None of it is true - Does this bother anyone?

[slave2six]

I'd go so far as to say that there are almost as many Christian denominations as there are Christians.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of any book being considered "divine revelation," doesn't it? I mean, if everyone simply reads into it whatever they want then there's no outside force imposing itself on the thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of any book being considered "divine revelation," doesn't it? I mean, if everyone simply reads into it whatever they want then there's no outside force imposing itself on the thing.

The sentence amounts to little more than an incoherent non sequitur. The quality of a text is not determined by the quality of the reader.

 

[Riverwolf]

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of any book being considered "divine revelation," doesn't it? I mean, if everyone simply reads into it whatever they want then there's no outside force imposing itself on the thing.

Inspiration from God doesn't have to come from, and indeed it doesn't, come from "outside."

In fact, a work that has an uncountable amount of interpretations are works that I consider to be masterpieces, the ones that may have been inspired by what Hindus call Atman. (God within.)

Since you've exhausted yourself with Christianity, and it's clearly not speaking to you, why don't you do some research into other religions? May I recommend Sanatana Dharma?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you think that the idea that "the veracity of an [faith-based] event doesn't really matter" to all theists, might be an overly broad generalisation, that you have unfairly applied to all theists?

I didn't say all theists. You added that.

It certainly is a generalization, but I certainly think it holds water as a correct generalization - particularly in the context in which I made the statement.

 

[RomCat]

I have always understood that
homo-sapiens appeared about
25000 years ago while neanderthals
appeared about 130,000 years ago.

 

[ChristineES]

That seems a bit of an obtuse observation. Have you ever read the text? The entire ritual of sacrifice was not a family BBQ, It was deeply held that this was a means of pleasing God and in the Christian story the sacrifice is the only means of "reconciling" to God. Indeed, without the sacrifice, there is absolutely no point in the religion. And if the basis of having sacrifices that reconcile mankind to God are based on a myth or a story, what the heck are all these cathedrals and churches about? Why do people weep over "accepting Christ" and taking the blood of atonement as a means of purifying themselves when it's all rot and nonsense?

Are you always so charming?

I did not say that sacrifices were a family BBQ, not even close. But I have read a bit on this subject, and the people sacrifices did eat the meat after the fat was burned away. I also did not say the whole bible was symbolic, but it is apparent that at least the creation story is. When Jesus was crucified, He had His apostles eat bread in place of His body and wine in place of His blood. Why? Because cannibalism is out of the question. Jesus was in place of the unblemished Lamb used for sacrifices, according to our beliefs.

 

[slave2six]

Are you always so charming?

Ususally. :yes:

I did not say that sacrifices were a family BBQ, not even close. But I have read a bit on this subject, and the people sacrifices did eat the meat after the fat was burned away. I also did not say the whole bible was symbolic, but it is apparent that at least the creation story is. When Jesus was crucified, He had His apostles eat bread in place of His body and wine in place of His blood. Why? Because cannibalism is out of the question. Jesus was in place of the unblemished Lamb used for sacrifices, according to our beliefs.

Cannibalism is out the the question but sacrificing a virgin isn't? Well, that makes a world of difference...

 

[slave2six]

I have always understood that
homo-sapiens appeared about
25000 years ago while neanderthals
appeared about 130,000 years ago.

Neanderthals are not ancestors of homo sapiens but do share a common ancestor from some 5 million years ago. For a really good layperson account of evolutionary studies from Darwin to present day, I would recommend "Remarkable Creatures" by Sean B Carroll (also available in audio for at audible.com). It's an excellent primer for the field and quite fascinating.

Does it not bother you that evolution completely eradicates the entire concept of the Garden of Eden or the Fall of man on either the literal or the allegorical level and that therefore the basis of Christian theology is completely without merit? I mean, what's the point of going to confession and being given a penance when God isn't mad at you in the first place?

 

[ChristineES]

Ususally. :yes:

Cannibalism is out the the question but sacrificing a virgin isn't? Well, that makes a world of difference...

I don't recall ever being told to sacrifice a virgin.

 

[RomCat]

Science supports the Christian concept.
Did you not hear about the study of
human DNA by which scientists have
concluded the entire human race came
from one man and woman?
Scientists cannot give you the name of
these two but Christianity can. They are
called Adam and Eve.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science supports the Christian concept.
Did you not hear about the study of
human DNA by which scientists have
concluded the entire human race came
from one man and woman?
Scientists cannot give you the name of
these two but Christianity can. They are
called Adam and Eve.

Could you link us the source of this scientific finding? Also, how does a single breeding pair account for the genetic diversity of the entire species?

 

[JMorris]

from what i understand, most humans can be linked back to a small group of humans, after a bottle neck occurred. but a small group isnt the same as 2 people. and if a bottleneck occurred, then there must of been even more humans prior to that.

 

[slave2six]

I don't recall ever being told to sacrifice a virgin.

What's that hanging on the cross in your church then?

 

[slave2six]

Science supports the Christian concept. Did you not hear about the study of human DNA by which scientists have concluded the entire human race came
from one man and woman? Scientists cannot give you the name of these two but Christianity can. They are called Adam and Eve.

Cite your claims please? Does this claim take into account Neanderthals or Homo Erectus?

Read the works of Louis Leakey (paleontologist) or Allan Wilson (molecular biologist and proponent of the Molecular Clock) or just about anyone else in either field. What you will find is that your claims are erroneous.

The only people making claims like this are Creationists who have this mission to make all the data fit a presupposed answer (and therefore they discard what doesn't fit) rather than looking at the data and drawing conclusions like real scientists do.

The only people who believe these claims are Christians who are more interested in hearing what they want to hear than to seek out truth/facts for themselves.

 

[slave2six]

I would be very cautious with using Massey. As even Wikipedia acknowledges: ...his work was never recognised in the field of Egyptology and his ideas were seen as fringe theories that lacked critical support.

In that same section of Wikipedia it states, "This article needs additional citations for verification." So, basically, someone made that claim about Gerald Massey and could not back it up.

Massey could read several languages (English, French, Latin, Greek and Egyptian).

In the introduction to his book "The Natural Genesis" Massey wrote, "The writer (Massey) has taken the precaution all through the (the book) of getting his fundamental facts in Egyptology verified by one of the foremost of living authorities, Dr. Samuel Birch..." and later "...although I am able to read hieroglyphics, nothing offered to you is based on my translation. I work too warily for that! The transcription and literal renderings of the hieroglyphic texts herein employed are by scholars of indisputable authority. There is no loophole of escape that way."

So while it is easy to make claims on Wikipedia, you do have to admit that anyone who takes the pains to ensure that the work he is producing relies on the foremost Egyptologists of his day is certainly not going to get away with much. The "foremost living authorities" would hardly let their names be associated with something that is fallacious.

 

[challupa]

Well Romcat, I think you need to read that study again because the female is not even born in the same era as the male in the study. There are literally thousands of years between them. That would make it kind of hard to found a species called mankind.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

 

[challupa]

In that same section of Wikipedia it states, "This article needs additional citations for verification." So, basically, someone made that claim about Gerald Massey and could not back it up.

Massey could read several languages (English, French, Latin, Greek and Egyptian).

In the introduction to his book "The Natural Genesis" Massey wrote, "The writer (Massey) has taken the precaution all through the (the book) of getting his fundamental facts in Egyptology verified by one of the foremost of living authorities, Dr. Samuel Birch..." and later "...although I am able to read hieroglyphics, nothing offered to you is based on my translation. I work too warily for that! The transcription and literal renderings of the hieroglyphic texts herein employed are by scholars of indisputable authority. There is no loophole of escape that way."

So while it is easy to make claims on Wikipedia, you do have to admit that anyone who takes the pains to ensure that the work he is producing relies on the foremost Egyptologists of his day is certainly not going to get away with much. The "foremost living authorities" would hardly let their names be associated with something that is fallacious.

Most people disregard Massey and I'll bet not too many have even read what he wrote. It took me a very long time and I am a fast reader. The ones I read were "Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, Vol. I and II (1907). Godfrey Higgins was the most difficult and long though. The ones I read of his were "Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis; or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions, Vol. I and II. (1836). Alvin Kuhn, "The Shadow of the Third Century: A Revaluation of Christianity", or "Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures (1940), "Who is This King of Glory? A Critical Study of the Christos-Messiah Tradition". All these books definitely are extensive and quite interesting. However, people dismiss things outright and yet they probably haven't read them themselves, they just believe what others have said who have read them. They may have had an agenda, maybe not. It doesn't really matter because most modern day religions are just offshoots of ancient ones anyway.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Islam isn't even worth discussing. It is less enlightened than the ancient Egyptians and no one here is about to stand up and defend Osiris.

You really don't know some of the people on this board do you.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Science supports the Christian concept.
Did you not hear about the study of
human DNA by which scientists have
concluded the entire human race came
from one man and woman?
Scientists cannot give you the name of
these two but Christianity can. They are
called Adam and Eve.

You are thinking of Mitochondrial Eve and Eurasian Adam. Eve lived thousands of years before Adam did in this instance.

 

[Riverwolf]

Does it not bother you that evolution completely eradicates the entire concept of the Garden of Eden or the Fall of man on either the literal or the allegorical level and that therefore the basis of Christian theology is completely without merit? I mean, what's the point of going to confession and being given a penance when God isn't mad at you in the first place?

WRONG!!

I believe I already said that the Garden of Eden story is accepted by some scholars as an allegory for the "fall" of man from a hunter-gatherer society to a farming society.