We all spend way too much time here, bur. 
oohh i have another long educationl video that nobody except maybe bur will watch for this subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1GI8mNU5Sg
Too much time. There isnāt anything I disagree with, so thereās not much point in posting. 
cool, i am a very wise man, arenāt i 8)
@han: not as much as me, I bet 
but youāre probably right christ, iāve been part of this community for almost nine years, thatās crazy
@idi: you should send me more videos edit: wow, those first 3 minutes are depressing
random thought brought on by the video: adam and eve is a parable describing manās evolution to self-consciousness and introspection, which expelled us from the timeless present in which most other animals still reside
(i believe itās highly plausible that there is a lot of knowledge, wisdom and technology which weāre rediscovering at present, because it had already been attained before, and was lost because of, the disasters at the of the end of the last ice age)
edit: I should really start writing. been wanting to for a long time
Depending on which definition of ice age youāre going by, the last was either 260,000,000 or 22,000 years ago. Humans started practicing agriculture about 12,000 years ago.
What exactly are you implying? That there was some sort of lost civilization, more advanced than our current one, tens of millenia ago? I donāt think thereās any archaeological evidence to support that.
@Bur No man, I havenāt been chased away Iāve actually tried on three different occasions to post replies (that have been immense and poorly put together) but between looking after apartment building stuff and visiting my best friends (who are currently on break and weāve been doing stuff pretty much every day) Iāve not actually had time to write something out that is coherent and understandable.
I think Catholicism is particularly harmful, and personally I believe that the Bible should solely be the moral rule book, and as particularly Catholicism and many parts of Protestantism have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus in any way, and even are directly opposed in several ways, I hold a certain level of disdain for organised religion in general.
Mark 12 30-31: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.ā[a] 31 The second is this: āLove your neighbor as yourself.ā[b] There is no commandment greater than these.ā
The thing is, if you love your neighbor, you will not pester them or look down on them for their beliefs or life choices. Certainly you would share your āreligionā with them to a point, but never in judgement. āLove the Lord your Godā as a priority keeps you from aiding someone or partaking in certain actions deemed āsinfulā, but I believe the only people that Christians should criticize for they way they are living are other Christians, and that is only when they are doing something DIRECTLY in opposition to what the Bible says. (IE: donāt harass anyone for playing cards or not wearing a suit to church)
Iām going to leave this where it is for now to prevent myself going off on a major tangent, Iāll add more later possibly. I like where youāve taken this Bur, and it is interesting to see everyoneās reasons for their own personal beliefs.
I think the bible actually says that not everyone should focus on trying to spread the Word, and that itās not for everyone. I know for a fact that it says, if someone doesnāt want to listen to you when spreading the Word, you should kick the dust from your feet and move on.
Some people go way too far in trying to share their beliefs.
I mean the one which was its maximum ~20ka, and ended ~12,5ka (shortly before what is considered the start of agriculture).
Not a lost civilization, but simply lost culture, knowledge, technology. More likely it would have been a dispersed, interconnected (to some degree) spectrum of different cultures, traditions, etc. - which makes sense if you consider that man spread out from a small group of individuals.
Not more advanced than us, but advanced in some way, probably overlapping with what we have today in some areas, surpassing it in others, and vice versa.
There is a lot of evidence, at least circumstantial, in the form mostly of megalithic structures, ancient cities, etc. There has been a lot of new discoveries in the past decade. Agriculture has been pushed back, the way it came to be is being reconsidered.
Consider this:
-
modern man has been around for ~70k years. Before that there were already humans around which were much like us, though there is no (or little) evidence of symbolic thought - which is the main thing which is thought to distinguish us from other/older human species (aside from pure biology/classification).
-
our planet is a violent place; earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, rising and falling sea-levels, comets and asteroids, ā¦: a lot of opportunity to destroy without a trace much of the fragile objects we leave behind. Several of these events occurred during the past 70k years.
-
even without such violent events, time would dissolve much of what we could have created.
-
stone cannot be dated, only the organic material associated with it; thus, it can only be dated as far back as the oldest organic material left behind demonstrably by humans
-
in our own history, we went from printing press to internet in about half a millennium, 140 times less than the accepted age of our species; all it takes is a few people having a few ideas, which can then be built on.
-
the accepted rise of agriculture - and other developments - started all around the world in supposedly independent cultures at roughly the same time - shortly after the end of the last ice age I mentioned
-
the oldest depiction of a sea-worthy vessel is 50k years old and was found in Australia; there is increasing evidence that sapiens colonized the entire world much earlier than thought
-
there are striking similarities between supposedly independent cultures all around the world; in their architecture, in their myths and stories, in their technology, ā¦; one example is the presence of a certain type of snake worship which exists literally everywhere, for which the oldest evidence found is ~70k years old. (incidentally, its symbolism is strikingly similar to Egyptian symbolism, Christian symbolism, and much more)
-
very little is known about the origin of the Egyptian culture. Their king lists go back tens of thousands of years - Egyptologists dismiss it as fantasy. Similar king lists exist for the Sumerians. There is no evidence that the great pyramids were actually built by the pharao it is claimed to be (khafze?), except for some graffiti in a barely accessible part of it, and one vowel of the pharaoās name appearing on the sphynx (the rest having faded away/broken off), with no reference to the actual pyramids. Moreover, the slab of stone it is printed on isnāt part of the original sphynx; which reminds me that the Sphynx has been shown to be at least as old as the last period of heavy rainfall in the area. Also, there is no evidence at all that any of the pyramids, except the later ones (which are of lower quality and complexity), were ever used as tombs.
-
can you image our civilization almost completely disappearing through some global disaster? and the survivors holding on to and preserving a part of what was lost, to be built on again? if so, could it not have happened before?
I could go on for a while here, but Iāll leave it at that.
also, I said plausible, not factual
edit: ninjaād, will be back later
Well, rot, there are a lot of contradictions in the bible, which is definitely common in a book as long as the bible. But I think is wrong is that people arenāt seeing the bible for what it is: āA book telling of stories to serve as a general moral compass for your personal character to evolve from.ā The bible is not something you meticulously analyze and pick apart to guide every aspect of your life. In essence, as I see it, itās a book that tells you not to be a massive dick, which considering our current state, is still a very relevant message that hasnāt occurred to many people yet.
The thing you have to understand is that the bible is actually a collection of historical documents from all over the place. Every bible Iāve read has tons of footnotes and explanations of how some things are unknown, or require historical context to understand.
The thing is Han, is that when you meticulously pick it apart you come to realize that it doesnāt guide every aspect of your life. So I simultaneously agree and disagree with your post, I agree that it is a moral compass, but I disagree that you cannot study it to closely. Actually, I think that is where a lot of āChristiansā go wrong, is that they donāt take the time to actually read the thing, and end up following whatever wacky tradition someone behind a pulpit tells them is a good idea. They pass this stuff on to other people who donāt actually care enough to find out what is going on, rinse and repeat until you have people praying to mary and the pope and asking humans to forgive their sins, of which they feel the need to keep a meticulous record of. I think the worst thing you can do, is just sit back and not question things.
EDIT: Also, I personally have yet to come upon any unexplainable contradictions. I think Pyro is right here, there are some things you need to read in historical context.
haha, ok just my insecurities playing up
Cool, I agree with your entire post there.
I find tangents are usually more interesting than sines, so go right ahead as far as Iām concerned Definitely interesting.
About the bible: I very strongly recommend anyone, agnostic, atheistic, christian, or whatever, to watch this video (two parts):
edit: sorry, I meant this video (also two parts, same series):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A
In fact, that whole series is super interesting and enlightening, whether or not you agree with the guyās conclusion (atheism). It played a big part in consolidating my stance, and equipped me with some excellent ways to argue for it.
(the series idi posted is also really interesting, itās a four part BBC documentary about perception, to put it very generally)
After youāve watched both parts of that video, you should immediately watch this: https://youtu.be/SB3yo-ZAHAw?t=2m34s
Youāll see what I mean That whole documentary is also really interesting.
Just think how much was lost with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria!
Your speaking of carbon dating that canāt be used after 50,000 years but, carbon dating isnāt used for dating things older than that. Radiometric dating of uranium-lead can date rocks up to 3 Billion years.There is also Rubidium-Strontium dating, which has a half life of 50 billion years
Hereās just a few:
God is peace.
1 Corinthians 14: 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Or is he?
Exodus 15: 3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
God doesnāt stay mad for long.
Psalm 30:5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
Or does he?
Jeremiah 17:4 And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.
God loves burnt offerings.
Exodus 29:18 And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the Lord: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Or does he?
Jeremiah 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
God tempts no man.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Or does he?
Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Yes! Imagine how many more libraries or something equivalent could have been destroyed without leaving any written record.
The oldest books we have would have been long gone as well if it wasnāt for careful preservation techniques, and we only started doing that a short while ago.
Another thing which really says a lot: the precession of the equinox, which was only discovered by modern science in the latter half of the 20th century IIRC, is coded into many ancient temples, and myths.
āYour speaking of carbon datingā
I think my wording was a bit confusing. I didnāt mean the actual geological age of stone, thatās not really relevant in archaeology. I meant the age of a stone structure such as a pyramid, or megalithic structures - any manmade structure made of material that isnāt organic and wasnāt crafted, forged, or whatever else allows us to date the age of the actual man-made structure.
A thought which sometimes occurs to me: what if magic is actually an ancient word for electricity which lost its meaning along with the knowledge of electricity it kinda makes sense, magic isnāt so impossible anymore when you have electricity. Just baseless speculation, but a fun thought experiment imo ^^
and after looking it up on wikipedia, it appears electricity has been known about in some form at least since 600BC, and was mostly developed over just 2400 years before a battery had been developed. Thatās still about 30 times less time than the existence of our species, plenty of time for this knowledge to have been found and lost.
(although apparently ancient historians said āmagushā comes from the name of some tribe)
Feel free to tell me if Iām rambling too much
If you read the entire chapters here you will see one is a song of praise about deliverance from Pharaoh, and the other is instruction to the church regarding speaking in tongues. āGod is not the author of confusion, but of peace.ā, these verses are talking about two entirely different things, two entirely different types of āpeaceā if you will. I believe the verse in Corinthians, you can use āpeaceā and āorderā interchangeably.
āThe Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger,ā. Slow to anger means that he is patient, which is to say that it takes him a long time to become angry. This says nothing of how long he stays angered once he has been pushed far enough.
Iāll get to Genesis 22:2 in a bit, because it doesnāt actually have anything to do with your current point if you read the whole chapter. Have you pulled these off of the first ābible contradictionsā google search you found, or are you being ignorant on purposeā¦?
As for Exodus 29:18, I donāt think this is a matter of God loving burnt offerings, and if youāll notice that verse never actually says that. Did you ever consider that the smell of roasting cow might just beā¦ nice? Iām just kidding, I think burnt offerings were pleasing to God, in that they were payment for the debts of sin, so not so much the sacrifice, as much as what it signifies.
Jeremiah ā22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you.ā
Thing is, that burnt offerings were used as atonement for sin. Sin requires payment of life, and in the Old Testament, animal sacrifice was used for that atonement. If you are Christian, you believe that Jesus lived an entirely sinless life for the sole purpose of being āsacrificedā to take on the sins of those who believe just that, making animal sacrifice unnecessary. I believe God did NOT like sacrifice at all, so in order to remove that necessity and still remain true to the rules originally laid out, he sent Jesus who is God (if you are Christian) to live sinlessly, thereby being unfit to die, and so, in whoās death, payed for the sins of all who would accept him.
22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, āAbraham!ā
āHere I am,ā he replied.
2 Then God said, āTake your son, your only son, whom you loveāIsaacāand go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.ā
God detests human sacrifice, but it was never Godās intention to have Abraham sacrifice his son. Now I believe that is the King James version? The NIV that I have quoted above uses ātestsā, which is very similar but not entirely the same. I personally believe this is meant to test Abrahamās loyalty to God. In the end, God never meant for Abraham to sin, and so prevented Abraham form sacrificing his son. So it still stands true that God has never tempted any man to sin, and would never.
remember how ham saw his dad noahs dick and so god cursed hams son canaan and thats why slavery is ok
Precession has been known and written about for a very, very, very long time. Oddly enough, I just watched a program last week about Isaac Newton who had written about it in the 1600s and included it in his famous books. Ptolemy was making observations in the second century. Itās not something that came about anywhere near the 20th century.
Hmm, wasnāt the actual math behind it only discovered somewhere around that time though, because we needed computers? Iāll look it up.
edit: seems I had some simplistic information there
Order is one of the major definitions of peace. The instructions to the church arenāt strictly about speaking in tongues. Itās about proper worship practices. Thatās why the chapter ends with stating that worshipping behaviour is to be done in a orderly manner. The conflict still remains. He is either the author of peace or heās a man of war.
Yes it does. Psalm 30:5 says exactly how long in itās first seven words which state: āFor his anger endureth but a momentā So, the contradiction remains when Jeremiah 17:4 says āfor ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.ā
Begin reading at Exodus 25. Thatās where it starts with āAnd the Lord spake unto Mosesā. Exodus 29 is a continuation of what āthe Lordā is saying. The atonement for sin is stated in Exodus 29:14 where he says " But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering." So, itās precisely laid out that a sin offering is burning a bullockās flesh and his dung! Read the rest and youāll find some pretty disturbing instructions on what to do with the animal. Later on he talks about killing a bull each day along with two one year old lambs. Later he tells them that generations to come are to do a burnt offering at the entrance to the tent. Itās rather obvious that God likes burnt offerings isnāt it?
You state adamantly that sin requires payment of life. If thatās true then why werenāt Adam and Eve killed for sinning? Or better yet, why didnāt God simply tell them that they could kill a bullock, remove its skin and dung, burn it and that their sins would be forgiven?
Of course it was a test. Thatās not the point. The point was that Abraham knew that god liked sacrifices.
You say you use the NIV. Did you know that the NIV never even existed in its entirety until 1978, that they had added words to it in spite of Revelations 22:18 commanding no one to do that? You use a book that edited out The deuterocanonical books just like the KJV that did the same thing in the late 1800s? The one that relied on texts from the United Bible Societies that only came into existance in 1946? The one that added the word YOUR to Matthew 13: 32 (then removed it in the 2011 version because of criticism) in order to avoid Jesus speaking a botanical untruth when Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds?
In the mean time, hereās a couple more contradictions. I used your NIV this time.
Genesis 32: 30 says: So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, āIt is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.ā
Yet John 1:18 says: No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known
Ezekiel 18:20 says The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Yet Exodus 20:5 states: You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
We can continue this forever, and it will boil down to one of two outcomes each time, you will either give two examples completely ignorant of their context, or I will not take a certain verse literally enough to see a contradiction. Now we could debate every verse in the bible against each other, and be locked in an eternal (now if you take this statement too literally it will be false and upsetting) battle of pedantic and futile struggle, but that seems tiresome and stressful.
So Iād rather take this in a different direction CPU, what are your personal beliefs and history?
@Bur, I saw that video you had posted btw, I thought it was interesting. I havenāt seen part 2 yet.