The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

[San Holo]

Are any of you familiar with this ancient text?I've read the Gnostic Gospels and the "lost" Books of the New Testament, but have never heard of the book of Judas. Apparentley, it covers the last days of Jesus' life and depicts Judas as a hero, instead of the betrayer. There is a new book out about the subject, and the National Geographic Channel is airing a special on The Gospel of Judas this Sunday.

[westford]

I was reading about that yesterday on this site (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/07/MNGH6I59QF1.DTL).

[Shemp]

Could be an interesting idea for Indy 4.

[Johan]

Could be an interesting idea for Indy 4.

Absolutly not.

[Finn]

Could be an interesting idea for Indy 4. Comes a little too late for that, I reckon.

[HovitosKing]

Quite an interesting story behind it. It's been all over the news for the last few days. There's a special on National Geographic tomorrow night I believe. Personally, I find it a fascinating thesis and am interested in knowing more about what it says. I also find it fascinating how many people have already discredited it because it goes against what they believe to be true. ;)

[San Holo]

Did anyone watch the show on National Geographic? What did you think?

[phatr32]

peeps, check out http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

you guys gotta start reading national geographic more often. Even become memebrs, its quite a good read. Im looking forward to the May issue where they will print a more indepth story about the gospel.

steve

[HovitosKing]

I watched it last night and I also taped it. Watched it again today. Personally, I thought it was a wonderful documentary. Here's a review I submitted to antoher website:

This documentary follows the spotty trail of events stemming from the recent re-discovery of this Gnostic gospel in 1978 through the extensive, painstaking five-year restoration ending in 2006. It provides an excellent and necessary treatment of the other Gnostic gospels (of which there were several dozen) and the church's barbaric assault on the Gnostics in an attempt to consolidate ideas and build a following throughout the ages.

The documentary follows a team of Coptic experts as they verify the authenticity of the text, and also takes the time to explain how carbon dating has slammed the door on any notions of forgery. Like the other gospels, this version was translated from Greek to Coptic by early Christians between the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

Some of the main points from the text are presented, and Judas is presented as an agent and favorite of Jesus rather than a traitor. It compares the treatment of Judas in the canonical gospels, which is a very interesting segment as well, and discusses the anti-Semitic evolution of the New Testament. This is truly one of the most fascinating discoveries of the last two thousand years, and I believe that this documentary does it justice. Absolutely a must see for both scholars and those who profess Christianity as their religion.

Hope this helps!

[San Holo]

I did. It was fascinating actually. It really becomes apparent to us how much power the church has had through out history. Too much. To declare that a document if heiresy is wrong for them to ever do but yet, they have done it many, many times. There is so much out there that people have not been made aware of because the Catholic church wants you to believe a certain point of view...theirs. I want to know more about this and other ancient documents that have been kept a secret..
Check out the Gospel of Thomas. It is probably my favorite of the "lost" books.

[Magda]

Gospel of Judas (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=1426200420&itm=2)

It's just been released, and most requested by people who are fascinated by the subject. I thought some of you might be just as interested.

[phatr32]

check the ng website, they sell 2 differant books there!

[indyt]

As you all know the gospel of judas is one of the gnostic gospels or "lost books" , deuterocananical books, of the Bible. The church fathers were not led by the Holy Spirit to put these books in the canon even though alot of these are in the Catholic version of the Bible. In short they do not belong in our Bible because they are not inspired by God to be in there.

Not trying to start a debate here, just putting in my information and enjoying the thread.:)

[ClintonHammond]

"they do not belong in our Bible because they are not inspired by God to be in there"

The KING creates religion. (This is fact for any and all religions.) "God" has nothing to do with it.... Religion has always been and will always be nothing more than a political tool, to control people, what they do and how they think.

Who do you let control your life?

[roundshort]

"they do not belong in our Bible because they are not inspired by God to be in there"

The KING creates religion. (This is fact for any and all religions.) "God" has nothing to do with it.... Religion has always been and will always be nothing more than a political tool, to control people, what they do and how they think.

Who do you let control your life?

you mean it has been Elvis all this time! Dang, I might have to get into religion if the KING is involved,

Thank you, thank you very much!

[Paden]

I'm curious if any theories regarding who authored the text have been forwarded. I read over some of the material on the National Geographic website, but didn't come across anything that addressed that question. Has anyone here read anything about the proposed authorship of the book?

[ClintonHammond]

"you mean it has been Elvis all this time"

Yes... Elvis... poor sad fat dead white guy who sucked all the life out of some very good black music so that it could be sold to other fat ugly white people in a form that didn't make them feel uncomfortable....

Used him up and spit him out.... they even burried him in the back-yard like he was the family dog....

Well, they did call him "King" didn't they.....

Poor guy.....

[roundshort]

"you mean it has been Elvis all this time"

Yes... Elvis... poor sad fat dead white guy who sucked all the life out of some very good black music so that it could be sold to other fat ugly white people in a form that didn't make them feel uncomfortable....

Used him up and spit him out.... they even burried him in the back-yard like he was the family dog....

Well, they did call him "King" didn't they.....

Poor guy.....

ahhhh . . . .but what great music some fo it was, and this is coming from a Chuck Berry guy! But, I am not an Elvis man, always more of a Carl Perkins and Johnny Cash guy, (I liked Lewis also, but i suppose you will say they are just other white guys with no soul 'ha")

[indyt]

"they do not belong in our Bible because they are not inspired by God to be in there"

The KING creates religion. (This is fact for any and all religions.) "God" has nothing to do with it.... Religion has always been and will always be nothing more than a political tool, to control people, what they do and how they think.

Who do you let control your life?

I dont follow a religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and yes, He is over my life.

Always nice to hear from you CH!

[ClintonHammond]

If Buddy Holly hadn'ta been killed, no one would have ever heard of Elvis

"I dont follow a religion"
Ya... whatever... changing the 'name' doesn't change the condition......

[roundshort]

I dont follow a religion. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and yes, He is over my life.

Always nice to hear from you CH!

I love people who complain about how religion is this and that, but usually they are the least open minded, "I am always right" people in the world. I have always felt that anyone who is or isn't religous is great, and I hope people find comfort in what they do or don't believe in, just don't talk about to others.

[roundshort]

I do have to say, if you are a religous guy or not, read Lamb by Christopher Moore, it rocks!

[ClintonHammond]

"just don't talk about to others"

Read this, especially the last line

George Carlin on The 10 Commandments (http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html)

:-)

[qwerty]

There is only one god, and his name is Jimi Hendrix

[Johan]

THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's. It was written long after the other gospels and it does not have the prerequisites that the other gospels have. The true gospel offends everything that is human nature. The secular world will find anything to disproove the Bible. Jesus is the most offensive man to the world. No other man stirs up this much controversy, why? Because The message of Christ can be offensive to our human nature...and the implications of Christ being the living God is just too much for people to take.

[qwerty]

As far as I am conserned whole bible was writen long after it was supposed to be in order to be taken word for word

[Joe Brody]

Maybe I'm missing it, but wasn't this whole Judas-is-the-best-bud thing played out in Last Temptation of Christ?

[ClintonHammond]

"THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's"
Well, no more or less than any other..... Fiction is after all, fiction....

"since it was condemned as heresy by early Church leaders"
In other words, it said things that the fat men who were in power didn't like, and so -they- called it 'heresy' and left it out of the 'Holy' book.... No "God".... no epiphany.... nothing supernatural..... Just one small group of people ensuring they can continue to stick it to a much larger group of people who are blinkered enough to follow them....

Exactly the same as we've been doing to each other since we came down out of the trees....

[qwerty]

Exactly the same as we've been doing to each other since we came down out of the trees....

Hey, don't be rude. We were doing that even before we came down from trees.
Just back than it was a big show wich other animals enjoyed watching.

[roundshort]

Why does it matter?

[roundshort]

"just don't talk about to others"

Read this, especially the last line

George Carlin on The 10 Commandments (http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html)

:-)


I love Carlin! His newest (er?) book when will Jesus bringthe Pork Chops, is great, esp. the part where he writes that when he learns of a psycho killer, he is rooting for them! He is truley one of the greats!

[Johan]

Actually it was written around 150 years after the TRUE gospels...likely by some gnostics that have the greek view of the inablity to seperate spirtuality with the Physical realm. Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book. The other TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess in order to make the cannon of what we call scriptures today as well as being consistant with Jesus' message.
Anyway, I can't change the way you view it all...you have to have an encounter with Christ before I could do that.

You are starting to sound like those people that said "The holocost never happened"

[ClintonHammond]

Nice... So, people who disagree with you are Nazis?!?!?! Ignorant moron! And you wonder why no one gives anything you say any respect?!?!

"TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess"
Not a SINGLE gospel was written before AD70, and so not a SINGLE gospel is 'eye witness'..... Just ONE source for now...
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html



"Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book"
What 'studies'?!?!?




"We were doing that even before we came down from trees"
True, but don't tell them that... they think we rose up, fully formed out of dust....

"When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops"
Listening to the audio book right now as a matter of fact...

[roundshort]

Thats awesome, does he read it ont he tape? let me know what you think of it!

[Paden]

"Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book"
What 'studies'?!?!?
My best understanding is that there is no scholarly agreement on the authorship of the text. As I mentioned in my prior post, I've yet to come across any theory about a specific author of the book. The National Geographic website stated that radiocarbon dating indicated that the pages and binding of the book dated from between 220 and 340 A.D. The earliest historical mention of the book that I've read about thus far was in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies". Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, stated that the book was associated with the Cainites, a gnostic sect. Irenaeus' book was published in 180 A.D., so the text had to have existed in some form prior to that time.

[San Holo]

"you mean it has been Elvis all this time"

Yes... Elvis... poor sad fat dead white guy who sucked all the life out of some very good black music so that it could be sold to other fat ugly white people in a form that didn't make them feel uncomfortable....

Used him up and spit him out.... they even burried him in the back-yard like he was the family dog....

Well, they did call him "King" didn't they.....

Poor guy.....
Speaking of fat,ugly, white people....How's your mom doing?

[HovitosKing]

THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's. It was written long after the other gospels and it does not have the prerequisites that the other gospels have.

Actually it was written around 150 years after the TRUE gospels...likely by some gnostics that have the greek view of the inablity to seperate spirtuality with the Physical realm. Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book. The other TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess in order to make the cannon of what we call scriptures today as well as being consistant with Jesus' message.
Anyway, I can't change the way you view it all...you have to have an encounter with Christ before I could do that.

As a matter of setting the record straight, the Gospel of Judas was condemned as heresy in 180 A.D., which means that it was written well before that date; the first of the canonical gospels (Mark) only arrived on the scene around 60 A.D. I don't care if you believe the Judas gospel, find it interesting, consider it heresy, or refuse to acknowledge its existence at all. Just don't presume to "know" that the canonical gospels are true and the others are false because of the date they were "allegedly" written (none of which can be dated with certainty) or because of their "alleged" authors (all of which were written anonymously and held sacred by one early Christian sect or another). You sound painfully ignorant when you don't know anything about the history of your own religion, which explains why you're so easily threatened by new truths coming to light.

[Johan]

Nice... So, people who disagree with you are Nazis?!?!?! Ignorant moron! And you wonder why no one gives anything you say any respect?!?!

"TRUE gospels had to have eye witnessess"
Not a SINGLE gospel was written before AD70, and so not a SINGLE gospel is 'eye witness'..... Just ONE source for now...
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html



"Studies show that Judas had nothing to do with the book"
What 'studies'?!?!?

..

I'm sorry that's how you interpreted what I said. I was referring to the recent groups that denied the existance of the holocost; meaning I was referring to the ignorance of the history of the gospel...in fact nothing to do with nazis.
And by studies, I mean the various radio programs I've heard and news articles talking about the insignifigance of the lies in the "gospel of Judas"
And I did not say they were written by eyewitnesses, I said they had to HAVE eye witnessess. They were written from eye wittness accounts. I DID go to Bible school. And the fact that there are 4 different gospel accounts that have a few perspectives shows the accuracy of the gospel. It is like people doing 4 different documentries on events...they have different recoleections of lets say "what color shirt he was wearing" or "he drank and than ate rather than ate and than drank"...the main principles and nature of the events are consistent.
I find it interesting how much out of your way you are going to make it known how much against Christianity you are. Even to seek out information on how "wrong" all these crazy religous fanatics are. You can find information on both sides to proove any point and it alway's ends up prooving nothing because you haven't experienced it.
Something must be offending you, and it alway's will.

[HovitosKing]

And the fact that there are 4 different gospel accounts that have a few perspectives shows the accuracy of the gospel. It is like people doing 4 different documentries on events...they have different recoleections of lets say "what color shirt he was wearing" or "he drank and than ate rather than ate and than drank"...the main principles and nature of the events are consistent. I find it interesting how much out of your way you are going to make it known how much against Christianity you are.

On the first point quoted above, I would remind you that there were at least 30 different gospels in existence during the 2nd Century, each telling generally the same story yet differing in many regards. Of the four selected by the proto-orthodox christians for inclusion in the canon, many blatant contradictions yet exist. One example is the suicide of Judas, which is presented as a hanging at one point and jumping off a cliff in another. This isn't surprising since all of the gospels, canonical or not, were written decades after the fact by many anonymous "followers of Christ."

On the second point, I must admit that I certainly do allow my hatred of christianity to influence my thinking at times. I cannot respect or adhere to a religion which teaches love and acceptance yet has a history filled with nothing but murder, rape and carnage. The christian church has murdered countless innocents through the ages who refused to accept its doctrine, the gnostics and cathars being only a couple of examples. Do a little research into the Crusades for more interesting lessons in christian doctrine. Invaluable texts and artwork have been lost forever to the church's maniacal bloodlust and greed. Christianity is saturated in the blood of millions, and I will never give it more than a fleeting glance. It's a religion steeped in hate and destruction which promotes ignorance and intolerance. If you argue these facts, you merely illustrate my point. It's time to wake up.

[Paden]

Reading over the last few posts, I was reminded of a recent news story on this topic which rightly stated that, from a certain point of view, this text was "old news", in that it had been a point of discussion and controversy centuries ago.

HovitosKing's most recent post also made me think of this thread (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=8951), in which the impact, both positive and negative, of various religions on the world was discussed.

[ClintonHammond]

"does he read it on the tape?"
Yup... but it's not tape... eMule.... :-)

"How's your mom doing?"
You'd know... you pay her so you can eat the corn out of her dung....

"They were written from eye wittness(sic.) accounts."
Any cop, lawyer or judge worth his salt will tell you that eye-witness testimony is the LEAST reliable piece of evidence one can ever propose....

" Something must be offending you"
Stupid ignorant superstition, and blind faith offend me....

"the four selected by the proto-orthodox christians"
Exactly the small group of people I was talking about earlier...

[StwongBwidge]

Indyjohan, read a book called The Jesus Mystery.

you claim a knowledge of your religion and its history yet have only exposed yourself to one version of the story - the church's. I find it astonishing people can let something govern their lives to such an extent without having explored it from every conceivable angle at some point? Of course, therein lies the problem, the catch-22, as no religion stands up to scrutiny therefore anybody who adheres to a religion cannot have scrutinised its claims!? Please believe ue, religions ARE crudely and simply tools to govern groups of people to the benefit of an elite.

[indyt]

THe gospel of Judas has no credibility for what it say's. It was written long after the other gospels and it does not have the prerequisites that the other gospels have. The true gospel offends everything that is human nature. The secular world will find anything to disproove the Bible. Jesus is the most offensive man to the world. No other man stirs up this much controversy, why? Because The message of Christ can be offensive to our human nature...and the implications of Christ being the living God is just too much for people to take.

Cound not have said it better myself. Thanks.

[Johan]

Indyjohan, read a book called The Jesus Mystery.

you claim a knowledge of your religion and its history yet have only exposed yourself to one version of the story - the church's. I find it astonishing people can let something govern their lives to such an extent without having explored it from every conceivable angle at some point? Of course, therein lies the problem, the catch-22, as no religion stands up to scrutiny therefore anybody who adheres to a religion cannot have scrutinised its claims!? Please believe ue, religions ARE crudely and simply tools to govern groups of people to the benefit of an elite.

You see that's the difference. You people are seeing religion as old scripts and manuscripts, rules and regulations. You don't see the BIGGER picture. Which is the relationship and power that comes out of it. Seeing blind men see and the lame walk (both of which I witnessed). Seeing angels and the battles of the heavenly realm (both of which I am a witness). You will never know these things through the paradigm you are viewing the scripture which we fully believe are inspired by the living God.

[HovitosKing]

Upon re-reading my previous post, I guess I should clear up one point. I do not loathe the doctrine of christianity itself, I loathe the organized church and the people who blindly adhere to its dogma. I refuse to acknowledge an institution which has murdered more innocent people throughout history than Nazi Germany ever dreamed of. The christian church's holocaust spans thousands of years and is built on the blood and bones of countless people and societies. You can choose to look the other way, but I won't buy it. It's hypocrisy it its most despicable form.

[indyt]

I understand you guys points. Like I said earlier, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, a very real relationship with a real Being. This relationship does not include rules and regulations and legalism. Sadly that is what Christianity has become. There are many things I do not agree that the church is doing, especially the Western gentile Christianity of America. Nonetheless I still go to church to worship God, not for the people but for Him. I hate to say it, but modern Christianity and the modern day church have come a long way from what Chirst truly taught and is. I wish I could go back to the church in the book of Acts, now that was real worship.

[Paden]

Indyjohan, read a book called The Jesus Mystery.
I'm presuming this is in reference to Freke and Gandy's book The Jesus Mysteries (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609807986/103-9574864-1235865?v=glance&n=283155), which asserts that Jewish mystics adapted the mythology surrounding figures like Dionysius into their own belief system. Some compelling reading from the other side of that particular coin can be found here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html).

[JeremiahGateFan]

I used to have a relationship with God. I have always been a person who values the truth more than anything else. Just because I want christianity to be true( and I do ) that doesn't mean I should believe it if it is not true. So one day I cried out to God and I said for once, speak to me. He has never done anything to solidify my faith even though at one point I would of died for him in an instant without hesitation. Now, I cannot say I believe in God. Atleast not the christian God. Someone has to be out there. Maybe he allowed me to join christianity for wisdoms I would pick up there. I don't know. All I know is that I have to learn to accept the possibility that I truly am alone. And until I accept that, I will be weak emotionally and unfit to be a soldier which is what I will one day be for my country.

[indyt]

I used to have a relationship with God. I have always been a person who values the truth more than anything else. Just because I want christianity to be true( and I do ) that doesn't mean I should believe it if it is not true. So one day I cried out to God and I said for once, speak to me. He has never done anything to solidify my faith even though at one point I would of died for him in an instant without hesitation. Now, I cannot say I believe in God. Atleast not the christian God. Someone has to be out there. Maybe he allowed me to join christianity for wisdoms I would pick up there. I don't know. All I know is that I have to learn to accept the possibility that I truly am alone. And until I accept that, I will be weak emotionally and unfit to be a soldier which is what I will one day be for my country.

Listen, I promise you are not alone. No matter what anyone else says or posts on this board. I have seen Christ work in my life all of my life. There were times He seemed to be silent but I persevered. I know He is real not just on faith, but by experience. I have had prayers answered, either yes,no or wait. Those prayers that God said no to I saw the reason for it later in my life and that it was for my own good. Christ works in different ways with different people and at different times. I encourage you to persevere, be faithful and patient. I promise that Christ will open doors in your life and you will see His reality.

Also, best wishes in your military career, there's nothing better than a true blue hero. :)

[ClintonHammond]

"you claim a knowledge of your religion and its history"

Ha! In the same way that I claim to be a 6'4" stack of rippling muscle and sex-appeal with a python down my trousers and a wallet too thick to fold.....

HA! I say....

"I have seen Christ work in my life all of my life."
There's a guy who lives in the group home across the street... He's told me about some of the things he's 'seen'.. especially when he goes off his meds....

[indyt]

You're so full of love CH, so full of love.:rolleyes:

[ClintonHammond]

I save my love for those that EARN it.... Not for those who when stymied, have to resort to ad hominem attacks....

[Johan]

Wow...I would sure feel sorry for you kids if they have to earn your love. (if you have or plan on having any)

[ClintonHammond]

Again with more ad hominem.....

[Johan]

"I have seen Christ work in my life all of my life."
There's a guy who lives in the group home across the street... He's told me about some of the things he's 'seen'.. especially when he goes off his meds....

Well if that's how you feel, pass on the meds. If I'm crazy its quite the trip! I personally prayed for a blind eye and it was instantly healed, I've seen legs grow, broken legs heal (my own ankle in fact), gold fillings appear out of no where (wierd one), demons cast out, angelic visitation and yes...pass on the MEDS...I've heard the audible voice of God 2 times. This "crazy" religion is doing lots for me...why stop now?

[ClintonHammond]

So called "faith healing" is one of the OLDEST scams in the book....

If yer duped by THAT, you need more than meds I'd wager......

[Aaron H]

Stop with the personal attacks CH...stick to the topic on hand.

[ClintonHammond]

I'm only responding like with like....

[Aaron H]

You can attack the post, but not the poster.

Just because someone attacked you personally...which from my point of view doesn't look that way (ie "you started it")...doesn't give you a right to lash back with personal attacks.

Show more restraint; if you can't, you've been warned.

[ClintonHammond]

Just more of your personal 'vendetta' against me, so W....

1), Isn't this exactly the subject matter for a Private message?!?! So as to, at the very least, not drag the thread off topic?!?! Shouldn't a Mod also lead by example of behaviour?

2) Funny how you're the only one who EVER seems to have an issue with it, while turning a blind eye to the behaviour of others....

*shrug*

Need to see good evidence of how easily Faith Healing is debunked? Read some of the works of James Randi.... www.randi.org just for starters....

[HovitosKing]

I understand you guys points. Like I said earlier, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ, a very real relationship with a real Being. This relationship does not include rules and regulations and legalism. Sadly that is what Christianity has become. There are many things I do not agree that the church is doing, especially the Western gentile Christianity of America. Nonetheless I still go to church to worship God, not for the people but for Him. I hate to say it, but modern Christianity and the modern day church have come a long way from what Chirst truly taught and is. I wish I could go back to the church in the book of Acts, now that was real worship.

Well said. Very well said, in fact.

[Johan]

So called "faith healing" is one of the OLDEST scams in the book....

If yer duped by THAT, you need more than meds I'd wager......
How is it a scam when it is working? Time after time...myself included.
Of course there have been some horrible instances with the tv evangelists doing scams. But this is real. My friend was in a cast for a broken leg, 2 days after the broken leg we prayed, and he tore off the cast.
I can't give I witness account for this one but I have a friend that prayed for his aunt who was dead for 2 days...in the morg. They prayed over her and she walked from under the sheet.
But I can give eyewitness to dozens of instances of healing. Nevermind the audible voice and angelic visitation. Your being scammed in thinking these are all scams. It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is no God.
I haven't been to one big tv evangelsit conference so I know nothing about the fake healing. I can only speak about my group of friends and our own experiences. Healings that I encounter are no rare occasion, and there is nothing false about them.

[Johan]

You can attack the post, but not the poster.

Just because someone attacked you personally...which from my point of view doesn't look that way (ie "you started it")...doesn't give you a right to lash back with personal attacks.

Show more restraint; if you can't, you've been warned.

No worries Aaron. I don't have to defend my broken ankle that is apparenlty NOT healed...because these things don't happen.

[Aaron H]

Just more of your personal 'vendetta' against me, so W....

1), Isn't this exactly the subject matter for a Private message?!?! So as to, at the very least, not drag the thread off topic?!?! Shouldn't a Mod also lead by example of behaviour?

2) Funny how you're the only one who EVER seems to have an issue with it, while turning a blind eye to the behaviour of others....

*shrug*

Need to see good evidence of how easily Faith Healing is debunked? Read some of the works of James Randi.... www.randi.org just for starters....
You just seem to stand out of the crowd. You draw such great attention to yourself.

[Paden]

You just seem to stand out of the crowd. You draw such great attention to yourself.
I have to admit, that's one of the most elegantly phrased slaps in the face I've read in quite some time. :p

[indyt]

[QUOTE=IndyJohan]It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is no God.

Thats what I have been trying to say.
And as far as the tv faith healers, yes, most of them I do not trust. It is God that heals, according to His will.

[ClintonHammond]

"You just seem to stand out of the crowd"
Nothing stands out from the crowd better than the truth

"It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is no God."
Not at all... all one has to do is look at the overwhelming LACK of evidence...

"aunt who was dead for 2 days"
Bull.... show me the news-paper article... News that big would NOT have gone uncovered.... show me ONE shred of evidence..... Show me the coroners report...

I could MAKE UP fanciful stories about how I can fly, melt steel in my hands, run across water and other fantastic tales.... anyone who thought they were real would need to have their head examined

[HovitosKing]

It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is no God.

Actually, faith is the antithesis of knowledge and is not a factor in one's refusal to believe at all. Richard Dawkins said it best:

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Faith is an excuse to remain ignorant. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Deadlock]

Faith is one possible human response to the "no-see-ums" in human existence. Skepticism is another. Disbelief is another. Denial is another. Knowledge and reason may have an impact on any of those responses, or it may not.

"Knowledge" (in the common understanding) is a very subjective and indistinct. You and another person may experience precisely the same thing and derive two entirely different sets of "knowledge" based on that common experience.

Further analysis and consideration may solidify knowledge to the point where it can be widely accepted or even considered "universal", but outside of very small mathematical and scientific circles... most knowledge never gets that far. Despite the bluster from intellectuals, the inherant value of "knowledge" is very, very subjective.

(Unless you are proposing some objective and transcendant standard of truth...)

[ClintonHammond]

That's the 2nd time Richard Dawkins name has come up today on the various Message Boards I frequent...I'm gonna have to get my hands on some of his writing!

[Johan]

I'm sorry that I dont record the hundreds of healings that happen quite frequently. I have no need or desire to prove anything to you, I know the truth of what I've seen/heard/felt/done.
I see a lot of this yet MOST of it takes place in the underground church in Nepal and China.
You seem to find articles AGAINST every little thing I say. How bout looking for some articles of some genuine healings that have happened. Oh, wait...there is no article or anything I could say anyway that would change the way you think.
Mmm..off the top of my head look up men such as Smith Wigglesworth, his faith is well recorded. Here's a few: http://www.sendrevival.com/testimonies/categories/deadraised/index.htm

[ClintonHammond]

Quoted from more web sites than I can shake a stick at

"Smith Wigglesworth (1859-1947) - faith healer who used violence to accomplish miracles (i.e., he hit people in order to heal them). He also claimed to raise the dead, although that claim was never confirmed."

emphasis mine.... again.... If I went around claiming I could fly, you'd want to see PROOF, right?!?! I sure hope you would....

Also if he was such a crap-hot healer, how come he couldn't heal his own daughter of her deafness?!?!?

Save your breath.... I'm sure you have some excuse about her 'faith' not being 'true' or some such that won't be much more than a load of hot air......

"there is no article or anything I could say anyway that would change the way you think."
Well, not so far.... I'm willing to see what you have to offer though..... But I'm going to continue to be VERY critical, yes.

[Johan]

[QUOTE=ClintonHammond]
Also if he was such a crap-hot healer, how come he couldn't heal his own daughter of her deafness?!?!?
[QUOTE]
Why? Because he's not God. Not even Jesus healed eveyone in sight. What you think everyone is Healed all the time? Absolutly not. I'm not going to bring Jesus down to a simple humanitarian! Heck, when he returns to earth he is literally going to kill people! But that's a whole other topic. Wigglesworth DID use violence. But it worked. And it must have been God telling him to do so.
And there are many of his healings that had MANY eye witnessess. And you know they were healings because if they were not they would have killed people.
For instance, he was preaching in a church and a baby had died. The baby was brought to him. He picked it up and threw it across the room as far as he could and the baby came alive when it landed.
He would also literally punch cancer out of people. He put a shoe on a mans "leg stump"...instantly a foot grew into the shoe.
(non healing story) It was reliably recorded that John Westly was preaching to a crowd well over 2000 people. God came and all 2000 people fell to the ground utterly uncontious.
All this being said, My ankle is healed...I had a speech empediment when I was a child and it was healed. My best friend broke his leg...I prayed for it and it was instantly healed. Anyway, I can see this conversation is getting no where and we are so far off topic its not even funny. So I will say, if your athiest lifestyle is working for you....why are you in SOO much need of hearing more of my experiences and beliefs...and why are you soo defensive and bringing up articles or whatever you can to proove me wrong. Either way you will one day bow and confess.

[HovitosKing]

IndyJohan, I don't mean to beat up on your faith or to imply that what you've witnessed is inaccurate or untruthful. I am a scientist, a skeptic and an agnostic, so I believe only what can be proven. Nothing else. I can generate a counter-argument for any claim or assertion you might submit, and you're right in assuming that you could never convert me to your system of beliefs. I do not subscribe to the idea of faith, although I sometimes envy those who do. Finally, I'm not finding articles to counter your every argument, I'm simply giving rebuttals with information I already have at my disposal. I see it as nothing more than a healthy argument or debate, but certainly nothing personal.

The history of the christian church is an interesting one from a purely academic standpoint. Its history does not affect my opinion of the doctrine itself, nor should it yours. It does make for some good reading and discussion, however, so I would recommend the works of Bart Ehrman to you if you're so inclined. Otherwise, this thread has grown tiresome and I'm retiring myself from it. Cheers.

[ClintonHammond]

"you will one day bow and confess"
I bow to NOTHING.

"this thread has grown tiresome"
yes it has... I'm following HK out of here....

Bartender... get IJ here a pint, and a shot if he wants it... and put it on my tab.... I'll settle that up next time I'm in....

I'm gonna go look up more Richard Dawkins....
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it. Accepting that a virus might be difficult to detect in your own mind, what tell-tale signs might you look out for? I shall answer by imaging how a medical textbook might describe the typical symptoms of a sufferer (arbitrarily assumed to be male)."

"1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith.'"

"If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence."

[Johan]

IndyJohan, I don't mean to beat up on your faith or to imply that what you've witnessed is inaccurate or untruthful. I am a scientist, a skeptic and an agnostic, so I believe only what can be proven. Nothing else. I can generate a counter-argument for any claim or assertion you might submit, and you're right in assuming that you could never convert me to your system of beliefs. I do not subscribe to the idea of faith, although I sometimes envy those who do. Finally, I'm not finding articles to counter your every argument, I'm simply giving rebuttals with information I already have at my disposal. I see it as nothing more than a healthy argument or debate, but certainly nothing personal.
.
No offence. But this was in response to CH. Anyway, Science has been trying to prove miricles for years...and some they have. But most they can't and when they come up with things it often makes Science just look stupid.
Like the recent scientist that said Jesus was really walking on ice. This makes no sense if you actually read the story. Same guy said a gust of wind parted the red sea...hmmm. Again if you read the story it makes no sense, nevermind the fact that God parting the sea seems more believeable than a gust of wind.

[IndyBuff]

After standing by and patiently reading this thread, I find that those of us to believe in Jesus and follow Him are actually more experienced than those who claim to not believe.

No one is born as a Christian or follower of Jesus. It's a choice that you and you alone can make; no one and no thing can do it for you. We have ALL been non-believers at one time or another until we chose to accept Christ and His teachings.

What are some of you non-believers so afraid of? What do you have to lose? We were in your shoes at some point in our lives....why are so you scared to step into ours?

[ClintonHammond]

Was just getting my coat out of the closet...

No fear from me "Indy".... To put it simply, I'd have to lose all of what other people might call 'self-respect' if I allowed myself to believe something as patiently absurd as 'religion' seems to me. The "Ooogy-Boogy" factor is just WAY too high for me to believe it, as it is presented. Like UFOs and Bigfoot, sure I'd LIKE to believe... It would be a way more interesting world if there were such things... But the lack of ANY evidence to support, and the preponderance of other explanations for such phenomenon forces me to relegate such to the realm of fantasy. While I sure enjoy good fantasy, I surely do not confuse it with reality.

Side note... it seems that this Dawkins fellow sort of suggests at one point that religion IS a scientific idea... just not a very good one....

Anyway... got my coat.... got my hat.... *pats pockets for lighter, wallet, smokes, car keys* Yup... that's all that....

You folks have a good night eh.

[Finn]

After standing by and patiently reading this thread, I find that those of us to believe in Jesus and follow Him are actually more experienced than those who claim to not believe.

No one is born as a Christian or follower of Jesus. It's a choice that you and you alone can make; no one and no thing can do it for you. We have ALL been non-believers at one time or another until we chose to accept Christ and His teachings.

What are some of you non-believers so afraid of? What do you have to lose? We were in your shoes at some point in our lives....why are so you scared to step into ours? Actually, I've noticed that most of the accepting comes from the social pressure. People tend to follow the viewing issues of those who're dear, close and around them, so it's hard to claim it's a completely unaffected choice of free will.

Another thing that shows from your post is that most believers tend to live in the world of black and white. Most of non-believers don't live in denial. There's simply too much contradicting evidence on both sides to make their mind of, and they're not comfortable with taking sides and knowingly turn down a point that may not be in agreement to what they've chosen to believe. I think that's just rational and can't really blame anyone.

In that one's technically right that we've all been the same once, but in that there's a long missing shot by claiming that only the believers are the ones who have changed somehow. As back then when we've all been young enough to be non-believers we've prolly not even known that there is such thing as religion. And I don't know about you, but I tend to think that infant me and current me are on little different stages of development. The difference comes when we've become aware of the fact that there is something to believe in. So not to believe is a matter of choosing just like believing is.

So, sorry to say this, but your analogy lacks a bit. Those who have faith are not any more seasoned than those who don't, and vice versa. I've noticed that the most rational and rewarding way to live for me is to shrug off the things that cannot be proved and live by that I know to be concrete.

Now, at this point especially the believing end of the scale come to me and ask how can I live without feeling the grace and confidence that faith lays on me. Well, believe it or not, it can be more rewarding than you believe. If you're happy with what you have, good for you, but I can't be the same.

It's odd that those who do have faith seem less willing to buy that those living without it can be just as happy with themselves as they are. There's no need for me to market my view of the world to those who are not that significant to my life, something that numerous people having faith in some kind of religious doctrine seem to be doing all the time.

[roundshort]

After standing by and patiently reading this thread, I find that those of us to believe in Jesus and follow Him are actually more experienced than those who claim to not believe.

No one is born as a Christian or follower of Jesus. It's a choice that you and you alone can make; no one and no thing can do it for you. We have ALL been non-believers at one time or another until we chose to accept Christ and His teachings.

What are some of you non-believers so afraid of? What do you have to lose? We were in your shoes at some point in our lives....why are so you scared to step into ours?


HUH?!?!?

I actually think Finn had a nice retort, Good job Finn!
I agree withthe Finnish on this, but i just picutre standing out side the pearly gates and letting out a lound Homer Simpsonesq "D'oh!" and people like Indy will walk by and say,
"Told you So!"

[Finn]

I agree withthe Finnish on this, but i just picutre standing out side the pearly gates and letting out a lound Homer Simpsonesq "D'oh!" and people like Indy will walk by and say,
"Told you So!" Well, there'll be quite a load of the likes of us, as we'll have to keep in mind that less than the third of the people on this Earth are christians, and the number of those actually believing in God is even smaller.

Wonder if anyone's ever really thought about it, but the guy with horns may just be running a way bigger installation than the almighty one. Heh.

[Paden]

I’d like to add something, but not out of a desire to stir up further controversy. :)

I didn’t come to faith in Christ until I was well into my twenties and I will readily confess that my views toward the Christian faith prior to that time were quite hostile. My own view of Christianity, based on my limited understanding of Scripture, was that it was, in essence, a heavily legalistic code of behavior, designed to hold individuals to a high standard of moral behavior. As has been already stated in this thread, the essence of the Christian belief centers on a faith relationship with Jesus Christ and the acceptance of His divine sacrifice in payment for individual sin. It is a bond with Our Savior, Who offers grace and forgiveness for a fallen mankind who are unable to live up to God’s standard of holiness. Salvation is offered as a free gift to any who would accept it.

I think the problem is that when we, in our humanity, encounter something that gives us meaning or happiness, we often have the desire to share that thing with others. I believe that most believers in Christ have this desire, and the Bible clearly indicates that Christ’s followers are commissioned to share His message. Yet, when I have contemplated the life of Christ that is presented in the New Testament, while Jesus was uncompromising in presenting Himself as the only path to salvation, He didn’t attempt to force or coerce others to accept Him and in fact faced rejection on several occasions, according to the gospel accounts. Christ offered salvation to man, but He allowed individuals the free choice to receive or reject Him.

Throughout history, I think the impetus to share the gospel has often taken forms that Christ, as I understand Him, never intended. Sometimes the desire to share has become twisted into a dark zeal that has historically resulted in some terrible events, most notably (in my mind) the Crusades. As has been elucidated clearly in this thread, there are numerous atrocities committed by the church through the centuries that bluntly, are inexcusable. Even in contemporary America, one only has to look up incidents of violence against abortion clinics to see that some continue to do shameful acts in the name of Jesus. Acts that I believe He clearly does not condone.

But on a lesser scale, I think there are times when followers of Christ can, in the process of trying to share Him, come across as harsh or unyielding. Sometimes, in the desire to share the message it is easy to become insensitive to the individual you’re speaking to. I think that Jesus was always respectful of individuals. He was concerned with meeting the needs of individual people. Each person was special to Him. One of the most striking pictures of Christ from the gospels, for me personally, is Him having dinner with the undesirables of Jewish society. In the Judaic tradition, the taking of a meal together represented an invitation into intimate fellowship. Thus, Christ was inviting the rejected into a close friendship with Him. I think that’s really the spirit that His followers are meant to keep as well.

The problem is, when we who believe are confronted by strong skeptics, it’s easy to become defensive. After all, Jesus means the world to us. By the same token, I’m certain we can come across as brash and judgmental when we fail to show respect to the feelings of others. Granted, the message of Christ is an "all or nothing" proposition which is going to be offensive to some. But we believers can offer it as He did: as a choice. When we attempt to force the message on others, I earnestly believe that we do more harm than good and we don’t honor Christ with our actions.

[StwongBwidge]

You see that's the difference. You people are seeing religion as old scripts and manuscripts, rules and regulations. You don't see the BIGGER picture. Which is the relationship and power that comes out of it. Seeing blind men see and the lame walk (both of which I witnessed). Seeing angels and the battles of the heavenly realm (both of which I am a witness). You will never know these things through the paradigm you are viewing the scripture which we fully believe are inspired by the living God.

I was going to reply in full to the substance of this argument, but couldnt get to an internet connection until now and thankfully the thread seems to have come to a dignified conclusion with a couple of thoughtful posts from all sides.

Must admit I found a lot of the thread thoroughly disheartening. I am just pleased that there are far many more people NOT like indyjohan et al than like them in our society, as maybe, just maybe, humankind thereby stands a chance.

Somewhat perturbed by the warning dealt out to CH. Yes he was somewhat vitriolic but can I quote Indyjohan?

"You are starting to sound like those people that said "The holocost never happened"

And not a peep from a moderator? Some things need a good slapping down, and that was one of those things. I cant actually think of a worse slur to bandy about to those who disagree with you on a totally unrelated issue.

Thanks to Finn for so eloquently phrasing many of our thoughts. I can't help thinking that most posters actually agree with the original early sentiments of those of us who do not adhere to a religion - it is organised religion we have a problem with and not spirituality, which more fits the descriptions given by many of their own personal 'faith'. Paradoxically, the sentiments thereby expressed are actually more akin to the gnostic interpretation of Christ than the current orthodox one. But there you go.

I personally feel no manner of spirituality in my life, let alone a need for religion to bring meaning or satisfaction to my life. I live my life, I interact with others, I enjoy the world around me, I take people as I find them for what they are. Consequently, i treat people with respect and compassion unless and until they inspire a different reaction from me and I have a strong sense of social responsibility. I marvel at the wonders of nature, our ever-increasing understanding of the universe around us and conversely the vast volume of things that remain inexplicable and undiscovered. I am as such fully aware of, and actually pleased by, my own utter insignificance in the scheme of things. This brings its own brand of humility and plenty sense of wonderment. I am able to look after myself and enjoy a good quality of life and know this is down to those who love me, pure luck at being born with academic capabilities (in my case this has helped) and my own hard work and decency (he said, humbly). There is no supreme being around who looks over us and has sent a son or scriptures or performed miracles. And if you have read this then you would have to be deeply arrogant and close-minded to think that me feeling this way in any way diminuishes my life experience or my decency/goodness in any meaningful way.

But a final word to indyjohan, and the claims you have made for the things you have seen and experienced... Well, i think I even felt a shudder from other posters who were happily and sanely providing the case for religion/spirituality and what it brings to their lives... Seriously, and with all due respect, I think you have problems. CH may have put it crudely, but such delusions are symptomatic of genuine and severe problems. I just hope their effects remain confined to personal religious fervour. And before anybody jumps, that is not meant as a personal slur. From the content of the posts, it really does seem that way and it does more harm than good to politely humour such things.

[ClintonHammond]

"the essence of the Christian belief centers on a faith relationship with Jesus Christ "

I find it impossible to have any kind of relationship with something when I see no indication of that something even existing in the first place....

There's as much evidence to support this existence of The Tooth Fairy, or Santa Clause, or Superman....

*shrug*

"Somewhat perturbed by the warning dealt out to CH"
Don't sweat it eh.... Aaron has a 'grudge' and feels the need to air it publicly.... I don't let it bother me, so don't let it bother you on my behalf o.k. :-)

[Finn]

Don't sweat it eh.... Aaron has a 'grudge' and feels the need to air it publicly.... I don't let it bother me, so don't let it bother you on my behalf o.k. :-) CH... a word.

Despite we sharing some views on how to take certain doctrines on faith existing on this Earth, I'm not closing my eyes from some of your posts either. It's not a 'grudge' as I see it, not at least towards your opinions, but more like the way you represent them. As they tend to be little crass and aggressive to the eyes of many. I spoke my mind on this subject, but as you can see, I made it in a way that gave no one any reasons to bash me.

So, it's not your actual opinions that cause the 'grudge'... but the manner they're brought up with. Little toning down, little more civilized way to bring your points up, and no one's going to have a problem with you. Or, if still do, then they're the ones who're in trouble and not you.

***

And to further elaborate the subject in this topic and my last post, I hope that many of you have noticed that there isn't one single (organized) belief on this Earth. So, that is what makes me to wonder, what is the thing that makes a person think that the one in his or her possession is the correct one, despite all the evidence of controversial beliefs that are as good as any than those represented defending your case.

There are also numerous different strong stories, good books and persons doing miraculous things, and I can't help than to find it a little insulting towards someone with different faith to claim that "I'm sorry to say that the thing you believe in is a myth, but my one really happened". Simply explaining this thing with 'one book - bible - to rule 'em all' seems a little arrogant way in doing it and one can't help but think that the ones believing in this thing live more in denial than those who don't.

Of course, we can also note the way these stories seem similar around the world, the Great Flood, men of miracles like Christ, Mohammed, Buddha and so on. So one way of explaining this can be brought down to one single monomyth that has just been interpreted differently around the world. But still, the same question lies, how can one be so sure that the interpretation they're basing their faith on... is the correct one?

[HovitosKing]

Yet, when I have contemplated the life of Christ that is presented in the New Testament, while Jesus was uncompromising in presenting Himself as the only path to salvation, He didn’t attempt to force or coerce others to accept Him and in fact faced rejection on several occasions, according to the gospel accounts. Christ offered salvation to man, but He allowed individuals the free choice to receive or reject Him.

The problem is, when we who believe are confronted by strong skeptics, it’s easy to become defensive. After all, Jesus means the world to us. By the same token, I’m certain we can come across as brash and judgmental when we fail to show respect to the feelings of others. Granted, the message of Christ is an "all or nothing" proposition which is going to be offensive to some. But we believers can offer it as He did: as a choice. When we attempt to force the message on others, I earnestly believe that we do more harm than good and we don’t honor Christ with our actions.

I had a ton of immediate thoughts on your entire post, most of which were "excellent point" or "well said." Yet I really don't have the will to comment on too much of it, so I'll just stick to two quick comments concerning the paragraphs above. Keep in mind, I thought that this post was a great one.

Christianity is a choice, but it's not the simple "yes" or "no" choice that has been presented thus far. It's more complicated than that. Like many things in life, we try stuff out in order to determine whether it's a good fit for us. I made that choice many years ago with christianity. It simply didn't do it for me, so I made another choice. I guess I didn't tithe enough, sing loud enough, or pray long enough to feel the warm and fuzzy effects that you guys seem to feel. For whatever reason, I just felt like I was abandoning reason and independent thought for the "promise" of a better life tomorrow. No thanks.

Christ witnessed through example. He lived an amazing life which others wanted desperately to know more about, and he taught them. That's an important distinction. He led through example and presented his teachings to those who came asking for them. We've got too many nutjobs running around today with nice little pre-packaged salvation kits trying to witness badly to people who don't want it or see any need for it. Why is it so hard for christians to lead by example? Why do they always take the easy way out and threaten you with eternal damnation for failing to accept christ instead? Sorry, I'm questioning christianity again...

I think the frustration and defensiveness stems from an attempt to reconcile two "truths." On one hand, the church is telling people that jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Once introduced to christ, people's lives will be filled with the peace and happiness of knowing him. Then once you're back in the real world, you see many examples of how this is untrue. You start to question your own beliefs on a microscopic scale, then get frustrated with yourself for thinking critically about or questioning your religion, become defensive, and attack the source of inconsistency. Just a theory.

[ClintonHammond]

There is NO geological evidence that this planet was ever covered in water as described in "The Bible"

If it had been, where did all that water go?

It's impossible

[Finn]

If it had been, where did all that water go?

It's impossible Well, actually it is technically possible... that amount of water that could do the trick is packed as ice around our poles.

How likely that is however... not very, in that I agree.

Nevertheless, the Great Flood is one of the most interesting monomyths on this earth.

[HovitosKing]

CH, not sure how successful you were in finding info on Richard Dawkins. This bio was borrowed from Wikipedia:

"Clinton Richard Dawkins DSc, FRS, FRSL (known as Richard Dawkins; born March 26, 1941) is an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University."

Some of his works include The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, A Devil's Chaplain, and The Ancestor's Tale among others. All of them are great books and invaluable resources for the study of evolutionary biology and the scientific evidence supporting evolution over creationism. I give them all excellent reviews.

[Johan]

"You are starting to sound like those people that said "The holocost never happened"

Though you are taking this out of context I admit it was likely not a good analogy. In fact it has nothing to do with the holocost but rather the IGNORANCE of the ones in recent day that are saying it never happened.
It was my example of ignorance, but admittently a bad one at that. My apologies to CH.

[Johan]

There is NO geological evidence that this planet was ever covered in water as described in "The Bible"

If it had been, where did all that water go?

It's impossible

Actually IT did not rain before the flood so all the water was in the atmosphere. This is why the dinsaurs were able gro so large and people were able to live so long, because the earth was tropical atmosphere.
And remember...Its God he has the universe at his disposal. If he wanted to get rid of the water he can!

[ClintonHammond]

"that amount of water that could do the trick is packed as ice around our poles."

Not remotely.... For that matter such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions. So if there had been a great flood, there wouldn't BE polar ice-caps....

Ice cores from Greenland have been dated as far back as 40,000 years with NO evidence to support ANY Great Flood. (From the same myth as The Great Flood, the 'earth' is only slight more than 5 thousand years old too....) A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence.

Heck... Tree ring records date back accurately about 10,000 years, and there's ZERO evidence of any such flood there.....

I think calling "The Great Flood" a monomyth is a misnomer... The fact that emerging cultures share similar back-stories does not necessitate a singular event.... Agriculture being the foundation for 'culture' leads to people settling in places where crops grow well.... (The people who settle where crops don't grow well die) The best places for crops is flood basins... the thing about flood basins is that they flood....

For that matter, the Egyptians don't mention it... nor do the Mesopotamians.... Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

"Its God he has the universe at his disposal."
Sorry... I stopped accepting "Just because" as an answer at about age 4 or so.... Cause it is, in fact no sort of answer at all.

"Actually IT did not rain before the flood... the earth was tropical atmosphere."
Well, which is it?!?! You can't have it both NOT rain, but be rain-forest.... The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics, where the strong heating by the Sun creates significant vertical uplift of air, and the formation of prolonged heavy showers and frequent thunderstorms. Annual rainfall totals in the tropics usually exceed 100 inches or 2,500 millimetres, and can be as high as 400 inches or 10,000 millimetres, particularly if influenced by the monsoons or if mountains enhance the uplift of air.

"My apologies to CH."
No blood, no foul.... play on.

[Johan]

And that is why you will never understand the biblical flood.

Anyway, the carbon dating system is not reliable. In fact the flood contributed to the carbon dating system being out of wack. When the water came the heavier particles settled first creating a lot of pressure, this caused a LOT of heat and therfore creating a lot of carbon.
Nevermind the fact that they found aquatic fossils on top of mountains.
It was tropical because all the moisture was in the AIR...it didn't rain. Anyway, this is not biblical...its a theory of mine. But it didn't rain. I heard a professor talk about it and it made a lot of sense at the time...the way he explained it. I am not doing justice to the theory.

[ClintonHammond]

"they found aquatic fossils on top of mountains"
Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids.) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.

On the fossil record subject...
Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals. As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded.

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, "Floodists" would seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed.

"that is why you will never understand the biblical flood"
Oh but I -do- understand it all too well.... It's a myth... a fable... Its beginnings might even have been rooted in a localized event somewhere around the Black Sea... But it is NOT literal truth.

[Johan]

Ok...so I would say to you that Science is YOUR religion. Your religious belief.
And I am a Christian.
Your faith lies in physical evidence. My faith lies on a personal relationship with the one that created the planet. mmm...I think I'll take my chances on believing the creator.

[Finn]

Anyway, the carbon dating system is not reliable. In fact the flood contributed to the carbon dating system being out of wack. Ahem, source?

Because... if the one claiming this comes from the christian club, there is a high chance that the opinion is more or less biased. We're dealing with huge what ifs here. IF there was a biblical flood, the carbon dating system isn't reliable. But alas, we have no way of proving that there's been one. True, there are evidence that can be interpreted that way if wanted, but there's nothing one couldn't deny or come up with alternative theories.

That is one of the biggest grudges with old beliefs anyway, as it tends to throw a wrench in the works of a practical science. Religion is a great tool for preservation, but not that much for advancement.

And there's another problem most rational thinkers have with religion... it's just plain mad that people shrug off contradicting evidence only because they believe and want things to be as they've been told.

[ClintonHammond]

I don't have a religion....

Actually Richard Dawkins seems to suggest somewhere that religion IS a scientific idea.... just not a very good one....

You do what you feel you must.... But I'll just encourage you to maybe look further than that one book.... The more sources you have, the more informed your decisions are.

I'm out... I have rabbit to BBQ in preparation for feasting tonight.... Eostres bacchanal is one of my favourite excuses for a little excess

"evidence that can be interpreted that way"
Not all interpretations are equal

[Finn]

Actually Richard Dawkins seems to suggest somewhere that religion IS a scientific idea.... just not a very good one.... Well, on core ideals religion and science are practically the same, as both try to explain the unknown. The difference is that religion tends to provide all the answers right away whereas science doesn't.

So it shouldn't be a big surprise that many pick beliefs over what has been scientifically proved. People don't like living in uncertainty.

[Johan]

Ahem, source?

Because... if the one claiming this comes from the christian club, there is a high chance that the opinion is more or less biased. We're dealing with huge what ifs here. IF there was a biblical flood, the carbon dating system isn't reliable. But alas, we have no way of proving that there's been one. True, there are evidence that can be interpreted that way if wanted, but there's nothing one couldn't deny or come up with alternative theories.

That is one of the biggest grudges with old beliefs anyway, as it tends to throw a wrench in the works of a practical science. Religion is a great tool for preservation, but not that much for advancement.

And there's another problem most rational thinkers have with religion... it's just plain mad that people shrug off contradicting evidence only because they believe and want things to be as they've been told.

I fogot to mention that it is also out of whack because they counted chronologically on the rulers...where there are times when there were parallell kingdoms.

I read these things from Egyptologist and historian David Rohl in "A Test Of Time" Good read.
Also, "Noah's Flood - The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History" by William Ryan And Walter Pitman

[Johan]

Well, on core ideals religion and science are practically the same, as both try to explain the unknown. The difference is that religion tends to provide all the answers right away whereas science doesn't.
.
My point exactly. I heard quote once," if you believe in God or not you have a religious belief"

[Joe Brody]

http://www.geocities.com/antigona35new/pelilastp1.jpg

How could a mug like this betray anyone?

[Aside from Lorraine Bracco that is.]

[ClintonHammond]

The quote I was thinking of....
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory. "

Heh

But I think I might have to get this one tattoed across my back

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

,-)

You might want to have another look at "Noah's Flood" by William Ryan And Walter Pitman... cause THEY don't believe it was a global event either....

from here http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm

"In their 1998 book, Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History, Ryan and Pitman suggest the Black Sea was once a much smaller, land-locked freshwater lake, fed by ancient rivers, and surrounded by fertile plains. Neolithic people, Ryan and Pitman suppose, would have flocked to farm these Eden-like plains to farm them while supplementing their diets with the lake's abundant shellfish.

At this time - about 7,500 years ago - the global climate was still rapidly warming following the last Ice Age, causing the seas to rise. Ryan and Pitman hypothesize that, when sea levels rose beyond a critical point, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed, deluging the Black Sea basin with salty water and destroying the fertile plains around the once-shallow freshwater lake. "

You're putting your aces in our hands IJ! LOL

[Finn]

My point exactly. I heard quote once," if you believe in God or not you have a religious belief"
...but, religion never makes an effort of actually proving a point. It just says "that's how it is", and keeps saying the same no matter how much one tries to argue.

Only time when religion evolves is when it has its back against the wall, as it is necessary to ensure its own survival. History is full of examples of that. Such shameless opportunism with any other thing would be highly looked down on.

No wonder people with beliefs feel themselves a little special.

[Johan]

Just because I mentioned the book does not mean I believe everything in it.
You see, I don't believe everything I read (unless it is the inpired word of God). They have some good points and arguments in the book, but I'm not taking it as scripture. Just goes to show...I do read other opinions you know.
If we make EVERYTHING scientific...Christianity is no longer a religion but mere science. God is bigger than science...he created science.
I am not fooled by scientists that try to disproove the God who created them

[ClintonHammond]

You cited "Noah's Flood" in support of your assertions, except that NOTHING in that book supports the idea of any Global Flood....

That's a flaw in logic big enough to drive a herd of mastidons-in-hoop-skirts though

[Johan]

You cited "Noah's Flood" in support of your assertions, except that NOTHING in that book supports the idea of any Global Flood....

That's a flaw in logic big enough to drive a herd of mastidons-in-hoop-skirts though

Except I wasnt making any points on the idea of a "global flood". I was talking about carbon dating. Although the book touches little upon carbon dating it has some interesting views

[ClintonHammond]

So you cite a reference that doesn't much talk about carbon dating to support your thoughts on carbon dating?

That's like me referencing my lawn-mower repair manual when talking about a recipe for dandelion wine....

The connection is SO spurious as to be easily dismissed outright.

paraphrased from earlier

IF there was a biblical flood, the carbon dating system MIGHT not be reliable. We have no way of proving that there's been such a flood.... So, no good reason to doubt carbon dating. Besides, other dating systems like dendrochronology (And others like thermoluminescence dating, fission track dating, amino-acid dating, and uranium/thorium dating) support carbon dating.... Seems to me that the flaw isn't with carbon dating.

Vapor Canopy...

Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed.

The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went.

First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point.

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler.

Is this credible?

[HovitosKing]

Anyway, the carbon dating system is not reliable. In fact the flood contributed to the carbon dating system being out of wack. When the water came the heavier particles settled first creating a lot of pressure, this caused a LOT of heat and therfore creating a lot of carbon.

I'm no carbon dating expert, but I do know that we can date historical artifacts by examining the predictable rate of decay characteristic of the carbon molecules contained in them. The amount of carbon is irrelevant...it decays at the same rate. If you're suggesting that the flood somehow changed the rate of decay in carbon by extending its life, then we would expect to obtain a more conservative date. This means that a document written in 230 A.D. might carbon date at 500 A.D. or so (so when the Judas Gospel dates at ~280 A.D., you're saying that it was really written much, much earlier? Before Christ himself?)...but the calculations for computing and calibrating carbon dating are based on modern observations of the rate of carbon decay and are therefore unaffected by hypothesized historical phenomena. So I guess I still don't understand your case against carbon dating...? Please elaborate.

[IndyBuff]

One observation that I have noticed here deals with the fact that many seem to think that religion and Christianity are related. Let me make this clear: Christianity is NOT a religion but a relationship with Jesus Christ. It's not about rules or going to church X number of times a week. I'm sorry if that's the way it has been presented here because nothing could be further from the truth.

I would never try to force my beliefs on anyone; after all, accepting Jesus into your life is a choice that each individual can make and God will honor your decision either way. However, He does make it clear that there are consequences for our actions and, good or bad, our choices will have consequences and we will be responsible for those. Please understand that we talk about our faith out of love for others and Jesus, not to be pushy or self-rightous.

It all boils down to the word "faith." As a Christian, I see evidence of God all around me: the way our bodies work, the design of nature, the layout of our entire universe, etc. It's all too perfectly planned to simply happen by accident or chance and I've seen enough to convince me that there is someone bigger and greater than me who created all of this. If you honestly seek God and the truth then I think He will reveal it to you, but you have to look for it with an open heart and mind.

Again, we say these things not to be harsh but because we have seen what God did for us and we want to share that message with everyone we know.:)

[Johan]

I quoted the book because I thought it was interesting in relation to "flood science" My carbon dating reference was the David Rohl book. Anyway, this whole thread is starting to hurt my brain with too many big words for a holiday. I admit I'm no scientist, although I do have some intrest.
So this is what we established thus far to make things simple...
I believe there was a flood that covered the earth and carbon dating is wacky. And I am a Christian, and believe that God is beyond Sciences capability of explaining.
You believe otherwise. Let's give it a rest for a while boys! Its been um...engaging...

[HovitosKing]

IF there was a biblical flood, the carbon dating system isn't reliable. But alas, we have no way of proving that there's been one.

Finn, can you explain how the great flood would disrupt our system of carbon dating (read my last post)? Were you just going along with IJ's argument, or were you making your own assertion here? 'Cause I can't see how it would affect it at all.

[Johan]

Finn, can you explain how the great flood would disrupt our system of carbon dating (read my last post)? Were you just going along with IJ's argument, or were you making your own assertion here? 'Cause I can't see how it would affect it at all.

I gave no argument. It was more of a plausible hopothesis. anyway, I should not be commenting after I wanted to put this to rest for the day...so feel free to continue this conversation without the "crazy" Christian guy. I think this threads name should be changed because this has gone WAY too far off topic.

[HovitosKing]

I gave no argument. It was more of a plausible hopothesis. anyway, I should not be commenting after I wanted to put this to rest for the day...so feel free to continue this conversation without the "crazy" Christian guy. I think this threads name should be changed because this has gone WAY too far off topic.

Well you gave an explanation that didn't make sense to me, and Finn seemingly acknowledged it and moved on, yet I can't see how any of it would influence carbon dating at all. I don't consider your hypothesis to be anything remotely close to "plausible" either; I think that lots of people would have a serious problem with carbon dating being casually slammed by folks who don't want to buy into it for whatever reason. If you think it's a broken system, I really would like to know why. Otherwise you're just waving it off because you don't appreciate it. If you want to debate its validity, fine...but support the argument with facts and not unfounded beliefs. That's what I've tried to do when I argue against your position...I have enough respect for your points to argue them with what I consider to be legitimate or generally accepted facts. I don't consider you the "crazy Christian guy" either. I argue viscously with friends all the time, and I don't think less of them because their beliefs are different from mine, so please take no offense.

[Johan]

It didn't make full sense because I was regurgitating information that I read in a book and I don't quite have a full grasp on the concept myself. But David Rohl is a highly respected Egyptologist so I'm sure when he explains it it makes a lot more sense than when I do. I'm a guitar teacher not a scientist. I appreciate your input however

[Finn]

Finn, can you explain how the great flood would disrupt our system of carbon dating (read my last post)? Were you just going along with IJ's argument, or were you making your own assertion here? 'Cause I can't see how it would affect it at all.Actually, I wasn't making an argument of my own at all, just wanted to acknowledge that Johan's one may be valid if there's been a flood, since the subject of flood itself is far from concrete.

If you're asking my current opinion considering the carbon dating method, I do think it's valid and there hasn't been a lot of water to throw it off. But simply because I don't believe in the flood. Clear enough?

It all boils down to the word "faith." Exactly. And to be honest, this is what makes all the difference. People either have it, or have not. Some find it, some never do. But we also should keep in mind that faith is not knowledge. It's just... faith. You can't explain the world using faith to one who does not have it, no matter how hard one tries, as that is very much impossible. And this is something we all should try to understand.

Again, we say these things not to be harsh but because we have seen what God did for us and we want to share that message with everyone we know. Like said above, this is an idea born dead. Another one thinks that there's a higher being and the other one thinks that there's a scientific explanation to nearly everything. You just can't break into another one's world and start reorganizing things so that the other one would see it your way, not at least without proper motivation. So, I think the best we all could do is to give a little credit to each other. You can't, for example, scientifically explain the Great Flood, but if there is God, it's easy to say that He would just have made the water disappear, being almighty an'all.

But the other way around, the ones with faith should also admit that there is a slight chance that they might be wrong as well. When you run into a person who tries to talk you out of your faith just tell him that there might be a chance that all there really is your belief, and not what it states there'll be, but you still think that your way of thinking can also be possible.

Because that's what everybody wants. Credit. There are too many different beliefs and explanations to the things we wonder about on this Earth that it would be downright arrogant to simply think that yours is the only correct one. Go ahead, believe at free will to those things you think are right, but please, do not deny from yourself or others that you could be wrong as well.

That way there is a greater chance of coming along with all kinds of people, those who do have faith and those who do not. Especially at subjects where there isn't concrete evidence for or against.

[HovitosKing]

If you're asking my current opinion considering the carbon dating method, I do think it's valid and there hasn't been a lot of water to throw it off. But simply because I don't believe in the flood. Clear enough?

Not really. I can find only 2 books by David M. Rohl, and nothing regarding his position on carbon dating (granted, I didn't search very hard). My contention is that the great flood, whether it happened or not, would in no way influence carbon or carbon dating. You're still assuming that a lot of water would throw carbon dating off. All I'm asking is that someone explain to me how a large volume of water sitting on the earth's surface for a little over a month would influence carbon molecules and thus carbon dating. Clear enough?

[Finn]

That's because I don't really have an opinion on if the theory's valid or not. Since the theory itself bases on an assumption with really no way of proving it, I didn't really bother to check it out that deeply. My point was to simply display that we're dealing with a huge pile of ifs here. Even if there is a way to prove that huge amounts of water could throw off the carbon dating method, there still isn't evidence enough for the existence of the water itself so it's a little silly going into speculating and finding scientific proof for a thing that requires circumstances based on hardly much more than just belief.

Sorry if I gave you the image as I was thinking the theory to be valid, I wasn't just bothering to go check it out as I thought I was able enough to make my point without all the scientific petty talk... mostly because I knew that a mind strong enough in faith would just shrug such a thing off.

[HovitosKing]

I found a few half-hearted references to your theory online, mostly from creationist websites decrying scientific methodology. Again, I kept getting the impression I was reading a bunch of weak arguments meant to discredit carbon dating while failing to give a plausible reason for doing so...but here's a sample:

"... cannot accept these dates as accurate since they believe that the world was created sometime between 4000 and 8000 BCE. Since the accuracy of the Bible cannot be questioned, C-14 dating must contain massive errors -- by as much as a factor of five. Similarly, other radiometric measurements which do not use carbon, have dated rocks in northern Quebec, Canada, at almost four billion years old. 5 They must be in error by a factor of at least 400,000 times.

The flood of Noah, as described in Genesis, Chapter 6 to 8, would have upset the carbon balance on earth by burying large amounts of carbon containing plants which became coal, and gas. This would lower the total C-12 in the atmosphere at that time and upset the C-14 dating process."

One rebuttal that I accidentally found was this one:

"The Genesis flood is described in Genesis as occurring circa 2349 BCE. Samples from before, during and after the flood whose dates are known through archaeology have been C-14 tested without any difficulty. Either the worldwide flood of Noah did not happen, or it did not create any significant disturbance in the C-12/C-14 balance at the time."

So believe whatever you want. I think that's the ultimate theme of this thread.

[Finn]

That's exactly what I meant when I was asking Johan for source. Man, am I going to get it for this analogy, but it's a bit like Hitler giving his word for Nazis not being evil.

[Johan]

That's exactly what I meant when I was asking Johan for source. Man, am I going to get it for this analogy, but it's a bit like Hitler giving his word for Nazis not being evil.
I won't condemn you for your analogy, but you make it sound like I didn't give you my source. But I did give you the source didn't I?
I admit I haven't went really deep into the subject so the David Rohl book is the first place I've seen this theory, but he seems to be getting a lot of attention for it.

[Finn]

Well, my referral was to the 'source' just above. And you have to admit that at first you appeared just like the people typing up the things above, willing to jump at anything that defends their way of looking at things, no matter how credible it is.

Again, my apologies for causing messed up thoughts to both of you.

[Johan]

Well, my referral was to the 'source' just above. And you have to admit that at first you appeared just like the people typing up the things above, willing to jump at anything that defends their way of looking at things, no matter how credible it is.

Again, my apologies for causing messed up thoughts to both of you.

I think most people that try arguing points in any of these threads are just not in the habit of posting their soureces...myself included.
I'll try to make a point to be a bit clearer in the future.

[Johan]

Well, my referral was to the 'source' just above. And you have to admit that at first you appeared just like the people typing up the things above, willing to jump at anything that defends their way of looking at things, no matter how credible it is.

Again, my apologies for causing messed up thoughts to both of you.

I think most people that try arguing points in any of these threads are just not in the habit of posting their soureces...myself included.
I'll try to make a point to be a bit clearer in the future.

[ClintonHammond]

"I was regurgitating information that I read in a book and I don't quite have a full grasp on the concept myself."
Thank you for that admission....

" David Rohl is a highly respected Egyptologist"
Not in the least he isn't... He is mostly dismissed as a crank.

[Johan]

"I was regurgitating information that I read in a book and I don't quite have a full grasp on the concept myself."
Thank you for that admission....

" David Rohl is a highly respected Egyptologist"
Not in the least he isn't... He is mostly dismissed as a crank.

It depends what circle you are coming from. Einstien, John The Baptist, Darwin, and hundreds of others have circles in both realms. Obvisouly he has enough crediblitiy to make the New York Times best sellers list

[ClintonHammond]

One doesn't need credibility to sell books....

Ask Dan Brown.

[Johan]

One does when he is writing "non-fiction"...Dan brown is a fiction writer

[Finn]

One does when he is writing "non-fiction"... ...to be honest, not quite so.

And actually, more controversial talk, more interested people will be in reading it.

[Johan]

maybe your right...but he does have credibility none the less

[Finn]

To some he does, to some he doesn't. It's always like that, just like the existence of God.

To some he does, to some he doesn't.

[qwerty]

So Finn, for you this is good discution. And when roundshort and temple start their improvisations you say "back to topic" or "stop pointless arguments"

[Finn]

It's all the matter of representation, my friend. Representation.

[ClintonHammond]

To some he does, to most he doesn't. Especially not with the other experts in his 'field'



Are some of his ideas interesting? Sure... But that doesn't lend them any more weight than any other unsupported supposition

Maybe one day he'll have better 'evidence'... Until then, I'm gonna take his 'word' with a pound of salt.

[StwongBwidge]

Couple of points on the flood:

Inadequate supply of water - source

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.com/art/a-12-noah-flood-science.htm

among MANY others doing this simply math(s - for non-americans);

Also I have seen further calculations showing that IF this water somehow was produced (IndyJ sagely states that God could indeed have drawn this water from elsewhere in the universe, or even multiverse if Terry Pratchett is to be believed) up to the height of Ararat then the sheer WEIGHT of this water would knock the earth of its axis and into oblivion.

That could very well be the definition of conclusive to any right-minded person. :whip: (I'm working on the source).

ta ra

[JeremiahGateFan]

God's voice cannot be heard by human ears because it will make our heads explode and that God is actually Alanis Morisette (spelling?).

why would it make our heads explode. You are puting limitations on God.


A. Even if it was too overwhelming out heads wouldn't blow up, we'de simply enter some kind of coma or mental damage of some kind.

B. What you just said completely and utterly discredited most books of the bible.

C. If someone as pitiful as me can learn to talk as I do, than God can't. Maybe you believe that our speach is imperfect so he simply wouldn't but that is ridiculous because God sent his son to die, according to the scriptures, as a human in the worst way. God lowered himself for us and you are saying he wouldn't merely talk to us.

D. Anyway, though I'm not solid in my faith, I know basic theology. To me, the question is not necessarily are people really being healed. To me, the question is buy who? The same is true about aliens. The real question to me is what are they like. Anyway, I just HAD to jump on the completely illogical statement.

EDIT: HOLY----THAT WAS FAST!!! this site is way to active........I was responding to something on the fourth page,,,, I didn't reallize there are already 10 pages.

[JeremiahGateFan]

I just read some of the posts on the first three pages and found myself complely lost on all this stuff betwenn the gh----somethin wierd and the catholics. I have no idea what all that's about so I'm gonna keep reading and see If I see any interesting websides besides the national geographics one and if anyone wants to clue me in on some good websites for all this historical stuff I'de appreciate it. Or some books.

[Johan]

You guys still arguing stuff on this Thread? By the way...I've heard the audible voice of God 2 times and it did not make my head explode.

[HovitosKing]

You're thinking about looking upon the face of God. The Bible says you'll melt if you look upon the face of God. So does Raiders (close your eyes, Marion!).

[ClintonHammond]

Hearing voices of things that don't exist is one of a list of possible symptoms of schizophrenia

[ClintonHammond]

Oh how I love my ignore list.....

[ClintonHammond]

I have to wonder if possibly the reason why the Gosple of Judas was left out of the "Bible" is simply that it's author didn't or couldn't PAY Emperor Constantine the fee required for its inclusion.

Dropped from history just for being poor....

Heh

[Doc Savage]

Glad to see we can all be amicable.

Being this is my first post in this forum, I'll lay it on the table. I tried everything else. Atheism, Scientology...I even read all the recycled Nietzche that Anton LaVey regurgitated. When I came to the end of ME is when I found HIM...Jesus, if there's any question. Do I need a crutch? Not anymore. Anyone who calls it a crutch should first correct their own limping.

As for the Gospel of Judas...Cainites, Korahites, and Edomites have always been quick on the draw to lionize those the Bible has denounced as traitors and forfeiters. I see this "Gospel" as nothing more than "more of the same." A speculative take, perhaps, but a valid speculation.

In the end, "archaeology is the quest for fact, not truth." There is more historical evidence, Biblical and extra-Biblical, for the life, death, and subsequent uproar over a widespread belief in His resurrection than there is on the life of Julius Caesar. Again with speculation, is it any wonder that those who would (and do) fear His impact seek to discredit what IS documented by the historical likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and St. Luke (described by some as one of the most meticulous historians)?

Gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any reading), don't assume veracity just to appease conscience or attack what you claim to so "thoroughly" understand. Be as unbiased in your analysis as you insist we Christians should be.

[ClintonHammond]

"There is more historical evidence... than there is on the life of Julius Caesar"

Let's see it then.....

[Doc Savage]

Which historian would you like to hear from? Even the means of transmission of Christ's life lends to its authenticity. The fallibility that the authors ascribe to themselves, the weight given by detractors and adherents alike to the impact of Jesus. Even the choice of "Ghost-writers;" if the Gospels were engineered, shepherds, fisherman, traitorous tax collectors, and women would have been the least credible choices, chronistically speaking. Heroic character and social standing would have been attributed to His followers. We gloss over the fact that Siddartha Guatama (Buddha) abandoned his wife and child, not to mention the origin of another "religion of love and peace," but when the early days of Christianity are very well documented, the propensity is disbelief. I believe that to be "scientifically" invalid and absurd.

[ClintonHammond]

"if the Gospels were engineered, shepherds, fisherman, traitorous tax collectors, and women would have been the least credible choices, chronistically speaking. Heroic character and social standing would have been attributed to His followers"

Not if you want to entice and control "shepherds, fisherman, traitorous tax collectors, and women".... You play to the largest section of your audience... Any public speaker knows that

"would have been"
According to whom?

[Johan]

This likely won't help any. Because any thing people present seems to be shut down...on both sides of the argument.

http://www.cushingdaily.com/religion/cnhinsfaith_story_103123431.html?keyword=topstory

[HovitosKing]

There really is no way to settle this argument, since none of us were there and can only speculate based on our wide variety of beliefs and opinions (which will themselves never converge)...so can we please kill this thread already? PLEASE!?

[ClintonHammond]

HK, no one is making you read the thread.....

[Doc Savage]

"would have been"
According to whom?

According to the society of the time. Shepherds were like sailors, tax collectors were sellouts to the Roman Empire, and women were viewed as flighty at best, property at worst. And as far to pandering to an audience, "respectable" Jews would reject an individual crucified. "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."

And in response to HK, hypothesis, debate, and speculation have done more for archaeology in its short life than spade and pickaxe. Whether to the positive or the negative is open to interpretation. :whip:

[ClintonHammond]

I'm afraid your point is lost DS....

[Doc Savage]

I'm afraid your point is lost DS....

How so? Sociological conditions at the time would lend credence to the discussion as much as a "document" brought forth to coincide with a major motion picture that will bring into question the cornerstone of faith for billions of people.

[Doc Savage]

This likely won't help any. Because any thing people present seems to be shut down...on both sides of the argument.

http://www.cushingdaily.com/religion/cnhinsfaith_story_103123431.html?keyword=topstory

Nice article, Johan. Truth is, we're engaging in a discussion that hasn't been resolved for 2,000 years. "Why do the heathen rage..."

[Finn]

http://www.cushingdaily.com/religion/cnhinsfaith_story_103123431.html?keyword=topstory
Surprisingly enough, written by a reverend. It would be interesting to see people not so known of religious beliefs write up something like this (and yes, I know that atheists wouldn't sign this kind of text so I don't mean them).

Even though the man can be right, it always take a scratch away from the written word's relibiality if the writer is known to have bias into one direction or another. The only problem just is that not-so-religious people don't bother trying to prove something like this.

Plus, there're some points one could argue...


Anyway, I'd like to rise up another thing I truly wonder.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This diagram... you probably sit in one of the groups, but... there'll always be more people believing differently than you do. So, how can you be so certain that <i>you</i> are right?

The only answer I can figure out to be at least moderately right is to rule out the unknown and take the contradicting points of evidence with caution. But each to their own, I guess.

[ClintonHammond]

"Sociological conditions at the time would lend credence to the discussion as much as a "document" brought forth to coincide with a major motion picture that will bring into question the cornerstone of faith for billions of people."

I'm afraid that sentance doesn't make much sense to me at all.....

[roundshort]

I believe he's referring to "The DaVinci Code" and it's upcoming release in theatres. Unfortunately, there are still people out there that do not realize that this book was pure fiction. I have read many articles and even one from the creator of the supposed "Priory of Scion" who ADMITS that he made up the name of the group. It was named after a mountain in his hometown. People are so damn gullable it's amazing. This book is as factual as "Jurrasic Park".

What, people are this worked up of a work of fiction . . .must be good it has started such a debate!

[Doc Savage]

Temple...yes, I realize that The DaVinci Code is pure fiction. I also am very aware that many "scientific" channels and publications used its release to hop on a bandwagon and lend their version of credence to the "possibilities." Hitler said, "Tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough..." (paraphrased, of course).

My point, gentlemen, is that the so-called Gospel of Judas floated around on the black market of antiquities for years. I find it more than coincidental that it's coming to the forefront now. I've had discussion after discussion with people who have tried to use pseudo-science, revisionist history, and "the travesties of the church" to refute the authenticity of the Bible. Facts, as of late, have become as malleable as the interpretation of them.

[Doc Savage]

I agree wholeheartedly! The "church" has inflicted evil after "evil" on humanity since it's religio-political inception. My disagreement is in including a body politic (namely organized "religion") and a Body Deific in the same lump assessment. Those who have comitted said atrocities may have done so in the Name of Jesus, but it was not at His behest.

Ultimately, Jesus wasn't Catholic or Episcopalian or what-have-you. Neither was Peter. Neither was Paul. Neither am I. A "church" doesn't accomplish what we believe He did. And I find it sad that so many have excluded themselves from true Christianity because men in funny hats have claimed and acted on authority never given them.

[ClintonHammond]

"My disagreement is in including a body politic and a Body Deific"

Except that the Body Politic created the Body Deific...... Invented it as a tool to control people....

[Doc Savage]

"My disagreement is in including a body politic and a Body Deific"

Except that the Body Politic created the Body Deific...... Invented it as a tool to control people....
Your opinion...voiced repeatedly. You can no more prove it than I can.

[Finn]

Anyway, I'd like to rise up another thing I truly wonder.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This diagram... you probably sit in one of the groups, but... there'll always be more people believing differently than you do. So, how can you be so certain that <i>you</i> are right?

The only answer I can figure out to be at least moderately right is to rule out the unknown and take the contradicting points of evidence with caution. But each to their own, I guess. Hmm, everybody ignored my humble thoughts, I see. The interesting thing is that this usually happens when I make a point they can't argue despite that they'd like... heh.

[Doc Savage]

Sorry, Finn, I was engrossed in the debate and failed to read your link.

I can strongly espouse my beliefs because I've tried everything (more or less) else. I was raised Christian, albeit "religious Christianity", and rebelled. Call it a pilgrimage.

I won't belittle anyone else's beliefs...they are entitled to them. But I don't stand idly by and watch mine get ripped up, either.

[ClintonHammond]

"You can no more prove it than I can."

The historical documentation of how and why for instance Constantine and his flunkies picked, chose and were bribed to include some books in the Bible and to drop others is proof enough for me.... Proof enough at least for me to question the validity of the whole thing.... I see no evidence of anything 'divine' guiding their choices, and I see evidence of more mundane influences (bribery, a desire to control just to name two)

I guess, if it was to be put in legal terms, what I have is "Reasonable Doubt" which is all that is required to set any accused free...

[Doc Savage]

And we see how well it worked. The only ones who misused the system were the ones who were "in the know." The "church" considered it a crime for anyone to read their Bibles, or to own one, for that matter. So it couldn't very well be used to control the masses, could it?

[Finn]

I can strongly espouse my beliefs because I've tried everything (more or less) else. I was raised Christian, albeit "religious Christianity", and rebelled. Call it a pilgrimage. That's actually fair enough. The biggest peeve I have with organized religion is that they don't really offer people a chance to truly find themselves. They start converting us so young that we don't yet have a true sense of what this world around us may be or be not. In my opinion we should offer our descendants a fair chance to look into this stuff themselves should they find it interesting, instead of telling them these things as facts at the moment they just seem old enough to understand at least something about them.

You Doc seem to have been out there on the neutral ground just like I have, and have truly made your decision of faith by yourself, and I respect that. Despite we have found ourselves standing in different camps concerning this subject, we're more alike than one could prematurely assume.

[Doc Savage]

Amen to that! ;)

Truth to tell, most Christians these days don't know what they believe. I had a discussion with an atheist once. He was actually impressed when I quoted Scripture. He said it was the first time he'd had a Christian take him to the Bible to answer a Bible-based question.

[fortuneandglory]

This thread was supposed to be about the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The Noah's Ark find thread was supposed to be about that. The pre history and god thread was supposed to be about just that. Other threads, all de-railed into the Etherium... into debates about faith or the existence or non existence of god, or the validity of the scriptures. I simply love where CH takes all these posts...

[Doc Savage]

Other threads, all de-railed into the Etherium... into debates about faith or the existence or non existence of god, or the validity of the scriptures. I simply love where CH takes all these posts...I don't blame CH, if blame is even the word to use. Such is the nature of the beast...when we make statements of faith and interpret the evidence as such, those who have a different view, and a strongly held one, will be compelled to voice it.

I like to believe that maybe, like William Ramsay, exposure to fact AND truth will prod my colleagues to reconsider their view. Beating me over the head with ideologies did nothing but make me run from Christianity...I would expect no other reaction from those in similar positions. Remember, F&G, that Paul reasoned with thos ein the synagogues and on Areopagus and saw fruit from his labor.

[fortuneandglory]

Something to think about, to be sure...