Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5uooe4dmkml4ojbesn0jdhpocg289dp4a9@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 02:31:06 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ivgje4ljubfr8ndhm5pe3abs4cnnklmqf9@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qoqge4h7tq7s8oae6l5mt1ieu1919i4lui@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:30:32 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


[snip]

Sorry, I thought the subject was Jericho.

It shows that people have tried, have done,
and are still trying to destroy the evidence. According
to Finkelstein's book, David would have only been a
very lowly chieftain of a small group, but this find
illustrates David as being a king with a palace and
with wealth and a large kingdom.

Does it?

Well, not Finkelstein. He's telling what he believes.
People at the Temple Mount that prevented archaeologists'
work there.

So you are aware that there is little evidence to support the claim
that David was a mighty king?

Yes, but there is some. The House of David is stamped
on a few things and this was in the news a few years
ago. There is no reason to think that he didn't exist.

In fact, it was so large
because it included the Southern and the Northern
kingdoms after he united them. David had truly been a
shepherd, but he was also a king.

Possible, but certainly not proven yet.

It's a sure thing.

No it isn't.

Here's some proof of David...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEeMT3lP4G8

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jerusalem/Reclaiming_Biblical_Jerusalem.asp

Please feel free to come back when you can quote a proper archaeology
site.

It's a Jewish website and a proper site.

Yes, but it is NOT a proper archaeology site, one based on a credible
or respected archaeology publication.

The woman that is excavating the Davdic find is a
respectable, and well-known archaeologist. What in
the world would you find fault with her about?

No, I find fault with you. You are the one that keeps quoting
"biblical" archaeology sites - the fact that they call themselves
"biblical" archaeology labels them as biased. You need to find sites
that reference proper archaeology publications - peer review is
important.

If you ask me where some information is, I can
give you a website, which is what people do to show
something. Your claims against the website is against
Aish, which is a respected Jewish organization. You
are suggesting that they are not legitimate enough
for you, that they are biased. So, who do you think
is in the world that is not biased? And who would
give a fair report more than a Jew would about
something Jewish?


Are you going to say it
is biased because it is Jewish?

It is biased because it is a largely religious site.

You would rather turn things over to someone that
has no religion?

Of course.

That's just plain silly.

You think that is unbiased?

Not at all.

If you don't like it, I guess that's just too bad.

Maybe
chimps would suit you better? What ever gave you
the idea that someone with a religion has to be so
biased

Because the biggest liars and frauds ever have been religious - look
at the likes of Ron 'The Con' Wyatt as a very good example.

You know, he died, don't you? He found real things,
but I don't agree with what some of them are. The
wagon wheels in the Red Sea I had seen before he
showed them. But it was just one set of them, not
many. Easily, living near Egypt one set of chariot
wheels could get into the Sea. The Stele he found
was real. The boat-shaped formation he thought
was the Ark, I don't think is because it is not shaped
like the biblical description.


they can't do their job right? This archaeologist
is Jewish. All the better. Someone with a knowledge of
the Bible is what is needed.

Someone with knowledge of ALL the bronze age religions, all of the
myths and fairy stories, sure - but a committed christian/jew/muslim?
No, that is biased.

Who is left?


Who do you think wrote your
book?

What book?

Oh, it must not have been you that recommended
The Bible Unearthed.

No, though I did give you the ISBN for it.

And I thanked you, too, for being that thoughtful.

Kathleen Kenyon is said to have
done this also.

Cite?

I'm not talking rubbish. Kenyon associated the destruction
of the layer of city of Jericho called "City IV," with the
expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in about 1570 B.C.:
Kenyon, "Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age," in CAH3,
pp. 92-93; "Jericho," EAEHL, p. 563
Kenyon was a good archaeologist, but she was off with
the date because of her associating the Israelites with the
Hyksos, which they were not. But she did not know that.

True, the Israelites have nothing to do with the Hyksos - there are
separated by 300-500 years.

I think they were contemporary with each other, and

Then you are, as usual, ignoring the experts.

The words "the experts" covers a lot of people,
and they all do not agree.

Most of them do, at least on the main points.

You can't find someone that is what you would call
unbiased. At some point in your life, you will have
to trust people, at least some of the time.

If you want to make
discoveries you have to be willing to read what
all archaeologists say, not just some.

But you then weight the evidence on the basis of the expert view.

What makes you think your experts don't have
bias among them?

If you want
to find chariot wheels in the Red Sea, you might
really need to go to the Yam Suf and dig up a crop
that gets planted every year over an excavation.

I thought Ron 'The Con' Wyatt was the only person to find chariot
wheels in the red sea?

When I was a child or young teen in San Antonio,
Texas, someone published a picture very much like
Ron's picture of the chariot wheels in the Red Sea,
and those also were in the Red Sea. It was on the
national news and people got pretty excited over it.
But that was it and there were no more finds of
chariot wheels.

There are countries and governments that are not
friendly to just any discovery.

Oh! Do tell, this could be fun.

There are several prominent ones:
A very famous one is the govenment of Turkey
would not let certain photos be made of Ararat
for a long time because of the Russian base that
can be seen from the mountain. The mountain
people there also would keep people away.
Another is the Cave of Machpeleh, which is
covered by guards that are Palestinians. Another
is the Temple Mount, which I've already said.
Another is Mount Hashem el-Tarif. There is
evidence also at the top of it of a spring that used
to be there, which is significant. There is a cemetery
up there, and there are rocks set up as tributes,
and all these things have significance. It even has
a prominent cleft in the rock. It is believed by some
to be worth studying to see if it could be the real
Mt. Sinai. Moses lived by that mountain when he
hid out from the pharaoh in Egypt because he had
slain someone that was Egyptian. He met his wife
there, and also kept sheep on the mountain. He had
one encounter with the Lord there. His wife's
people were Midianites, which were a group of
Semitic relatives.


that maybe the Hyksos rule in Egypt overlapped the
Israeli's lives there.

There is no evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt.

The scarabs do not lie.

You keep on about them as if they are some holy relic. Why? We know
the Main Jericho tell was used as a necropolis for at least 150 years,
so why would these scarabs be something special?

These particular scarabs were found at City IV of Jericho,
and bore the names of some pharaohs that came after
the date that you gave for that layer, which others have
also dated as being in the 1400 B.C.'s. I've explained this
several times.

The Israelites where there 450
years.

Since the Israelites did not exist as a separate group until about
1200BC that is an impossibility - and one for which there is zero
evidence.

Tell it to the guards of the Cave of Machpeleh, Bob.

Ah! You mean the Cave of Machpelah - the Cave of the Patriarchs.

Wow! You are very gullible. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and
Rebekah, Jacob and Leah - all totally fictional characters so it would
be impossible to find their graves.

No. I am not gullible about that. The building on the top
of the cave was built by Herod it is believed, because of
the style being the same as his beautiful architecture. The
cave was visited by people at the beginning of the 1900's.
The building was taken over by Muslims and a mosque
was placed over the cave. They did not let anyone go in
it then. In the building, which they call the Tomb of the
Patriarchs, are cenotaphs, supposedly of patriarchs. But,
they are not really containing patriarchal remains. In
the Cave beneath the building are real tombs. Three rooms
of the cave are now able to be viewed by visitors but they
do not let Jews in, except once a year, if they get to go
inside. One year they were only allowed to go as far as the
steps, and no further. In one of the passageways, the door
is sealed so that no one can go into that passage and they
think many more graves are in there. There is a wind inside
of the cave that seems to be coming from the interior of
the earth, that is cool.

What we have, in the real world, is a bible that is pure fiction. It
was written to promote a set of gods who were used to explain things
that the priesthood could offer no better (scientific) explanation
for. It was also written to allow a priesthood to control a population
- that has always been one of the main aims of religion. If the people
live in fear of their gods then the priesthood can control them, and
in the case of most religions they can milk them dry.

Maybe you have observed the wrong priesthood.

Nope, I'm not talking about one priesthood, not even one religion.
Though I must admit that the christian priesthood have taken fear and
control to the limit.

Sounds like a man-made priesthood, and not the
one of the New Testament. In the Lord, perfect
love casts out fear.

The christian priesthood took fear and control to new heights.

A believer is a priest or priestess. When Christ died, the
vale of the temple was split in two from top to bottom,
signifying, it is believed, that the priesthood is now
open to all. Today anyone that puts their trust in the Lord
may go directly to him in prayer.

One time
Christ saw the disciples fishing in a boat and they had not
caught anything all day long. He told them to cast their nets
on the other side of the boat. If you think about it, the very
same fish would be on one side of the boat that were on
the other side.

How do you work that out? Many fish move in shoals, and someone stood
on the shore may well be able to see where a shoal is better than the
people on a boat.

That's entirely possible. But the point is that the one
telling them where the fish were, knew where they
were.

But it was not supernatural, it is not evidence for a god.

You have a funny kind of protocol that you observe.
You rebel against the church, turn against the Bible,
and think that's all right for you. But you insist on
proper archaeologists that you deem to be the only
ones, and you ignore eye-witness accounts to places
like Jericho.

This is from John 21, and it was the third time
that Jesus showed himself to his disciples after he
had been resurrected. It has to do with being obedient.

That is one of the biggest faults with religion - its wish to control.

Do you call it a "wish to control" when you see a sign
saying "road ends here...cliff ahead?" God's wanting
people to trust him is for their good, not for the purposes
of God wanting control, just to be wanting control.

The thing that was different was that they
were doing what he said to do. The power was in who was
doing the leading.

You see, "power" "leading" - that is what religion has always been
about, putting the power in the hands of the few.

There was only one in this case and it was the Son
of God, not just anyone.

Since most of christianity was invented by the early priesthood (after
all there is not one scrap of real evidence that JC ever existed) that
claim falls from the outset.

If I told you about baobab trees and you had never
seen one and no one you know ever wrote about
them or photographed them or saw them but me,
you would not believe me. But if I told you now
that the baobab tree supplied us with kapok for
pillows, would you believe that if you never heard
of kapok?

People who really are
Christians should concentrate on letting the Lord
work through them, not on themselves being the
power.

Tell that to 2000 years of the priesthood.

Christians ARE priests. It is not a group of men in
one denomination. Christians are also saints, and do not
have to be appointed to that position. They are in addition
ambassadors for Christ, and all these things are bibilcal.

Like any good work of fiction the bible tries to bend old stories to
fit its overall aims. The flood myth is one such example, a story far
older than the bible that they simply rewrote to fit. The bible also
uses real places because it has to be familiar to the people. In the
same way some real names are used, having biblical attributes added to
them. If I wanted to sit down and write a new religion around a
worship of King Arthur then I would use real places in Britain, and
real people from our past, to make my story more realistic.

The stupidity is that some people can read an ancient collection myths
and fairy stories and actually believe they are real.

The Bible is not just one book. It's many books. Your
suggestion would be an impossible conspiracy of people
from different eras and times.

No, a conspiracy started around 700BC.

No, and Job is believed to be written at least 3500
years ago.

Rubbish.


(Sigh.)

What you are saying is not
what the Bible is. It's God's word.

Please provide even one scrap of evidence that gods exist.

Maybe because you keep running into
Christians on the Internet.

That isn't evidence of anything except their delusions, poor education
and their lies.

Who are these people that you keep speaking of?
Priests that wreak havoc on the world. People that
hoodwink you about everything right and good.

The stories in it are not
allegories, they are real events.

Rubbish.

As for the story of King Arthur, whoever he was, whether
he was a real person or not, in the story, in order for him
to succeed, he had to go back and find Wart again.

Hohohohoho! Stupid moron!

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

In every
person there is the child that he once was, and some bind up
that child and don't let him show any more. As a rule,
children are superior to adults in their faith.

Religion is for kids, like all fairy stories. When you grow up you see
through its lies.

When are you going to grow up?

I grew up when I was seven.

Your posts demonstrate that is not true.

Your brain is negative.

Suzanne


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... Please feel free to come back when you can quote a proper archaeology ... the idea that someone with a religion has to be so ... It was also written to allow a priesthood to control a population ... Christians should concentrate on letting the Lord ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... So you are aware that there is little evidence to support the claim ... Please feel free to come back when you can quote a proper archaeology ... the idea that someone with a religion has to be so ... It was also written to allow a priesthood to control a population ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: are Catholics Christians ?!
    ... your theology of ministerial priesthood is necessarily different. ... > claims to be "The Church". ...  Outside a Church there is no authority to ... those who have become Christians and continue to sin - it is that sin that 'crucifies the Son'. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?PeaceCommuniqu=E9_=23_020509?=
    ... Priesthood and Islam: Priesthood is the office of a spiritual leader ... religion possesses priesthood, the most notable exception being Islam. ... saying that Pakistan could be in danger of rapid and sudden collapse. ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)
  • Re: PriestHoods
    ... The general principle to draw from this discussion is the Religion has been ... invented by a priesthood of some sort. ... The victims were people opposed to the priesthood and who had sussed them ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
Quantcast