Any written evidence which can be relied upon?

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

I know that you really want the biblical events to be real.  But my friend, all you have provided evidence for is that "Ebla" the "Hittites" "Ashdod" and "Assyria" existed, as well as the fact that personal names such as Sargon, Belshazzar and Nabonidus were in use. On the name "Canaan" you have provided evidence of this being a name--not a place.  Biblically speaking, Canaan was a rather large geographical territory.  

What is needed here is evidence of the patriarchs themselves as well as Daniel and Isaiah as actually existing.  To prove that "great wealth" existed does not prove that Solomon existed.

quote:"Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. they have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.

All the Dead Sea Scroll proves is that the Hebrew scriptures existed--that has never been in doubt.  What is in doubt is the historical validity of the events and people as recorded in the scripture.  We have no problem proving that Egypt and the Pharoahs existed--but if Isreal and Judea were as large and influential as the bible implies--then where is evidence of these two cities?  Where is the evidence of the royal lineage of Hebrew Kings?  Where is evidence of the Israelites, who were said to be numbered in the hundreds of thousands?  (That was A LOT of people back then.)  

The same holds true for the NT period.  To prove that "Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years" does not prove that he ever sent Jesus to Golgotha.  When something is found in those ossuaries that boasts of, or at least records the event of arresting Jesus, all that is proven so far is that Caiaphas and his family existed.  

quote:There are various instances where there is strong, if not certain, evidence for locating the burial site of a person, or persons, named in the Bible.

When and if these burial sites ever identify biblical persons, then the sway of this whole debate will change sides.

But until then, I am sorry Mustardseed, proving that the Ancient Near East existed--or that the scripture itself existed--does not prove that the events of the bible really happened.  When real evidence is found to support biblical events--it will be splashed all over every newspaper, television and internet connection across the globe. And no--even the "liberal press" will not be able to keep a lid on it, for the media is "sensationalism motivated"--and that would be quite sensational...

Peace,
Beth

[GhostRider]

Thank you Mustardseed, since you've given me quite a bit of information and I'm busy lately, allow me untill sometime within the next few days to properly respond.  You have some interesting counters that require some deeper research by myself and these I will debate further, given some time to check them out as best I can.  Thanks for the info Mustardseed.

~Kevin

[Mustardseed]

Hi Beth
Lets reason together . You asked in your posts on another thread that we should keep things nice. I agree. Well in the light of that I find it "not nice" for you to say that I "really want it to be true". Does this not indicate that I am not looking for the truth, but solely trying to bolster a false assumption?. In other words that I am "fake" in saying I am seeking the truth.

I agree with you . Lets be nice, lets give the other the benefit of the doubt. I want the truth as much as anyone and I will assume you want the same as I . Lets talk these issues and not try to attempt to "guess" what we "really" wamt.

I will think about your reply to the things I posted. I just copied some things down from the page, and did not really think about the points you brought up.

Peace Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

I am sorry that you read so much into that comment.  I truly did not mean anything hurtful by it.

I will clarify by saying that there was also a time when I too wanted it to be true.  From the time I was a little girl though (age 10), I knew something was wrong about it.  I did not have the mental capacity to understand "why" or "how"--but I knew that something was amiss.

For the next 30 years I continually asked God, most urgently sometimes, "WHAT IS IT"--"WHAT IS IT" about all of this that haunts me so?  I prayed and prayed--Why couldn't I see things the way everyone else did?  It has caused upheaval and alienation for me in my family, and it caused me to be an oddball throughout my Christian theological education. Since I couldn't quite "put my finger on it" there were many times when I truly wanted my suspicions to be wrong. I wanted to see "proof" that everyone else was right. But no matter how much I prayed--I never could just accept the bible as factual and historical.  

A few years ago, I finally received my answers, and believe me, even though I was more prepared than most, it still threw me into a major spiritual crisis that took many months to deal with.  Now my question to God has changed--it is now--"WHY DID IT ALL GET SO MESSED UP?"  While I have my suspicions, this question has yet to be fully answered...

Please know I take very seriously the fact that what I have to say will cause spiritual crises for others.  That is why I must write my book in a way that is as non-threatening as possible--IF that is possible at all.  So, in essence, know that I too once wanted it all to be true as well, and further that I take the implications of all of this very seriously.

By the way:  For all those years that I beseeched God for answers, I had no idea that the phrase "What Is It" is the meaning of the word "Manna."   I asked--and I received--a little bit every day--for three decades of days.  Throughout my entire life, I have been "wandering in the wilderness" and did not even know it.  

Take it from me and my life experience, be careful what you ask for--you just might get it--you might even be getting it now and not recognizing it as such.  So my best advice?  Always be prepared for your prayers to be answered, and know that those answers are oftentimes right before our very eyes.

Peace,
Beth

[Mustardseed]

Ok Beth. Have it your way. When I question your motives, you dont want to talk to me but take it personal. When I respectfully ask you to grant me the same curtesy , you say I read things into what you say.

This is a double standard.

I am not you. I am not a insecure 10 yr girl. I have very little in common with you . It makes me angry that you assume so much, but I will no longer stoop to displaying my anger on the board. However I find you unfair in your arguing method and I find your testemonies condecending. It seems you have made up your mind that you are right and I am wrong. My judgement is that I consider your points, I do not claim to have all the answers and continue to explore. So have it your way. Pontificate expound and lecture.....I will continue to search.
Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

PS I am also very aware of my responsibility. If what I believe to be true is really true, when they realise this it could potentially throw a lot of folks on this board and yourself into a severe tailspin and potential crisis. So in that we agree.

[wisp]

Beth, Your spiritual journey sounds fascinating. We all struggle with concepts and ideas. It's great you opened yourself up to your real experiences.

Mustardseed, You seem to be doing a great job on the message your trying to convey. It just may be too deep or alien for many on these forums to appreciate. Spiritual progression by all is a very personal step.
Anyone here does seem to have a sincere interest in the right path.
Your personal experiences I haven't run across on the forums yet.Is there a place you can direct me to find what you have written so far? Did you see what I wrote in OBE discussions the other day?
If your interested, I'll try to find it for you. It may be something that you can relate to. It's something about how I've discovered  how to interpret things that happen in our lives. It's a difficult concept for most to grasp. You seem intense enough on things that it may mean something to you. I thought Beth was into this sort of thing when I got here, but her metaphors are based on something totally different. Let me know if you want to hear my ideas.

I miss the posts by Timeless. She had some very interesting things to share. I wonder if she left?

[Mustardseed]

Dear Wisp Thanks for your comment I would be very interested in hearing about your experiences, just point me to the thread. Mine are all over ha some especially in a thread "lover astral regions"

Dear Beth
I just saw last night that you are leaving for a few months and decided to write this up for you. I was meditating this morning and examining my life, I do that once in a while , and you were heavily on my mind. I feel led to share with you some of the more "meaty" parts of what I believe to be Gods nature and hope you will not be offended by me doing so.

Through my life I have seen a lot of s... and like most of us, I have been through ups and downs. I have seen hypocracy as well as selfishness and more pointedly, evil in various degrees. I have also seen selfless service to mankind, love that passes understanding and saintly behaviour in the extreme. I noticed a few very important and surprising things.

Some people can be way off in their judgement of a situation and speak very eloquently and seemingly with wisdom while they are totally in the wrong, and much to my amazement I found .........God seems to accept this and even facilitate their prolification. (Politicians would sometimes fall into this category but preachers of religion are not far behind). People make wrong choices every day. Some right under our nose, .......and God lets them!!

The Bible and the world are full of sinners and saints heroes and villains. The difference seems to be that some "missed the mark" but kept going in their pride and after a while they became hardened in their opinion and ........."becourse they believed not the love of the truth God sent them strong delusion that they might believe a lie". Others did not.

For a while this used to disturb me. It seemed to me unfair that I should have to labour so much to find out the truth about everything, from choosing a used car, voting, being in a relationship or even ,figuring out what mischief my kids are up to next. I felt that it would be much better if God could somehow just paint the liars and cheats black and the saints white. Then I could work with it. I thought about this on and off for years, and really felt a black and white universe would have been a smarter way for God to do it[], till one day I started looking for the benefits, (a positive approach)to this enigma.

The positive results in my life were many. It certainly kept me on my toes, seeing the importance in finding the truth for myself. I  also learned a lot from the bad mistakes of others, car buying from crooked salesmen comes to mind here, and generally I became more adept in using my mind, prayers and mental facilities a lot more. I seemed to grow stronger in my faith as well . However, men still continued making wrong choices after I learned this and I kept asking why? Why God I got the lesson and I understand now[]. Again I looked at the benefit for this time for the ones making bad desisions. What good is a wrong choice? Well it makes you careful not to repeat it. You learn things like caution and how to use wisdom.So ....benefit all around. No such thinh as a wrong choice then?Or what?

Did that mean that we "should do evil that good may come" (Ofcourse not tho I am still asking about that one[]). What about the one who leads others astray. Is he held accountable? I believe he is, it seems that way, in criminal court as well as karma, how things come back to "bite" you. Jesus had very little but very harsh things to say about people like that but I will not qoute this to you, you know the Bible well. As you very well know it is littered with false prophets and various degrees of false teaching. There is right and also wrong in any equation. If there is a truth there have to be falsehood. He said "If you had admitted to being blind you would have had no sin but becourse you say "we see" therefore your sin remains".

If you go write a book, I would warn you . If you make claims that states "I see, follow me or my way", make sure you are also ready to face the fact that you might be wrong and potentially could be leading people astray into a ever spiraling mass of wrong desisions, and you might be held accountable. Choose your words carefully!!!and do not become a blind leader of the blind.

I do not claim to understand all your thoughts but it seems to me that you have stumbeled unto some truth. However it might be scattered grains and not the mother lode so be wise how you interpret this truth, and how you explain it to others. Being a teacher is a awsome responsibility and can be a heavy burden. In any case be assured of my sincere regular prayers for you in the comming months. I wish you all the best and good succes with your project.

Regards Mustardseed

[exothen]

Gandalf,

Your whole post is post hoc and is totally misleading. Just because there are some similarities with pagan myths doesn't mean that Christianity arose from these myths. And not all academics believe that the stories are derived from other myths, so, no, it is not a fact.

The Bible stands on it's own quite well.

[wisp]

quote:The Bible stands on it's own quite well.

exothen, good statement.


http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8258
This is the link I was telling you about MS.

It may need a little further explaination, but I have to run out of town for awhile. When I get a chance, I'll explain more of what I'm talking about.

One thing I can say now is this. In this same dream book is the meaning of mountain. However, it doesn't fit necessarily in this circumstance of explaining something. This very thing is the cause of some confusion about learning how to understand your own meanings.
We all have unique meanings to our subconscious messages (in form of dreams often). Mountain, to this particular author meant something from her prospective. Learning how to learn your own subconscious language is what I'm trying to get across.

The exciting part is that I have been able to get answers to things that happened in my life by interpreting them like a dream. That's why, when I get a chance to read of any of your experiences, maybe I can pick up a hidden meaning or understanding.

[wisp]

Oops! Almost forgot to mention this MustardSeed. This piece you just wrote is excellent. I identify totally with everything you said.
Making the right choices have been very much my life journey too.
It pays off in the long run. I have the same questions you have though.

[Gandalf]

Exothen,
You say my article is misleading; however, I believe it is also misleading to say that there is no influence from classical myth in the NT, as if it arose fully sprung from nowhere.

I can assure you that the similarities are such that to deny the conclusion that there is classical influence in the NT stories is just an example of close-mindedness and refusal to look at evidence that doesn't agree with you belief-set.

How do you account for the similarities then? Just coincidence?
Later pagan writers going back and 're-writing' the myths to deceive?

Please elaborate.

Douglas

[Tab]

That's a load of wishful rubbish. It's very factual that there is nothing too original about Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Judaism formed out of a desert tribal God and was not monotheistic in the least until far later in it's history. It's concepts of heaven, hell, angels, satan, messianism, and judgement all come from integration of persian zoroastrian/chaldean beliefs during the exiles. These Zoroastrian beliefs later shape Christianity, which itself is heavily molded according to the paganistic fellow cults of it's time. Eventually, Islam tries to knot these beliefs into the final revelation of God, and in doing so wind up corrupting and anthropomorphising to perhaps the most extreme extent to date.

Yet, nor were the Aryan's original, with the integration of their gods with those of the Indus peoples. The fact, however, remains that the Eastern area of the world continued an undateable (indus valley art has been found depicting advanced yoga poses) tradition of inner spiritual seeking, which has bred philosophy, subjective religion, and spirituality. This while the Western religions relied on frenzied prophets, heavenly signs, and war.

[Gandalf]

Tab_
IMO, I've always felt that the eastern religions, or should we say philosophies, have always been far more spritually advanced than the more crass religious dogmas of the western world.

Douglas

[GhostRider]

Mustardseed, it would appear we don't completely disagree on everything afterall.  For we both believe in God, so maybe there is hope afterall... but as to your comments previously... thank you for being thorough and direct, but I dissagree with you on many points (except for the first point) and here they are...


Mustardseed Wrote...

"Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt."

~This is especially necessary (to argue it's validity) since unlike OTHER historical documents the ardent supporters of the Christian Bible, in the U.S.A. and in some other countries would like to see so many LAWS and Regulations passed in accordance with it.  LAWS, POLICY and REGULATIONS that will affect the MAJORITY of Americans who do (while they may believe in a GOD of some form, be it Christian or otherwise...) do not follow the text of the Christian Bible to the letter.  And if ANYONE wishes to make the case for Bible-influenced LAWS, POLICY and REGULATIONS that AFFECT ME and many others... then you had BETTER prove that the Bible is at least 65% accurate.   I would and many others would NOT wish to have a document with less than that for accuracy and credibility defining the course and means of how we can live our lives.

In fact, it is impossible to prove the Bible is even that accurate.  And I'll give you the sites that would support me.  And these aren't even Bible-hating sites, they are THE final scholarly authority on the bible.  They make any other scholar seem amateurish in comparison... argue if you wish, but even most fundamentalist-bible scholars look to them as an authority on the subject. And if that's the case, that what I just said is in fact correct (and it is...) then maybe just MAYBE... folks better lay off the bible-as-a-historically-viable-document.  It is a historical document.  Written throughout different time periods, and by the hands of many authors.  But accurate, it was not.

It was a document used to support and validate a religious movement that has brought SO much more pain, suffering, and bloodshed as well as hate than it has brought peace and love.  Jesus, whoever he is, and wherever he is now, would be thoroughly disgusted with the Christian movement, the Jewish movement, and the Islamic movement. Those three faiths have come a long way since that, but at least they mostly admit that science is right.  So why are the fundamentalist protestants saying that...?  All three faiths being close cousins of the same  root faith... here's those links, but first a quote from that Catholic site...


http://www.epiphanychurch.org/question/question59.htm


"The Church does not agree with those who say that the evolution model denies that God is the creator or that it denies the spiritual reality of the human soul."

And this quote...

"Doesn't the theory of evolution go against the biblical account of creation?
This question can be answered only if we understand clearly what the Bible actually says about creation. A careful reading of the account in the Book of Genesis indicates clearly that the so-called "six day" account of the creation is a poetic description of the origin of the world, which makes two points very clear: first, that everything in the universe was created by God and that, therefore, contrary to what some other religions teach, nothing in creation is to be worshipped as though it were a god or a part of God. The story of the creation in the Book of Genesis in the Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a scientific document giving the scientific details of how the universe came into being and how it has developed since its origins.
The view prevailing among most theologians today is that there is no conflict between the evolution model of the origin and development of life "

http://www.2think.org/pope.shtml

- A VERY good Jewish site supporting the Bible and Darwin's Theory of Evolution as compatible.
http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Evolution.htm

- on life elsewhere in the universe...say... Mars?
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk960816/usmars.htm

- a Islamic site where they go into NOT that Darwin was wrong, they talk about things he missed, and that he wasn't the FIRST to theorize it, and that the Quran teaches it as well as the BIG BANG...

"In contrast, the Quran describes the formation of the universe as a big bang, beginning with the creation of the heavens and the earths. The plurality of these terms is stressed in order to indicate that there are numerous galaxies. Next, the formation of water, the development of the land, and the creation of plants and animals took place (7:54, 41:9-12, 21:30, 44:7, 78:37). This account coincides with current scientific data. For example, according to the Quran, humans were created in the fourth period on earth, and geologists have concluded that humans appeared in the quaternary, or fourth, era. Furthermore, the Quran indicates that water was the first thing created on earth, and this is also supported by the scientific conclusion that water is the basis of life. Plus, the Quran advocates evolutionary change (15:19-21), unlike the Christian scriptures. Not all religions conflict with science, as has been shown of Islam. Many of the ideas present in the Quran have been adopted by evolutionists. Today, many Christian scholars have reluctantly compromised traditional theories and are willing to accept the scientific data concerning evolution; however, they maintain that the biblical accounts are symbolic and inspired by God."

http://www.icgt.org/MonitorPastArticles/IslamicEvolution.htm

Go ahead, debate me on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, debate me on the Big Bang, debate me on carbon dating... but I too have some religious heavy-weights in MY corner backing up the theory I support.  We (religious authorities and myself) may not agree exactly on everything, but they wouldn't agree with fundamentalist thinking.  Good to see Reason and Science haven't left their true home, the churches.

Mustardseed wrote....

"The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same"

~ Here then is some verified FACT that should allay your fears and points... .

"The last problem to solve is the amount of C-14 in comparison to the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere. C-12 levels need to be verified as constant over the last 50,000 years or so. Going back to our analogy, this would be like seeing a new dead person with the 20 dollars in his pocket. However, how would we know that in ancient times, the taxman didn't collect every 50 years instead of the 500 years that he does now? In the case of C-14 dating, we somehow have to determine that the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere 50,000 years ago is fundamentally the same as it is today's atmosphere. At this point, our analogy starts to lose its exact correlation here but radiometric dating should be more understandable now. This is exactly one of the loudest arguments that Young-Earth scientists use against C-14 dating today. They claim that the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere decreased dramatically when the flood of Noah took place.
How much C-14 was there at the time of Noah's flood?
The first point to be dealt with is the "carbon level increase" assuming a global flood. To answer this argument scientifically we need to compare carbon ratios of today to those dating before the flood took place. If we are able to determine that the C-12/C-14 ratio is close to the same as it is today, we will have falsified (proved wrong) Brown's flood/carbon hypothesis. It turns out we do have a way to compare the carbon levels of today to pre-flood times through tree rings.
Tree Rings and C-14
The study of climatic changes through tree rings (Dendrochronlogy) started in the 1920s. In simple terms, dendrochronolgists can determine past seasonal climates by looking at the rings of trees. In certain species of trees, a ring will appear wider if the weather has been wet. During a dry season, a ring will be much narrower. A ring is established by the change from spring to winter. During the spring, a tree adds new, large cells to the outer layer. As winter approaches, the cells are smaller in contrast; thus establishing each year that has passed.
The science of dendochronology does not have an "agenda" to either prove evolution or disprove Young Earth creationism. They are simply studying the recent history of climatic changes. The neutral position of this science is good for both sides of our examined arguments. An interesting side point is that they are able to date volcanic explosions by examining its effects in affected rings.
There are no known living trees over 5,000 years old, so how could anyone know about building a tree chronology back to pre-flood times? The answer lies in building a chronology from dead trees onto the live trees. The method for building tree chronology is very simple and extremely sound as well. The key is to find a standing dead tree that had an overlapping life with a living one. By using this method, rings can be compared or visually overlaid (think of two viewgraphs) to add the number of standing dead trees rings to the number of rings of live trees. Another verification is to find the ring damage in both sets of trees resulting from the volcanic activity along with matching rings. Once these dates have been established, more tree ring chronology can be added by comparing fallen dead tree rings to the standing dead tree rings (See Figure on tree rings.)
This allows us to build a chronology of trees past 9,000 years, past the time of Noah's flood. This allows us to see if there is a dramatic difference in C-12 by examining trees that existed before Noah. Scientists can check how many C-14 per C-12 atoms there were in the atmosphere during every century all the way back through the tree ring chronology by checking the carbon-14 dating wood from these very old trees. Using this method in the Bristlecomb Pine trees, carbon-14 dating has been checked back to over 9000 years ago"

(the link were you will find this info and SO much more...) http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm

They, the scientists that use carbon dating have double checked and triple and... (so-on) checked the validity and accuracy of carbon dating against carbon-based objects that BOTH camps (the fundamentalist Christian groups and the ardently Scientific groups) knew the age of.  In other words, it was used on objects both camps knew the precise age of and was found to be dead-on accurate.  A test that should allay any doubts to it's precision and validity.


Mustardseed wrote...

"Moreover, it is established fact that the earth's magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability."

~Not so, (I refer you to the above quote} besides,  most communication buffs, and amateur rock hounds, scientists, professional or otherwise have known this.  Anyone who does any amount of spelunking in the Canadian Shield, a place that I used to call home for nearly three decades and is famous for rendering modern compasses obsolete due to the strong magnetic interference of the area, an effect that is only ENHANCED or DIMINISHED by the ambient magnetic field of the earth.  

Mustardseed, not everyone is a geographically or earth-science ignorant as that statement of yours would suggest.  Maybe in the circles you run in it is a problem, but in mine... you either know where you're going or you and you're hunting client could be in DEEP excrement.  In short, REALLY, REALLY LOST.  And as the hunting guide, or outdoors-adventure guide (that would be you...) you'd be out a few thousand dollars, maybe with a lawsuit pending, with your reputation going down the crapper fast, and maybe, just maybe in some REAL physical danger.   And they're not the only ones who would need to know that.  But still, enough folks know that the Earth's magnetic field has been in decline for long enough now, that it makes for a strange statement to assume that the scientific community wouldn't know that.  In fact, right now we're traveling through a region of space that is INCREASING the magnetic field disturbance right through our entire Solar System.  A situation that has been causing the increasing frequency of Solar Storms which affect a LOT of areas.  So, no, that's a wrong statement to make about the scientists.  Maybe about general lay-people, but not scientists as a whole.  And especially not those responsible for carbon dating.

Mustardseed wrote...

"Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since. Note also that man's (Eve's) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond. Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man's desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason."

William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.
18 March 2002


~Great points by a Doctor of Theology (religious studies) no less... but the science he claims is not being held accountable pales in comparison to the crime of an absent God who is not being held accountable for the actions of his flock.  I can, even if some don't believe it, I can with facts and logic prove my points, and if I'm wrong, I'll ask for the proof of it, I'll then check it out and if it is correct... I'll change my point of view.  But this isn't the case for fundamentalist Christianity... doesn't it bug you that the light of reason steers so far away from the dogma of the existence of creationism?  

Case in point..." Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since."  
 Sounds to me like a guilt-inducing device cleverly woven into the statement to gently guide people away from thinking for themselves and ALWAYS trusting what God, and by association his faiths stewards... the CHURCH has to say.

I do believe God exists Mustardseed, but I also believe in reason, logic and compassion.  I believe that God gave us a brain to think, dream and be curious.  And to deny what is fact is to ultimately deny what God himself created...

No one had a chance to debate that theory of Creationism, it was rammed down our throats centuries back by a barbaric church who'd persecute anyone who questioned it.  And maybe it's because of that LONG history of violent oppression that the seeds for an Anti-Religious movement sprung up.  And that could explain the knee-jerk "love-it-or-hate-it" attitude/reaction that has greeted the theory of evolution and the creationist theory.

Some day perhaps, a better theory will come about to surpass the theory of evolution, or at least augment it and bring it into better clarity.  But it certainly won't be a creationist viewpoint.  Not by any stretch of the imagination. Reason, logic, truth, justice, and the democratic process will win out over dogmatic fundamentalism and isolationist thinking any day of the week.


Lastly, chew on this... to: Mustardseed and your followers... if you doubt this, do your homework.  You're information has been proven in error for the most part and unsubstantiated by and SIGNIFICANT or established scientific or religous body.  And I will continue to debate this with you using all the tools in fact, reason, logic and science that there are at my disposal to do so.  If you would just have your belief without trying so vehemently to MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD BELIVE in you I think you'd find that the "live and let live" philosophy would reward your movement.  But as long as you INSIST that it's doctrine truth and as long as movements such as yours continue to chip away at the public knowledge, I and/or folks like myself will be there to debate you and bring the public discourse and knowledge back to a reasoned, logical, and compassionate place.  Instead of the dogmatic, embattled, illogical and highly divisive message I hear from so many a fundamentalist.

""Dealing with another "Faulty" reason for discarding Carbon Dating
When I started reading Young Earth literature, I found the arguments against carbon dating very strong. I remember reading a book that told of a Yale study about carbon dating. They quote the study as coming up with three significantly different ages when dating a single sample. It turns out this is true, but very incomplete. Any good report on science will have been based on an beginning to end understanding of a given study. I thought as I read, 'How can anyone rely on this method? It is obvious that Carbon dating is inaccurate!' It becomes obvious that the authors were either very dishonest or simply found only enough facts to use to rebut the studies findings. This would be like someone quoting half a Bible verse to suit the needs of their argument when taking the whole verse clearly disproves their position. When I read Stoner's book a couple of years later I was appalled at the bad research that was put into this study by my Christian brothers. Quoting Stoner again:
'This acid wash was apparently misunderstood in one young-earth argument which claimed that, "Yale University dated an antler three different times and got three different ages - 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years." We might picture in our minds a very confused scientist until we check the original source where we find that the three dates were:
o   the antler when it was contaminated with recently formed limestone - 9,310 years,
o   the antler after the limestone had been washed out - 10,320 years,
o   and the limestone itself which had been washed out into the acid - 5,340 years.
And so, when we look more closely, this turns out to be a perfectly reasonable set of measurements.'
Limestone contains a great deal of Carbon-14 and needs the acid wash to get the accurate results. It is very easy to come across this kind of 'take what only half the facts and ignore the rest of a study' tactics by creationists too many times."


"Potassium-Argon Radiometric Dating
For dates older than about half a million years, the potassium-argon dating method is an effective way to date volcanic materials. Why is this important? Because if we can find fossils that are very close in distance to the material left behind by volcanic eruptions, dates of these fossils can be closely estimated to be close to the age as the surrounding volcanic material. In other words, if we find a animal fossil 4 inches below the hardened lava, we can assume that the timing of both the animal's death and the volcanic eruption is close. The date of the volcanic material is ascertained through the potassium-argon dating method. Quoting again from Donald Stoner:
'By measuring the amount of potassium-40 in the sample and the amount of argon which is released when the sample is re-heated in a laboratory, it can be determined how long ago a particular volcanic eruption occurred. As of 1996, a new potassium-argon technique, single-crystal laser-fusion dating, gives a margin of error less than one percent. Errors as small as +/-10,000 years are claimed in dating three-million-year-old volcanic ash... The K-Ar method is useful for determining the ages of the various strata in a segment of the geologic column. When a volcano erupts, ash is spread over a large area of ground. Later, it may become buried. Thus, volcanic ash can often be found between layers of earth. If a pure sample of that ash can be analyzed, then a real date can be assigned to that level of the column. A scientist will know that any fossil found "below" that level is older than the ash. That fossil must have been buried before the volcano erupted or the ash would not have fallen on layers above it. Likewise the scientist knows that fossils which he finds in layers "above" the ash are more recent. Occasionally a scientist will be lucky enough to find a fossil sandwiched closely between two datable layers and can know the age of his find quite accurately.'
As you may have figured out from this quote, dating of older fossils can be determined by the accuracy of this method. Therefore, the fossils of dinosaurs and such are shown to have lived more than 500,000 years ago.
Other Radiometric Dating Techniques
There are over 40 radiometric dating in use today. Can all these techniques be wrong? If so, what is the basis for discrediting each of them. For a Christian perspective of of the most sound techniques, see Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens of the Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology."

http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm

[Mustardseed]

Dear GR
If you want to look back in the threads I have been involved in you will find some things that might surprise you.(check it out)

I NEVER claimed that I have proof, I never agressed and started bashing astral pulsers. I have always claimed  "I believe" others however including Beth as well as BR has spent a considerable amount of time attacking my right to Believe stating I have no proof!!!!and I am a fool for believing things I cannot prove. I am on no quest. Have no agenda. I came here to learn about OBEs as I was having some and after sending a thanks to RB was barraged with various Buddhist prozelytism Hindu doctrine as well as all sorts of other beliefs. I was challenged and Baited as RB called it, I came to compare notes. My belief ....your belief. I have at times felt pushed to include points from various christian sites, to add to the information but have been met with an almost hatefull and very agressive attitude. Beth sent me PMs telling me she feels I am two faced and will nolonger talk to me becourse I dare to question....only question her research and statements. In my opinion an all too sensitive PHd wall flower with no real attachments or value in real life (sorry Beth but you are not talking to me anyway[]). All theory !!!Give me a break and get off your white horse GR. Lets be friends and lets just explore the possibilities. And if we do not agree /.....for goodness sake lets behave as adults and agree to disagree.

Regards Mustardseed

[GhostRider]

I don't know where I was being offensive or sitting 'on-high' in my previous statements (at least those on page 3), point them out then if that's what you believe.  

But you need not fear me being "offended" to the point of not talking to you.  I just treat verbal or written debates like Randori.  I get serious, I get physical, and when the dust settles, if you've whooped my butt with facts and truth.  I will hand it to you.  If not, the beer's on you, so-to-speak.  

I don't see you-yourself as being particularly offensive at all. But I reread what I wrote, and other than challenging, I fail to see the offense.  I just stated what I believed, backed it up with links, quotes, or both.  I threw in my own personal conjecture and opinion and left it at that.  I would like to get to know you and where you stand on neutral ground, so why don't we p.m. each other... sounds about as good as any other way of learning about each other.

[Shinobi]

...

[Mustardseed]

Thats cool w me, pm sounds fine I actually enjoy your posts!. PS we won the world series anyway[]

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

You wrote:  

quote:In my opinion an all too sensitive PHd wall flower with no real attachments or value in real life

THAT kind of comment is why I do not want to engage with you anymore--NOT because you have asked questions that I refuse to answer.  I have tried my level best to answer all of your questions to the best of my knowledge, but "you can't see" what I am showing to you--or you just won't.  It is the personal attacks on this public forum and then the all "too nice--let's be friends" Private Messages that you have sent to me that brought about my response of your being "two faced" and--my wishing no more contact with you.  You throw insults around in public, and then try to smooth them over in private.  I don't play stupid games like that Mustardseed. I choose my friends very carefully, and at some point the buzzer must go off in all "debates" and/or the bell must ring at the end of all classes.  Between your position and mine--the buzzer has gone off for the last time--our "debate" is over. I do wonder, however, who you will "blame" after tomorrow night when I go on sabbatical and how long you are going to hide behind a comment that RB made to you two months ago???  Your "enemies" have left the building for a while...



Shinobi--

Very nice comparative presentation of Buddhism and Christianity!  I learned a lot ! Thanks!  I find comparative studies between the ancient occidental and oriental fascinating.  I agree that this does not prove that they are the same, and instead of trying to figure out "what religion came from what other/older religion" this makes me really wonder about some even bigger questions, such as--"Are these ideas offered to us globally during certain periods of time, ideas that are very much the same but only interpreted against the backdrop of different cultures?" And--if this is the case, then is it "human nature" to only accept the aspects that are most "pleasing" to a particular culture at a particular time?"  

I wonder about this because I have no doubt that there is--right now--a great deal of activity between this plane of existence and others.  I also highly suspect that this was also the case during say 500-300 b.c.e. and 100 bce-200 ce (just to name two other periods.) I want to know more about this activity and how and why it takes place as it does. Do you ever wonder about this?

Ghost Rider,

Great argument on Evolution vs creationism!  Catholicism, ironically, is a lot more "hip" to a non-literal reading of the bible than protestantism usually is.  Most especially about the first five books, Genesis - Deut.  There is most definately a frenzied desperation on the part of fundamentalists to hang on with all their might to a doctrine that will just not stand the hands of much more time.  I agree wholeheartedly with you that reliance on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible is way out of line for the 21st century.  The madness has got to stop.  There are, however, some really good theologians, ministers and scholars who are doing all that they can to save Christianity from dying altogether.  Whether good or not, I am one of these.  I do not want to see it die, I want to see it re-formed again, into a religion that speaks ancient wisdom to post-modern ears.  From my research I know that the ancient Christians had OBE's, visions, lucid dreams, and yes--felt that they were having to fight off at times, otherworldly demons.  But this information is found in the biblical texts themselves, brillantly preserved through the use of allegory and proper name interpretation, and the works of ancient scholars proves that they knew about this too.  So much of what this board is all about, are the very same things that the earliest Christians were also exploring, contemplating and trying to figure out together.  I 'believe' that there is a lot that can be salvaged from Christianity once the hard-nosed defenders of an illogical dogma finally "open their eyes."    Keep debating this--you are very good at it--and I will go write my book. It will take all of us, across the entire globe, to untangle the huge mess that has been created.




Peace to all,[]
Beth

p.s. I really like this "color thing"!!  I wish I had used it much earlier...[]

[Mustardseed]

Right you are Beth and my bells went off about 2 months ago when you first started your tirades, or "crusade", or whatever. I think you are just not used to have anyone question you!. You sound like a teacher who gets angry every time someone dares to insinuate you could be wrong. One of our younger members commented to me in a PM : "she sounds like my mum". I find that an interesting observation. You see since you get so offended by being questioned,and it takes so little to throw you off course and you get so bitter against folks who do not see eye to eye with you, but instead have the opinion that all opposition must be refuted all dissent has to be argued down and silenced and there is only one way to "interpret" the Bible, you bring yourself and your own motives into question!!!you become a modern day backward inquisition. You become the persecutor!!!But this will ofcourse never be actually read  and taken serious by you, I do not expect you will be even considering the possibility that this could be true. Instead you will most likely slam the computer shut in a fit of hurt pride and maybe sit there and get all tearful, thinking resentful thoughts. It is my opinion that a person who is so easily hurt and offended as you are are not very strong spiritually, thus my statement. They have no real cutting power in real life, their life is so often steeped in "self" that they end up wasting away like a flower without water. Life is all in books and theories. I still say to you, I am so sorry we did not get along I honestly am, but I am not going to have a good relationship with you at the cost of my principles. So have it your way, dont ever talk to me again, or come down from your high hill among us normal people to compare notes not to pontificate lecture and expound, be a fellow traveler!.

[Gandalf]

Mustardseed, settle down there!

ok, egos have been bruised, things have been said on both sides etc...

The best thing is for you both to leave each other alone for a while, like you say, although for eternity might be a bit over the top!
Perhaps in a few weeks/months/years things will have settled down a bit in order that a reasoned discussion can take place.


------------------------

Anyway,
Beth, I agree with your comments about symbolic meanings verses literal ones. Certainly in Europe, especially amongst 'catholics' and even amongst the 'protestant' community, the general consensus amongst christians is that the bible and christianity is of a more symbolic, metaphorical and ultimatly more spiritual nature. As you quite rightly say, most reasonable people do have problems accepting that the OT is literal fact, for example!

However, there are still a small hardcore group who are still attatched to the idea of the bible as literal fact. This small group is nevertheless highly vocal, but they ARE a minority amongst the
christian population here.

I'm sure I will be slated for this one, but I do think that some people prefer to take a completely literal view of the bible as it is a 'no-brainer', it requires no depth of thought, rather it is just a question of learning passages by rote and obeying 'the commandments'. This is the tool by which the organised church has controlled the masses for centuries, but this period is coming to an end, and I might add, they know it.

They see any interpretation other than literal as a direct attack on their beliefs; they do not have the will-power to spend time looking at the deeper symbolic meanings; such an approach requires too much effort, and besides it is more challenging and dangerous, as it requires free-thought and a willingness to come to your own conclusions rather than someone else doing it for you.


As you will know, the conflict between the literalists and the 'symbolic/metaphoricals' has raged in christian circles since day one. During the Roman period (esp before nicea 325), there were several 'strains' of christianity but eventially conflict arose between the 'gnostics' (who viewed the texts in a more symbolic/metaphorical manner) and the hardcore, literalists; as for Emperor Constantine himself, he couldnt really care, he just wanted a consensus!

Eventially the gnostic branch were hunted down and persecuted.

However, I have always wondered about the the 'chicken & egg' situation here.... Can anyone really prove who came first... gnostics or literalists?

Modern day gnostics say that the scriptures were always written in a highly symbolic manner for initiates while the lay-man took them at face value.

Literalists have always said that the scriptures have always been designed to be taken at face value because they are, quite simply, FACT.  The gnostics on the other hand are just a bunch of subversive heretics who started reading meaning into things that were'nt there and they have quite rightly burned in the purifying flames of righteusness (to use the language of early christian texts!).

Will we ever know which came first?

Regards,
Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Thats an interesting point actually. Lets assume people "chose" to interpret literally? I tend to agree with you that at least some make this choice becourse it is a "no brainer" as you call it. I was talking to wy wife about this yesterday. It seems that this is a common thing here in the states. It is a neat little package great for folks who wants the faith wrapped up nicely and then get on with their material life.

However on the other hand i am also surprised why is ist that so many reject the notion of a literal bible, and in forums like this voice such agressive rejection of it. I believe they think if the Bible is literal God must have stopped speaking and that is all there is!!!"there are no more worlds to concour"so to speak, which is not true. The churches has succesfully spread the notion that they have a  monopoly on spirituality, that any spirituality within their walls are ok, but must be limited to known manifestations such as prayer and maybe some speaking of tounges. Anything done outside of this confine is by definition evil. No OBEs no deeper mysteries no nothing, and people want real spirituality and reject this falsehood and leave in droves. They seem to have created a system much like the political world we live in, by which they keep a few warmed and well fed , but throw the masses into the cold snow to fend for themselves.

However this is a principle of LIFE and seems to be a by product of humanity. The minute the Christians left the arena and started sitting in the grandstands, their morals and faith was tarnished, and God had to call out a new "church" they then in time migrated from the opressed to the opressors and the whole thing repeats. I see this principle in many aspects of life, politics, contries wars teachers pupils, sports etc.

As for myself I think my reason differ, but maybe not. Maybe I want a nice little package, I am praying about it. I do know for sure that there are much much more to the truth than can be contained in just one book and I believe that God speaks today. I am not really very concerned with finding proof, as I prove my faith daily, but I want to have the freedom to believe the literal Bible without being disrespected, hailed as a fool or have folks insinuate that I do not want the truth, their truth, but "WANT"  the Bible to be true. I stated that I find it odd that so many insist on proof in thread after thread post after post while at the same time give heed to a multitude of very questionable theories, masters, reincarnation, OBEs, reptillian invasions , UFO abductions, no proof needed. But I find that this question of mine is ignored. Beth did not answer that but instead got offended by my choice of words. She has put words in my mouth that are not true, saying "my enemies have left" I have no enemies here, at least I do not count them enemies. I have things to say but feel ignored and I do get a bit irritated at that. Anyway I will calm down. Maybe you could answer my question and the last 3-4 posts. Is there someone here who has the grace to take a laugh at themselves. I was praying about the issues above and was "led" to the story of how God fed the Israelites the Manna from Heaven. It seems that the manna represents the TRUTH of God. Every generation can only take what they need and anyone who tries to hoard it (churches and seclusionists and others who believe their truth is exclusive) will find that the food they thought they had has turned rotten. The Spirit of God will make it appear again though, and if they will labour (search explore and compare notes) for it they can always be well fed . God has no grand kids every generation has to find Him for themselves, and become a child of God on their own merit.
Regards Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

Mustardseed,

I find it an interesting point you make about me (and others) demanding evidence about the bible while acccepting other theories without the same degree of verification.

You are quite right in pointing out this hypocracy!
I suppose it depends on the nature of the evidence. I have some experience of the astal through my own exploring; I have used this experience to construct a world view, as we all do.
My astal experiences, I regard as valid evidence *for me* because it is learned through *personal experience*. When I read of other accounts and they seem to co-orelate with my own then I give them a higher weight of validity *within my own world view*.

However, it is impossible of course to apply some kind of academic standard in tyring to validate such personal data as this is something that can only be learned though personal experience.

I would say that the bible, because it is a written text, CAN be tested by normal textual criticism and there is no harm in doing so. Because it is out there in the 'objective world' and has its own history etc which can be studied, I dont see any problem with applying standard critisism to it; any logical conclusions that arise from the study of it are quite valid.

What am I saying?
well, I still think it is right to criticise textual evidence in the normal manner, but it is invalid to apply the same criticism about personal experience that *may have arison from studying such text.*
ie this is really about personal experience vs information.

so personal revelations experienced by anyone, whether it is through studying the bible or asrtal dynamics is quite valid as it is learned through personal experience, but simple textual material itself is just that, and can be validated by the normal academic method.

I suppose its two kinds of testing methods for two different forms of data, you cant use the same method for testing both, as both are so different.  

Also, the main problem is that texts on the astral/spirit guides etc are all describing the non-physical world and therefor there is no way to validate them through normal means, you either believe it, based on your own experiences, or you don't.

However, texts (like the bible) which pertain to 'the real world' ,that is the physical world, because they claim to detail events in our own world, CAN be subjected to normal analysis, and therefor, they should.


hmmm, I don't know if any of that makes sense, I have a valid point I'm trying to make here but I dont seem to be able to articulate it properly today!

Regards,
Douglas

[Beth]

Gandalf,

I do understand what you are saying.  There are several different ways of "knowing what we know." (Academically speaking, epistemic methods.)  I know that I have personally experienced many things, both from astral connections as well as from academic study.  I found, much to my own comfort, that the ancients experienced much the same thing.  A quick excerpt from my book about Philo will have to suffice for now:

quote:Philo relates that periodically he had mystical experiences in connection with his exegetical activity.     In De specialibus legibus 3:1-6 Philo recounts his mind's inspired ascents, in which he travels in the upper air, sometimes together with heavenly bodies.  These ascents lift him up from the cares of the physical world, and further give him a "bird's eye perspective and a hermeneutical key to the Law of Moses."  According to De cherubim 27-29 Philo at times heard a voice speaking in his soul; oftentimes his soul seemed "god-possessed," prompting his mind to grasp a deeper meaning of a text or an idea.  Finally, Philo reports having had "ecstatic experiences with loss of consciousness" in conjunction with an experience of "Light."   Peder Borgen believes that with such a variety of mystical experiences, the accounts refer to actual personal experiences of Philo, and not merely literary compositions made up by him as an author.   It is very easy for a critic or skeptic to dismiss accounts such as these to the realm of literary creativity, or even an overactive imagination, but this only serves to prove that the critic has never before had such an experience. In the life of a mystic, personal experiences are just that—and to other mystics, accounts such as these are taken at face value.

I have spent several hours this morning preparing another post that will follow this one, but I went ahead and made this post first because I think it is a very important aspect of being able to rise above the literal interpretation of scripture.  This is how the ancients did it, and yes, I have been very blessed to have also experienced some of these most exceptional "ways of knowing."  The method in which knowledge comes to me, I "Know" from my own experience.  The method of interpretation that I offer here does come from "my experiences" but more importantly it is the method of interpretation that came to some of the ancients in the same way.  I have marveled time and time again at this most remarkable phenonmena that has repeated itself time and time again through history.

Peace,
Beth


The above has been excerpted from: Fire on the Water: Proper Name Exegesis and Language Based Mysticism, Beth Phillips, copyright 2003, all rights reserved.