Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

Moose, your turn to answer some questions.

1. You make a lot of noise about Abrahamic religions being discriminatory against homosexuals.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

How then, do you account for the fact that the country most recently in the news for criminalizing homosexuality, is India, whose majority demographic religion is Hinduism,

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

and whose lawmakers, arguably, are secular people?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a shocking decision, the Indian Supreme Court has reversed the July 2009 ruling of the Delhi High Court decriminalizing gay sex between consenting adults. In doing so, the Indian Supreme Court has re-criminalized gay sex in India, rendering almost 20 percent of the global LGBT population illegal.
Overturning a High Court decision, the Indian Supreme Court upheld Indian Penal Code 377, an archaic and barbaric law that criminalizes "homosexual" acts:

377. Unnatural offenses -- Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Western media and LGBT organizations are likely to demonize India and Indians after this ruling, which does not make life easier for Indians who are gay and lesbian abroad, and conveniently casts the West as an arbiter of freedom. Anthopologist Akshaye Khanna articulates this quite well:

We are seeing, in several parts of the world, a cynical appropriation of the discourse of sexual rights and sexuality by right-wing and reactionary agendas. In Western Europe, North America and Israel, we see the phenomenon of 'homonationalism', where LGBT discourse is being used in deeply racist -- usually Islamophobic -- groups. In East Africa, the question of sexuality has come to be the central question in discourse about the nation -- where notions of 'Africanness' have come to be tied to the position on homosexuality. This centering of the question of sexuality is always a way of diverting attention from political and economic questions relating to the control over natural resources, or instances of corruption ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/prerna-lal/indias-supreme-court-gay-sex_b_4425457.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t590516.html

2. If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain leaders of The Church of SATAN, of all institutions, ALSO being resistant?
Are THEY doing it because of some moral creed?

The First Family Of Satanism
(Bob Larson Interviews Zeena Lavey and Nikolas Schreck)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ8PFfm_wpc
(16 min 57 sec mark to 17 min 54 sec mark; a total of 57 seconds worth of viewing)

The link (as opposed to archive/URL version) of the above:

Moose,

1. You make a lot of noise about Abrahamic religions being discriminatory against homosexuals.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.

How then, do you account for the fact that the country most recently in the news for criminalizing homosexuality, is India, whose majority demographic religion is Hinduism,

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

and whose lawmakers, arguably, are secular people?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a shocking decision, the Indian Supreme Court has reversed the July 2009 ruling of the Delhi High Court decriminalizing gay sex between consenting adults. In doing so, the Indian Supreme Court has re-criminalized gay sex in India, rendering almost 20 percent of the global LGBT population illegal.
Overturning a High Court decision, the Indian Supreme Court upheld Indian Penal Code 377, an archaic and barbaric law that criminalizes "homosexual" acts:

377. Unnatural offenses -- Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Western media and LGBT organizations are likely to demonize India and Indians after this ruling, which does not make life easier for Indians who are gay and lesbian abroad, and conveniently casts the West as an arbiter of freedom. Anthopologist Akshaye Khanna articulates this quite well:

We are seeing, in several parts of the world, a cynical appropriation of the discourse of sexual rights and sexuality by right-wing and reactionary agendas. In Western Europe, North America and Israel, we see the phenomenon of 'homonationalism', where LGBT discourse is being used in deeply racist -- usually Islamophobic -- groups. In East Africa, the question of sexuality has come to be the central question in discourse about the nation -- where notions of 'Africanness' have come to be tied to the position on homosexuality. This centering of the question of sexuality is always a way of diverting attention from political and economic questions relating to the control over natural resources, or instances of corruption ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/prerna-lal/indias-supreme-court-gay-sex_b_4425457.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t590516.html

2. If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain leaders of The Church of SATAN, of all institutions, ALSO resistant to condoning homosexuality?

The First Family Of Satanism
(Bob Larson Interviews Zeena Lavey and Nikolas Schreck)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ8PFfm_wpc
(16 min 57 sec mark to 17 min 54 sec mark; a total of 57 seconds worth of viewing)

Originally posted by red g jacks

If you have some time on your hands I would check out lectures 3 and 4 from this course on the Hebrew Bible. The entire series is good but these 2 lectures in particular give a good overview of this topic.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145#sessions

I'm back to my laptop; I looked up the Lecture 3 video lesson from the link you gave on my Galaxy Note a few moments ago.
I used the information to track down the same series on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-jNTEQOd0&list=PLEtNN0ZOmPzXvgWu6zynUvIZE1sVoljHV&index=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAQms_FqERc&list=PLEtNN0ZOmPzXvgWu6zynUvIZE1sVoljHV

I'll give the above some serious attention.

It will be a while before I can respond to you directly, for, as you know, Lessons 3 & 4 take well over an hour of combined viewing time, but, rest assured, unless something unforseen happens, I will eventually get back to you.

(Definitely not tonight, though -- it's past 5 AM where I live and time for bed.)

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by red g jacks

If you have some time on your hands I would check out lectures 3 and 4 from [the] course on the Hebrew Bible. The entire series is good but [those] 2 lectures in particular give a good overview of this topic.

I watched on YouTube.

Interesting ...

Originally posted by red g jacks

I think the message of the [Adam and Eve] story actually becomes somewhat incoherent when you imagine that it literally was a magic tree that gave them the knowledge of good and evil. How can they be held morally accountable for a decision made prior to the possession of moral knowledge?

It's a troubling story, no matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I watched on YouTube.

Interesting ...

It's a troubling story, no matter how you slice it.

as a symbolic story i'd say it is pretty effective.

Originally posted by red g jacks
any thoughts?

A great many.

I'll probably re-watch those videos and also see what else is in the series.

Originally posted by red g jacks

i think the trouble mostly arises from interpreting it as an actual event depicting the plan of an actually omnipotent and omniscient god.

as a symbolic story i'd say it is pretty effective.

As far as symbolic goes, I'm intrigued by the presenter's idea that sex was the original sin, not theft.

I also found it interesting the speaker seemed to define the serpent as a simple talking snake as opposed to the Fallen Angel, Lucifer.

I still don't really have much trouble considering it as an actual event, though.

For no matter what view you hold, there's a point at which you have to admit -- we don't really know what happened at the very beginning. Even Stealth Moose admitted as much. Nearly every philosophy starts breaking down once you go back far enough. The Bibilical view is so good at explaining so much in life, and there is so much we don't know ...

Originally posted by red g jacks
the plan of an actually omnipotent and omniscient god ...

Not actually much of a problem if you consider only those 2 qualities, Red.

Omnipotent and Omniscient I can dig.
That's essentially the god of the Koran.
"Giveth life and causeth death", etcetera.

Everything we consider good and evil rolled into one being, and he himself says as much of himself:

Quran Chapter Name:Al-Baqra Verse No:258

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you not looked at him who disputed with Ibrahim (Abraham) about his Lord (Allah), because Allah had given him the kingdom? When Ibrahim (Abraham) said (to him): "My Lord (Allah) is He Who gives life and causes death." He said, "I give life and cause death." Ibrahim (Abraham) said, "Verily! Allah causes the sun to rise from the east; then cause it you to rise from the west." So the disbeliever was utterly defeated. And Allah guides not the people, who are Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/2-258.html

So I get that.

Great power, seemingly random will and wanton action?

That's no harder to understand than the U.S. Government.

The difficulty lies in wrapping the head around omnipotent and omniscient and BENEVOLENT.

Power and a "might makes right" philosophy, though, poses almost no mental challenge at all.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

As far as symbolic goes, I'm intrigued by the presenter's idea that sex was the original sin, not theft.

I also found it interesting the speaker seemed to define the serpent as a simple talking snake as opposed to the Fallen Angel, Lucifer.

I still don't really have much trouble considering it as an actual event, though.

For no matter what view you hold, there's a point at which you have to admit -- we don't really know what happened at the very beginning. Even Stealth Moose admitted as much. Nearly every philosophy starts breaking down once you go back far enough. The Bibilical view is so good at explaining so much in life, and there is so much we don't know ...

The difficulty lies in wrapping the head around omnipotent and omniscient and BENEVOLENT.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
As far as symbolic goes, I'm intrigued by the presenter's idea that sex was the original sin, not theft.

Theft is not the original sin, it's disobedience. You cannot steal from God as everything is his property -or nothing is-.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I also found it interesting the speaker seemed to define the serpent as a simple talking snake as opposed to the Fallen Angel, Lucifer.

The serpent is never, by any accounts that have authority in the religious canon, Lucifer. The serpent is just that a serpent, an ill-meaning animal, which by the way cannot talk in a proper sense: it's Eve and Adam who are capable of understanding animals back then.

Originally posted by red g jacks
well she mentioned that idea but then argued against it

True. Still intriguing, though.

Just some thinking out loud right now, but:

a) Assuming their miniature garden environment perfectly balanced for two, the addition of children would stress resources to the point they might need to search elsewhere for food to sustain themselves.

b) Snake is a symbol of fertility and life renewal.

c) Snake is also a fairly well-known allusion to the "equipment" of some people.

d) Sex is often referred to as "forbidden fruit" in literature.

e) The Biblical term "knew" often means, demonstrably, "had sex with".

Originally posted by red g jacks

i thought that was interesting too, after having held the assumption that it was satan for so many years

You were brought up Christian?
Or are just familiar with the story?

I'll understand perfectly if you don't answer.
Just curious, is all ...

Originally posted by red g jacks

in my view, "you never know" is never a very promising defense for any idea.

It's not so very promising in my view, either.

Which is why it's a good idea to investigate, whenever possible, and sometimes to whatever degree is possible.

Sometimes what we think of as the purely "scientific" way is not possible.
In fact, when investigating events that happened in the past, science is actually rarely as applicable as people seem to believe.

Then we often have to use some speculation and detective work.

That often takes the form of:

What would expect to find if "X" is true?
Conversely, what would you NOT expect to find if "X" is true?
What would you expect to find it "X" is, in fact false?
What if "X" is only partially true?

And so on.

Originally posted by Bentley
Theft is not the original sin, it's disobedience.
You cannot steal from God as everything is his property -or nothing is-.

Malachi 3:8-18

Authorized King James Version (KJV)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+3%3A8-18&version=KJV

Originally posted by Bentley
Theft is not the original sin, it's disobedience.

You might yet be right about this part; my answer above is only to disprove the notion God cannot be stolen from.
Whether stealing was, in fact, the specific sin of Adam and Eve is another matter.
I have heard the original sin being described specifically as "theft", though.

Originally posted by Bentley

The serpent is never, by any accounts that have authority in the religious canon, Lucifer. The serpent is just that a serpent, an ill-meaning animal, which by the way cannot talk in a proper sense: it's Eve and Adam who are capable of understanding animals back then.

You have a very interested audience if you can actually back up one or both of these claims.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
True. Still intriguing, though.

Just some thinking out loud right now, but:

a) Assuming their miniature garden environment perfectly balanced for two, the addition of children would stress resources to the point they might need to search elsewhere for food to sustain themselves.

b) Snake is a symbol of fertility and life renewal.

c) Snake is also a fairly well-known allusion to the "equipment" of some people.

d) Sex is often referred to as "forbidden fruit" in literature.

e) The Biblical term "knew" often means, demonstrably, "had sex with".

Eh, you're doing it the wrong way in the causality chain. Because the Bible has a "forbidden fruit", such phrase was coined for sex. Everything and their mother is a symbol of fertility, but since it has a forked tongue, the snake is often the symbol of lies. The biblical terms are roughly translated, that at least merits verification.

I know you were just venting some ideas, but I'm in a nitpicking mood this morning 😮

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Malachi 3:8-18

Authorized King James Version (KJV)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have [b]robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. [/B]

The sense is on the rethorical question. The dialogue starts rightfully mentioning the impossibility of robbing God. Then it even goes to say "wherein have we robbed thee?", this is similar to the accusation of people asking when they have failed to give Jesus shelter, or feed them etc.

They haven't robbed the forbidden fruit, or in any case, God is not claiming that they've stolen a property, I think its meant to imply they have stolen "something else". It is a matter of speaking if you ask me.

[i]Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I have heard the original sin being described specifically as "theft", though.

I'd like to know whoever wrote that, I mean people can refer it as a theft even if it's not one, but if you know a theological writing that actually argues about the nature of such sin as a theft it would be an interesting read.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You have a very interested audience if you can actually back up one or both of these claims.

I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot go and show you people not saying the serpent is Lucifer. But you can see that the snakes are forced to walk with their bellies as a punishment for tricking man into eating the fruit. It wouldn't make sense to punish the snake-kin if the sin was produced by an angel, unless Lucifer was a snake from the start. Which I think he isn't.

Before his fall, Adam named every animal that existed, this word wasn't "regular" speak, it was actually an act to complete the creation of God. Adam didn't just "talk" back then, his speech was actually beyond human speech. We also know that his perception shifted when he realized he was naked. This is rabinic tradition, I remember having read about it on a Walter Benjamin book.

Anyways, from here I just use deductive reasoning, because "magical snake" is a bit more of a stretch that the already mentioned paradigm shift. I'd argue that his "eyes opened" also implies "his ears closed", he was no longer able to listen properly to either God nor to animals. It's not much of an authority when it comes to sources, but I haven't seen it debunked by other texts.

Originally posted by Bentley

I'd like to know whoever wrote that, I mean people can refer it as a theft even if it's not one, but if you know a theological writing that actually argues about the nature of such sin as a theft it would be an interesting read.

Well, one group that believes it was theft are the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Note that they ALSO believe it was disobedience, however; to them taking the forbidden fruit was an offense on multiple levels:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tree of knowledge was a literal tree. However, it represented God’s right as Ruler to decide what is good and bad for his human creation. To eat from the tree, therefore, was not just an act of theft—taking that which belonged to God—but also a presumptuous grasp at moral independence, or self-determination. Note that after lyingly telling Eve that if she and her husband ate the fruit, they ‘positively would not die,’ Satan asserted: “For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”—Genesis 3:4, 5.

When they ate the fruit, however, Adam and Eve did not receive godlike enlightenment on good and bad. In fact, Eve said to God: “The serpent—it deceived me ...” (Genesis 3:13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006209

Originally posted by Bentley

I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot go and show you people not saying the serpent is Lucifer ...

Separate from the topic at hand, quite separate from you,
I balk when I hear this statement.

"Cannot prove a negative ..."

SO many times I hear people saying this.
So many times it's not true.

Where your set is limited, it usually IS possible to prove a negative.

For instance: "Show me that George Lucas did not mention Mark Twain anywhere in his Star Wars trilogy".
"But it's impossible to prove a negative!"

But of course, in a case like that, it ISN'T impossible to prove a negative.
Just watch the films from beginning to end and read the books from cover to cover.

No Mark Twain.

Mark Hamill?

Certainly.

But no Mark Twain.

Negative proved.

I digress.
It's an important point that needs to be brought forth in this forum, but I'll do so later, barring the unforseen.

I actually like your interpretation quite a bit. Like it even better than the fairly naturalistic proposal I gave in this thread earlier, that, even as there are gliding snakes and literal talking birds among the limited species of animals now; it might have been possible to have seen flying birds and talking snakes back in Adam's day.

Certainly animals today seem to be able to detect things we of our own senses cannot. Tsunamis and earthquakes are the first things to come to mind.

And certainly some of the higher animals like dolphins, elephants, and chimpanzees seem to be able to "read" us well enough to understand our instruction or, in some cases, aid us in crisis.

Intriguing to think that once we might have had the same prowess as they ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Cannot prove a negative ..."

SO many times I hear people saying this.
So many times it's not true.

Where your set is limited, it usually IS possible to prove a negative.

Well of course, when the whole bulk is not as big, you can go over all the works of George Lucas to look for Mark Twain references. But if you do that you're not providing evidence, you're doing fact checking on an entire corpus.

From the practical side of it, it's easier to ask for evidence from the person advancing the assertion: "show me where George Lucas mentioned Mark Twain". Much less work, much more of an honest mindset from both sides of the discussion.

If we take my proposal, I'd ask for a showing attacking my proposal, because otherwise I'd have to check all the biblical lore and theology books that exist, which is simply too much to ask. That from the practical side.

But it's actually impossible to provide evidence in such cases. Because showing an entire corpus is not evidence in the sense it's not implying anything. The phrase actually should be "you cannot prove a negative through particular evidence".

Originally posted by Bentley
Well of course, when the whole bulk is not as big, you can go over all the works of George Lucas to look for Mark Twain references. But if you do that you're not providing evidence, you're doing fact checking on an entire corpus.

From the practical side of it, it's easier to ask for evidence from the person advancing the assertion: "show me where George Lucas mentioned Mark Twain". Much less work, much more of an honest mindset from both sides of the discussion.

If we take my proposal, I'd ask for a showing attacking my proposal, because otherwise I'd have to check all the biblical lore and theology books that exist, which is simply too much to ask. That from the practical side.

But it's actually impossible to provide evidence in such cases. Because showing an entire corpus is not evidence in the sense it's not implying anything. The phrase actually should be "you cannot prove a negative through particular evidence".

😕

Okay, you lost me ... but this might be my chance to learn something.

Going to take at least 2 or 3 posts.

First, though, let me point out I've shown you writing from the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group that asserts the first sin was a theft.
It was also disobedience, but clearly, to them, theft. A two-in one, if you will.
Possibly a three-or-more-in-one, but certainly AT LEAST a 2-in-1.

Now.

You say in the case of the Star Wars Trilogy, I would not be providing evidence that Mark Twain is not mentioned by having you sit down and read all three books or watch all 3 movies?

I don't get this.

Maybe we need a simpler example.
Maybe we're having a simple language or semantics problem.

Just Google the word "evidence".
Here's what you get:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence

1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The important part of the definition is the "indication". You cannot say that the entire Starwars trilogy "indicates" a lack of Mark Twain. The indexation assumes that there is a shortcut being made to clarify the validity of the question. If I'm telling you "check everything", I'm litteraly doing the opposite of indexation: I'm throwing you at a bulk of information without even a blessing.

Regarding the theft, I'd argue that what they "stole" is not the fruit. For me that can be a valid reading of the passage, they stole something from God in a way afterall: themselves.

Given my previous post directly above ...

Question 1. If you had indeed gone through all three George Lucas Star Wars trilogy books and watched all 3 movies beginning to end, and found, as I asserted at the beginning, "Mark Twain is not mentioned anywhere in the trilogy",
would you not have proved a negative to yourself?

If you don't think so, WHY don't you think so?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's try to use a simpler example.
Let me first acknowledge, however, that you described this as a "corpus", which googling reveals is

"A large collection of writings of a specific kind or on a specific subject."

Key word is "large".

I understand that scale matters. I understand it is much harder to search through several hundred pages of material versus one page. Or part of a page.
(Actually, through the magic of the Internet and Google search engines this is becoming less and less true by the month, but you get the basic idea.
More material = harder search.)

Nevertheless, just make sure your concept is sound, or at least that I understand, let's try the following example of proving a negative.

I want you to prove for me that the word "quartz" does NOT appear in the phrase: "one two three four five".

In other words, I want you to prove a negative for me.

Can you do it?
Can you prove to me that the word "quartz" does NOT appear in the phrase: "one two three four five"?

What evidence would you use?
Would your method not be essentially the same, examining the contents of this mini-mini-"corpus", small as it is, and looking for a match with the word "quartz"?
Or perhaps even looking, though it wouldn't be necessary, at the type of words appearing in the quote string, noting that they are all numbers, but that quartz is a mineral, and would be rather out-of-place in that sequence of words"?

Correcting for scale, is this not analogous to the George Lucas "Mark Twain" example? If not, why not?

What would make it so?

Serious question.
Might clear up a lot of confusion.

Please answer as soon as you get the chance.

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by Bentley

Regarding the theft, I'd argue that what they "stole" is not the fruit. For me that can be a valid reading of the passage, they stole something from God in a way afterall: themselves.

Fair enough.

And, to support your point, I'll point out I've ALSO heard said that the first sin was actually a murder. But not by Adam and Eve.

It was SATAN sinning, by tricking that couple into eating the deadly fruit, thus effectively ending their lives, dooming also all their descendants to mortal, finite artificially-shortened lives.

A fairly read-able article on that topic can be found here:

http://www.1truth1law.com/Satan_Murder_Adam_Eve.html

Originally posted by Bentley
The important part of the definition is the "indication". You cannot say that the entire Starwars trilogy "indicates" a lack of Mark Twain. The indexation assumes that there is a shortcut being made to clarify the validity of the question. If I'm telling you "check everything", I'm literally doing the opposite of indexation: I'm throwing you at a bulk of information without even a blessing.

1. If you're trying to say "You're not really sharing information if you throw "War and Peace" at somebody", I'm inclined to agree.

2. I also agree with the basic point that, if people are intellectually honest, there should be some collusion and cooperation between them. The one who can research a vast amount of information quickly and easily should do what he can to foster discussion and provide material for his opponent, if he can.

3. I agree that some things take more time to research than is practical.

4. I agree that some things take more time to research than is warranted.

5. As far as "indication" goes, I want now to point out the entire reason I thought "Mark Twain" not appearing in Star Wars might be a good example of a negative that can be proved, is precisely because there is no indication ("nothing to suggest" is how I'm defining "indication"😉 that Mark Twain SHOULD be there.

He was an 18th or 19th century writer, correct?

What business would he have being in a fictional place that existed "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" from our own Milky Way galaxy and our own Earth, and separate from anything remotely recognizable as Mississippi River America in his era?

6. I do not understand what you mean by "indexation".
I put that into Google and only get economic terms as definitions.
I suspect it is a simple misspelling of "indication".
I suspect you unintentionally used the word because of our French/English language barrier.

But I can't be sure.

7. I disagree with the basic premise that negatives cannot be proved.
I think the following article might make the point better than I can.
It's one a lot of people seem to disagree with, so I might make a thread concerning it as some point in the near future:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Unfortunately, much though I would like to continue, it is 7 AM plus now, and long, long since past the time I should have been in bed.

I enjoyed our discussion while it lasted, though.

Take care.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
[B]Given my previous post directly above ...

Question 1. If you had indeed gone through all three George Lucas Star Wars trilogy books and watched all 3 movies beginning to end, and found, as I asserted at the beginning, "Mark Twain is not mentioned anywhere in the trilogy",
would you not have proved a negative to yourself?
[B]

You are only showing that out of the endless books that Mark Twain is not in, Star wars is one of them. That is not proving a negative.

Originally posted by Bentley
...
The serpent is never, by any accounts that have authority in the religious canon, Lucifer. The serpent is just that a serpent, an ill-meaning animal, which by the way cannot talk in a proper sense: it's Eve and Adam who are capable of understanding animals back then.

So, human used to be able to understand animals? That's not bad, I think people of the past may have been more in tune with nature, but it isn't the simplest answer. It is simpler to say that the story is a metaphor. Now you can take meaning from the story without having to explain all of its fantastic elements.