativity is going to attach itself to the name.

---

So do you see all Muslims the same way because of the extremism in that camp? Or perhaps all homosexuals should be judged on the stories of massive meth induced orgies where HIV is spread because of carelessness? Or maybe since at least 70% of the US prison population is black, yet they only make up 18% of the total population, all black people are bad; and all Jews are greedy and self-righteous Zionists who wish to take over the world. Generalizations are bad no matter in what context they are used. It creates divisiveness, hate, and unjust misconceptions, and cultivates a fearful and ignorant society.

The point is, there are always exceptions, and a lot more of them than our perception, which is largely cultivated through historical figures and those who make headlines, allows us to realize. Perception is everything, and you know full well that the majority of Christians are good people who just want to live and let live, just like you. Some may be misled, undereducated, and ignorant, and ultimately manipulated, but that is not just constrained to Christians; it is universal.

quote:

---

The name belongs to those who use it...not those who fulfill what can be considered its true meaning...

---

I disagree. It may have been hijacked by people with power and influence, much like the whole federalist/anti-federalist thing, but it still belongs to those who truly follow the message. Just because a group of people say an orange is purple does not make the orange purple.

quote:

---

And, keep in mind - what was referred to in the post you quoted was the majority; not the whole.
While you may take exception, I find the statement fairly accurate, from personal experience.

---

So you believe that the majority of Christians are murderers and force their views on people? Again, I disagree. If your experience with Christians can be described in such a way, then I suggest you move to a safer location, for your children's sake at least.

All I am saying is that generalizations are dangerous, and considering the education level of many of the people here and their love of fact, I am constantly surprised with the use of generizations when referring to Christianity and Christians. It is not accurate, and is not fact.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 08-19-2005 00:53)

quote:

---

So do you see all Muslims the same way because of the extremism in that camp?

---

Before reading any further, I need to address this.

1) I never said I judged all christians based on the actions of some. I have shown repeatedly that I do not, in fact.

2) The actions in question in regard to christians here (the quote you posted), has *nothing* whatsoever to do with extremists. It has to do with the majority of the 'common' people who are christian.

So, no, I do not judge all muslims based on extremist muslim terrorist activities, any more than I judge all christians based on xtremist christian terrorist activities.

Your perspective is horribly skewed if you liken the general american christian view of Evolution (this is, again, the topic that was being addressed in the quote you posted) to islamic extremist terrorists. Although, the damage potential is not as far apart between the two sets as it should be...

If were going to draw comparisons....let's at least pick comparable activities to talk about.

quote:

---

xtremist christian terrorist activities.

---

I think we all worry less about this group than Muslim extremists. I think the majority of christina extremists have realized that it is better to be organized to be respected, instead of their Muslim brothers extremist ways. But I wonder what froms of danger should we be looking for, If any.

quote:

---

If were going to draw comparisons....let's at least pick comparable activities to talk about.

---

What about recent attempts in NY, to stop non-middle eastern people, as a random check for muslim extremists. Sorry, wrong thread.

quote:

---

I think we all worry less about this group than Muslim extremists.

---

Of course we do, because it is an issue that has been propagandized to an extreme, and because an islamic extremist attack is very fresh in all of our minds still.

but that has nothing to do with anything.....

quote:

---

Of course we do, because it is an issue that has been propagandized to an extreme, and because an islamic extremist attack is very fresh in all of our minds still.but that has nothing to do with anything.....

---

DL I don't think the CX are hiding in cells across this country, just waiting for a chance to pounce on us unsuspecting citizens. And IX being in the news everyday, does not overshadow known CX. Or perhaps you can show us where their all hiding. As if there exists an underground CX movement going on that only you are aware of. The bible in the past has produce many of the most heinous acts against humanity that the world has everseen, but in today's age,.....................where,....................when,........................who.

Unless you think CX are some sort of big brother operation, and it's alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll a secret society.

Where's the fire?

(Edited by Zynx on 08-19-2005 16:49)

Northern Ireland ring a bell?

How about the great spurt of abortion clinic bombings and shootings?

You really should cut down on this pompous ass attitude, when you seem to be showing yourself consistantly uninformed on the issues you try to be such a smart ass about.

However, you completely miss the point in the first place, and this is nothing but a big tangent.

quote:

---

, and this is nothing but a big tangent.

---

I do apologize for asking questions, on a website, that may have detracted from the original posters intent, but allow me to respond to DL.

quote:

---

Northern Ireland ring a bell?

---

Yup. Everytime I board a plane, I'm looking for those pesky NI terrorists.

quote:

---

How about the great spurt of abortion clinic bombings and shootings?

---

" Over the last 20 years, anti-abortion terrorists have been responsible for SIX murders and 15 attempted murders. "
Yup that's comparable to muslim extremists.

quote:

---

You really should cut down on this pompous ass attitude, when you seem to be showing yourself consistantly uninformed on the issues you try to be such a smart ass about.

---

While I do appreciate constructive criticism, you seem to be shaping up to be a rather pushy P.O.S. youself.


Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-19-2005 18:04)

Again you miss the point completely, but we've wasted enough time on this already...

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BelladonnaWell, I'm telling you, that it's a scientific fact that Sapien and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has proven that we are of NO relation to each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it is not a fact, but it is possible. MDNA is maternal, so who is to say that the ancestor of NMan was not the same as Hman, if Hman's mother had a son. Even though it can happen in males, it is extremely rare. And you forget about random mutations which have altered the genetic code over the millennia.

---

I'm not EVEN getting back into this....I've said all I have to say on the subject. But I watched "Ape to Man" too. Twice even. Didn't change my opinion at all, as it really didn't say or show anything that I haven't heard or read elsewhere before. I prefer to wait until the microbiological evidence comes in.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I find it intriguing of the possibility of 2 separate yet like species existed, and evolved from 2 separate ancestors.

Of course if you follow the familiy tree of DNA, they must have a common link. Even the oldest DNA link we have found, does not mean she was the first, only the first whose DNA made it through the millenia without dieing out. Every answer we find, we find hundreds of more questions to ask.

And taking religion out of the equation should be first and foremost, if ever we are going to find any scientific fact.

Zynx, you seem to be off to such a great start here - I can only offer you one tiny bit of advice - listen, before shooting your mouth off. Or do you like the taste of shoe leather?

That might explain it

quote:

---

I prefer to wait until the microbiological evidence comes in.

---

Bd, that is a refreshing thing to hear!

Yes, I belive that is quite a sound position to take.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:Zynx, you seem to be off to such a great start here - I can only offer you one tiny bit of advice - listen, before shooting your mouth off. Or do you like the taste of shoe leather? That might explain it
quote:

---

C. Criticism. Thanks.

quote:

---

I prefer to wait until the microbiological evidence comes in.

---

quote:

---

Bd, that is a refreshing thing to hear! Yes, I believe that is quite a sound position to take.

---

Webshaman, did you see the show? Who knows how long we have to wait for that information to become available.
I guess we should let threads die, and only wait for new information, before we offer other ideas?

Microbiological evidence is going to do what? Answer this idea once and for all? Webshaman, we can't just idly sit by and debate nothing until then. There is still other evidence out there that suggests other ideas about evolution.

"Eve" being one of them. I believe she is the earliest know ancestor to man, older than "Lucy".

quote:

---

Webshaman, we can't just idly sit by and debate nothing until then. There is still other evidence out there that suggests other ideas about evolution.

---

There are many other things that are worth debating, IMHO. I don't know about you though.

I don't see any real reason to continue to debate something, when many sides have expoused interest in waiting for more information to become available. And quite frankly, Whatever will be revealed (or not) about Neaderthals and Humans is not "all" of evolution, not by a far shot.

Only a fool would wish to persue such an avenue further, IMHO.

As for "Eve" what about it?

"Eve"? If he refers to the putative spouse of one "Adam" of biblical myth, of course she too is mythological.

Furthermore, the myth was stolen from earlier civilization's myth's locker.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I don't see any real reason to continue to debate something, when many sides have expoused interest in waiting for more information to become available.

---

So you want to wait, becasue others say so, or did you yourself see the show?

quote:

---

As for "Eve" what about it?

---

You know I just understand such defeatist attitudes about debating. Any debate. I have never see so many, " Let's wait for more information to surface, before we continue this debate ", attitudes on one site. It's quite extraordinarily odd.

So in an effort to conform, let's just sit and wait for that microbiological evidence.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-23-2005 17:19)

quote:

---

" Let's wait for more information to surface, before we continue this debate ", attitudes on one site. It's quite extraordinarily odd.

---

Well...that is a rather rational approach, wouldn't you agree?

If you so choose, explore it further - just don't expect others to join you.

quote:

---

Well...that is a rather rational approach, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think you always agree with the majority, and voice your opinion defending that majority without actually having your own opinion be heard.
It's Funny, and it works I guess.

So then we are all in agreement that, both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens evolved from an earlier "archaic" Homo sapien?

(Edited by Zynx on 08-23-2005 20:31)

quote:

---

I think you always agree with the majority, and voice your opinion defending that majority without actually having your own opinion be heard.

---

*shrugs*

Well, I guess that is your opinion then.

I doubt many others here share your...rather distorted view of things, however. It would appear, that when you become unhappy with the progress of events, that you tend to become very verbose and agressive in quite the negative manner.

Maybe cut back on the caffeine, hmmm?

"Sorry, but being a Christian I find it incredibly troubling how easily we are all condemned in these generalized ways because of the actions of the hypocritical and lying manipulators. Not being able to make the distinction here in your arguments is nothing but intellectual sloth."

Not thinking yourself - and just "accept the gospel" as truth - is the actual definition of "intellectual sloth" you twit.

And besides, it would be true if there where any actual proof that not all christians infact are "hypocritical and lying manipulators" who's priests nail young boys in church and then turn around and claim "homosexuality to be a sin" - not to mention the outrageous act of liking homosexuals with pedophiles, which is a crime in itself.
Then the "flock" simply ignore these horrendous events like nothing happened and start celebrating the church for these acts.. now, what does this tell you??
- That they are all upstanding and righteous?

Christians say that God is on their side, but sofar, nobody asked him personally, and since he supposedly 'actually exists', why not do that, and then end this ongoing second-guessing of God's will and intentions that christians keep on doing?

(^-^)b

quote:

---

It would appear, that when you become unhappy with the progress of events, that you tend to become very verbose and agressive in quite the negative manner.Maybe cut back on the caffeine, hmmm?

---

Yeah that's me. Won't deny it. Although I don't use caffeine, I am trying to get a handle on my demons, and I appreciate you telling me how you see me. It helps for me to learn, which is at least a minimal goal of mine on any site. Sometimes I need someone to pull on my reins when I get outta control.

Sorry for the sideshow.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be unfortunate, but it is a simple fact of life that when large numbers of a group of people have conitnually made headlines over issues that people like myself take as very negative, that negativity is going to attach itself to the name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So do you see all Muslims the same way because of the extremism in that camp? Or perhaps all homosexuals should be judged on the stories of massive meth induced orgies where HIV is spread because of carelessness? Or maybe since at least 70% of the US prison population is black, yet they only make up 18% of the total population, all black people are bad; and all Jews are greedy and self-righteous Zionists who wish to take over the world. Generalizations are bad no matter in what context they are used. It creates divisiveness, hate, and unjust misconceptions, and cultivates a fearful and ignorant society.

The point is, there are always exceptions, and a lot more of them than our perception, which is largely cultivated through historical figures and those who make headlines, allows us to realize. Perception is everything, and you know full well that the majority of Christians are good people who just want to live and let live, just like you. Some may be misled, undereducated, and ignorant, and ultimately manipulated, but that is not just constrained to Christians; it is universal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The name belongs to those who use it...not those who fulfill what can be considered its true meaning...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. It may have been hijacked by people with power and influence, much like the whole federalist/anti-federalist thing, but it still belongs to those who truly follow the message. Just because a group of people say an orange is purple does not make the orange purple.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, keep in mind - what was referred to in the post you quoted was the majority; not the whole.
While you may take exception, I find the statement fairly accurate, from personal experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you believe that the majority of Christians are murderers and force their views on people? Again, I disagree. If your experience with Christians can be described in such a way, then I suggest you move to a safer location, for your children's sake at least.

All I am saying is that generalizations are dangerous, and considering the education level of many of the people here and their love of fact, I am constantly surprised with the use of generizations when referring to Christianity and Christians. It is not accurate, and is not fact.

"generizations when referring to Christianity and Christians. It is not accurate, and is not fact"

It's just the irony of life...
But you do have a valid point.. and please make fellow christians remember that point for future reference, when it involves others, who are not christians..

(^-^)b

quote:

---

Just because a group of people say an orange is purple does not make the orange purple.

---

So explain GW's nomination?