Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Camels? In Israel? Sorry, Bible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    There just...I...the..

    Sounds like pretty much all of your arguments.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Archaelogy presents inarguably the least complete historical picture of the ancient world.

    That's not to say it isn't important. But it has been proven wrong and/or incomplete time and time again by further discovery.

    The best rule of thumb is to suspect any bold claims based solely on a lack of archaeological evidence. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?) Any attempt to write a complete history of the world based purely on archaeological evidence available at the time would be comically misguided, incomplete, and inaccurate.

    Which is why history is always built first upon the written accounts of our ancestors, and then filled in later with other means of investigation.
    There just...I...the..

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnykbr
    replied
    Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
    According to the latest archeology -- Jerusalem barely existed as a village at the time (of David and Solomon) when it was supposedly a great city --
    That's absurd.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
    Yes archeological results have often been displaced by new evidence -- but this does not help support the Biblical narrative. The newest data will continue to show that biblical history is not accurate -- because of the common practice of over-writing --

    Key parts of the old testament were amended again and again to reflect current political realities. MHG
    Look, there are many ways to take on the historicity of the Bible. Especially the Old Testament.

    Often though the game is played by denouncing the bold claims of the Biblical account by simply pointing at any evidence gaps as definitive evidence in and of itself.

    And all documentation of those inside the community itself are automatically discounted.

    If all of ancient history were challenged by this same standard, we could believe next to nothing about any of it.

    And this latest 'find' is a perfect example. Genesis said Abraham had Camels in Egypt. It could easily be assumed he brought them along. (Why wouldn't he?)

    And so in response some dudes looked around a bunch of ancient Israeli copper mines for signs of them? What would that prove? Why would the ancient Jewish patriarchy have been mining copper? Guessing they might've had more pressing things to attend to.

    Leave a comment:


  • mhgaffney
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Archaelogy presents inarguably the least complete historical picture of the ancient world.

    That's not to say it isn't important. But it has been proven wrong and/or incomplete time and time again by further discovery.

    The best rule of thumb is to suspect any bold claims based solely on a lack of archaeological evidence. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?) Any attempt to write a complete history of the world based purely on archaeological evidence available at the time would be comically misguided, incomplete, and inaccurate.

    Which is why history is always built first upon the written accounts of our ancestors, and then filled in later with other means of investigation.
    Yes archeological results have often been displaced by new evidence -- but this does not help support the Biblical narrative. The newest data will continue to show that biblical history is not accurate -- because of the common practice of over-writing --

    Key parts of the old testament were amended again and again to reflect current political realities. MHG

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
    According to the latest archeology -- Jerusalem barely existed as a village at the time (of David and Solomon) when it was supposedly a great city --
    Archaelogy presents inarguably the least complete historical picture of the ancient world.

    That's not to say it isn't important. But it has been proven wrong and/or incomplete time and time again by further discovery.

    The best rule of thumb is to suspect any bold claims based solely on a lack of archaeological evidence. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?) Any attempt to write a complete history of the world based purely on archaeological evidence available at the time would be comically misguided, incomplete, and inaccurate.

    Which is why history is always built first upon the written accounts of our ancestors, and then filled in later with other means of investigation.

    Leave a comment:


  • mhgaffney
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Just like Detroit has been long overrun with Democrats who only care about helping the poor and building the middle class.

    The gap between word and deed is the prime symptom of the human condition.
    According to the latest archeology -- Jerusalem barely existed as a village at the time (of David and Solomon) when it was supposedly a great city --

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by DenverBrit View Post
    But America is puritanical and 83% Christian, how can that be?
    Just like Detroit has been long overrun with Democrats who only care about helping the poor and building the middle class.

    The gap between word and deed is the prime symptom of the human condition.

    Leave a comment:


  • DenverBrit
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    I don't know one deeply religious person who will care what science has to say Fed. Maybe some people with lots of gaps in their faith will but not the true believers.

    They don't care that it doesn't make sense all the animals fit onto one ark etc etc.

    I never said that the love and comfort gained from religion is exclusive to it.

    Fed talks of forced religion but seriously name one thing in this country you are forced to do because of religion? What a few places you can't buy alcohol? go to a strip club? big friggin deal.

    Go ahead Houghtam go fight the big church so you can make sure everyone can drink on Sundays. It has to be done for the good of the country lol.

    Poor Americans and their oppresive reilgious institutions. give me a break our country more like an orgy then a church.
    But America is puritanical and 83% Christian, how can that be?

    Leave a comment:


  • Arkie
    replied
    says the dude from Long Beach

    It's just a few other places. Big friggin deal. Gimme a break.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    I don't know one deeply religious person who will care what science has to say Fed. Maybe some people with lots of gaps in their faith will but not the true believers.

    They don't care that it doesn't make sense all the animals fit onto one ark etc etc.

    I never said that the love and comfort gained from religion is exclusive to it.

    Fed talks of forced religion but seriously name one thing in this country you are forced to do because of religion? What a few places you can't buy alcohol? go to a strip club? big friggin deal.

    Go ahead Houghtam go fight the big church so you can make sure everyone can drink on Sundays. It has to be done for the good of the country lol.

    Poor Americans and their oppresive reilgious institutions. give me a break our country more like an orgy then a church.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pony Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Show of hands. How many kids here believe that these archaeologists literally found the actual first domesticated camels ever to live in Israel.
    Yes they have always been the front-runners of technology.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lDi3cpedm5c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Show of hands. How many kids here believe that these archaeologists literally found the actual first domesticated camels ever to live in Israel.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    A true scientist will tell you that love only exists in the chemical reactions it creates.
    Lolz. A true scientist isn't going to claim hold of the depth of knowledge necessary to make such a declaration.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    The community, inclusion, and other social aspects of religion are not in doubt. Nor are they somehow unique to religion.



    Sure you can. Lots of people who are shown that the underpinnings of their beliefs are, at best, flimsy have decided God isn't real.



    Actually, it's one of the founding principals of our society that laws cannot be made based on religious beliefs. It's right there in the Consitution. Now, that doesn't prevent overlap, but laws in this country must have a primarily secular purpose and reasoning. Take a couple commandments as an example. Big difference between trying to make a law about only worshipping Yahweh vs. making a law against killing.



    This forced religion and/or behavior is exactly what many want, and what is opposed. Ironically, quite often by the "no big government" types.



    A yes, a classic cutlet wacky tangent.



    Why?
    Oh, he's referring to a post I made in the poorly thought out and even more poorly executed "Being liberal is thirsty work" thread about Sunday alcohol purchases, or lack thereof.

    The problem he is not understanding with his "oh those laws will eventually go away" stance is that he is mistakenly assuming that laws just go away on their own. The fact of the matter is that laws such as no alcohol on Sundays came about for the same reason (and are subsequently upheld to this day for the same reason) as laws that disallowed whites from marrying blacks, or criminalizing homosexual acts.

    Those laws don't just "go away" on their own. Society doesn't just "outgrow" them. It takes bold social activism, which sometimes results in injury, often social, sometimes physical.

    That is why, cut, the influence of religion over politics needs to be actively stamped out. You cannot just sit idly by and say, "oh it'll change eventually", or you are part of the problem. Someone in another thread stupidly brought up appeasement in Europe...THIS is the very definition of appeasement.

    The Jesusers will not go away on their own. Their voices need to be silenced until they are able to realize that their kind cannot legislate based on mythology, no matter how adamantly they believe it.
    Last edited by houghtam; 02-13-2014, 05:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X