1
   

Why we are not perfect

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 05:22 am
The Queen of Heaven is perfect em.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 09:38 am
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . Just don't read it. Nothing to it. You asked me for proof; I gave you proof. . .
I'm leaving you this gold coin, Jason. It's buried in this 300 pound block of cement. Have fun digging it out.

You think that by referring me to a source you have provided proof? Why not just tell me to read the encyclopedia?

So what if the Gilgamesh story contains elements from the Noachian story? Where do you think the Akkadians got their information?

Do you think perhaps the priests of Ishtar might have had an interest in obfuscating the truth?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 09:49 am
JLNobody wrote:
MJB919, who told you you were not perfect. I have no doubt that you are perfectly what you are.
extra medium wrote:
What is perfect?

Please define.

Is anything perfect?
For everyday purposes, perfection is a relative term.

Your newly tailored suit might have one sleeve imperceptibly shorter than the other.
Do you care?
No?
Then the suit is perfect.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 11:05 am
Jason, I'm just putting what first popped into my head as I was reading this. Some of it might leave you thinking... "whoa, where did she get that from..." Anyway... I'm just going to throw a few of them out there and then give you my thoughts on this myth...

Quote:
Enkidu ate grass in the hills with the gazelle and lurked inth the wild beasts at the water holes...


Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's interpretation... (Daniel 4)

Quote:
Extol the strength of thos wild man. Ask him to give you a harlot, a wanton form the the temple of love; return with her and let her woman's power overpower this man. When next he comes down to drink at the wells she will be there, stripped naked; and when he sees her beckoning he will embrace her, and then the wild beasts will reject him...

Then, when the gazelle saw him, they bolted away, when the wild creatures saw him they fled. Enkidu would have followed, but his body was bound as though with a cord, his knee's gave way when he started to run, his swiftness was gone...


The story of Samson whom the Philistines could not defeat until they found his weakness through conning Delilah into finding the secret of his strength and giving it to them so they could overpower him. (Judges 16)

Quote:
She divided her clothing in two and with the one half she clothed him and with the other herself, and holding his hand she led him like a child to the sheepfolds, into the shepherds' tents...


Song of Solomon

Ok enough said for now about the the epic of Gilgamesh. Here is what I propose: Because of my stance on the bible I believe that this is a spin off of it in one of two ways... or maybe a little of both... who knows...

Either:

A. This further proves the stories in the bible in that if this is a real account of something the one's who were making the account were present at the time the biblical things were happening and made their own version of it.

B. This further proves the stories in the bible in that this account was made after the things in the bible had been documented, someone got a hold of it, and made up another myth.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 11:42 am
Yeah, what you said, heph. Except none of the writers were present at the time of the flood.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 11:43 am
Good point neo. Thanks. LOL
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 01:20 pm
I will have to teach you one more time about reading comprehension, real lunatic.
The quote below is my explanation referring to how humans (so far) have used different evidence, from different sources to find out the truth about certain propositions (problem). This explanation was intended to Hephzibah, since she used her own example to establish her own opinion.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:


Can you read the quote below? Is it too complicated to understand?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
"…The more evidence you have, the more accurate is the result"


This is Hephzibah's questions about the origin of the tablets.
hephzibah wrote:

These tablets you talk about on page 20, where did they come from? Who found them? How were they dated? (Meaning how do we know how old they are) Do you believe this myth?


After I posted the internet address in order for her to find out some of these questions, I provided the following answer:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The same way they measure the age of any other document or piece of material…through Carbon 14 Dating, which is used to determine age of "ancient, organic, geologic, or archaeological specimens."...


And this is your question relating to the obvious.

real life wrote:
Carbon 14 dating is used to date objects of biological origin. Were the tablets living at some point in time, Jason?


You obviously neglected to read and/or understand the posts from where I took those quotes [above]. Do you see, anywhere, where I explain how carbon 14 plays a role in determining the age of the stones? No? Did I mention how the carbon 14 method has to be applied to the stones directly to find out how old the stone tablets are? Is so, tell me where I said it.

"Madness is the mother of the invention of crazy houses."
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 03:20 pm
real life wrote:
You may have skimmed the Bible, but you probably haven't read but a few portions of it thoroughly; and you certainly don't know it well.


Professor: "Here he assumes that because such person doesn't post what he wants to read, right off the bat he assumes that he isn't familiar with the information that relates to the subject being discussed."

real life wrote:
Well, a thorough familiarity with all of the Bible, instead of snippets selected by your lit teacher might cure you of many of your more prominent errors. .


Professor: "Right here he's giving out information that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, therefore, producing a term that you children may not know, but we grown-ups call it "straw man."

Professor: "Why would he include such unnecessary information in this argument? What is the service of such ridiculous information that would render him victorious over the argument? He's probably trying very hard to prove a point that he doesn't even know about."

real life wrote:
The Bible is a complex document -- 66 separate books, penned by about 40 different authors on three continents over the course of 1500 years during the rise and fall of at least 5 major empires that have a direct bearing on the events, written in 2 main languages with scattered texts in others.


Professor: "In this particular paragraph, he's motivated by the previous paragraph, in which he provided some unnecessary information to prove a meaningless point. By doing this, he's mustering every ounce of intellectual bravado, thanks to some information that he might've gotten from some internet website… or a wino. And he doesn't even consider if he's making any sense, or rather yet, if the information he relies on would suit his purpose."

real life wrote:
A prudent person would have to admit that a casual reading will not fully acquaint you with the outline, much less give you in depth comprehension of the themes, styles, events and major and minor characters presented therein.


Professor: "And this also provides us with nothing more than "The Great Flood" of nonsense. Since the previous paragraph described how he knows a little bit of the history about how his book was put together and more nonsense, he feels strong, vigorous with intense knowledge of simple baloney. But the most important thing that this clueless individual should've considered (before being the mockery of the town) was to make sure if the person he refers to in the paragraph, read (knew) the information that is being discussed."

real life wrote:
After you have carefully read the entirety a number of times, you will begin to get a handle on it. Taking notes and reading supplemental commentaries and reference materials related to it will also prove useful in understanding the political climates of the various times, the geography, customs and traditions that were well known to the writers; and which they sometimes don't explain because they took for granted that their readers would be familiar with.


Professor: "And finally, he affirms that an invisible entity (all wise, all powerful, all love, all just) exists, without presenting any rational evidence."

real life wrote:
Tell the truth now, in front of God and everyone -- have you even read it through once?


Professor: This is why we must know exactly what we're talking about before writing anything to anyone-- Because we don't know who might read what we write in the near fut--

Before the professor concluded his final thoughts, one of the students, little Johnny, raised his hand.

Professor: "Yes, Johnny?"

Little Johnny: So, we need to give examples and explain them in a way that we can understand…

Little Johnny stops talking, scratches his head, shifts his eyes to the ceiling and back to the professor, and continues.

Little Johnny: "…in a way that we can understand logically?"

Professor: "yes, that's right."

Right at that moment, another boy, little Tommy, raises his hand to call the professor's attention.

Professor: "Yes, Tommy?"

He points his index finger, tacitly, at the seat behind him.

Tommy: "It's Real Life. He was sleeping while you were teaching."

Professor: "Real Life? Is it true?"

Real life doesn't say a word, rubs his eyes in shame, and begins to utter distinctive sounds caused by such shameful moment.

Professor: "This is not the first time you do this, real. I warned you before. I will have to talk to your parents about your uncontrollable behavior…"

The professor stops, stares at him, and continues.

"…and please, tell them to change your name."

Professor: "class dismissed."

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
real life wrote:
(BTW He ain't moldy, he's my brother.)


I suspected that you two were related. What could've made me think of that…?


real life wrote:
I suspect that you are too young to know what this means. Laughing


Ooookkk…good luck with all that insanity of yours. I'm gonna go now…buh bye. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 04:33 pm
I suppose this is why we are not perfect.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 04:51 pm
neologist wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . Just don't read it. Nothing to it. You asked me for proof; I gave you proof. . .
I'm leaving you this gold coin, Jason. It's buried in this 300 pound block of cement. Have fun digging it out.


And the winner of stupidity and all nonsense is…real life. Oh, just wait, wait…it appears that we have another contender.

neologist wrote:
You think that by referring me to a source you have provided proof?


In your own demented, psychologically twisted mind, neologist, what do you think my point is? I already established my point. Do you know what it is?

What is the definition of "proof," Moe? (don't worry, I expect more nonsense from you).

neologist wrote:
Why not just tell me to read the encyclopedia?


Because you will get frustrated and probably (most likely) get a headache, just like when you started reading The Epic. But don't panic. Such thing happens if your brain hasn't been exposed to literature that is no longer praised by mindless zealots.

neologist wrote:
So what if the Gilgamesh story contains elements from the Noachian story? Where do you think the Akkadians got their information?


What is your point here?

neologist wrote:
Do you think perhaps the priests of Ishtar might have had an interest in obfuscating the truth?


I don't think like that, neologist, because I'm not superstitious…like you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 04:59 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:


Uh, Mr English Professor, perhaps you should look first to your own manner of speaking......

Quote:
Good morning kids?


This is probably not a question.

Quote:
The young students begin to cheer and applause


I think you mean applaud.

Quote:
While the professor waves his hand up and down vertically


This is redundant.

Quote:
signaling the children to end their uncontrollable excitement


If it's uncontrollable, how are they going to end it?

Quote:
stare in fascination at the professor's hand writing


'Handwriting' is generally one word, not two.

And I could go on.......

Altogether pretty funny for a lesson entitled "How to Express Oneself Coherently in English". Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 05:18 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
. . . In your own demented, psychologically twisted mind, neologist, what do you think my point is? I already established my point. Do you know what it is?
Perhaps you should restate it.

I thought you were saying the bible could not be authentic because the flood story has appeared in so many other ancient texts.

All I was saying was the near universality of flood legends is more a verification of the Genesis account.

But then you serve such a bountiful word salad, it is hard to weed out your real thoughts.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 05:18 pm
Perfect examples of imperfection.

lol
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 06:05 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Ok enough said for now about the epic of Gilgamesh. Here is what I propose:


Propose.

hephzibah wrote:
Because of my stance on the bible I believe that this is a spin off of it in one of two ways... or maybe a little of both... who knows... .
Either:


I was expecting some sense of reason. I was wrong.

hephzibah wrote:
A. This further proves the stories in the bible in that if this is a real account of something the one's who were making the account were present at the time the biblical things were happening and made their own version of it.


Or that the Great Flood was just written by King Gilgamesh with a taste of mythology, which was intended to make him very famous.

Are you for real, Hephzibah?
Are you so deluded by your own beliefs that you can't possibly consider other possibilities? How is this reasoning? How could the Biblical accounts be true, if the authors took bits and piece from different stories, jazzed them up and gave them their own spin to scare people shitless for their own devious, manipulative purposes? How can it be possible? And what do you make of the other stories, the ones that came from ancient Egypt? Are you going to tell me that the papyruses and encryptions found within the confines of the pyramids in Giza are younger than the Bible? How can it be? What about the entire civilization of ancient Greek and Rome? How can you neglect to even consider other possibilities than the piece of crapola you just posted here, Hephzibah?
So, the Bible is absolute truth because…it says it? what kind of reasoning is this? Why not believe Homer, Gilgamesh, and the other authors who have contributed to the corruption of the minds of ancient, uneducated, poor people?

hephzibah wrote:
B. This further proves the stories in the bible in that this account was made after the things in the bible had been documented, someone got a hold of it, and made up another myth.


Hephzibah, do you think that the Bible was the very first book written by the hands of humanity? When was the Bible written? Didn't you know that the stories of Homer and Gilgamesh were known better back then than we now know of the Bible? Didn't you know that Aristotle used to talk about Homer's mythological account? And when do you think Aristotle was born? And didn't you know that The Epic was the first literature, the one that started the whole crap? Didn't you know that before The Epic, people only used to chant and praise and all that nonsense and nothing else, no literature? Didn't you know that the first civilization that came up with literature and drama (the drama that gave birth to theatrical entertainments that you see in theaters and through your T.V set) was ancient Greek? Didn't you know that linguistics is also the tool to figure out the age of any document, alone with carbon 14 and comparison of data, so they can "connect the dots" through the web of evidence (in short, a "CSI" is performed on history)? Can you think about the evidence that backs up your belief in the Bible over anything else presented to you? If you say that there is none and that you just belief in them because you feel that it is right, why would you waste your time in all this?
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 06:19 pm
real life wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:


Uh, Mr English Professor, perhaps you should look first to your own manner of speaking......

Quote:
Good morning kids?


This is probably not a question.

Quote:
The young students begin to cheer and applause


I think you mean applaud.

Quote:
While the professor waves his hand up and down vertically


This is redundant.

Quote:
signaling the children to end their uncontrollable excitement


If it's uncontrollable, how are they going to end it?

Quote:
stare in fascination at the professor's hand writing


'Handwriting' is generally one word, not two.

And I could go on.......

Altogether pretty funny for a lesson entitled "How to Express Oneself Coherently in English". Laughing Laughing


You are learning to point out inconsistencies in the English language, Curly. But the thing is...that you can't connect it to the actual discussion.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 06:21 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Perfect examples of imperfection.

lol


Imperfection RULES!!!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 08:21 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Perfect examples of imperfection.

lol


Imperfection RULES!!!
Quite right, Jason.

The imperfection in your argument is that you fail to see where the Genesis account is subsantively different from the Gilgamesh epic and other ancient flood stories.

There are many differences, to be sure, but two of the most important are the reliance of the non biblical accounts on magic and polytheism. This might not be so important were it not for the fact that the Hebrews were unique among the ancients in their abhorrence of such practices.


This is where your point of view colors your conclusion and my point of view colors mine. However, I am able to mount a considerable argument in favor of the monotheistic and non magical.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 09:36 pm
neologist wrote:
[The imperfection in your argument is that you fail to see where the Genesis account is subsantively different from the Gilgamesh epic and other ancient flood stories.


How do you know this? Did you even bother to read it, Moe, before arriving to this "substantively" conclusion that amounts to rubbish?

neologist wrote:
[There are many differences, to be sure, but two of the most important are the reliance of the non biblical accounts on magic and polytheism.


So what? What is your point? Why explain the obvious?
This is not just a straw man, is a harlequin in steroids.

neologist wrote:
[This might not be so important were it not for the fact that the Hebrews were unique among the ancients in their abhorrence of such practices.


What the hell did you just say? Weak up!! Every culture in the world is unique. What in Jove's name is your point?

neologist wrote:
[This is where your point of view colors your conclusion and my point of view colors mine.


Where?

neologist wrote:
[ However, I am able to mount a considerable argument in favor of the monotheistic and non magical.


So, the accounts of the Bible don't include magic?

(1) You have neglected to read the story that I suggested because of religious excuses and some lack of reading comprehension skills.
(2) You constantly keep referring to "fail to see, fail to make, fail to prove" crap, like I'm trying to convince anybody about anything.
(3) And you keep providing (just like your partner Curly) incoherent explanations that do not establish anything rational.

So, are you still clueless about the point that I'm trying to make here?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 10:26 pm
Well Jason,

Quote:
I was expecting some sense of reason. I was wrong.


Ouch. Shocked

Quote:
Are you for real, Hephzibah?
Are you so deluded by your own beliefs that you can't possibly consider other possibilities? How is this reasoning?


Now take it easy there killer... I didn't attack you personally by what I said, nor did I even attack your theory. I simply proposed my thoughts about this from what I've read so far.

Quote:
How could the Biblical accounts be true, if the authors took bits and piece from different stories, jazzed them up and gave them their own spin to scare people shitless for their own devious, manipulative purposes? How can it be possible?


I never said anyone took bits and pieces of other stories to make up the bible. Did you? Unless I am misunderstanding you here. Rather I implied that I feel there is a possibility that the author of the myth I am currently reading may have taken bits from the bible to spin his own little tale. *shrugs* Nor did I ever imply anything even remotely close to the latter part of your statement here. (I think this is the part where I start gagging on the words being put in my mouth...LOL)

Quote:
And what do you make of the other stories, the ones that came from ancient Egypt? Are you going to tell me that the papyruses and encryptions found within the confines of the pyramids in Giza are younger than the Bible? How can it be? What about the entire civilization of ancient Greek and Rome? How can you neglect to even consider other possibilities than the piece of crapola you just posted here, Hephzibah?


I can't make anything of the other stories Jason. I haven't read them yet. I don't know what I will tell you about those if you choose to continue this conversation. Jason I stand very firm in what I believe, and I have my reasons for that, unfortunately my reasons aren't considered proof. So, I don't generally throw them out to the wolves. I certainly don't mind looking at other things though. I want to see what else is out there. That is my motive here. I'm not trying to change you, or put down what you believe. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. That's all.

Quote:
So, the Bible is absolute truth because…it says it? what kind of reasoning is this? Why not believe Homer, Gilgamesh, and the other authors who have contributed to the corruption of the minds of ancient, uneducated, poor people?


Gagging again... sorry...

Once again I have my reasons for believing what I believe yet they cannot be offered in as "proof" of any sort for anyone but myself. I never said I wasn't willing to look at these things. Though if you would like we can just end this here. I'll put the ball in your court.

Quote:
Hephzibah, do you think that the Bible was the very first book written by the hands of humanity? When was the Bible written?


LOL no Jason I don't.

Quote:
Didn't you know that the stories of Homer and Gilgamesh were known better back then than we now know of the Bible?


Nope.

Quote:
Didn't you know that Aristotle used to talk about Homer's mythological account?


Nope.

Quote:
And when do you think Aristotle was born?


Not a clue.

Quote:
And didn't you know that The Epic was the first literature, the one that started the whole crap?


Nope.

Quote:
Didn't you know that before The Epic, people only used to chant and praise and all that nonsense and nothing else, no literature?


Nope.

Quote:
Didn't you know that the first civilization that came up with literature and drama (the drama that gave birth to theatrical entertainments that you see in theaters and through your T.V set) was ancient Greek?


Nope.

Quote:
Didn't you know that linguistics is also the tool to figure out the age of any document, alone with carbon 14 and comparison of data, so they can "connect the dots" through the web of evidence (in short, a "CSI" is performed on history)?


Nope.

Quote:
Can you think about the evidence that backs up your belief in the Bible over anything else presented to you?


I look at the things that are presented and I make a judgement based on my perspective. Just like we all do Jason.

Quote:
If you say that there is none and that you just belief in them because you feel that it is right, why would you waste your time in all this?


I'm not wasting time Jason. I'm learning. I have never hidden the fact that I haven't studied much beyond the bible. That has been my choice and it is not one I regret. However, I am willing to look at other things. I am interested in why people believe what they believe. Sue me if that is wrong. Once again, I'll put the ball in your court. If you would like to discontinue this discussion, no harm no foul. Smile
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2006 10:48 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Are you going to tell me that the papyruses and encryptions found within the confines of the pyramids in Giza are younger than the Bible?


Is your point that older is automatically more accurate?

Do you think because you hold a clay tablet in one hand that is 'older' than a papyrus in your other hand that the papyrus cannot be accurate?

Even considering two documents written on exactly the same material, but centuries apart -- there is no axiomatic truth in saying that the more recent document cannot be accurate , or even that it must be a spinoff of an earlier document on (seemingly) the same subject.

To suppose, in the absence of solid proof, that it must be is simply a warrantless assumption -- basic wishful thinking.

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

Particularly among ancient books, the longevity of a particular copy would depend on how often it was used, how often it was read and thus how soon it began to fall apart and need to be copied and replaced.

(This is particularly evident in many of the ancient manuscripts of the Bible, where the oldest known copies are among the most inaccurate. These copies were often set aside and not used and thus their lifespan was greatly extended. Codices such as Codex Aleph and Codex B are very ancient, and obviously corrupted, copies. )

Also, obviously the material used to make an ancient document could greatly affect its lifespan. A clay tablet will obviously last much longer than a papyrus or a vellum copy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 04:04:03