Originally posted by lucifershammerFunny thing happened on the way to the Council. They found a 1000lb gorrila sitting in the chair. Although I 'll take your word that the dictator of Rome had no influence on the results of a council that he called.
You're still getting your facts wrong.
1. The Council of Nicea declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father, not Constantine. As far as Constantine was concerned, this was just a quibble over words that needed a Council to resolve the conflicts that were rising in his empire.
2. While Constantine did initially banish Arius and his follo ...[text shortened]... Constantine's sons were avowed Arians who did use state power to suppress the orthodox Church.
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompOn second thought, after checking some sites , it seems the gorrilla did have a lot to do with the outcome of the council , however this thread isn't about the RCC's definition of heresy.Who made that decision and who didnt had nothing to do with the purloined flood story.
Funny thing happened on the way to the Council. They found a 1000lb gorrila sitting in the chair. Although I 'll take your word that the dictator of Rome had no influence on the results of a council that he called.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder....... really, marauder ....... unbelievable ...... go and eat a duck, marauder .....
No, the fact that you attacked me by accusing me of using linguistic somersaults and now use the "impreciseness of language" to somehow excuse this patently false charge. The two statements did not imply anything different at all and only a nitpicking jerk spoiling for a petty semantic fight would say they did. If you REALLY want to get into it, you've g te number. - Webster's New American Dictionary (I think; I'm missing the cover).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you include this version of the flood in "many" or just one of quite a few:
[b]What I said is that a quite a few Flood myths bear NO such resemblance, which your numbers verify.
Brilliant tactical turn. You can make "many" into "quite a few" in no time flat. And you wonder why people stop responding to you.[/b]
A louse and a flea were brewing beer in an eggshell. The louse fell in and burnt herself. This made the flea weep, which made the door creak, which made the broom sweep, which made the cart run, which made the ash-heap burn, which made the tree shake itself, which made the girl break her water-pitcher, which made the spring begin to flow. And in the spring's water everything was drowned
maybe this one:
The lake of Llion burst, flooding all lands. Dwyfan and Dwyfach escaped in a mastless ship with pairs of every sort of living creature. They landed in Prydain (Britain) and repopulated the world
oh and here's one with a ,,umm,,, boat???:
From his heavenly window, the supreme god Pramzimas saw nothing but war and injustice among mankind. He sent two giants, Wandu and Wejas (water and wind), to destroy earth. After twenty days and nights, little was left. Pramzimas looked to see the progress. He happened to be eating nuts at the time, and he threw down the shells. One happened to land on the peak of the tallest mountain, where some people and animals had sought refuge. Everybody climbed in and survived the flood floating in the nutshell. God's wrath abated, he ordered the wind and water to abate. The people dispersed, except for one elderly couple who stayed where they landed. To comfort them, God sent the rainbow and advised them to jump over the bones of the earth nine times
maybe this one:
As a girl was grinding flour, a goat came to lick it. She first drove it away, but when it came back, she allowed it to lick as much as it could. In return for the kindness, the goat told her there will be a flood that day and advised her and her brother to run elsewhere immediately. They escaped with a few belongings and looked back to see water covering their village. After the flood, they lived on their own for many years, unable to find mates. The goat reappeared and said they could marry themselves, but they would have to put a hoe-handle and a clay pot with a broken bottom on their roof to signify that they are relatives.
this one???:
Ilet, the spirit of lightning, came to live, in human form, in a cave high on the mountain named Tinderet. When he did so, it rained incessantly and killed most of the hunters living in the forest below. Some hunters, searching for the cause of the rain, found him and wounded him with poison arrows. Ilet fled and died in a neighboring country. When he died, the rain stopped
maybe this one:
The ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything.
somebody drank too much beer and ......
Originally posted by no1marauderWe all have a first language, No1, and it is nonsense, regardless of culture. But that's beside the point, isn't it. The fact remains that you attempted to use 'many' in such a manner as to build a case against overwhelming agreement with the Genesis flood account.
I don't know if you have a first language but "many" IS "quite a few". I've been perfectly consistent; you're just being an ass.
The last statistic (9% agreeing with the exact number of survivors) ought not to be considered along with the remaining similarities, owing to its disproportionate weight. Of the remaining seven similarities, only the seventh one (57/43) is anywhere near equal. The remaining six similarities are heavily weighted toward agreeing with the Genesis account.
While you twist one way and another in your attempt to justify 'many' as being warranted in characterizing the dissimilarities, you may truthfully only do so if, in turn, you characterize the similarities as 'many, many more.'
Originally posted by frogstompSorry, FS: not only was the study the work of someone else, but the details of the same are not available. Maybe you do your own study and see what you find?
Do you include this version of the flood in "many" or just one of quite a few:
A louse and a flea were brewing beer in an eggshell. The louse fell in and burnt herself. This made the flea weep, which made the door creak, which made the broom sweep, which made the cart run, which made the ash-heap burn, which made the tree shake itself, which made th ...[text shortened]... ed, and the resulting flood drowned everything.
somebody drank too much beer and ......
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat's not my study, I only added one to them.
Sorry, FS: not only was the study the work of someone else, but the details of the same are not available. Maybe you do your own study and see what you find?
That's not my reason for posting those myths, it was only to ask you if you included them.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou still can't read. The Proto Flood theory has no problem with 66% of the flood myths bearing some resemblance to the one presented in the Bible. The idea that they are ALL derived from the Biblical one has a major problem with so much divergence from your myth from so many of the other myths.
We all have a first language, No1, and it is nonsense, regardless of culture. But that's beside the point, isn't it. The fact remains that you attempted to use 'many' in such a manner as to build a case against overwhelming agreement with the Genesis flood account.
The last statistic (9% agreeing with the exact number of survivors) ought not to be con uthfully only do so if, in turn, you characterize the similarities as 'many, many more.'
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I can't read, what makes you think I'll be able to read the post to which I am responding now, either? No one (at least, not in this thread, of which I am aware) indicated that 'they' all derived from the biblical source. It is entirely within the realm of possibility, however, that they all derived from the same source, i.e., truth.
You still can't read. The Proto Flood theory has no problem with 66% of the flood myths bearing some resemblance to the one presented in the Bible. The idea that they are ALL derived from the Biblical one has a major problem with so much divergence from your myth from so many of the other myths.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExcept for the "minor" problem that the geological evidence is overwhelming that there was no worldwide flood. Why is it sooooooooo important for people of your ilk to believe that every story told in the Bible is literally true? Jesus had no problem using metaphor and allegories; why would the writers of Genesis be limited to mere recording devices?
If I can't read, what makes you think I'll be able to read the post to which I am responding now, either? No one (at least, not in this thread, of which I am aware) indicated that 'they' all derived from the biblical source. It is entirely within the realm of possibility, however, that they all derived from the same source, i.e., truth.
Any legitimate scholarly published study makes the sources of its data available. Try publishing an article in a professional journal and saying you can't be bothered to make available your data.