cybercoma Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Do you really not get it? Those "gods" are not referring to your "God". Those laws you attributed to Christianity came before not only Christian times, but also the Old Testament. You, my dear, are an atheist when it comes to those gods (we have that in common). I don't believe in your God either, that's our difference; however, we both seem to follow the same altruistic humanist rules of Christianity, which don't seem to be Christian at all. Funny that, don't you think? Edited May 14, 2009 by cybercoma Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 The first step to better times is to imagine them. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
benny Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 The first step to better times is to imagine them. Follow me instead of trying to mimic my ability to write fortune cookie-like posts. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Do you really not get it? Those "gods" are not referring to your "God". Those laws you attributed to Christianity came before not only Christian times, but also the Old Testament. You, my dear, are an atheist when it comes to those gods (we have that in common). I don't believe in your God either, that's our difference; however, we both seem to follow the same altruistic humanist rules of Christianity, which don't seem to be Christian at all. Funny that, don't you think? No. Another interpretation is that there has always been one common truth, which humans have worshipped throughout history and given different names to. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Follow me instead of trying to mimic my ability to write fortune cookie-like posts. You almost spoke truth there... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
benny Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 You, my dear, are an atheist when it comes to those gods. A Muslim would rather say: she is not an infidel. Quote
betsy Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Those laws you attributed to Christianity came before not only Christian times, but also the Old Testament. WHOA! Hold your horses! It's being R E F U T E D! (again). "The implications of all this, false as I believe, dating, is that the famous Hammurabic Code, which - as we shall find - has likenesses to the Torah of Moses, is considered to have been the inspiration for the presumably later Mosaïc Law of the Hebrews. According to the Hickman-based reconstruction, however, Hammurabi came on the scene about half a millennium after Moses. Thus in reality, if Hickman is right, it would have been Moses who had influenced the Hammurabic Code. By the same token, Hammurabi can no longer be the biblical Amraphel of Shinar (Genesis 14:1), contemporary of Moses' predecessor Abram, as was thought for so long. {I concur with David Rohl (The Lost Testament, pp. 119, 132-133) that this Amraphel was the same king as Amar-Sin of the Ur III dynasty}. But what may still hold good is the long-held view that the names 'Hammurabi' and 'Amraphel' may be equated, as here explained by Knight (op. cit.): Schrader proposed, in 1887, to identify this prince [Hammurabi] with Amraphel, King of Sennaar, mentioned in Genesis 14. That Senmar (Hebr. Shin'ar) corresponds to Shaanhaar, an Assyrian name for Babylonia, is beyond dispute; that the two names Hammurabi and Amraphel are phonetically identical, most scholars readily admit … the identification of Hammurabi and Amraphel is, to say the least, very probable [sic]. If the name, 'Hammurabi', is the same as the name, Amraphel, then it would be of very Hebrew-like meaning, "The Mouth of God [El] has spoken" (amra-pi-el) (cf. Exodus 19:8); a name perhaps being Solomon's justification for ruling (especially when confronted by the rebellion of his brother, Adonijah. 1 Kings 1:5-53; 2:13-25). Compare this to Hammurabi's Epilogue: "Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I"; as well as Hammurabi's Preface: "…then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land …". http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hammurabi.html Read on....long read though but very much explained! Hammurabi may be in fact, King Solomon! Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hammurabi.htmlRead on....long read though but very much explained! Hammurabi may be in fact, King Solomon! Try coming up with 3 academic sites before you trot off claiming spurious victory Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Are we extrapolating? There is no room for extrapolation in terms of ID. Science has room to grow. ID has no growth. Sir Bandelot No. Another interpretation is that there has always been one common truth, which humans have worshipped throughout history and given different names to. This is true. It also shows that many cultures thought of the same thing when it comes to treating one another. And they arrived at this All religions and even religions that do not support a god have these basic things in their mantras. Don't hurt one another, be nice, not a dick and respoect each other. Within these religions it seems to work just fine. But that fails when one religions is dealing with another. The fact that creationists and I.D. supporters have so many different views among them, you cannot get a straight answer for how and when the world was created. They all can't be right. Don't you think that is an issue? Creationists and I.D.ers can't agree on how and when. So the hypothises is stuck as a hypothesis. I find it funny that creationists and IDers use the term evolution to describe some things they talk about, but dissregard it for the overall picture. ID'ers and creationists want their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately the cake is a lie!!! (DogOnPorch ...can you guess the reference ) Quote
benny Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Hammurabi may be in fact, King Solomon! King Solomon had the solution for those of you who disagree on what to do with God: slicing him in half. Quote
betsy Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Try coming up with 3 academic sites before you trot off claiming spurious victory Oh no, not claiming victory. Just saying...it's being refuted. Anyway whether it's true or not is really not a big deal (for me). Edited May 14, 2009 by betsy Quote
benny Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Oh no, not claiming victory. Just saying...it's being refuted. Anyway whether it's true or not is really not a big deal (for me). For something to be deemed true, one needs to find its complete set. For evolutionists, all sets are evolving, thus never complete. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Oh no, not claiming victory. Just saying...it's being refuted. Anyway whether it's true or not is really not a big deal (for me). It's being refuted if you're one of those types that doesn't pay any attention to credibility. Those that believe in invisible beings that can't be proven to exist are not very likely to care about credibility. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted May 14, 2009 Report Posted May 14, 2009 Those that believe in invisible beings that can't be proven to exist are not very likely to care about credibility. Right, just like string theory Quote
benny Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Right, just like string theory ...and super string theory is super invisible. Quote
benny Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) Even silly string has its uses ...but a silly string doesn't have the elasticity that makes a super string looks like God. Edited May 15, 2009 by benny Quote
betsy Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) It's being refuted if you're one of those types that doesn't pay any attention to credibility. Those that believe in invisible beings that can't be proven to exist are not very likely to care about credibility. So why is science - although reluctantly - seemed to be getting "steered" and drawn towards the "invisible?" Why was Darwin so tormented by the inexplicable....until the time of his death? See DARWIN thread. Why did Dawkins - although grudgingly - accept the possibility of this Designer? See DAWKINS thread. Why did a hard-core Atheist Antony Flew - a PHILOSOPHER at that - and apparently a legend among Atheists, not only abandoned Atheism like a hot potato, not only embraced Deism....but also criticized Evolution theory, and flatly stated that the ID theory is far more convincing! See ANTONY FLEW on REJOICE thread. These men are the pillars of your belief. I wouldn't characterize these men as ignorant....would you? And yet... You are questioning the credibility of these men! Looks like we're about to go in another circular discussion with you here....so until you have something new, and substantial to say that's worth replying to, I'll be ignoring your posts. No offense intended Cybercoma but I don't care about your personal opinion. I can just as easily say you are deluded and not give anything to back that up - althoug in this instance, I need no back up to support my claim about your delusions. Your statement perfectly shows that -....but that wouldn't do in a debate. And I am here for a debate, not idle, senseless chatter. Edited May 15, 2009 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Posted May 15, 2009 Note: I edited and added a few things on my last post. Quote
BubberMiley Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 And I am here for a debate, not idle, senseless chatter. Just so long as it includes lots and lots of smiley faces. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
GostHacked Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Oh no, not claiming victory. Just saying...it's being refuted. Anyway whether it's true or not is really not a big deal (for me). If it is not a big deal .. why do we have 2 more threads on it started by you? Why was Darwin so tormented by the inexplicable....until the time of his death? See DARWIN thread.Why did Dawkins - although grudgingly - accept the possibility of this Designer? See DAWKINS thread. Well we can't ask Darwin ... but we can ask Dawkins ... maybe you shoulsd ask Dawkins why he thinks the way he does. We won't be able to answer that for you. Quote
benny Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Well we can't ask Darwin ... but we can ask Dawkins ... maybe you shoulsd ask Dawkins why he thinks the way he does. We won't be able to answer that for you. You could just have written: but we can pray Dawkins to answer our questions about him. Quote
betsy Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) If it is not a big deal .. why do we have 2 more threads on it started by you? What are you talking about???? Are you deliberately taking my statements out of context? M Dancer and I were talking about that Hammurabi! Pay attention! Edited May 15, 2009 by betsy Quote
benny Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 What are you talking about???? Are you deliberately taking my statements out of context? M Dancer and I were talking about that Hammurabi! The thread on Darwin... Quote
GostHacked Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 What are you talking about???? Are you deliberately taking my statements out of context? M Dancer and I were talking about that Hammurabi! Pay attention! The problem is the context in which you are trying to prove your point. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.