So the point being - do what I say or I kill you. Good approach to parenting. Very loving.
Not a true story btw, unless you believe he lived in a huge fish for 3 days.
Sounds like Astrology
1 Like
Mind-candy. In context, perhaps the sun/moon mythology ideas can be fun. BUT when stated as a “fact” - uh … then, uh … never mind.
That’s really cool about the tablets
You’ll find some of the bible stories predate the bible via the Sumerians. If you investigate Sumerian texts further you’ll jump into a rabbit hole 
Yair, Jesus’ disciples believed his return was imminent. When he didn’t turn up, the early church changed the time of the second coming to some vague future date and dropped it.
Being raised catholic, it always seemed to me that catholics were embarrassed by Revelations. We kind of pretended it wasn’t really part of the canon. It was never discussed, ever.
In a literal sense, the small Jewish sect (one of dozens) which became Christianity is only a failed millenarian cult. (no better than the JW’s or Adventists)
I’m not making this shit up. Jesus is reported as saying he would return ‘soon’ several times in the gospels. I’ll quote one. Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (KJV)
2 Likes
sigh
Promises…promises…
I know exactly what you mean! History is fascinating.
Don’t discount all the Bible stories just because the word bible is attached to them.
For instance the story of Job was mentioned earlier.
Job was supposed to be a righteous man who when he faced a lot of personal trials, his three friends came to visit him.
Seeing him in such a state they sat down and mourned with him for 7 days without speaking.
I happen to be reading the Greek Septuagint while listening to the King James version and it held that the three men that sat down with Job were kings.
If three King sat down with a Fourth Man for 7 days and mourned with him who would that Fourth Man be?
Certainly not a commoner. That Fourth Man would be a king.
Sure enough, all three men were Royal, even though the King James lists them as merely friends. Eliphaz was Job’s half grandfather–the firstborn son of a concubine of Esau the son of Isaac. Genesis 36:10
All of them were actually priest “kings/governors” that had their capital cities on major points on the trade route through Yemen.
These trials were a direct result of a bet between god and “Satan” (the opposer).
However they are just stories, if a person is interested in myths for what they are. Stories, such as the original Grimm Fairie Tales (Cinderella for example) are just as gruesome and also lack any real moral lesson - however, I suppose a person can get what they want out of anything.
But did those stories (Cinderella etc.)contain lessons?
Modern day Disney lessons are a woman is a victim of circumstance and need a “Prince Charming” - throw in some supernatural Godmother for good measure (magical thinking). Old time Grimm? Some likewise magical thinking (wish granting tree near her mother’s grave) - a harsh life - violent world (extremes by the sisters to make their foot fit the shoe 
)… Cinderella gets her “prince” and revenge as the stepmother is made to wear hot iron shoes and dance until she dies.
My lesson - fuck off to a Prince Charming …no one is going to rescue you.
The stories are just that. Fables.
You make unfounded speculation suit your pre-suppositions. There is no evidence at all for your assertions of kings and kingship. None.
Like your use of 2 Peter your assertions are founded on either fraudulent documents or mystical fables.
How can anyone trust your claims when the basis is flawed?
Hahaha… that made me laugh.
Give me some time and I’ll provide you some with some proof of that. I have to go stretch my son for bed and say good night to my kids.
I doubt that very much. You might mean ‘evidence’ for your assertions. And we can then judge the factual accuracy of it, should you produce any.
I recommend you look up the ‘Historical Method’ before making wild claims in future. It will cut down your output of bombast. It may even encourage you to find some facts about your beliefs before you encounter those on these pages that will hand each lie, exaggeration, and unfounded assertion back to you, still wriggling in it’s death throes.
The text of the scripture:
15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord,(A) the veil is taken away.(B)
Lol 
“a veil covers their hearts”. In other words “they think with their brains 
“
Firstly the article you linked is 24 years old. So they haven’t “just found” anything. Secondly it says they have found evidence that life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago.
. Compare that to the innaccurate hyperbole of your claim below.
The article went on as follows:
organic molecules thought to be of Martian origin
Note this is not established, yet you claimed it was proof. You must learn to examine things more critically and accurately, and avoid sweeping claims.
Here again in the 24 year old article…
Structures that could be microsopic fossils seem to support all of this.
Now again how do phrases like could be, and seem to support, change into proof exactly?
What we have found to be the most reasonable interpretation is of such radical nature that it will only be accepted or rejected after other groups either confirm our findings or overturn them," McKay added.
So that sounds prima facie to me as if the work had not been peer reviewed at the time. The article states it is extremely difficult to prove the existence of life on earth from more than 3.6 billion years ago, let alone Mars, but they think they might have met that burden of proof.
Scientists rarely make sweeping absolute claims of the sort you posted. Again I don’t wish to be unkind, but this kind of hyperbole often reflects a rationale not used to objectively and critically examining claims.
2 Likes
Peer reviewed? That I’m afraid is a ludicrous claim.
That does not remotely represent peer review, it is of course, to those who recognise such things, a known common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad populum. Peer review has to involve objective evidence, data that can be examined and validated through observation and testing. What you’ve offered there is a bare appeal to numbers, nothing more. Peer reviewed data would also have to falsifiable, as do all scientific ideas and claims, which of course the inexplicable magic of supernatural claims are not.
If more people read Harry Potter than the bible, would that be peer reviewed evidence of wizardry?
So are the Harry Potter books, this doesn’t remotely validate what’s in them of course.
I can conceive of wizardry, as can JK Rowling, again this is not evidence for it.
Yet you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence to support the claim, or offer any cogent explanation of how this was created. Pure assumption is not compelling argument, and tenuous analogies don’t change this. [quote=“Tia_Thompson, post:278, topic:368”]
Even the thickest minded of us all can understand concepts that would have put a person of antiquity into a state of shock.
[/quote]
Indeed, I have witnessed theists go into shock when antiquated religious claims are subjected to proper scrutiny in light of contemporary scientific facts.
1 Like
No no no, you’re supposed to ignore the failed “prophesies” and only select the successful ones. It’s called selection bias, have the parade of theists through here taught you nothing my good man.
