Originally posted by no1marauderIt appears pretty straightforward:
What do you suppose the "intended purpose" of the Spirituality Forum was?
"Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."
Unfortunately, the entire forum has been stalled at the gate from pretty much day one.
Originally posted by frogstompYou haven't answered why whodey's first scenario is the preferred version. You haven't answered why the sources that you cite are to be trusted. You haven't answered how every culture on the planet has had some flood motif, either. Source: your posts.
Your 1st "1)" is closest but I do like the fact you raise some other similar myths in your 2nd "1)"
You did leave off the tower and the ziggurats though.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGiven what whodey posted , I said his first 1) was closest.
You haven't answered why whodey's first scenario is the preferred version. You haven't answered why the sources that you cite are to be trusted. You haven't answered how every culture on the planet has had some flood motif, either. Source: your posts.
I don't have to establish their bonafides, read them yourself.
Every place on earth is subjected to some flooding , period.
You still haven't given YOUR sources.
Originally posted by frogstompGiven what whodey posted , I said his first 1) was closest.
Given what whodey posted , I said his first 1) was closest.
I don't have to establish their bonafides, read them yourself.
Every place on earth is subjected to some flooding , period.
You still haven't given YOUR sources.
That's pretty much a given, as that is what you are being questioned about. Obviously when you are asked why his first scenario is the preferred scenario, you have already stipulated that you prefer it over any others. The question is, on what basis?
I don't have to establish their bonafides, read them yourself.
Sure you do. Why should the cited sources be trusted over and above, say, joesreadymadehistory.com?
You still haven't given YOUR sources.
I'm alright with that. I have no problem using yours for the time being.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you that dense that you don't know the meaning of " closest "
[b]Given what whodey posted , I said his first 1) was closest.
That's pretty much a given, as that is what you are being questioned about. Obviously when you are asked why his first scenario is the preferred scenario, you have already stipulated that you prefer it over any others. The question is, on what basis?
I don't have to establ OUR sources.
I'm alright with that. I have no problem using yours for the time being.[/b]
The sites themselves have their own bonafides written there for the most part, read them there.
And yes you do need to post your sources that you seemed to allude to being legion in their contradictory position.So name them.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have no idea what that sentence means. It appears to me that people here DO discuss the "supernatural, religion, and the life after". Obviously trying to establish that such things as 1 and 3 really exist is a valid discussion of them.
It appears pretty straightforward:
"Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."
Unfortunately, the entire forum has been stalled at the gate from pretty much day one.
Actually, a main purpose of the Forum was to stop a few fanatics from prosleytizing in a bunch of threads in Debates where they would often introduce religious ranting into utterly unrelated topics.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHKBH: You haven't answered how every culture on the planet has had some flood motif, either.
You haven't answered why whodey's first scenario is the preferred version. You haven't answered why the sources that you cite are to be trusted. You haven't answered how every culture on the planet has had some flood motif, either. Source: your posts.
This is, of course, an exaggeration.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot too busy for you, BDN, but I did miss your post on the bushmen of the Kalahari. What was the source you used which holds to their lack of a flood story?
I posted an example of a culture without a flood myth ( the !Kung, who inhabit a desert). I suppose FreakyKBH was too busy to read that.
Originally posted by no1marauderGee, no1, I hadn't been asked so how could I have answered? As whodey has already offered, there are several possible scenarios relevant to the topic. Some are more likely than others. If I promised you a piece of candy for choosing the right one, which one would you guess most closely lines up with my viewpoint?
KBH: You haven't answered how every culture on the planet has had some flood motif, either.
This is, of course, an exaggeration.
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no idea what that sentence means.
I have no idea what that sentence means. It appears to me that people here DO discuss the "supernatural, religion, and the life after". Obviously trying to establish that such things as 1 and 3 really exist is a valid discussion of them.
Actually, a main purpose of the Forum was to stop a few fanatics from prosleytizing in a bunch of threads in Debates where they would often introduce religious ranting into utterly unrelated topics.
It was a simple c/p job from the byline to the Spirituality forum. No enigma requiring special knowledge, as far as I can tell.
Obviously trying to establish that such things as 1 and 3 really exist is a valid discussion of them.
What would you say is discussed more on this forum: spirituality? or, the existence of spirituality? Thus, my statement that the Spirituality forum is stopped at the gate with no sign of progress in sight.
Actually, a main purpose of the Forum was to stop a few fanatics from prosleytizing in a bunch of threads in Debates where they would often introduce religious ranting into utterly unrelated topics.
To hear you say it, the Spirituality forum is intended for those who have already established the existence of spirituality (at least for themselves). Almost makes one wonder why the so-called atheists and agnostics would leave the sacred halls of Debate and chase the banished spiritualists. Wonder who is prosleytizing whom.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere are only two possible choices about the flood and neither of them involve a worldwide flood. One is many different localized floods occured, and the other is the proto flood.
Not too busy for you, BDN, but I did miss your post on the bushmen of the Kalahari. What was the source you used which holds to their lack of a flood story?
However, the biblical version is just the names of a god and Noah being superimposed on the existing Sumerian flood story with the usual editing due to changes over time that occurs in folklore.
The Sumerian story were written on clay tablets and they still exist but at the time of the writing of the bible they were unavailable because they were buried. So we have a better grasp of the flood story than Moses ( or whoever wrote the OT) did.
Originally posted by frogstompThere are only two possible choices about the flood and neither of them involve a worldwide flood.
There are only two possible choices about the flood and neither of them involve a worldwide flood. One is many different localized floods occured, and the other is the proto flood.
However, the biblical version is just the names of a god and Noah being superimposed on the existing Sumerian flood story with the usual editing due to changes over ...[text shortened]... d. So we have a better grasp of the flood story than Moses ( or whoever wrote the OT) did.
And I'm really, really good looking. You see, the problem with opinions is, they're only as good as the proof which supports them. Using your formula, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Why? Well, that was the first version, of course.
Also The Tower story has meaning only if it's applied to the Sumerian Ziggurats.
The Enuma Elish ( the fifth tablet ) gives meaning to the 6th and 7th day of the week which in Genesis appears as the day that the creation work stopped and when god rested.
The Code of Hammurabi has enough similarities with the biblical laws to have been the inspiration for them.
The Anunnaki
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStop changing the subject , if you want to talk about the 1960's go to the debates forum and talk there.
[b]There are only two possible choices about the flood and neither of them involve a worldwide flood.
And I'm really, really good looking. You see, the problem with opinions is, they're only as good as the proof which supports them. Using your formula, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Why? Well, that was the first version, of course.[/b]
Unless you can find some sources to post , try and apply your "logic" to yourself.
My sources have been posted where the hell are yours?