The Meaning of Existence

[galadon]

I was wondering why my toes were getting tired

[galadon]

He goes off in a different tangent.

The Bible is not "the word of God," but stolen from pagan sources. Its Eden, Adam and Eve were taken from the Babylonian account; its flood or deluge is but an epitome of four hundred flood accountings; its Ark and Ararat have their equivalents in a score of deluge myths; even the names of Noah's sons are copies, as also Isaac's sacrifice, Solomon's judgment, and Samson's pillar act. Its Moses is fashioned after Syrian Mises' its laws after Hammurabi's code. Its messiah is derived from the Egyptian Mahdi, savior, certain verses are verbatim copies of Egyptian Scriptures. Between Jesus an the Egyptian Horus, Gerald Massey found 137 similarities, and those between Christ and Krishna run into the hundreds.

How then can the bible be a revelation to the Jews.

[Dmitri]

Before you get too excited about Massey's estimation, perhaps you should look at some of his work. Do a Google search, skip the Wiki article, and read his writings that are posted. First, it is all very old linguistic and historical work - mid to late 19th century. Not that antiquity is reason to throw out work, but look at the time period - Swedenborgianism was rampant at this time, Nietzche was just getting started, Sartre had yet to write Being and Nothingness. Heck, Darwin had just published his drivel a few years prior! Lots of interesting developments came about this time - groundwork stuff, but work that needed refining. It appears to me that you probably read Murdock's book (psuedonymn Acharya S) The Origin of Christianity. I say this because you almost directly quote her. Also see Dujardin (spelling?), Whelesse, and Massey - all fringe authors of the academically dubious. Murdock's publisher for The Christ Conspiracy is also known for books dealing with Atlantis, alien invasions, time travel, and very interesting conspiracy theories. Not where I typically go for solid research.

However, the preceding really is pointless next to the reality of the next point. So what? God revealed his moral law to imperfect men the world over - it was not solely a Jewish thing. Hammurabi codified the laws of Babylon, inspired by God to know right and wrong. He messed up a few things, but hey - don't we all? So did Buddha, Confucious, the Hindus, Egyptians... probably every culture had at least a piece of the puzzle. Same for Creation stories and Flood stories and names of Noah's kids... every culture had Deluge stories because the Deluge happened. Seems like maybe some of these things took place, like the flood , if every culture, even Native Americans, have a Deluge story.

[grond]

I have to agree with that reasoning. Generally tales corroborated by many unrelated sources are a form of supportive proof. Not always, but generally.

[galadon]

Ah not the So What

Your right, so what if the bible copied things that predate the bible and then claim its a revelation.

So what if the bible copies myths from other sources and claim the myths actually happened.

I deny god exsist. Why because no one in the history of human kind has come up with one bit of proof. But on the other hand religion does exsist. Because its man made by power hungry priest who in the early of this world wanted to control people. And they did, for some.

So I look at the bible, well lets start at the begining and touch on a few things.

Heaven and earth, centre and circumference were made in the same instance of time and clouds full water and man was created by the Trinity on the 26th of October, 4004 B.C, at 9 O’clock in the morning.

Dr John Lightfoot, 1654


This was priestly knowledge of Creation in the seventeenth century A.D What then of the seventh century B.C? It should be understood that there was at that time no knowledge of man’s natural development-anthropology, or of the creative process-cosmogony. To its priestly scribes this world was the center of the universe and man the sole concern of its creator. That there were other worlds and galaxies was quite beyond their comprehension.

So let us realize that priests are not revealers of truth but only keepers of traditions, and that the purpose of both the scribes and their later translators was not to reveal the truth but to lay the basis of a theistic religion, based on the supernatural and the terrifying. We will not do a verse by verse analysis, just a few things to comment on

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This very first verse disqualifies the Bible as authority, for it implies the aforesaid lack of knowledge. The author did not know how the world was created, and so he said a God created it. This is ignorance’s way of explaining what it does not understand. The author is writing about something he knew nothing about, namely Causation and Creation, “revelation” to the contrary.

[grond]

This "let us" has a bad taste to me, I much prefer "consider"
As for no shred of proof- Which mathematician/ philosopher comprised a mathematical proof of god, I don't think it was Descarte, but I just can't remember.
As for religion controlling man, well everyone is corrupted by the pressure and power that comes with authority and most on human kind is really rather weak, so all of the corruption present in the organization of the "The Highest Authority" is really understandable as human weakness. None of this is a disproof of God.
Also consider that until recently, though many theories suggested it, we had no actual proof of planets outside or galaxy. There is still an enormous universe that mankind only barely begins to understand. Remember that some of the fundamental laws upon which physics is built appear to break down and fail at the very finest level. Why? We have theories.
Science has gone great lengths in measuring, quantifying and qualifying the universe, but they don't understand it all. I mean, up until now as far as know, the only explanation offered for why we have more than one shape of galaxy in the universe is that an invisible and intangible substance only detectable by the gravitation it exerts on other things is responsible. @#!%@#$ What kind of an answer is that?
So, in short, absence of proof is far from proof of absence. If we understood everything now, there wouldn't be much for the future to look forward too. God could still be out there somewhere, or maybe not.

[Antioch]

Very well thought out Grond!!

Dmitri, why do you consider Darwin dribble? I think his theories are solid and well supported by the evidence he collected in his travels. Pretty revolutionary for his time.

[Lady Winter Wolf]

antioch said:

Dmitri, why do you consider Darwin dribble? I think his theories are solid and well supported by the evidence he collected in his travels. Pretty revolutionary for his time.

Is this going to become an online version of "Inherit the Wind" (film version of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial") aka The Bible vs. Darwinism.

[MjolnirH]

Is this going to become an online version of "Inherit the Wind" (film version of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial") aka The Bible vs. Darwinism.

I like that movie, I also like good ole charlie



yes folks you can click on the picture and order yours TODAY!!! act now

[Antioch]

I hope not. Thought we were past that...by at many decades.

Most people I've fun into that made similiar statements have never read Origin of Species. Dmitri is normally pretty scholarly though, so I doubt that's the case here.

[Dmitri]

Read Darwin, don't refer as much to Origin of Species as much as I do The Descent of Man, which is where he extends macroevolution to humanity.

I fail to buy macroevolution period - the idea of one species changing to another. It's 3:30am for me, so I'll save it for tomorrow. Suffice to say, I find it unsatisfactory on many levels, both scientific and theological. Certainly we see some variation within species, but the DNA alteration to truly change species is a complex thing. More on this later. By the way, I happen to like William Jennings Bryan - one of the most brilliant Americans of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So be easy on him, OK?

[MjolnirH]

William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was an American lawyer, statesman, and politician.

A lawyer and a politician well there's two marks against him right there (sorry daveybones he he)

He was a three-time Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States.

Democrat theres another mark ;D

One of the most popular speakers in American history, he was noted for his deep, commanding voice. Bryan was a devout Presbyterian, a strong proponent of popular democracy, an outspoken critic of banks and railroads, a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s, a dominant figure in the Democratic Party, a peace advocate, a prohibitionist, an opponent of Darwinism, and one of the most prominent leaders of Populism in late 19th- and early 20th century America.

a prohibitionist, well that's a HUGE mark. allow me to quote Ben Franklin here. "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

He was called "The Great Commoner" because of his total faith in the goodness and rightness of the common people. He was defeated by William McKinley in the intensely fought 1896 election and 1900 election, but retained control of the Democratic Party.

Bryan was one of the most energetic campaigners in American history, inventing the national stumping tour for presidential candidates. In his three failed presidential bids, he promoted Free Silver in 1896, anti-imperialism in 1900, and trust-busting in 1908, calling on all Democrats to renounce conservatism, fight the trusts and big banks, and embrace progressive ideas. President Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of State in 1913, but Bryan resigned in protest against what he viewed as Wilson's provocative language in dealing with the Lusitania crisis in 1915. In the 1920s, he was a strong supporter of Prohibition, but is probably best known today for his crusade against Darwinism, which culminated in the Scopes Trial in 1925. He died five days after the case was decided.

even though I dissed him a little yes he was a very accomplished man with alot of energy, drive and ambition. He doesn't quite make much sense though as far as these couple things.

he was for progressive ideas and thinking, which suggested that he was a little open-minded, yet he was an avid prohibitionist and argued vehemently against Darwinism

[Dmitri]

With Bryant, you gotta remember - he was a Democrat in a time when Democrats were more reasonable than they are sometimes today. Not the same party as we see today.

I happen to like lawyers, almost went to school for law myself, so I don't count that as a strike against him. Same with politics.

He supported prohibition at a time when when alcoholism was a huge drain on the economic status of many of the immigrants coming to the US, and caused all kinds of issues for both business and family. We can't apply the same views to the late 19th century and early 20th century as we use today. And Franklin didn't support drunkenness, which was the main point of prohibition.

As for Scopes, well - if you believe that man evolved from less complex life forms, than Scopes was a victory for you. If you don't believe Darwin was right, or more specifically the interpreters of Darwin, than Scopes is a tragedy. I believe personally that evolution should be taught in schools, as a theory, with the alternative that many people believe that the world was designed by an intelligence beyond man. I am not talking about teaching a specific religious tradition - I am talking about presenting the evidence that people hold for an Intelligent Designer, and some of the issues with evolution (the human eye springs to mind...).

By the way - Dr. Lightfoot from the 17th century is not a compelling arguement against Creationism, let alone against the existence of God. So a single man, a priest as I recall, was possibly incorrect in his date for Creation (though who knows - maybe he was right!)

Lastly, Galadon, could you cite your quotations? The last part of your last post (after the Lightfoot quote) is almost certainly lifted verbatim from another source, one that I would be interested to read or research. So if you could cite it, I'd appreciate it. All I need is an author, and perhaps a work - links are great, but the Internet is full of less than scholarly work. Just see Wikipedia for a good example. Or one of my favorites, just follow the link:

www.theflatearthsociety.org/

Anyway, back later.

[galadon]

Problem is I don't there is to much on the net. The book I get stuff from is "Deceptions and myths of the bible."

for right now at least

[Dmitri]

You mean the Lloyd Graham book, published 1975? Oh man, that explains a lot. Did you read the blurb about linguistics? Graham is writing about Genesis 3:1, were the King James Version (KJV) refers in its earliest forms to the serpent in the garden as "subtil". Graham (on page 61 of my copy) asks, "...is not the word for this subtle?" Never mind that spelling changes and the Oxford English Dictionary gives "subtil" as an earlier spelling. From this spelling issue he builds a hypothesis. Here is the quote:

"Subtil is from the Latin subtilus -- sub, beneath, and tela, web; and from tela we get texo, to weave, and textile, fabric. This is the real meaning of Satan's 'subtil' nature. In Evolution he refines the coarse, material earth and weaves it into etheric, astral and mental matter..."

This is complete hogwash - ask anyone who has ever had an Intro to Linguistics class if you can take apart words this way and reinterpret them as you see fit. In context, subtle makes sense. Subtle comes from "from Latin subtilis, literally, finely textured", according to the Mirriam Webster Online Dictionary, and this has nothing to do with with Satan refining rough matter into ethereal - the Bible later calls him the "father of lies". His subtle nature is to lie and decieve with pleasant sounding words and ideas, much like Mr. Graham. And of course Mr. Graham is not kind enough or scholarly enough to provide us with citations for any of this, reasoning behind his own, authority to supplement his own (which as I see no bio in the book and no further writings mentioned anywhere, it is hard to assertain what authority that would be). To provide such, he would have had to abandon his polemic and attempt a well though out and reserached work. That would require rigorous research. Yet we see no footnotes, no bibliography, no references. This is not a scholarly work - it is a screed.

Sorry to get so vehement here, but this kind of ill-considered drivel (there is that word again!) tries to pass itself off as authoritative and that gets me kinda frustrated. I mean, OK - Darwin is worth dealing with, he at least did his own research, and was a respected man of science. Lloyd Graham is not. Please understand, Christians do the same things at times - rambling about what they don't understasnd or have knowledge of, arguing without authority, etc. I am not calling down a belief system, just a propenent of that system.