Originally posted by frogstompYou and a handful of revisionists
Small slivers of the same materiel that makes up the foundation of your religion is not making a broad generalization. No matter how you try to wiggle out of it, you religion was 'borrowed ' from the Sumerians. All that is , except the name El, they 'borrowed' that from the semites that lived in Canaan.
are free to think whatever you wish.
Just don't confuse what you believe with actual facts,
otherwise folks will begin thinking you daft.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou really need to start backing up this statement that it is only a "handful of revisionists" that view things in this way. First, exactly what facts are being revised?
You and a handful of revisionists are free to think whatever you wish. Just don't confuse what you believe with actual facts,
otherwise folks will begin thinking you daft.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you really think I give a hoot about what you think about me?
You and a handful of revisionists
are free to think whatever you wish.
Just don't confuse what you believe with actual facts,
otherwise folks will begin thinking you daft.
I don't and I also don't care that you think it's revisionism, which maybe it is. BUT your junk really needs to be revised , basicly because of the discovery of the Sumerian texts as well as the Armana tablets. When read, they clearly show that the case of the israelites being contacted by god has no real substance , in fact it's like the christian's argument about the flood, SMOKE and MIRRORS,
You want to believe in that OT god , go ahead but remember God isn't a two-year old so YOU and your ilk should dream up a reasonable explaination for him acting like one.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou think the Sumerian gods were false , but yet your religion was built on the stories about them. My take is , if the stories were true then the gods would also be true, which of course they aren't true, so neither is the god that's depicted in Genesis.
Very creative.
EDIT: Didn't I say he would come with the "stole our gods, our language" line? Wait for the women...
Originally posted by frogstomp... báááááááááááád people .... bááááááááááád people ......
Small slivers of the same materiel that makes up the foundation of your religion is not making a broad generalization. No matter how you try to wiggle out of it, you religion was 'borrowed ' from the Sumerians. All that is , except the name El, they 'borrowed' that from the semites that lived in Canaan.
Originally posted by frogstompNow why haven't you thought of that before ?
You think the Sumerian gods were false , but yet your religion was built on the stories about them. My take is , if the stories were true then the gods would also be true, which of course they aren't true, so neither is the god that's depicted in Genesis.
Originally posted by frogstompGod has revealed Himself in the history of the Jewish people. The way He has done this is truly remarkable. Assuming the things you are claiming are all true than this is the way He chose to reveal Himself during the decades you are talking about.
You think the Sumerian gods were false , but yet your religion was built on the stories about them. My take is , if the stories were true then the gods would also be true, which of course they aren't true, so neither is the god that's depicted in Genesis.
Why does God have to reveal Himself in a way you consider to be plausible and acceptable ? God has revealed Himself in the way He has chosen to reveal Himself. That's all there is to it.
No smart-@ss reasoning to "prove" that the Jewish-Christian tradition is somehow a fake or that the God of Abraham doesn't exist can change this fact.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeOnly smart@ss brainwashing holds you back I'hoe, you wont ever see the Light thinking that way, question did your god reveal himself to the Canaanites before or after he had them all murdered?
God has revealed Himself in the history of the Jewish people. The way He has done this is truly remarkable. Assuming the things you are claiming are all true than this is the way He chose to reveal Himself during the decades you are talking about.
Why does God have to reveal Himself in a way you consider to be plausible and acceptable ? God has re n tradition is somehow a fake or that the God of Abraham doesn't exist can change this fact.
3 edits
Originally posted by freakyKBHWe all must be alert to new discoveries...and how valuable they can be, as you explore, you can become more tolerant of the differences of the mind that separate us from one another. The broader perspective and the more curious, will help you be more accepting of others beliefs. Opening your mind to new things can help you accept the way others choose to live and they are just as valid and valuable as yours, our own system of belief can sometimes be blinding.
... You and a handful of revisionists
are free to think whatever you wish.
Just don't confuse what you believe with actual facts,
otherwise folks will begin thinking you daft.
......
gil
Originally posted by gentlegilOkay, Shirley MacLaine: whatever you say. You apparently are unaware that, to real historians, most of the cr@p that froggie is spouting is old news. His 'takes' on the data are nothing more than the knee-jerk conclusions of other agenda-driven propagandists.
We all must be alert to new discoveries...and how valuable they can be, as you explore, you can become more tolerant of the differences of the mind that separate us from one another. The broader perspective and the more curious, will help you be more accepting of others beliefs. Opening your mind to new things can help you accept the way others choose to l ...[text shortened]... just as valid and valuable as yours, our own system of belief can sometimes be blinding.
gil
It gets a bit old, with every 'new' discovery, the faithless jump on the bandwagon, ready to put the final nail in the coffin of poor ol' God. Then, their 'discoveries' are taken a step further to reveal -surprise- God was right, after all. It's hasn't been a contest for quite some time, and yet to hear him and 'his ilk' describe it, there is some type of race on. Boring and usual, I'm afraid. But I digress. The students of truth are supposed to be supportive of all manner of banality, right? Not in my lifetime, gg.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHListen up silly man, You the one here with an agenda, i.e. to defend the undefensible actions of your stupid god. If you want to believe that crap go right ahead, but at least you have found out my facts are correct and maybe that will wake you up to the notion that the OT god is far too foreign in nature to have been the father of Christ.
Okay, Shirley MacLaine: whatever you say. You apparently are unaware that, to real historians, most of the cr@p that froggie is spouting is old news. His 'takes' on the data are nothing more than the knee-jerk conclusions of other agenda-driven propagandists.
It gets a bit old, with every 'new' discovery, the faithless jump on the bandwagon, ready to ...[text shortened]... supposed to be supportive of all manner of banality, right? Not in my lifetime, gg.
You been given a choice Christ's message or the OT crap, your choice , but you really can't have both, not if you want to be sane.