End Time Prophesy

Jump to Last Post 151-200 of 283 discussions (6469 posts)
  1. profile image0
    Beth37posted 5 years ago

    I assume you dismiss this b/c it is NT.

    Revelation 12:7-12


    7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly so. I asked for an OT reference. Rev is a much later answer to the OT, written by a John, but not the "saint". And it was a dream. Some think it was written by a hermit monk named john in response to, I believe, Isaiah.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No, you didn't ask for an OT reference.
        You simply said "find me a passage..."

        Is 14:12
        12 How you have fallen from heaven,
            morning star, son of the dawn!
        You have been cast down to the earth,
            you who once laid low the nations!
        13 You said in your heart,
            “I will ascend to the heavens;
        I will raise my throne
            above the stars of God;
        I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
            on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[b]
        14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
            I will make myself like the Most High.”
        15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
            to the depths of the pit.



        EZ 28:12-18
        12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

        “‘You were the seal of perfection,
            full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
        13 You were in Eden,
            the garden of God;
        every precious stone adorned you:
            carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
            topaz, onyx and jasper,
            lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.[a]
        Your settings and mountings[b] were made of gold;
            on the day you were created they were prepared.
        14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
            for so I ordained you.
        You were on the holy mount of God;
            you walked among the fiery stones.
        15 You were blameless in your ways
            from the day you were created
            till wickedness was found in you.
        16 Through your widespread trade
            you were filled with violence,
            and you sinned.
        So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
            and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
            from among the fiery stones.
        17 Your heart became proud
            on account of your beauty,
        and you corrupted your wisdom
            because of your splendor.
        So I threw you to the earth;
            I made a spectacle of you before kings.
        18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
            you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
        So I made a fire come out from you,
            and it consumed you,
        and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
            in the sight of all who were watching.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. profile image0
            Beth37posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So b/c you are taking the chapter literally, how do you interpret the fact that the king was in the garden of eden? (vs 13)
            Or that he was an anointed cherub or on the Holy Mt. of God?

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              "1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying: 2 'Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyre: Thus saith the Lord GOD: because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas; yet thou art man, and not God, though thou didst set thy heart as the heart of God-- 3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel! there is no secret that they can hide from thee! 4 By thy wisdom and by thy discernment thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures; 5 In thy great wisdom by thy traffic hast thou increased thy riches, and thy heart is lifted up because of thy riches-- {S} 6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: because thou hast set thy heart as the heart of God; 7 Therefore, behold, I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. 8 They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas. 9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee: I am God? But thou art man, and not God, in the hand of them that defile thee. 10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord GOD.'"

              Explain why there are two different people here. The prince who has said he is god, as many princes said in those days, and a king. Kings often thought of themselves as the sons of gods, and thereby gods themselves. Yet this is what Christians think satan was thrown out of heaven for.

              But here it clearly says this is a man, not a fallen angel.

              If you notice, Ezekiel is told to talk to several kings as well as the towns, for their sins. Why would he be told to talk to a demon? Does that make sense? Can satan read? Where would Zeke send it?  One could interpret the words to literally mean that the king had walked in Eden. That does not mean he walked in the garden of Eden  There is actually a place called Eden. He had all the riches of the world. He traveled. He walked on god's mountain, which is a place. He was an anointed Cherub, meaning  he had it all, including the favour of god. Until he became corrupt.

              Do you know that the land of Nod exists? It is a small group of towns known to this day as Nod.

              Or do you think Eden was in heaven or somewhere else? We pretty much know where it would have been by where it says it was in the bible.

              But here's the interesting part:

              " I have cast thee to the ground, I have laid thee before kings, that they may gaze upon thee. 18 By the multitude of thine iniquities, in the unrighteousness of thy traffic, thou hast profaned thy sanctuaries; therefore have I brought forth a fire from the midst of thee, it hath devoured thee, and I have turned thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the peoples shall be appalled at thee; thou art become a terror, and thou shalt never be any more."

              Later he tells of how the king of Babylon is to be rewarded for destroying Tyre and killing all it's inhabitants. Here he is saying that he laid him before kings, devoured him, turned him to ash, and he shall never be any more. Does that sound like he lets him run around bothering you? If this is satan, he's gone, And why is satan the king of a city? When did that happen?

              1. profile image0
                Beth37posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                God was simply comparing Satan to the King of Tyre, in that they were both privileged and both, b/c of pride would be forced from their seat, but you do not believe that. I understand.

                You do not believe the serpent in the garden who tempted Adam and Eve to turn their backs on God was Satan. You do not believe the verses that refer to the dragon or the serpent's head being crushed was Satan. You do not believe that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the law or that Jesus is the Messiah. I understand. Thank you for the discussion.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  It doesn't say that. Why do you believe it? Read it as written. You are supposed to be a literalist.

                  End of discussion? I understand.

                  1. profile image0
                    Beth37posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You assume quite a bit. That's ok, that is to say, I'm ok with it for the most part.
                    We cannot come to any peaceful conclusion except to say that God is awesome.
                    I very much love the Jews, they are God's children, I am adopted into the family, grafted in the vine.
                    You are still waiting on the Messiah, I have no doubt he has come. What we discuss now, is of less importance than that foundation, and I cannot convince you differently, nor you I. So what is left, but to offer you this blessing:
                    "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
                    The Lord make His face shine on you,
                    And be gracious to you;
                    The Lord lift up His countenance on you,
                    And give you peace."

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Interesting parameters seem to have been applied in this discussion as far as I can see.  If you define things in a particular way, and don't allow certain texts or historical figures to weigh in on the topic, or a whole religion even, then it would be very easy to say that the worldview that does weigh in the most on the topic is simply just fabricating a lie.

                  I would just add the obvious point also, that even if we didn't see any demonic or evil evidences in the Old Testament, and only in the New Testament, that they could be a very real thing, all the same.  If Jesus was the only one that ever spoke on it, they could be real, or even if no one ever broached the subject, they could be very real spiritual beings.  We would just have a lot less reason for thinking so.  I think rather, that it is part of God's revelation and Jesus was the perfect person to touch on the subject because he had powers over this realm and others that no other man had before or since.  If Jesus and the NT writers are simply disqualified, a lot more goes out the window than maybe just demons and Satan.  Jesus does too.  If Jesus is possibly considered as a real being, it makes no sense to discount his words and experiences with the other realm.  (No matter what you want to call it.)

                  Finally, if we are allowing for demons, and are just disagreeing on their possible "ring leader" (for lack of better words), then what does any of this matter?  We will have proved that the Jewish nation was right in their observances etc.  It is a matter of the label that is disagreed upon.  The effect of the evil spirits would remain no matter what or who their possible first defector was, etc.

                  As with so much of the worldview of Christianity, the world and its history makes much more sense in light of it.  Nothing else quite does to me. Including, that people and people groups and certain worldviews would try to discount it for what may be reasons not necessarily being discussed at the moment.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    To Slarty, you asked me if you answered my questions and I think you missed this post.  I think you answered the other question twice, probably thinking you answered the two posts directed at you.  I was curious what your response to these points were? 

                    Interesting parameters seem to have been applied in this discussion as far as I can see.  If you define things in a particular way, and don't allow certain texts or historical figures to weigh in on the topic, or a whole religion even, then it would be very easy to say that the worldview that does weigh in the most on the topic is simply just "fabricating a lie".

                    I would just add the obvious point also, that even if we didn't see any demonic or evil beings/spirits in the Old Testament, and only in the New Testament, that they could be a very real thing, all the same.  If Jesus was the only one that ever spoke on it, they could be real, or even if no one ever broached the subject, they could be very real spiritual beings.  We would just have a lot less reason for thinking so.  I think rather, that it is part of God's revelation and Jesus was the perfect person to touch on the subject because he had powers over this realm and others that no other man had before or since.  If Jesus and the NT writers are simply disqualified, a lot more goes out the window than maybe just demons and Satan.  Jesus does too.  If Jesus is possibly considered as a real being, it makes no sense to discount his words and experiences with the other realm.  (No matter what you want to call it.)

                    Finally, if we are allowing for demons, and are just disagreeing on their possible "ring leader" (for lack of better words), then what does any of this matter?  We will have proved that the Jewish nation was right in their observances of Satans or accusing spirits. It is a matter of the label that is disagreed upon.  The effect of the evil spirits would remain no matter what or who their possible first defector was, etc.  I think what you have shared from the Old Testament proves there are the things that you say the Christian religion fabricated, as being an untrue statement.  If I am wrong, please show how.  It seems to me the Christians view supports what we see in the Old Testament, from different points of views and eras in history.

    2. Chris Neal profile image76
      Chris Nealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Luke 10:18.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I think contradictory statements can be held temporarily but ultimately need to be resolved to avoid negative effects. 

    I am doing that right now with some data I looked at relating to psychic abilities which is pretty convincing although I currently don't believe in psychic abilities.  Ultimately I need to be able to explain that data another way, or change my belief.  But I don't know which way it will go right now.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose you're right, if the dissonance is something that truly matters to you personally.  If it doesn't, it can safely stay compartmentalized... which is kind of a resolution in itself. There are several ways of resolving dissonance that don't require discarding viewpoints.

      1. Chris Neal profile image76
        Chris Nealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The old "failure to make a choice is making a choice," eh?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Just because it's cliche doesn't mean it's not true smile

          1. Chris Neal profile image76
            Chris Nealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So true. wink

          2. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Has to be true or it wouldn't have become a cliche!

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              LMAO, or song lyrics in this case smile

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Truth.  smile

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Kudos to you for at least realizing you need to deal with the contradictory things in some way or another.  I think a lot of our world currently doesn't think critically like that, and it is hurting not only themselves but many others.  I am speaking in many facets in life and in general there.

      Logically contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time.  I am increasingly discouraged that people think this is not the case and act accordingly.  Only to find some problem down the road.  Unfortunately, instead of facing the issues head on,logically and reasonably, they go after perceived threats in their way to get what they want, which also doesn't make sense.  How can people go against the laws of logic and expect things to work out just fine?

    3. Psalm139 profile image61
      Psalm139posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Psychics have decieving spirits attached to them
      OCCULT REPENT

  3. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    He does seem to tell people all sorts of contradictory things, though.

  4. Psalm139 profile image61
    Psalm139posted 5 years ago

    for the child who i sold on the KOREAN lol
    demon are real
    principalities
    strongholds
    Lucifer when he was banned from heaven he took one third angels w him and he duplicated in the demonic heaven aka earth what GOD created in heaven.
    like govt
    there are different ranks.
    GOD in the throne room CHERBUIM SERAPHIM angels
    gabriel and michael archangels BIG POWER AUTHORITIES
    guardien angels ect

    so satan was not very brilliant he copied heavens structure
    google 16 strongmen dummy

  5. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    I must say... it is an honor for someone to make up an entire language in honor of me; behind my back; in front of my face smile
    The "15 minutes" are greatly appreciated. My hope is that you forego the funny and spill it. Respectfully... wink

  6. sallieannluvslife profile image84
    sallieannluvslifeposted 5 years ago

    Only God has the answer to that...not even Jesus knows when He will return, only the Father.

  7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    I couldn't actually see this post, so I'm just assuming this was a reply to my statement.

    I don't think this is just limited to faith. I think this is just a normal human thing. When we're young our entire concept of the outside world is shaped by what our parents tell us, our teachers, church leaders, television. It's imposed on us. So when you get older and gain further life experience, your own experiences allow you to begin to form your own viewpoint. The outside world you experience yourself won't ever be what you had built up in your mind, so it will lead to questions. So I think there's always a period we encounter where that change happens. Where we question what was established before.

    I can't say I'm too impressed with how that priest addressed what you said.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What do you think he should have said? It's the same thing I've been told here time and time again. We have to believe so we can know and have faith. It's rather silly in my opinion.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Well I don't see the point in telling someone who just said they don't want or need faith to recite Hail Mary's and Our Fathers. But, then again, I don't get that whole concept in general. Reciting memorized lines is nothing more than chanting as far as I can tell, and I always have this mental image of Mary up in heaven just shrugging her shoulders when all these people pray these pleas to her as if to say, "I didn't ask them to do that".

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Catholics, they pray to everyone and then say they don't. When you are on the inside it makes perfect sense, but like all religions once you step away it looks bazaar.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What isn't bizarre? Everyday we learn something new, it seems, and it just keeps getting more bizarre. Like Gobekli Tepe. That's bizarre. A place built of intricately carved pillars that date back to what should have still been hunter-gatherer times, like 9000 BC. But no one actually lived there. It's also right in the same region where wheat was first domesticated, according to genetic studies. This place literally has the archaeological world baffled.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
              EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              But, it won't have the Biblical world baffled, because they'll still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Just you wait until the Earth starts spinning backwards,  ED.  Then god can turn the clock back and invent us all over again.  He might make a better job of it next time.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey-that's kind of a neat idea...lol

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Superman did it years ago.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                It is very interesting to observe people sharing their beliefs in these forums, like in this case, that believers of the bible all think the universe is 6000 years old.  I know for a fact, that isn't true, so it by definition means it is a personally held belief when absolute fact shows the contrary.  If I was mistaken in what you said there, i will stand corrected.  Not sure what else that would mean though.  For what it is worth, a lot of others believe things that aren't true about all Christians, also.

          2. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
            Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Barbaric. They eat the flesh of their god and drink it's blood. And you are told it is not symbolic.Now in fairness Jesus did say that you couldn't get to heaven without eating him. And then they wonder why there was no body in the tomb when they opened it. wink

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Funny to me that the most fundamental and literal of bible interpreters go on and on about how John Chapter 6 is just metaphor-despite Jesus making it quite clear that he was NOT speaking symbolically or in parable.

              smile

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I agree. He makes it absolutely clear that he is not being metaphorical and yet so many Christians in  essence call him a liar by insisting it was metaphor. Damn heretics.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Troublemaker.  tongue

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It's my job. What can I do?

              2. profile image0
                SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Is it really a metaphor?  Do we actually eat the flesh of Jesus?

                Before a person can understand what it means to eat the flesh of the Savior, one must understand who the Savior is.  Many at that time saw only Jesus in the flesh, they didn't yet realize who he actually is. 

                We can go back to the beginning of John.  John 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.  Back in the Old Testament, Ezekiel was commanded to eat a roll Eze 3:2  So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.   Just as Ezekiel was commanded to eat the roll or scroll, we are commanded to eat the Word of God which was manifest in the body of Christ.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I respect your right to interpret it in any way that serves your life as you wish.

                  1. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It isn't about interpretation.  It is about knowing Jesus.  To know about Him, is not knowing Him.  The Bible says it cannot be of a private interpretation but a revelation from God Himself. 

                    Jesus spoke what God told Him to speak, He did what God told Him to do.  He was faithful to God from beginning to end.  In essence, He was the image of the invisible God, He was the Living Word of God.

                2. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I admit I always thought it was something like that too. But the Catholic Church  and its scholars do not entirely agree. The host and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus once blessed. The entire thing may be symbolic for the word manifest, but transformation to the actual body and blood is not considered metaphor. It is required as per Jesus.

                  1. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    is the Catholic Church always right?  Peter and John told a man that they had no money for him but they gave him what they had.  They gave him healing in the name of Jesus Christ.  The Vatican today has more riches than a man or woman can imagine but where is the power of healing?

                3. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, with all due respect, brother, you can have that conversation with someone else.  I think Jesus meant what he said.  No interpretation necessary.  As a matter of fact, when they asked him to clarify, he simply repeated the directive.  And when they told him it was a hard teaching that they couldn't accept, he simply let them move on. 

                  Seems to me that if there was a more palateable explanation, he'd have offered it, rather than losing followers.

                  1. profile image0
                    SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    No problem.

                    edit:  Is anyone else having problems seeing certain posts by  others on this thread?

                  2. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Think spiritually.
                    Jesus also said, a man must be "born again." Do you remember the question that was asked of him concerning that?

                4. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Like many of the other metaphors in the bible that make less sense if taken literally, this one seems to be no different.  To say it is or becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus seems a more illogical stance to take, and interpretation added on later.  This isn't just an opinion, as Jesus made it obviously clear on that first night of the directive to take the bread and the wine.  When he was instructing his disciples there in person, he showed what he meant, (at a time he could have performed a miracle or shown his own flesh for eating, or blood for drinking, as crazy as the interpretation of some would suggest).  Jesus in fact gave them actual bread and wine, and not actual flesh nor actual blood.  "Do this in remembrance of me."  The point was the heart, as usual, to never forget.  He never said, by the way, this is now turning into actual blood or bread, and you must always believe it to be that way. 

                  There are simply too many other hurdles besides that obvious evidence.  For instance, the bible in no way, ever commands humans to eat each others flesh.  I think we are to take it exactly like Jesus and the disciples did, and be more skeptical of added on views later, or more illogical views.   I respect whatever people want to believe, but can't support a stranger doctrine that isn't specified by Jesus himself. 

                  Sir Dent, your examples are good ones to make your point.  There are countless more to make the point that if taken literally for some personal reason.  One introduces more illogical and unreasonable problems than is necessary.  Never mind it be a possible deterrent to many to even consider following Jesus.  It seems just too weird, and not required in the form of belief, as written plainly in the gospels.  We are warned of added on teachings, and this is an example of one that if left alone, would help rather than hinder the cause of Christ. 

                  The water that Jesus spoke of at the well to the woman, the one that would cause her to never thirst again, was also not meant to be taken literal.  It was meant to make them think, to be symbolic.  To take it literal in many cases butchers the points of the stories or directives, and people that care about being logical, reasonable and consistent in their reasoning would have to add on way too many crazy ideas to even seem coherent to be consistent.  Did Jesus mean she wouldn't ever literally thirst again?  Or was he using common terms to make points, like he often did?  My point is to not put down, but to consider what we believe and why, and if some things need to be rethought possibly.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I find that response interesting.  There is more to the "Do this in memory of me" conversation.  See Matthew 26:26-28.  Jesus did indeed hand the bread and wine to his disciples as his flesh and blood.  And this is a purely biblical doctrine-spoken by Christ himself as you can see clearly in scripture.  It was not added later by anyone.

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Thought you'd find this interesting.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … tumen.html

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That is interesting. The ark in the other Sumerian stories is only vaguely described, and usually sounds as though it's box-shaped. I wonder if the dimensions were just the same both ways because it was round.

            I think both the Sumerian version and the Hebrew version are describing the same event, but differ much in the same way a story differs from one end of a game of telephone to the other. There's a really interesting story in the epic of Gilgamesh about him traveling to visit the 'flood hero'. I don't recall his name. But Gilgamesh wanted to know the secret to immortality as the 'flood hero' was an immortal who had lived for many centuries. To make his point that Gilgamesh couldn't do it, the 'flood hero' told him to try to stay awake a set number of days. 11 maybe? When Gilgamesh fell asleep the flood hero had his wife bake a loaf of bread each day he slept to show how long he was out. The point being how can he defeat death when he can't even defeat sleep.

            Gilgamesh was said to have ruled in Uruk, I believe. One of the Sumerian city-states. He was a demi-god, but didn't live as long as the 'flood hero'. Being that this all would have happened roughly 1000 years before writing was invented, it's interesting to see such commonality in the themes. An ancient age, long before writing, when men and women who lived for centuries existed. Where a man built a boat and survived a flood along with pairs of animals and a handful of people. Where a once universal language was confused into many. Some think the commonality is due to the Hebrew version being inspired by these. But it could also be that they're both talking about the same events that actually did happen. Some of them embellished over the centuries. Sensationalized. Others lining right up with actual history and accurately reflected in the impact that can be seen in the changes this region went through.

            I'm sure, now that Iraq is opening back up to archaeological digs, there'll be all kinds of really interesting things turning up.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I am sure the Hebrew version came from the Babylonian version which came from the Sumerian version. Well no I am not but the Sumerian version was first, and was the first written. It is also the most logical when you remove the gods and what they did and said.

              In the Sumerian version Noah is a merchant. He has a boat that he carries his merchandise on, but is told to build more additions to it. It's a fleet of small barges roped together. He is told to gather two of every local animal and plant.

              The timing is the same, the rains come and flood the entire region, not the whole world, though to them it might have been the whole world in those days.

              He sends out birds and waits for them, and when they do not come back he knows there is land again.
              He thanks the gods, reinstates the sacrifice, and repopulates the region with the god;s help.

              The Babylonian Gilgamesh tells the same story but Noah is no longer a merchant. He has to build a really big boat that in reality would sink as soon as it hit the water because there is a limit to how big a wooden boat can be without using metal strapping to hold the wood together.

              Then he has to collect all the animals in the world. The world floods, be sends out birds till he finds dry land, reinstates the sacrifice, and is made immortal. Still lives today I suppose.

              And then there is the Jewish version that changes things to one god, changes the reason he's angry, but leaves the impossible Babylonian story otherwise unaltered, except again in how it ends. This time it is not about the sacrifice being reinstated, though there was one made, and Noah did not get immortality, he just repopulated the world.

              I have no doubt that thus may not be a completely fictional story. Floods happen all the time around oceans, particularly when ice caps start to melt and the sea rises, which happened well over 7000 years ago. Villages would have been wiped out. And who knows, the Sumerian Noah might have actually lived and perhaps did some of the things they say he did.

              But because of the plausibility of the story, my bet is that the Sumerian is the first version, or closest to it, and the only one that might have actually happened, if it happened at all.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Technically, since there's no knowing how old Genesis really is, it's hard to determine which came first. But, I'm not sure that matters a whole lot. What's more relevant here is what really happened, and like you said, there's a good chance these stories are at least based on real events to some extent. If you consider Genesis is speaking of Adam and Eve as being long-living beings placed in an already populated world, then the Genesis story and the Sumerian stories begin to look a lot alike.

                Genesis says 1656 years passed between the creation of Adam and the flood. Within 130 years of Adam's creation it says Cain was banned from the land, it says he feared being harmed by 'others', then it says Cain built a city. According to Genesis 6 the flood came because these beings were breeding with humans and humans had become 'wicked'. According to the Sumerian King's list there were five city-states before the flood. The first, Eridu, was established by a god named Enki. There really was an Eridu, and it really was the first human settlement classed as a 'city' because it's the first sign we see of a society having a class system because whoever lived in the temple at the center governed the working class and managed the city. According to the Sumerians, the temple is where their gods lived and they provided the fruits of their labor for them.

                The culture where Eridu was built is known as the Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC). This culture lasted the same length of time as Genesis says passed between Cain's banishment and the flood, 1500 years. And this culture really did come to an abrupt end, which is at least partially due to a flood as evidenced in Ur. A century or so later, the Uruk culture (4000-3100BC) began with the formation of the city-state, Uruk. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say Uruk was established not long after the flood, and both say it was established by one who's described as a 'mighty hunter'. And, there really was a mass dispersion of people from this region early in that period due to a drastic climate change known as the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC). From those migrating people sprang up Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Akkad. Multiple civilzations within a century of each other, each with their own language. All of this happening much like the Babel story describes and happened in the right time chronologically.

                But what I think is even more significant is the distinct behavioral change that went along with it. Everywhere civilization grew this behavioral change went with it. This is when humans became male dominant, this is when class systems first began, when wars and organized militaries were first established. And it all started in the Ubaid culture. A behavioral change that really has swept the world in the centuries since. A change that very much mirrors the change brought about by the 'fall story' in Genesis. A change that other cultures wrote about as well, like the Roman poet Ovid ....

                "There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."

                This would explain why flood myths are so prevalent around the world. This would explain the consistency between all the various mythologies of that region. And it explains that distinct behavioral change that literally transformed how humans live on this earth. If this timeline is right then these events would have happened many centuries before the invention of writing. They'd be faint memories in the psyche of the people of the written age.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There you go again trying to make it real. wink

                  The Sumerians had the first culture in the region. The Hebrews and other Semitic tribes had not developed agriculture yet. But soon they were drawn to these villages that considered themselves cities.

                  Abraham was from Ur, as you said, a city in Sumer. He had probably heard all the Sumerian stories, including the fact that Enki and his mother made humans from clay, to work the land for them and to dredge the rivers.

                  The Sumerians built Ziggurats, which are towers. They represent the mountains where the Sumerians emerged from. They built these towers to house their gods or goddesses. Each city had their own patron god.

                  The towers allowed the gods yo walk out of heaven, on to the earth, and into the underworld if they wanted to. Hence the story of a tower so high a god feared humans would walk in to heaven.

                  Abraham left Ur. But it was tradition for people to take their patron god with them where ever they went. So it is likely that Abraham's god, as he is referred to  so often, is actually not the one god of Moses and the United Monarchy, but a Sumerian god.

                  Meaning that King David, through his fictitious Moses story, created Judaism and sealed the notion of monotheism.

                2. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The behavioral changes were due to a new way of life. From wanderers to farmers and merchants is a big step.

                  People always see change as evil because there is usually some turmoil associated with major cultural changes. It is not that a war machine was something new, it was just more advanced than before. Tribes always warred with each other.

                  What you are seeing is a natural progression from tribes to societies.

                  And I don't see how you can assume tribes were not patriarchy's before the big regional flood.

                  As to that, the Sumerians say the flood happened because we were neglecting the gods and we were getting too noisy.

                  The Babylonian version also talks about people not worshiping properly.

                  The Jewish version says the sons of god matted with the daughters of man. The bible doesn't elaborate much but Enoch does. It is odd to think god had sons isn't it? But not if he was originally a Sumerian god.

                  Enoch turns the sons of god into angels sent to watch humans and report back to god when we sinned. Apparently god did not make female angels because unlike human males, they would not need the pleasures of woman, as they were basking in the glow of heaven all the time and humans were toiling and needed distraction and comfort.

                  But the angels had other ideas. 12 of them decided to make a pact to go out and mate with human woman, and that's what they did. That created a race of giants who became completely immoral, and even cannibalistic God decided to get rid of them all and punished the angels in question by causing the flood.

                  Son's of god? Angels? Or aliens? Sons/crew of an alien scientist  who thought pretending to be god would help  human progress. His men mate with early humans and create us in the process. lol... His commander has to wipe out what they did, but one of them saves a single family of hybrids.

                  This stuff just lends itself so well to endless fun speculation.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not speculating. First off, tribes did not always war with each other ...

                    "it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - Archaeologist WJ Perry

                    "For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began (until 4000 BCE), there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel

                    Second, even after the advent of agricultural practices, for 3000 years societies came and went without changing how they interacted with one another. Societies with populations in the thousands, and even tens of thousands, still showed no class stratification and men and women were of equal status, and there was no violence ....

                    "the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

                    "There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall

                    We know tribes were not patriarchies. There is a distinct change that can be seen in the archaeological record, and traced. These aren't assumptions. Even indigenous cultures that still exist today behave in much the same way. All members, including women, have equal status. No, the change we see does not resemble the 'natural progression' you'd expect. It's rather sudden. Like the boom of inventions ....

                    "The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe

                    "a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess

                    The book of Enoch was written about 300 BC. The books of Moses were ancient even then, and considering there were pharisees in those days who were dedicated to reading and properly understanding the Torah, it's clear they did not have the level of insight that the book of Enoch and others suggest. Throughout the bible the 'sons of God' are always only humans. God only refers to the Israelites as 'sons' in the OT, and in the NT believers are then included as 'sons of God' through faith. Plus, there's this ...

                    Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?

                    Luke 3 specifically says everyone from Adam to Seth to Enoch to Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc, all the way through to Jesus were 'sons of God'.

        3. jonnycomelately profile image81
          jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Chanting repetatively, especially in a large harmonius group, can bring profound physical and mental benefits.  Possibly this has a lot to do with hyperoxygenation of the brain and body.  Many would claim that the  vibrations present also influence to a deeper degree.
          Much of the christian style of worship has the same effect, for the same reasons.

  8. oceansnsunsets profile image85
    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

    For Slarty, I can't find the post right now, but it seemed that you alluded to the idea, that what Nero did to Christians was for some other reason than their religion?  You said something about Rome accepting all religions?  So I couldn't shake that idea, and wanted to ask rather than keep looking.  Could you expound on what you meant by that, or correct my misunderstanding?  Thanks.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When Rome was founded they accepted the idea that there are many gods. They were pagans and believed that for Rome to prosper people had to worship the gods. That was the culture. It did not matter which god you worshiped on your own, the more the better for Rome, but there were gods that were preferred by Romans.

      Later Rome started conquering other lands. Each new land came with new gods. So if they could get those gods on side all the better. No matter where they  went they respected the gods of the territory they were in and accepting them as being real.

      They even mixed their own gods with the gods of Greece. Apollo is Greek, but he is Sol in Rome. Same god different name.

      I said nothing about Nero. There were other Emperors who persecuted Christians. And others that left them alone. But their first problem was the Jews. They refused to honor the Roman gods, and claimed they were false. There was only one god. They also did not accept that the Emperor was in a sense a son pf god on earth as Caesar was. Not all Emperors were, but they were representatives of the gods on earth, They were the pope of all Roman religions.

      So the Jews saw persecution, they even tried some rebellions, but for the most part they got along under Roman Rule without being fed to the lions.  They never got persecuted to the extent that one of their off shoots  did. Why was that?

      Well the Christians were not a sanctioned sect of the Jews. Most Orthodox Jews didn't like them. For Rome they were a pain because they martyred themselves, some groups destroyed pagan temples, and they preached and protested to anyone who would listen. They were spreading the news, but insulting the Roman gods and Rome at the same time. The Jews kept their religion to themselves. They never got a directive from god to spread the word. Now in a sense it was being spread in a different form by these pesky Christians.

      Most of us don't like the Saturday visit  from the J.Ws, Early Christians were obnoxious. All this from the diaries kept by Emperors and historians, by the way. And how could it not be so? It's like that now.

      So since they were a relatively new and small bunch, Rome thought it could eradicate it, but they couldn't. By the time Constantine came to power his mother had become a Christian.

      But the dynamics of Rome had changed.  Constantine did not rule by himself. He took the moto of the Emperor who ruled before him. "One Emperor, one god." But the god he envisioned as the one was Sol, not Jesus. 

      That would later change as he conquered his co-emperors and finally ruled alone. He was also facing more rebellion  and civil war. So he did what Rome had been unable to do by force. He took over Christianity and thereby put it firmly in Roman hands. It was genius. Then as Romans did, he standardized it, refusing to accept any independents. He wanted a Catholic/universal church. He got it. The Christians got their rights and their land back.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Slarty, my mistake about the comment about Nero then.  Glad I asked and thanks for answering.  I do have some ideas why the Christians might have been persecuted more than the Jews and anyone else believing in any other gods. 

        How did early Christians martyr themselves?  As for Jews vs Christians and spreading the word to others, it seems that God did that work for them in how he worked through the ancient Israelites in the day.  People like Rahab the harlot was saved through God's work, and she said as much.  I have always wondered at the fact they don't want to share their worldview with others to give them hope from it if there is any to be had from it. 

        You call them pesky Christians, and I know there are pesky Christians.  You mentioned you don't like your Saturday visits from the JW's.  Do they come to you every Saturday, or to anyone you know of? I don't know of anyone like that, though I did know some nice ones and welcomed them at my house to talk.   I always tell people that if they are ever put out by such people, to kindly ask them to please not come back.  I don't know of any that would return in such a case.  I don't know if that qualifies as being pesky, but it might, but certainly not to the point of deserving persecution?

        You say that Christians were obnoxious then, like now.  But all groups have some very obnoxious people within it.  So that doesn't get you anywhere really with that being the complaint.  So what WOULD explain a tolerant culture being tolerant of all views BUT one? 

        As for Constantine, if you can step out of your worldview for a minute to consider something, being fair minded.....  Perhaps one point is that it was seen as drastic and worth considering why his own mother would become a Christian.  Perhaps she had good reasons like so many do.  It is possible! Even to skeptic atheists!

        That even Rome could not eradicate Christianity as you say, is VERY interesting to me.  Usually they were capable in regards to completing what they set out to conquer.  Is it possible that God had a hand in protecting his very message if it was indeed his message to not be squashed by mere man?  I think so, absolutely.  That is one very reasonable explanation, if it is true. 

        One more thing I must suggest in response to these posts kind of suggesting how annoying and pesky the Christian message is, as well as Christians.  There is an explanation that would explain it all, and that would be if Christianity were true.  This includes perceived peskiness, that hits on a persons biggest issues/nerves, in their whole life.  The dying to self and sin, repenting, acknowledging what we have done and loving others that want you dead...?  Those are pesky and meddling things for sure!  It is much easier to the rulers of our own lives, to answer to no one, and do all we want to do without question.  Who wouldn't want to quiet such a message as the Christians shared it?  Also, if it is very much true, then it is by far seen as the  most threatening.  This makes sense of what we see today.  People don't feel especially threatened by even Islam compared to Christianity, even with their history.  Why is that?  Its crazy strange.   Because JW's might come by once on a Saturday?  No...because the message is uncomfortable to those that would not have it.  It is actually much easier to want to quiet the message and messenger, but when it doesn't quite make sense and people are willing to believe in stranger things to explain it, I think it is meant to be a personal red flag for those engaging in such behavior. 

        Just some possible thoughts for those to consider that think only one group really deserves persecution they get.  (Or have gotten in the past.  They do now too, on going.  Many don't know about it, world wide. Christianity's worldview makes sense of that, over any other one,  that I have ever heard.)

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I never said I thought they deserved persecution. I know they didn't. And Christians are not all pesky.
          And yes it obvious that you would think that the reason evangelism rubs people the wrong way is because it is true.

          If you think the Christian god is true then you would think that. Just as I who do not believe in the Christian god, by default, do not believe that either.

          All I am saying is what is written as the reasons for disliking Christians.

          You ask how they martyred themselves? Well though it was not law early on that Christianity was illegal, it was the Governors of some states that made it illegal. The reason being that they were Pagan and believed as strongly as you do. They believed that Rome was founded by the Pagan gods and protected by them.

          To worship them as well as your own god was expected of every citizen, and to not do it was tantamount to treason and sacrilegious. Yes, there was even a time Christians were referred to as atheists in Rome.

          So in certain states Christians would simply give themselves up to be martyred. They would denounce the state and ask to be executed. Many governors obliged them until it was clear that it only gained the cause more support and more people willing to mimic martyrdom.

          One governor faced with a growing crowed of would be martyrs, executed a few of them, and then got fed up and told the rest that if they wanted to die they would have to jump off a cliff or find some other way to do it themselves, and sent them home.

          Yes, Christianity and Judaism were persecuted and not other religions, because they were not tolerant of Roman tradition. That pissed the Romans off. That in turn caused friction between the two which escalated.

          What happens now if a Muslim says things against America? Do you welcome them in? Would you tolerate Muslim Americans denouncing the state and insisting on Shariah law? American Muslims don't do that, and if they did they would be persecuted. You betcha. If they destroyed Christian Churches? But they don't do that as members of American society.

          But again, there were periods where they were not persecuted. And then something would happen and the Roman Citizens would insist something be done about them. They became scapegoats at times for anything that went wrong. But that too is human nature. Someone gets a reputation as a troublemaker and soon they become one of the usual suspects to be rounded up.

          Remember they were considered a danger to the Roman way of life because they wouldn't worship Roman gods. They thought that would piss off the Roman gods and being trouble for the empire.

          This is exactly the mentality that if you are not a Christian, you work for the devil. Which is why no Christian, Muslim, or Jewish theocracy can ever be allowed to come to power. It always ends in someone being persecuted.

          It in't that people fear Christianity more. We just remember it better. Several hundred years of inquisitions and religious wars. And persecution of everyone not believing what is to be believed according to the church, both Catholic and then Protestant.

          It isn't that people fear Christianity more than Islam, it is that we have good reason to fear both equally. And not because they are both true.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Just going to respond to one part first.  I wasn't saying its reasonable or logical that Christianity is feared, and far from it.  It is the strangeness that we observe that it is, that ought to be a red flag. 

            I totally disagree it is to be feared like what you compare it to. I think that is highly unreasonable, especially if your worldview is correct.  It doesn't hurt you to have to tell a JW to please not come by your house on Saturdays, or does it?  I maybe shouldn't assume.

            To a world that claims to be tolerant of worldviews, but couldn't be then and can't be now to Christianity, that is very strange at best.   I am not saying all Christians live out the two greatest commandments and golden rule or anything, but to be feared makes no sense.   I think that part of my point was totally missed, that you responded like you did, or perhaps you want to explain. If Christians are perpetrating crimes against you that I don't know of you always have the regular courses of actions that you would against any criminal.  So not sure what you are speaking of.  It actually frightens me that people think like this.  I think it is part of the problem of our country and the world.  To say it so nonchalant like, yikes. My guess is that you think how the OT Israelites dealt with particular enemies in their times of war, are directives for Christians today?  Would that be a true statement?  Many actually do believe that falsely, about Christians, but Christians do not, nor did Jesus.  It would surprise me coming from you as you say you like to study history and philosophy, etc.  This is why I am not assuming and asking for an explanation for such a far out thing to say and believe.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You do misunderstand. I do not fear the average  Christian. Most don't bother me. I live among many of them and they are nice people. I live among nice Muslims too and nice Jews, and nice people in general. That's the way I like it.

              My fear and that of any reasonable person is that any one of these religions get in to power and turn our countries into theocracies. Every Christian, Muslim, and Jewish theocracy has always persecuted those who did not conform to their way. We see that all too clearly from history.

              So it is that we have ample reason to fear; an erosion of the separation of church and state. Christian Muslim and Jew need to fear each other getting the upper hand. Better no religion is allowed to rule. Each tells us the others are a danger to them.

              So protecting all the people from each other is the only way to protect religious freedom, as well as freedom from religion, and keep the peace.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think Christianity teaches we are to live in a theocracy now, and even Jesus showed how to live in a pluralistic society.  The society like you described of the Romans back in the day could be one example, or today's society.  He taught to obey laws, pay taxes, etc.  He believed in kicking the dust off your feet if people didn't want to hear from you.  It is very different from Sharia law as we observe today in certain countries and I don't see Jews pushing for them to have a theocracy here now either, but I could be mistaken by that.

                We see evil from all worldviews, but not often from Christians unless you look back to many many centuries ago which is its own whole topic.  Godless regimes have perpetrated many more crimes against humanity in just the most recent centuries, for example.  You want to be fair when talking about ruling authorities that would want to hurt people right?  Theists are not evidently the ones to fear unless they act so, like we are seeing currently by one theistic worldview.  I would ask that people be fair in this regard, if they care about fairness.

                1. PhoenixV profile image64
                  PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  My fear and that of any reasonable person is that any one of these atheists get in to power and turn our countries into state sponsored atheist countries and kill 60 million to 100 million people.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    As a person of a-theist thinking I am not asking/wanting you to become atheist.  I am simply asking you to refrain from asking/wanting me to become theist, especially christian or islam theist.
                    You have no need to fear me or my moral standing.  Can I trust you and your's?

              2. PhoenixV profile image64
                PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Besides the Pope and the 2 Jehovah Witness guys that visit you every Saturday, how many other Christian theocracies have you survived?

                1. PhoenixV profile image64
                  PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  http://bubhub.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/drama_queen1.jpg



                  Should we start building a Slarty O'Brian Jehovahs Witness Holocaust Survivor Museum? Or should we hold off construction for now?

              3. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Slarty, you say,

                "Every Christian, Muslim, and Jewish theocracy has always persecuted those who did not conform to their way. We see that all too clearly from history."

                I don't need examples from Islam or Sharia due to current events, but curious what your best examples of the Jewish and Christian Theocracies are in history that support your point above?  Just so we are all on the same page and following your train of thought and reasoning, thanks.  The Christian and Jewish theocracies that persecuted those who did not conform to their way. 

                By the way, I am not doubting people can abuse their power, as you are right we do see that in history.  I know that I have observed atheists and others using the heretics of a religion to blast said religion, which ironically is supporting the teachings of said religion sometimes.  Many people agree it would be better to act like Christ would and taught, than kill supposedly if they didn't conform to the beliefs.  Jesus and his followers didn't kill, but many spilled their own blood due to their own teachings.  If it is abuse of power and distortion of teachings, it is a tip of the hat that the teachings are good.  Not so with the other religion we are talking about.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  A theocracy comes in several forms. But it means that the state is run directly by laws created by a religious group.

                  The Jews always lived in a theocratic state. In it's earliest form under Moses the Hebrews committed genocide wiping out every man woman and child of at least 7 tribes on their way to the promised land. All because Moses said they were commanded to by god. After that they didn't have much of an opportunity to persecute anyone as the Hebrews were taken by Assyria, and the remaining Jews were taken by Babylon later. We won't talk about the current state of Israel.

                  The Christians started inquisitions as soon as they gained power of the Roman Empire. The united Christians persecuted Pagans and anyone who didn't believe what they did, even other Christians. Atheism was of course illegal and punishable by death.

                  After that, every monarchy was under the pope's rule. Kings were made by the Church and destroyed by it. Persecution happened all the time. It was the norm  Particularly witch hunting and heretic hunting.

                  Then they turned on themselves. The reform came and Protestants soon were at war with Catholics, depending where you lived, if you weren't the right brand of Christian you were burned as a heretic by both the Catholics and the Protestants. The wars lasted over 300 years and took countless innocent lives in the name of god.

                  Christianity and power do not mix. That's pretty obvious. It sounds nice on paper with love your neighbor and all, but in reality it doesn't work out when you are the only game in town. You had 2000 years to prove otherwise and failed miserably.

                  And Islam? Well you can see what Islamic theocracies are like. Atheism is still punishable by death in at least five countries around the world. Most are Islamic countries.

                  But it is the nature of the beast. Any ideology that gains power becomes threatened by competing ideologies, and begins trying to protect itself by persecuting the others. Communism did the same when it came to power. Fascism wasn't any better. 

                  Democracy, and particularly social democracies that value other cultures are the best hope we have for peace between competing ideologies, because the multicultural society of today is inclusive and accommodating. Yet no one ideology except inclusion by all, is the ruling faction.

                  Even then we have problems. Of course we do. It is so much simpler if all the people you live with believe what you do and value what you do. But if you want a world like that you exclude all others. You see them as a danger to your way of life. Soon you persecute them.

                  In a democracy that has a real separation between church and state, no religious ideology has power. Only that way can we be inclusive and protect the rights of everyone to believe what ever they like and live how they like, within the boundaries of the law. And there are always boundaries.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It is as I suspected, the people that kill for their religion have no place calling themselves  followers of Jesus' teachings.  To kill a Pagan for example, is going against Christ, so the example is one in support of Christianity ironically, not against it. 
                    If it makes you feel any better, I know they would have considered ME a heretic, and I would be lumped in with those killed. (kind of a joke there, but I really am convinced of that the more I learn.)

                    This is not proof however, that Christianity and power do not mix, as you gave examples of people NOT using Christian principles to make your point.  It is not obvious, as you say.  Anyone can kill and give reasons for doing so. They wanted to kill and distorted so much by that point and I think it part of the reason for so many pointless deaths. 

                    Still I don't believe the bible teaches we are going to live in a theocracy now, as I stated before.  I could be wrong on this, but if anyone would have changed that, it would have been Jesus and he chose to instead live in a pluralistic society.

                    Using the heretics of a religion to go after the religion only shows you have nothing legitimate to go after.   It also is an old trick.  I mean you can't blame the religion itself for what the people did that had to go against the religion to do the murder.   

                    Like we showed yesterday, the worst of the recent atrocities against mankind, especially when we have history to have learned from, came from non theist regimes and leaders.  This is undeniable, and removes all points made. 

                    The (mostly) Christians that helped create this country, believed in Democracy for many reasons and probably including the reasons you stated.  This amazing country we lived in came from the minds of people that were committed to God.  Not all were Christian bible believers that believed in having a personal relationship with God.  They were mostly Christian AND did not create a theocracy.  That is in keeping with what I was saying.  It is the best form of freedom for all.  The last part where you describe the best society, that is what we had for a long time.  We are starting to get away from that and it concerns me.  The second ANY ideology thinks its ok to persecute one particular group, we are right back where we don't want to be.  I hope we never get there.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What is your best source and worst example of some of the more awful things that Christians did back then that is worth comparing them to terrorist extremists like in 9-11 today?  I am truly curious because it seems to go so against what Christianity teaches, and not that I won't believe you just for saying it, but am curious your actual source and some quotes from it here if possible?  These Christians in question seemed to endure more persecution for not worshiping the gods of the day, more than the Jews even.  Wondering at the genuine cause and effect and thanks in advance for your answer!  This is interesting stuff and I am ready to learn.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I read a lot of books and speeches over the years. Do you want history book sources? If you type something like "reasons for Christian persecution in rome" in yahoo or google I'm sure you will get the basic stuff I am saying here with referances.

              The Christians were not bad in general and not usually violent. I'm not saying that they did anything horrible, or anyting that I would consider warranted persecution. Most were peace loving people. But all movements have their zealots. They vandalized a few pagan temples. They denounced Rome and it's gods. The main reasons I gave were that they refused to worship the roman gods and that was seen as treason. It was considered a superstition, which in Rome meant more than it does now. It meant that it actually taught subversive ideas against the state. It was heresy. It was witchcraft which could anger the gods and bring Rome trouble.

              So Romans were naturally worried. They often misunderstood Christians. Christians called themselves brother and sister, so some thought that meant they were incestuous. They were accused of cannibalism because of the fact that they eat their god and drink his blood.

              Here is a nice quote from Emperor Julian about Christians where he calls them atheists, but in the same breath praises them. You will like it.

              “Atheism (Christianity) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not one single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them.”

              So they were winning people over, obviously, through their philosophy of love. But driving them away by their refusal to respect the Roman gods.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                The top paragraph of the top result for Christian persecution in rome gives this as its first paragraph,

                "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire began with the stoning of the deacon Stephen and continued intermittently over a period of about three centuries until the 313 Edict of Milan issued by Emperors Constantine I and Licinius, when Christianity was legalized. Christians were persecuted by local authorities on a sporadic and ad-hoc basis, often more according to the whims of the local community than to the opinion of imperial authority."

                This is some of the same persecution I was originally thinking of, and along the same lines.  The article goes on to go into some details about some basics of law and how it turned later to be persecution for heretics, deemed so by the state. 

                  I am glad you are kind of backing down on some of what you said before about fearing them like some other religions.  That, and also backing down on that you didn't think they deserved persecution as a whole (except for particular crimes needing answering like temple damage, etc. or non respect of Roman Gods.)  I think if some destroyed a temple, they ought to be charged with such and pay the consequence.  It seems to me that the state at the time was a bit religious itself, and I am sure you in fairness would be equally against the Romans for their beliefs and not allowing citizens to believe as they wanted in one god vs. many?  Their superstitions  seemed strong.  I hear your point now, and it is more in line with what I thought.  If you were there, I don't think you would have liked the Romans, based on how you believe now, correct?

                1. Chris Neal profile image76
                  Chris Nealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  At the time, all states (Rome included) were essentially religious. Emperor worship, worshipping the Emperor as a manifestation of one of the gods, was a very real practice.

                  The Jewish religion was tolerated in Rome because it was an ancient one. They had respect for that. The Christian religion, especially once it started diverging from Judaism, was a novelty (which has a slightly different meaning back then) and since it forbade emperor worship, it was seen as a threat to the empire.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Thanks Chris,
                    I have studied Roman history only some, not to a great extent but hope to more one day.  The little I do know does line up with what you say, and I did learn some more too here, for the sake of clarification so thanks for that.

                    What I noticed was some irony that I couldn't help but point out.  The facts as I understand them are that Rome was religious, and not just religious but very much so and ruled in that way.   Jews were tolerated, as their religion was at least a bit older.  So we then get this new idea, that stands up to the religious rule of that day and doesn't conform and bow down to the religious governments specifications. They are then persecuted for that. 

                    The sheer irony cannot be missed, that Slarty and others are in this case defending the religious system of the day that was persecuting others that wouldn't bow down to what they wanted, and were even called atheists for it.  I was trying to point it out in a less obvious way I guess (about the Christians)  and the more I thought about it, I had to make sure we all are observing how in this case, it is not the supposed ideas people are against, but once again the Christians in particular.  If consistency and logic reigned supreme, we would not be seeing the arguments for the Romans over and against the Christians.  It gives me pause after a chuckle, only to realize its not that funny, and yet somehow not an evidence to those that I wish it were.  I hope you get what I am saying.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Oops,  part two response to Slarty,

                In your response to history book sources, sure that would be great!  I also love history, and think it tells us much about humanity and their behavior and embracing of good or bad ideas.  I would love to read a good book on this topic, great to always keep learning.  I have one yet to read called Constantine's Sword, that I picked up, it looks interesting. 

                So glad you say that Christians were not bad in general and give a quote supporting that they were good in general, and you are right, I did like it, so thanks for that.  It seems to be in keeping with the teachings of the man they were following. 

                You said, "The Christians were not bad in general and not usually violent. I'm not saying that they did anything horrible, or anyting that I would consider warranted persecution. Most were peace loving people. But all movements have their zealots."

                This seems totally fair and in line with what I read in history also.  Not good to vandalize a few pagan temples, and that sounds like the work of zealots and would not be supported by the teachings of their own religion.

                It is interesting they were seen as practicing witchcraft by another religion, ruling their day.  You say Romans were naturally worried, yet the reasons given were religious so that is a little confusing considering your non support of societies allowing a religion to be the basis of rule. 

                Again, thank you for the quote from Emperor Julian about his observation of the atheists (Christians of the day).  I had not heard that before.  Glad to see you come down some from what I thought were a little harsh against Christianity. The Jews, did they have much to show to compare them to the other religion we were discussing in the way of being feared?  I like how you ended with the quote and what you said.  It makes sense, even though the other stuff before didn't make so much sense to me, and now we see why.

  9. erepp70 profile image59
    erepp70posted 5 years ago

    were getting close. I know a lot of people have been having the same reoccurring dream about an incident where everyone dispersal that's related to a phenomena in the sky.

    1. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think there's an asteroid or something on the way. smile

      1. jonnycomelately profile image81
        jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Ooooh!  Be careful - science rears its ugly head!

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I hate Science!!! Lol

          1. jonnycomelately profile image81
            jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Does it make you have to think too much beyond the square?

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yes! Or maybe even too MANY squares.

  10. Girdle for women profile image61
    Girdle for womenposted 5 years ago

    lets see

  11. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    God saw everything that he made and called it good. Then he made man? The captain of it all??? The only creation formed with his hands??? Blew his very own perfect breath into this creation??? Come ON people... smile

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Are you asking if God made man?  If he made them good?

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        What she is saying is that man is God's masterpiece.  Formed with the hands of God, not spoken into existence like everything else. 

        An interesting note for those who can see and hear spiritually.  One thing God said about man is, "It is not good that man is alone."  (paraphrased)

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks. You know my heart. wink

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, it sounds like my own "masterpieces" (oil paint) - when finished I can always find fault with it.  Somewhere it could have been improved. 

            Would have wished He would have noticed the eyes that wear out way too early, the teeth that no longer fit in the jaw and the propensity for runaway cell growth we call cancer.

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              But you are not God.  You cannot do things perfectly.

              Maybe you missed my earlier post about Adam being created in the image and likeness of God.  God is a spirit and Adam was created as a spirit.  No eyes that wore out, no cancer, no sickness of any kind.  Sickness and death entered in when Adam disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. 

              Adam had the ability to go anywhere he chose to go and do anything he wanted to do.  He chose toe at the fruit.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I saw the claim, just nothing to back it with.  As such it is nothing but an opinion, and an opinion shared by no one else I've ever heard of. 

                All very unlikely, I'm afraid - not even the ancient peoples made a claim like that one (spirits don't eat fruit, by the way - they are not material, not of this universe, and unable to interact with physical things like that).

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, you were talking about the biblical texts and what people were saying about God, and made a rebuttal about your own oil painting masterpieces, how fault can be found in those.  Sir Dent, to respond how he did, is making a point using the same texts everyone was discussing.  You can't then say at this point, when he makes and excellent point how your masterpiece isn't like God's "pre sin" masterpieces, that he is saying something without back up.  You are discussing a text, and using fair points and you can't suddenly say he can't then use the very text in question to defend the said texts and ideas.  That is moving the goal post to win.  Its like a last minute fall back people could use all the time, but it doesn't work.  He made an excellent point, and you went into another debate.  You were giving your own opinion by the way.  I like to call this tactic "moving the picnic to a new location" and hoping others don't notice it.  Its kind of like a philosophical point, the one you were making about it being possible or not for a perfect God, vs. you, making a masterpiece. 

                  To counter his point effectively, you would need to show how a perfect God would NOT be able to make a perfect creation if he chose to.  This is what it was hinging on, seems to me. You can't argue against a worldview that you pick and choose when to throw out certain portions of it as it suits you.  Or ignore certain key points.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    ??  To SirDent, the comment was that the only person/thing to ever claim Adam and Eve were non material "spirits", without eyes, is Sir Dent. 

                    Nothing to do with making a perfect creation if He chose to: that part was merely a comment that God Himself indicated Adam was not perfect, just as I comment that my work isn't either. 

                    Two different subjects, then; one that God said Adam was not perfect and one that said Sir Dent made claims (Adam&Eve were spirits, without physical eyes) without evidence to back them as facts.

                  2. A Thousand Words profile image74
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    SIr Dent said

                    "Maybe you missed my earlier post about Adam being created in the image and likeness of God.  God is a spirit and Adam was created as a spirit. "

                    Wilderness said in response:

                    "All very unlikely, I'm afraid - not even the ancient peoples made a claim like that one (spirits don't eat fruit, by the way - they are not material, not of this universe, and unable to interact with physical things like that"

                    Seems pretty clear to me.

                    If spirits are immaterial, how can a spirit eat it an apple? Unless it was a spirit apple. 9.9 Where in the bible does it say Adam was a spirit before eating the apple? I gotta agree with wilderness here.

                2. profile image0
                  SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

                  Gen 5:1  This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

                  How do you know spirits have no substance?  Who can know the answer? 

                  Unless we are supposed to be discussing something other than what the Bible says, the proof is above.   I just checked the forum category, it says The Bible Discussions End Time Prophecy as the last three.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    The proof is above...IF you accept that "his own image" and "likeness" means identical, made out of material not from this universe.  Material that does not follow the rules of our universe, but nevertheless could exist here and interact on an intimate chemical basis with local materials.  I do not accept that and would request where you got such information.

                    As you explain your reasoning, keep in mind that a bronze bust of SirDent is "in his likeness" as well as "in his image".  So is a mirror reflection, a painting and a photograph.

                    I know spirits have no substance the same way you know they have no eyes.  I claim it to be true, just as you do, and my claim is just as valid as yours.  If you have the right to make unsubstantiated claims from your imagination, I claim the same right.

                  2. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    A question just popped up.
                    In his own image...
                    Could it mean the image he came up with of his own imagination (for lack of a better term). I mean that he just spoke and everything else came forth. But Adam was sculpted. My own work...?
                    Adam was formed from dust. He definitely was of substance; but immaculately put together. No imperfections. The breath of God himself.  Made immortal. Made with decision ability. But one choice barred.
                    I digress... smile
                    Made in his own image... Walk with me when/if you will. All invited (but I guess you know smile )

                    Edit--- and for "likeness," immortality?
                    Sounds possible...

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Sin brought us all that stuff jonny. But don'chu worry! God's gonna make it right again. smile

          2. jonnycomelately profile image81
            jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            ".....for those who can see and hear spiritually...."   the classic cop-out whereby you believers think you can win every argument!

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              it is not about winning an argument.  It is all about Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                BS  Sir......and you know it.  Totally dishonest with your innermost Self.

                1. profile image0
                  SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Call it as you want.  You don't have to read it or respond to it.  Thanks for calling me a liar.

                2. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Cop-out??? Win an argument??? You've gotten it twisted. smile The "argument" was won when Christ said, "It is finished." Spirit is the distinguishing FACTor.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          A masterpiece? Didn't God put a curse on His 'masterpiece' for not obeying Him and now the entire world is full of evil sinners? Some masterpiece. lol

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Man actually cursed himself when He disobeyed God.  He was created to live forever but now pronounced death upon himself and all creatures.  God did not curse the man but he did curse the ground (earth).  Man was removed from the Garden so he would not eat from the tree of life and end up living forever with all the pain and sickness that sin brought into the world.

            1. Dr Lamb profile image55
              Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              So you see man as fallen Gods?

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image56
              EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Then, that is God's fault for creating Adam to be that way. It's not Adam's fault for being Adam as he was created.

          2. Chris Neal profile image76
            Chris Nealposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So you've never thought about whether God knew what He was doing or not?

        3. EncephaloiDead profile image56
          EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Well, obviously you appear to know that answer considering what you're claiming about seeing and hearing spiritually and then telling us spirit does not die.

  12. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    Failure? He created free will. A free will makes us capable of both good and evil. If not, if evil did not exist, then we wouldn't be truly free. So evil falls on each of us as being the creators of it, because God successfully created what He set out to. The alternative would be either all of us following the 'natural order' blindly with no minds or wills of our own, or no existence at all. The natural world worked fine before free will, with generation after generation of homo sapiens living long, full lives, never once feeling the need for anything more than a simple life living in harmony with nature. The very same capability that gives us our own minds and wills and the capability to create civilizations and science and everything else also made us capable of evil. And our human history shows from that point forward the kind of impact that's had. We've, from that point since, lived in opposition to the natural world rather than living in harmony with it.

    So it appears what God set out to do He accomplished perfectly. Now we experience the full brunt of free will by suffering the repercussions of our own actions, as well as the actions of every free willed human who came before, but we also enjoy the successes that come from that same capability. Even now, your capability to call God a failure who's selfish and petty is something you're able to do because of the free will He gave us.

  13. RealifeorNothing profile image60
    RealifeorNothingposted 5 years ago

    I do believe that we will see it in our time.

  14. Jewel24902 profile image60
    Jewel24902posted 5 years ago

    I don't think so, but all the Bible prophecies have been fulfilled for the rapture to take place.  So many of us who have put their trust in Jesus Christ may see the rapture in our lifetime.

  15. Dr Lamb profile image55
    Dr Lambposted 5 years ago

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition

    "Elephants exhibit a wide variety of behaviors, including those associated with grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, play, altruism, use of tools, compassion, cooperation, self-awareness, memory, and language."

    "Elephants are thought to be highly altruistic animals that even aid other species, including humans, in distress. In India, an elephant was helping locals lift logs by following a truck and placing the logs in pre-dug holes upon instruction from the mahout (elephant trainer). At a certain hole, the elephant refused to lower the log. The mahout came to investigate the hold-up and noticed a dog sleeping in the hole. The elephant only lowered the log when the dog was gone."

  16. Ovonol1 profile image59
    Ovonol1posted 5 years ago

    Only the Almighty knows that answer,maybe we will die tomorrow.But in light of what is going on in the world ,it's pretty soon sister.

  17. Moon Daisy profile image83
    Moon Daisyposted 5 years ago

    To answer the original question; - probably not.

  18. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    Yeah, there are a lot of parents and other 'grown-ups' who would often make God out to be a kind of boogie man to scare children into behaving. If you're naughty Santa won't bring you presents and God will send you to hell. And I think some religious institutions have done much the same thing for centuries in their attempts to stay in power and control the masses. So I can certainly understand the charged reactions.

    But what bugs me is this fairly recent trend where the non-believers viewpoint is upheld as having the intellectual, or even factual, high ground. Where belief or disbelief is often thought to be in direct correlation to your level of knowledge of science. That if you believe in God you just don't understand science or you just have not critically analyzed your beliefs. Nevermind the fact that the majority of the forefathers of science were themselves Christians or the fact that even today there are numerous scholars and doctors and cell biologists and high energy particle physicists who are clearly very intelligent people who have a deep understanding of science, yet maintain their belief in God. Even Einstein believed in a higher power, though not the God of Abraham. And he believed what he did based on what he saw and understood about the universe. Based specifically on the order he saw in the universe. And clearly he had a much better understanding than any of us here. He referred to the same kinds of things you and I have to justify his reasoning, yet you and I making similar statements is just, somehow, illogical or intellectually dishonest.

    There's a significant difference between materialism as a scientific approach, which I agree is necessary, and materialism as a philosophy. I like that quote from Lewontin. I've sometimes referred to a similar statement made by Rupert Sheldrake who was trying to get the same point across ....

    "The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. This is a very wide spread belief in our society. It's the kind of belief system of people who say, "I don't believe in God, I believe in science." It's a belief system which has now been spread throughout the entire world. But there's a conflict in the heart of science betweeen science as a method of inquiry, based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system or a worldview. And, unfortunately, the worldview aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry, which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor. Since the late 19th century science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system, or worldview, which is essentially that of materialism, philosophical materialism."

    The point I'm constantly trying to get across is that the very same claims often made by non-believers that belief in God hampers scientific progress, which I agree can and does happen, is not limited only to believers in God. The very same thing happens through a purely materialist philosophy. Both can cause one to inject certainty into the equation that justifies removing perfectly reasonable explanations from the table of consideration. It's just as limiting to progress as the alternate viewpoint they're often arguing against, and it can cause one to be just as dismissive of those who believe otherwise.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image56
      EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You know when someone is being desperately intellectually dishonest is when they start misrepresenting Einstein.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I am not familiar with Rupert Sheldrake, but I appreciate that quote from him and that is often what I am trying to get others to see.  The points are excellent, and I would agree.  When you put faith in something that you believe in, it needs to be supported, and the Christian worldview is very much supported by the world we observe, from history to human psychology, and to the science that all sides agree on even.  If your belief conflicts with what is known, it may not be the best worldview, and ought to be reconsidered in my opinion.  Distorting the views in question is a clue that more is going on.  Materialism is very narrow in its scope and can only weigh in on part of what we observe, and only to a point.  That is fine if the person maintaining that view admits its limitations, and I say that for myself as well and my own beliefs/views. 

      Very smart of him to point out the conflict between science as he describes it, and science as a belief system or worldview.  It further confuses things when scientists overlap their personally held worldviews with the science they observe and present it all as "science."  Generally speaking in our world today,  I observe people to not be careful thinkers, or listeners and so this is often missed and/or taken advantage of.  (Whether purposeful or not.)  Philosophical materialism is a worldview, and nearly becoming a religion, lol.

  19. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    You're completely missing the point.

    First, they have no idea what to make of Gobekli Tepe for one primary reason, this site dates back to 9000 BC or earlier. This predates the Neolithic revolution. In fact, it appears the first domestication of wheat happened in this region. But the fact is it dates back to the hunter-gatherer period where no other structures like this have been found.

    But the point is, whether or not the purpose of something is understood is irrelevant to determining whether not something was deliberately created. The pyramids were first discovered centuries ago. Do you think they first had to determine the purpose of these structures before they pieced together that they were made by humans?

  20. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    Well, much like the 'possible reasons' for Stone Henge and other ancient structures, we can only really speculate as to God's purpose. But first we would need to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bad outcome'. "Bad" according to what standard? Do you think death is bad? Do you think sickness and disease are bad? What would be the point in a nerf-world where nothing "bad" ever happens to have a free will? If your biggest decisions were between coke and pepsi? Paper or plastic? Would those choices even exist, would there even be coke or pepsi, if people in the past hadn't been strengthened by the challenges they faced? If there was no sickness would we appreciate good health? Is it not sickness and disease that strengthened our bodies defenses? Is it not predators that made us agile and intelligent? If you really thought these things through I think you'd find that this ideal world that everybody seems to want with no "bad" stuff isn't that great.

    If the purpose is to create free will then this world seems the perfect place to me. Life is short, death gives each moment more meaning and purpose and makes what you choose to do in those moments more vital. The possibility of "bad" things give us an appreciation when things aren't "bad". What would we do with our lives if we didn't have challenges to overcome and dangers to face? I just picture big, fat useless blobs. Like the saying goes, "Calm waters do not make good captains". Do you think we should challenge our kids? Or just let them sit idle and handle all their problems and challenges for them? Should we try to prepare them and let them out into the cold, harsh world, or should we shelter them and keep them shut in? Which would you say is the better parent?

    I don't necessarily see these things as "bad", or unintended. Living things behaving the way they do is what made us and molded us. It's what made us resilient and builds our character. Like a tree that grows sheltered from the elements, it just grows straight and weak. It's the winds and the storms that breaks the tree and strengthen it and that gives it its beautiful shape.

  21. Dr Lamb profile image55
    Dr Lambposted 5 years ago

    What you are not understanding is that not all design is intelligent. But I see your point and it's worth noting that what we do know is that we typically have an idea what a structure is used for and why it was built. Pillars typically are an artistic features of structure and structures are typically used to house much like a fox den.

    1. janesix profile image61
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What design isn't intelligent? Please provide an example.

      1. Dr Lamb profile image55
        Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I suppose I didn't word that well at all. What I meant was there is bad design with little intelligence.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "Bad" according to what? By what standard do you deem one thing 'bad' and another thing not?

        2. janesix profile image61
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ok.

          That's a whole different story.

          If the designer designs SEEMINGLY useless creations, that is a problem of our lack of understanding of the purpose.

          It's a long process. With lots of steps. Maybe certain gene sequences are needed further along in the process. That could explain large-scale horizontal gene transfers that don't make much sense other wise.

          1. Dr Lamb profile image55
            Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, you just made my point perfectly. The only way a intelligent designer would make useless creations is because he doesn't understand the purpose.

            We seem endless creations that seem to have no purpose, us included.

            1. janesix profile image61
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I didn't say the designer didn't know the purpose. I said WE don't.

              1. Dr Lamb profile image55
                Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                that's the thing about design, it's purpose is evident.

                1. janesix profile image61
                  janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Obviously not, or there wouldn't be endless debate among acedemics over the purposes of things built by our ancestors.

                  1. Dr Lamb profile image55
                    Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Structure is either built to house the living or the dead. It's purpose is evident.

            2. jonnycomelately profile image81
              jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              With all due respect everyone here in this Forum, I have become bored and disinterested.   There is life for me away from the computer, but if anyone has more expansive and interesting topics they are following, please let me know.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        He or she may say something like brain eating amoebas, penis fish and cancers....  (;p)

        but its not unintelligent to the amoeba or cancer in those cases, lol

        1. janesix profile image61
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I meant that "design" by definition, means it has to by a designer, which infers intelligence.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            My apologies, I was being goofy and joking really, based on some of the past conversations.

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Right, and when we see order and structure, like coded information broken down into differing but repeating units, or characters, and arranged in a very particular order, we generally think of it as something man-made. Like if you were to see ancient symbols arranged in lines carved into a stone, you might piece together that this appears to be some form of written language, even if you cannot yet decipher what it says. Well we see much the same thing in genetic code. Or when we see a system that serves a specific purpose consistently, you might think this is a machine created by a human to serve this specific purpose. Well we see similar systems in our solar system, in the earth's climate and water cycles, in its seasons, in its ecosystem, etc.

      We know things like fox dens are made by foxes to serve a purpose and we know pillars are made by humans to serve a purpose. Well, we see specific purposes served all over the place in organized systems in the natural world as well. In any other case we might deduce that this too was deliberately created to serve a purpose. But not here. In the natural world it's just a system that unintelligently organized itself with no help from any creator. Why? Because we can see the process that formed it, which was also very organized and structured. And the elements that played a role in that process, like atoms or cells, also have organization and structure. Somehow the possibility of any of this being deliberately created cannot even be considered. That's just silly, right? Of course it all just happened haphazardly.

      1. Dr Lamb profile image55
        Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Of course it can be considered. Consider it. Just don't expect science to consider it. The problem is you just have no evidence, just wishful thinking a speculation. Humans and other animals seem to order this because it efficient, so when we see order in nature it doesn't mean it was designed, but it does mean it's efficient which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. From an evolutionary perspective everything makes sense, even the brain eating amoeba. From that perspective we don't need purpose, that's why we don't see purpose.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
          Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Let us see everything that is, accept everything that is and leave it at that. That's enchanting enough, I would say.

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I don't expect science to consider it, as it falls outside of science's jurisdiction. It would make absolutely no sense to have physical evidence of something that A) isn't material, and B) exists beyond our universe. This is why I have repeatedly made the distinction between materialism as a scientific approach and materialism as a philosophy.

          What you don't seem to get is that everyone is in the same boat as far as "wishful thinking and speculation" are concerned. Whatever 'caused' the beginning of this universe happened outside of this universe and is therefore beyond the scope of what's observable/measurable/detectable. Whether you're talking about an intelligent creator or whether you're talking about a multi-verse or a spaghetti monster or whatever else.

          Yes, efficiency makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. And both efficiency and evolution make sense from a creator perspective because it's a chaotic, random process that becomes structured and ordered. These are less likely reached through pure haphazard chaos, and are more likely reached through design and deliberate intent. Chaos isn't even chaos in this place, but becomes order. The brain eating amoeba make sense too. You just have it in your mind that it doesn't, which isn't factual or based on anything factual, but rather is based on whatever concept you hold in regards to what deliberate intent should look like.

          You keep saying that purpose is evident if intelligently made, but this is clearly not true. The competing theories of Stonehenge alone should make that apparent. Burial remains found at the site do suggest that may have been at least part of its purpose, but the structure alone didn't tell anyone that. Only after remains were found did that become evident. So, clearly, the structure alone did not have an obvious function or purpose. Yet there was never any doubt, because of the configuration of the stones, that this was an intelligently created structure.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
            Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "It would make absolutely no sense to have physical evidence of something that A) isn't material, and B) exists beyond our universe. "

            What is it if it is not material? Nothing. That's the problem. And outside our universe? We don't even know that there is an outside, and that is one thing science is interested in.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
              oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              That is the materialist philosophy speaking there.  It is as if it "drives the bus" of the person holding it, their thinking anyway.  This would be an example of that. 

              Things that aren't material and exist beyond the universe, is the place you end up when considering origins.  I suppose a materialist can deny some of the science we do know of and ignore the origins part, but that is the thing in question here, the most anyway. (The thing on trial here, to see if it is intelligent or not.)

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                'That is the materialist philosophy speaking there.  It is as if it "drives the bus" of the person holding it, their thinking anyway.  This would be an example of that"

                It is not a philosophy, it's the facts of the matter. And yes, facts drive the bus, not speculation. Can you tell me something that exists that is not material? Remember, it has to exist. If it exists we can have evidence for it.

                "Things that aren't material and exist beyond the universe, is the place you end up when considering origins.  I suppose a materialist can deny some of the science we do know of and ignore the origins part, but that is the thing in question here, the most anyway. (The thing on trial here, to see if it is intelligent or not.)"

                lol.. You say things that exist and are beyond the universe as if there are such things and you can show them, and that that there is an outside to this universe. Both those ideas are just ideas without any evidence to back them up.

                Science is interested in knowing if there is an outside of this universe but it doesn't even know if that's a rational question to ask yet. That has not stopped people from forming mathematical models of what it might be like but they are models, not fact, and they won't even be testable for perhaps centuries if at all. And yet here you are, sure that there is a beyond and that there are things in it that are not material.

                I don't mind speculation as long as people aren't selling it as fact. I'm not the one ignoring science. In fact, I know a little about it.

                And why you would think our origins are outside the universe I couldn't guess. That's just so far out in left field...

                Until you can show that there is some thing that exists that is not material, that's all we know for sure exists.

                And if you know anything about physics and energy/matter, you would know that in theory that's all there is so science has to look for a material natural answer. So far there seems to be no intelligent designer required. Let me know when that changes.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  To this:

                  "It would make absolutely no sense to have physical evidence of something that A) isn't material, and B) exists beyond our universe. "

                  You said:

                  "What is it if it is not material? Nothing. That's the problem. And outside our universe? We don't even know that there is an outside, and that is one thing science is interested in."

                  I said that is an example of materialistic philosophy, and something about how it drives the bus of some people's thinking.  You said no it wasn't philosophy, it is the facts of the matter.  I reposted those quotes, because you said something is nothing, if it isn't material.  Yet you don't know that for a fact at all.  It is an example of a personally held belief that may totally be wrong, yet presented as fact.  You said, "what is it if not material?  Nothing."  That is working from  your held, chosen worldview, and it drives how you think about the rest of many of the things that come up.  It limits your ability also to even talk about origins because only certain things are even allowed to be options. I wouldn't find that self imposed limitation satisfying, but it may be fine for some, and may be no problem at all for them.  It still is what it is though.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You can only work from what is actually known. Working from speculative ideas gets you no where. If we find a reason to think that there is something other than the material world then we will consider it. Until then, show me there is something outside the universe and that something exists  that is not material. I'll be glad to accept the facts. Otherwise you are just speculating and that to me is next to worthless.

                  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    " I reposted those quotes, because you said something is nothing, if it isn't material.  Yet you don't know that for a fact at all.  It is an example of a personally held belief that may totally be wrong,"

                    Science has been looking at this question for a long time. What we discovered and found remarkable is that all of this, this earth, you, me, and everything else, is energy/matter in different forms. There really is nothing else that science has found and there has been no need found for there to be anything else.

                    So unless some evidence comes to light that points to there having to be something else, then there is nothing wrong with saying there is nothing else that we know of.

                    Christians claim there is but have no evidence to support that claim.

                    It's like me saying I have invisible pink squirrels in my attic. You would be right to say that there is no such thing because I made it up. I can offer no evidence of them.