Originally posted by The Omega
WD>
I think so, yes. Lets assume humankind hasn’t changed it’s conscience over the past couple of tens of thousands of years. Then obviously in the past “God” or “spirituality” must’ve played a larger role in our lives. One could hypothesise that there is truth in myths if one were capable of reading them in the correct “light” so to speak – the hypothesis is however based on the assumption that there IS a higher being of SOME kind.
Whatever “truths” our ancestors sought were more than today coloured by a stringent belief – hence the countless religious texts and books. (I hope I’m making sense).
Yeah you kinda make sense, is like I said earlier about Mythology being part of human experience. Whether you reject it or not is still there in our society after thousands of years of technological and scientific advances. Mythology will always be a part of us. No matter how mythology changes from culture to culture there is always that character of a super powerful deity. It can't be just human imagination, if it were then humanity shares one single brain. No, I tend to think that something in the nature of our human minds (NOT imagination, something more sophisticated) keeps reproducing the idea of God.
One thing I need to make clear is that I'm not using the power of the mind as an escape goat for religious discussions. But is rather hard to discard the idea of God and human mind link together.
Originally posted by The Omega
One should keep an open mind. Is your mind open to the possibility of there BEING no divine being.
Yes, I think we've already touched that posibility earlier. My mind is both open to the possibility that there is and that there isn't a God.
Originally posted by The Omega
Yes, I skimmed the article. My problem with it is its foundation of premises. To me it looks like its written by religious people! People who BELIEVE there ARE sacred artefacts. Artefacts from history are indeed there in the sands of Egypt and Iraq. But to call them sacred is loaded. Science MUST keep an open mind and not be preoccupied with a search for what one HOPES to find, but simply look for what is there.
If you feel that the writers of the article were more religious than journalistic, then you're using skepticism to strictly. I, myself, is more interested in the events and the discoveries that those archeologist are doing in Iraq. Another thing, the article wasn't publish in one of those Christian magazines. Since the article is from Newsweek, I don't see it as bias to religion or even trying to promote religious beliefs. Fact is, that archeologists are facing challenges in their search. They are risking their life to bring us the result of their discoveries.
We all know how delicate the search for archeological relics can be. That's the main premise of the report. To remove a valuable piece can cause tremendous results. With all the battles and the thieves running wild how can archologists work in their expeditions? Even worse the relics are removed fromt the site and sold in the black market. That's what I got from the article. The fact that those archeologist faced greater obstacles than their work by being in a place that is very dangerous.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
But Why is it different?
How would you know? You couldn't!
I'm sure in ANYONE fell over in church and started mumbling in language you couldn't understnad, you'd leap up and say that god's possesing that person!
For one thing, they don't fall over then start speaking in tongues, it's a heavenly language to God, The HOLY ghost.
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Pure, unadulterated fiction. The best-selling book of all time is a fluke, hack job piece of crap.
You know why? There is no proof that there was any 'divine' influence in the Bible's writing. It was written by man in his bigoted ignorance. I for one, believe in a higher power (call him/her/it God, or w/e the hell you want to call it), I do not however, believe anything that the Christians, Jews or Muslims say, them being rooted in the same 'God' that everyone seems to take as fact. Buddism has the right idea of it
The grammar is fine, no question, but the book flows poorly and is just difficult to understand. The stories are rushed and often boring. Plus with all it's hypocricies there is a lot of inperfections that I just don't think would have been done had God had anything to do with this.
He would have been the ultimate editor. 😛
Yerssot> “TO, don't you know the standard responce? "don't take it all literal, but take all the other things that are convinient for me as litteral".”
😆
Yes, I noticed that comes into play rather quickly. Now who gives these religious people a clue as to WHAT is to be taken literal and what isn’t?
FE> Oh! Lol! You are lost! LOL!
What? People talking gibberish, hitting each other on the forehead and falling to the floor shaking like they have a seizure? Sounds like a lunatic asylum to me. LOL!
Here. LOL! My post to you again. Lol
ME> ”How do you KNOW the Bible is the truth? Because God personally told you so?”
FE> ”Yes, he will lead you & direct you, i have answered you that.”
How is THAT answering me question? I’m asking you how you know the Bible is the truth, and you’re talking about leading and direction?
Me>” How do you REALLY know it IS the word of God?”
FE> ”cuz he tells you.”
He’s not telling ME anything. You’re dodging the question – again.
Me>” So when Abraham married his sister with God’s blessing, God blessed an incestuous marriage and that is not wrong?”
FE> ”where r u getting this at? when he told the King it was HIS sister?”
I’m getting ”this” in your precious Bible. You should read it some time. And, NO, Gen.17:15-16 here Abraham marries his sister and God blesses the marriage – so does God approve of incestuous marriages? Do you?
Me>” You’re good at imagining stuff – so TRY to imagine that homosexuality is NOT a choice. Would it then be a sin?”
FE>”Yes it would be cuz the Bible says so.”
So even if homosexuality is NOT a choice – and God has made homosexuals as they are – they may never love cuz the Bible says so. The Bible also says that Lot, who in Gen.19:8 offers his two virgin daughters to a crowd of angel rapers and later(19:30-38) impregnates them, was a "righteous man." 2:8 . So incest is okay? Cuz the Bible says so?
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
So Jesus says – so do you hate your family?
WD> “It can't be just human imagination, if it were then humanity shares one single brain.”
No. It means human experience is universal – that we are all ”just” humans. That once we marvelled at the same things, the sun, the moon, stars, thunder and lightening – and used the supernatural to explain it.
“If you feel that the writers of the article were more religious than journalistic, then you're using skepticism to strictly.”
Ah, that is possible. It may also simply be a cultural difference between the US and Europe. You see where I live the state and the church are two completely separated entities. You never hear “God” mentioned in politics, education and official life. I think the word is more frequent in the US, and that may colour writings be otherwise independent journalists. Do you see this difference (it’s not an attack, merely an observation).