Page 3 of 5
#82
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Miracles totally happen.

Came in here to post this.

Miracles happen every single day. I don't care what the scientists say.

But seriously, I have no idea what you're even asking. The question doesn't make any logical sense. The Garden of Eden has a different set of realities than earth anyway. Satan according to the bible is a pretty powerful motherfucker. He wouldn't perform miracles even if he could though, that's not how he rolls.
I'm the same as I was when I was six years old
And oh my god I feel so damn old
I don't really feel anything
Last edited by StreetLight3989 at Oct 12, 2012,
#83
Quote by slash_GNR666
You've been here almost 10 years and you still expect this????

omg i cant believe the site has been around that long. i wonder if they used computers bakc then or was it just a big stone wall tht everyone carved messages into?????//
#84
Quote by Vintage024
If satan is capable of performing a miricle, then how do we know all miricals aren't just satan?

Nah, simple. You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they?
#85
Quote by Till From Kenig
Nah, simple. You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they?


Roses have thorns and pineapples are spikey.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#86
Quote by SlackerBabbath
That's untrue. Satan is definately in the OT. Specificaly he's in the books of Job, Zechariah, Chronicles, Psalms, Numbers, Samuel and Kings. He isn't always called 'Satan' though, sometimes he's called 'Lucifer' and also 'adversary'.

Whaddaya know, you've schooled me again
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#87
Another problem.

You can't trust the bible. It's been translated and re-translated so many times that you can't trust any of it... AT ALL.

Original translations tries to translate words into other languages that didn't have suitable substitute words and just had to make do. And that happened again... and again... and again.

Stop trying to be smart ass and do some real philosophy.

A better argument... which is actually a proper philosophical argument is the existence of Hell.

If God created Hell then he knew his creation was going to fuq up, thus creation isn't perfect.

If Satan created Hell then others other than God can create, meaning God isn't Omnipotent; as religion claims.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
Last edited by ChemicalFire at Oct 12, 2012,
#88
Quote by ChemicalFire
Another problem.

You can't trust the bible. It's been translated and re-translated so many times that you can't trust any of it... AT ALL.

Original translations tries to translate words into other languages that didn't have suitable substitute words and just had to make do. And that happened again... and again... and again.


My favourite example of this is how they converted 'young girl' into 'virgin' when compiling the King James (I think), which changes rather a lot.

Stop trying to be smart ass and do some real philosophy.

A better argument... which is actually a proper philosophical argument is the existence of Hell.

If God created Hell then he knew his creation was going to fuq up, thus creation isn't perfect.

If Satan created Hell then others other than God can create, meaning God isn't Omnipotent; as religion claims.


Omnipotence doesn't make sense anyway. You don't need an example of it not working; it's impossible to even imagine a universe where omnipotence is possible.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#89
Quote by SlackerBabbath
snip


Loads of interesting info, cheers.

For anyone interested, here's Mark Twain's 'The Mysterious Stranger', interesting read.
#90
Quote by Vintage024


So Satan appeared to Eve as a taking snake,


No. There's no mention in the bible of satan. It's just a good ol' talking snake.
#91
Quote by Todd Hart
My favourite example of this is how they converted 'young girl' into 'virgin' when compiling the King James (I think), which changes rather a lot.


Funnily enough, the verse in Isaiah where this mistranslation occured isn't even a Messianic prophecy. All Isaiah 7:14 is saying is that the enemies of Isreal will be defeated by the time the child is old enough to eat solid food. It's a prophecy with about a two year shelf life. I have no idea why the gospel writers would have thought it applied to the Messiah.
#92
Quote by Till From Kenig
Nah, simple. You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren't gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they?

No, but we get blackberries from thorny 'bramble bushes'.
Does that make blackberries 'Satanic'?
Quote by Todd Hart
My favourite example of this is how they converted 'young girl' into 'virgin' when compiling the King James (I think), which changes rather a lot.

This is from Isaiah 7:14.
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (NIV)

The mistranslation actualy happened when they wrote the 'Septuagint', which was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible that was written in the late 3rd century BC, about 200 years before Christianity existed and about 1800 years before the King James Bible was written. This mistranslation came to be included in the later Christian Bible because the early 'gentile' (non-Jews) Christians would naturaly read the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible because Greek was much more common than Hebrew, because it was the language of international trade in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean at the time.

The original Hebrew word that was used was 'almah' meaning 'young woman', but when it was translated into Greek, the word used was 'parthenos', which is Greek for 'virgin'.

Of course, Christians prefer to believe the mistranslated version rather than the original version because they believe it to be an earlier prophecy of the birth of Jesus, because the Gospels say he was born to a virgin.
But there's another problem with that text too, which the Chistians would realise if they were to actualy be bothered to read the whole section of text that the single line of 'Isaiah 7:14' is taken from, and note it's historical context.

To summarize the text in question, in the 8th century BC, Assyria was a great regional power. The smaller nations of Syria (often called Aram), ruled by king Rezin, and the Kingdom of Israel (often called Ephraim because of the main tribe), under king Pekah, had been vassals of Assyria, but in 735 BC decided to break away. Ahaz, the king of Judah at that time, was loyal to Assyria and refused to join them, so king Rezin and king Prekah prepared to invade and depose him and install their own choice of king in his place.
In the face of the invasion king Ahaz and his court are all afraid, but the prophet Isaiah tells Ahaz that his enemies will not succeed. Ahaz is reluctant to accept this prophecy, and is told to ask God for a sign showing that the oracle is a true one. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, saying that he will not put God to the test, but Isaiah replies that he will have his sign whether he asks for it or not.

And the sign that Isaiah prophecises is the one in question here in Isaiah 7:14, where it says that a young woman will fall pregnant. Although it's never mentioned which young woman this will be, the pregnancy in question is often considered to be that of Ahaz's queen. But even if it wasn't his queen, it must certainly have been someone during the time of Ahaz's life for Ahaz himself to see the sign that he refused to ask God for but which Isaiah says he's going to get anyway. As this all happens in 735 BC, (that's 735 'Before Christ') it's obviously hard to see how Ahaz could acknowledge the prophecy coming true 735 years later when Jesus was born and Ahaz was long dead.

So not only is the supposed prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus based upon a mistranslation, it's also based upon a quote that's taken completely out of context.

So what why would the Gospels claim that Jesus was born to a virgin anyway?
It actualy looks quite likely that it could have simply been a case of religious 'one-upmanship'.
There is a Mithraic temple at Kangavar in western Iran, which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithra." which is dated at around 200 BC, (200 years before Jesus existed) so there was certainly already a religious tradition of 'virgin birth' in the Middle East before the birth of Jesus.

Mithra is the Zoroastrian divinity of covenant and oath, and he's often depicted as a saviour, much like Jesus is. Zoroastrianism is an Iranian (Persian) religion that developed pretty much alongside Judaism and they have quite a lot in common with each other.

So, a little bit of research results in not just the one usual argument against the validity of the virgin birth of Jesus, but three seperate arguments against it. That makes for a much stronger argument than just arguing on a point of mistranslation.

Quote by Ahteh
No. There's no mention in the bible of satan.

Where on earth are you getting this misinformation? Satan is mentioned in the Bible, he's present in both the Old Testament (which is basicaly the 'Hebrew Bible' or the 'Tanakh' of Judaism) and the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
For example...

Old Testament
'One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
(Job 1:6-11.)


New Testament
'And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine."
And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." '
(Luke 4:5-8)
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 13, 2012,
#93
This thread reminds me of this funny post I stumbled across the web a while ago:



Quote by Alix_D
Never heard of Seinfeld, what kind of music do they play? Assuming they use Kramers, it must be heavy!



SAVE GIBSON

#94
There ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#95
Quote by Bair
"intelligent" and "beliefs" don't belong in the same sentence.


Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#96
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
There ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk.

Hmmm, can we actualy consider God's drinking habits? Well, in a way, we can, if we consider Jesus as God in the Christian fashion.

In the time of Jesus, everybody drank wine, even the children, because it was safer than drinking water. Remember, this is a time before water purification techniques had been invented, in a land that has very few fresh water mountain streams and springs, so wine was a very important source of H2O.

In Europe around the same time, people drank a form of beer instead because the European climate is better for growing the grain that beer is made from, whereas in the Middle East where Jesus lived, the climate was ideal for growing grapes.

In both Europe and the Middle East, these alcoholic drinks came in different strengths, weak, average and strong. The weak stuff was the everyday drink for the whole population, the average stuff was possibly drunk with a meal and the stronger stuff was reserved for celebration.

It's interesting that the wine that Jesus is said to have 'created' from water at the Marrage at Cana was particularly strong stuff, (obviously because it was being used for the purposes of celebration)

The water into wine miracle apparently came about at the 'Marriage at Cana' because all the wine had run out at the wedding celebration. Mary (Jesus' mother) asks Jesus to do something about it and Jesus replies "O Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come." His mother then said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." (John 2:3-5)
Jesus then ordered the servants to fill the empty containers with water and to draw out some and take it to the chief waiter. After tasting the water that had become wine, and not knowing what Jesus had done, he remarked to the bridegroom that he had departed from the custom of serving the best wine first by serving it last. This custom that is mentioned is still followed today. You serve the best tasting, and above all, 'strongest' wine first, gradualy serving the lesser quality wines as the celebration continues. This is because alcohol affects the sense of taste, so you only really remember the quality of the first few drinks you have, so the best is served first in order to gain a reputation as a good host, all of which explains why Jesus had the chief waiter try the wine, because, not only would he be the most qualified person to tell the difference between good and bad wine, but he would also be one of the few people who was actualy still sober enough to tell the difference after all the other wine had been drunk.

So, did Mary know that he could create particularly strong wine from water? Well the text certainly suggests that, so how would she know? Possibly because it's something that he's already done in the privacy of their home.
So, we can kinda conclude from Biblical text that Jesus was probably in the habit of drinking strong wine.

Incidently, do you know what 'Messiah' ('Christ' in Greek) means? It means 'annointed one' and the holy 'anointing oil' that they used for such purposes as 'annointing', (which usualy involved pouring it on the forehead) known as 'Chrism', is pretty powerful stuff by all accounts.
Exodus 30:22-25 gives us the recipie;

* 500 shekels (about 6 kg) of myrrh,
* half as much (about 3 kg) of fragrant cinnamon,
* 250 shekels (about 3 kg) of kaneh bosm,
* 500 shekels (about 6kg) of cassia,
* a hin (about 4 L) of olive oil.

That 'kaneh bosm' stuff is the interesting ingredient because it's variously translated as either 'calamus' or 'cannabis'.
Of course we're all familiar with cannabis and it's effects, and seeing as how almost one sixth of the mixture is pure cannabis, suspended in an oil that allows the THC content of the cannabis to enter the bloodstream via the skin... well you can imagine it's effects... but if it's calamus, that's also pretty interesting too, because calamus, which is a tall perennial wetland plant, is also a psychotropic hallucinogen. Either way, whether it's cannabis or calamus, it's a pretty powerful mixture... and this is the stuff that Jesus, as someone who was considered to be the Messiah, would more than likely have been annointed with by someone at some point.

Cannabis was also historicaly used as an incense in ancient Judea, often being burned in small enclosures such as tents to get rid of pests, like flies for example, and people would naturaly sit in the same small enclosures while cannabis was being burned, breathing in the fumes at the same time.

Conclusion? Jesus, along with many other people from his time, was probably a stoner as well as a drinker of strong wine.

If Jesus is God, then God is a party animal.
#97
a miracle isnt a said error in the programming of the universe. its a natural low chance event happening. if satan existed and was able to slip thru the laws of the universe and become a snake and speak english, hes obviously hacking.
#98
You think THAT'S weird ?
Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, right ? They had two sons, Cain and Abel..
Cain and Abel got married....

TO WHO ???

Where did these mystery bitches come from ??

*Theremin Music*
I put a dollar in a change machine. Nothing changed.
#99
Quote by Necrolust
You think THAT'S weird ?
Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, right ? They had two sons, Cain and Abel..
Cain and Abel got married....

TO WHO ???

Where did these mystery bitches come from ??

*Theremin Music*

Where do you think sheeple come from?
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#100
One day I'm going to go back through all of Slacker's posts and print them out for future study. Bravo.
#101
Quote by Necrolust
You think THAT'S weird ?
Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, right ? They had two sons, Cain and Abel..
Cain and Abel got married....

TO WHO ???

Where did these mystery bitches come from ??

*Theremin Music*


Firstly, there is no record of Abel being married in the Bible. He is apparently murdered by Cain before he had a chance to marry.

Secondly, according to the Bible, Adam lived past 900 years old. Do you really think the two of them had only two children in all that time? Remember, this was way before contraception was invented.

Thirdly, the 'Book of Jubilees' states that Cain settled down and married his sister 'Awan', who bore his first son, 'Enoch', approximately 196 years after the creation of Adam. Cain then establishes the first city, naming it after his son, builds a house, and lives there until it collapses on him, killing him in the same year that Adam dies.

Quote by TheEternalJew
One day I'm going to go back through all of Slacker's posts and print them out for future study. Bravo.


Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 13, 2012,
#102
Satan appeared to Eve as a talking snake because we characterize that with being a slithery liar (a poisonous snake slithers and spits venom from its mouth). Of course, the way I see it, there wasn't literally a talking snake, nor does "Satan" literally have a physical body, but is just a representation of evil in human nature.
#103
Quote by MrDo0m
Satan appeared to Eve as a talking snake because we characterize that with being a slithery liar (a poisonous snake slithers and spits venom from its mouth). Of course, the way I see it, there wasn't literally a talking snake, nor does "Satan" literally have a physical body, but is just a representation of evil in human nature.


As mentioned earlier, Satan could not have been the snake depicted in the literature of the story of Adam and Eve because during this time Satan is considered as being fully under God's control and unable to act without God's permission.

But what is interesting here is that according to the text of the Bible, we can consider that evil existed just as soon as man existed, so, if Satan was unable to act without God's permission, who created evil? Myst have been God himself, right? But wouldn't we naturaly consider the creator of evil as 'evil' himself?
Quite a conundrum isn't it?

Y'see, the story is actualy less about the existence of evil in the world and more about the existence of free will. According to the Bible, God gave us free will to make our choices. Of course, that doesn't mean that he's happy with any choice we make, he apparently still get's pissed with us if we make what he considers to be the wrong choice, (which is apparently why he provides people with rules like the Commandments, so that we know what the right and wrong choices are) but that's the point of the snake in the story, he represents the 'choice' of disobedience to God.

The moral of the story is basicaly "be obedient to God", it states that you are free to be disobedient, but if you are disobedient it won't end well for you.
#104
Quote by Vintage024
Yo pit. I'd love to hear your take on this.

So Satan appeared to Eve as a taking snake,

A talking animal is a mirical right?

If satan is capable of performing a miricle, then how do we know all miricals aren't just satan?

How do we know its not just satan "answering" "our Prayers"

That's just a thought i have. I would love to hear some people's thoughts about it.

Don't be a smart-ass.


Yes, that is a good point. Remember Satan is called the "Great Deceiver" so he can appear any way he wants in order to deceive and fool us.

A lot of religions can be "false fronts" for Satan to use. We think we are praying to God, but we are actually praying to Satan.

One way to see through this deception is to see what the end results of what a religious figure asks us to do? In other words, are the end results evil? If so then Satan is probably behind it.

For Example, let us say that a religious leader (I will not specify any particular one to avoid starting an argument) asks us to blow up a jet airplane. Well this would be an act of mass murder, would it not? I would say that there is a strong possibility that Satan is behind the religion that this leader is espousing. Right?

ron666
#105
Quote by theogonia777
I won't be a smartass about this if you stop being a dumbass about it.

Theo, you stole my idea...
#106
Y'know, it's interesting to consider that the whole story of Satan's fall from Heaven may just be a misinterpretation of the text.

The fall of Satan is apparently interpreted from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

This is from Isaiah.
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ "

But is it really talking about Satan? Possibly not, because that verse is followed by this:

"Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?’
All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out, away from your grave, like a loathed branch, clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a dead body trampled underfoot.
You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people."

That would seem to be describing a mortal man, not an immortal angel. It seems to describe someone who was a tyrant leader and a warlord, someone who did great damage to his own nation.

This is from Ezekiel:
‘In the pride of your heart you say, “I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas.”
But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god.
Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?
By your wisdom and understanding you have gained wealth for yourself and amassed gold and silver in your treasuries.
By your great skill in trading you have increased your wealth, and because of your wealth your heart has grown proud. "

So he's certainly a mortal according to that, and a wealthy one by all accounts

Ezekiel continues....
“Son of man, araise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings.

So, he's apparently the 'king of Tyre', which is an ancient city in Lebanon, and although it says that he was in Eden, that doesn't mean that he was there in the days of Adam and Eve. Y'see, Eden was apparently a real nation, somewhere in the region of Mesopotamia by all accounts, Genesis descibes it's location thus:

"A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

Notice that it mentions Havilah, where one can find good quality gold and onyx which this 'King of Tyre' apparently has in abundance.
I don't think any of this is about Satan at all, I think it's just about a corrupt king who thought of himself as a god.
#107
God dammit, Vintage024, we older users are supposed to be awesome and wise, not whatever you're trying to do.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#108
Quote by ron666
Yes, that is a good point. Remember Satan is called the "Great Deceiver" so he can appear any way he wants in order to deceive and fool us.

A lot of religions can be "false fronts" for Satan to use. We think we are praying to God, but we are actually praying to Satan.

One way to see through this deception is to see what the end results of what a religious figure asks us to do? In other words, are the end results evil? If so then Satan is probably behind it.

For Example, let us say that a religious leader (I will not specify any particular one to avoid starting an argument) asks us to blow up a jet airplane. Well this would be an act of mass murder, would it not? I would say that there is a strong possibility that Satan is behind the religion that this leader is espousing. Right?

ron666

So God would never order an act of mass murder? The fact that God orders Moses to slaughter the Canaanites in the books of Exodus and Numbers, plus his command of Joshua to slaughter those in the city of Jericho seems to contradict that.
#109
Quote by Tonganation
So God would never order an act of mass murder? The fact that God orders Moses to slaughter the Canaanites in the books of Exodus and Numbers, plus his command of Joshua to slaughter those in the city of Jericho seems to contradict that.


If a political leader today said to you "We must go and wipe out such and such a nation because God says we have to." would you believe him?

If not, then why would you believe that God had anything to do with Moses ordering the slaughter of Canaanites?
#110
Quote by Vintage024
Yo pit. I'd love to hear your take on this.

So Satan appeared to Eve as a taking snake,

A talking animal is a mirical right?

If satan is capable of performing a miricle, then how do we know all miricals aren't just satan?

How do we know its not just satan "answering" "our Prayers"

That's just a thought i have. I would love to hear some people's thoughts about it.

Don't be a smart-ass.


You've been registered for 9 years and only now we get to bask in your intelligence?

For shame!
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
Last edited by JohnnyGenzale at Oct 16, 2012,
#111
Nowhere in the bible does it say that the animal in the garden of eden was the devil.
It is just referred to as the serpent.

Same as the apple. It never specifies what it was, it just says fruit. So for all we know it could have been OP.

Quote by OldEscape
Here's a better question - If God is all-forgiving, why can't God forgive Lucifer?


God traditionally treats angels differently from man. Men are the ones he loves most, which caused the initial rift in heaven.


/not a christian at all, I just like to take a fleeting interest in the bible for shits and giggles.
#112
Slacker the last two pages have raised my IQ roughly 5-6 points. Not religious at all myself but badass info work.
Knowledge is power
#113
Quote by Casketcreep
Nowhere in the bible does it say that the animal in the garden of eden was the devil.
It is just referred to as the serpent.

Same as the apple. It never specifies what it was, it just says fruit. So for all we know it could have been OP.

Yeah, that's true, the fruit of the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil' is only considered as an apple by tradition, not from Biblical scripture. But interestingly, if the story of Adam and Eve were true, it'd be taking place about 6000 years ago, during the 'Neolithic Revolution', around the time when humans first developed perminantly settled agriculture (which civilisation developed from) and gave up nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyles. According to the Bible, it'd also be happening in the place where we know that perminantly settled agriculture was first developed too, in the region of Mesopotamia (Iraq) because that's where the Book of Genesis states that the Garden of Eden was, but the are is also archeologicaly known as the 'cradle of civilization'

Interestingly, fruit was probably quite important in this development in human history. Y'see, crops like grain can still be grown by semi-nomadic people because it only takes about three months to grow such a crop before it is then harvested and the people move on to their next destination with their fresh supplies. Fruit trees are different. They take years to grow before they even provide anything to harvest, and during that time of growth, they need protecting from the wildlife, particularly large herbivours like elephants, which were certainly present in that area at that time.

And guess what the earliest fruit to be domesticated in this way is considered to be?

Apples apparently, which we know from the archeological remains of very ancient orchards with walls around them in the area of Mesopotamia. Interestingly, a word that is synonymous with the Garden of Eden, 'paradise', is derived from a Persian word meaning 'walled enclosure'.

We can also tie Eve (woman) in with the Neolithic development of the domesticating and growing of fruit.
In most hunter/gatherer tribes, it is the males that traditionaly hunt and the females that gather and it's also the females that have what is sometimes regarded as 'secret knowledge' as to where to find cirtain foods and how to process them to get rid of any poisons they may contain. In Australia for instance, the women in traditional Aboriginal hunter/gatherer tribes have an incredible knowledge of sometimes quite complicated food processing. The women are also usualy responsible for any growing of crops that may be required.
So it was probably the women who developed agriculture, especialy the domestication and growing of fruit.

This could have great religious significance, y'see, as far as we can tell, the Neolithic nomadic hunter/gatherers worshipped a 'Mother Goddess'. Mother goddesses are usualy linked with the earth, such as 'Mother Nature' and any food that was hunted or gathered would naturaly have been considered as a gift from her. But imagine how growing your own food would affect that belief. It would mean that the deity they worshipped was no longer considered to be providing them with food, the women were, with their knowledge of agriculture.
There wouldn't be any need for that particular deity any more, it would effectively be the end of that religion, and it would be the women's fault.

Remember what Adam and Eve's punishment was for eating the fruit? It was expulsion from the Garden into the wilderness, in other words, they became nomadic again.

The Genesis narrative makes an interesting statement there.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Notice that bolded phrase, 'as one of us...'
It would appear that God essentially stopped Adam and Eve from becoming gods themselves, so the expulsion may not have been a punishment for disobeying God but rather a means of prevention. If previous generations considered their food to be provided by a deity, and if that role was now taken by women, then it's not unreasonable to consider those women as attempting to become 'god-like', which is seen as a great sin in practicaly every culture today and probably was back then too.

Quote by Casketcreep

God traditionally treats angels differently from man. Men are the ones he loves most, which caused the initial rift in heaven.

Apparently, angels do not have free will and cannot act without God's permission, infact, they could even be considered as aspects of God himself. For example let's look at the names of some of the archangels and their meanings.
Raphael means "God's healing".
Uriel means "Fire of God".
Sealtiel means "Intercessor of God"
Barachiel means "Blessing of God."

Considering that Satan was an archangel himself, he shouldn't be any different to the rest of them, unless God gave him free will of course.
Infact, according to Islam, Satan (or Iblis as Muslims call him) isn't considered as an angel at all for this very reason, but rather as a 'Jinn', one of the three sentient creations of God (man, jinn and angels) who rather than being created from earth, like humans, were created from fire, and, like human beings, can also be good, evil, or neutrally benevolent.
This is where the mythology of 'genies' comes from.

Quote by Ninja#117
Slacker the last two pages have raised my IQ roughly 5-6 points. Not religious at all myself but badass info work.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 16, 2012,
#114
Yeah but the agricultural revolution didn't happen because the world is only 6000 years old.
Why don't you pick up a book some time and learn a bit of science... jesus.. people these days.


In all seriousness though, you're awesome.
#115
You should seriously hit up a few churches during service. Imagine the minds that could be blown.

I could always debate with others on some of the topics you discussed but i had never truly studied what i was debating against. A grave mistake i now have seen shown back to me in spades. I had the logic of your posts without the info to back it up.
Knowledge is power
#117
Quote by Casketcreep
Ninja this may come as a surprise to you, but churchs don't really open the floor for debate. That would be horribly detrimental to the entire organisation.

That's true, but some denominations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses for example, visit you at your own home and their members tend to relish a debate.

There's actualy a Witness centre (known as a Kindom Hall) just around the corner from my house and it's members quite regularly walk up my street knocking on doors. It used to be that the elder members would knock on my door, until I convinced one of them that evolution could possibly exist as a tool of God's creation and that the two don't necessarily have to contradict each other, ever since then, it's only been the younger 'trainees' that knock on my door.

I'm sure they get sent to my house as a training exercise.
#118
Quote by SlackerBabbath
That's true, but some denominations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses for example, visit you at your own home and their members tend to relish a debate.

There's actualy a Witness centre (known as a Kindom Hall) just around the corner from my house and it's members quite regularly walk up my street knocking on doors. It used to be that the elder members would knock on my door, until I convinced one of them that evolution could possibly exist as a tool of God's creation and that the two don't necessarily have to contradict each other, ever since then, it's only been the younger 'trainees' that knock on my door.

I'm sure they get sent to my house as a training exercise.


I would genuinely pay money to see this.

As somebody with more than a passing interest in archaeology, your posts have been a thoroughly enjoyable read, as they often are, of course.
#119
Quote by Atomic_Assault
I would genuinely pay money to see this.

My partner hates it and she generaly calls me a 'cruel bastard' after they walk away wondering about their faith. But hey, I didn't ask them to knock on my door and try to convert me.

The Mormons are quite fun too. Especially when you show them the evidence for their founder 'Joseph Smith' being a con-man.
Quote by Atomic_Assault

As somebody with more than a passing interest in archaeology, your posts have been a thoroughly enjoyable read, as they often are, of course.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Personaly, I see little sense in studying ancient religions and myths without studying the archeology of the cultures that developed them.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 16, 2012,
#120
Quote by Casketcreep
Ninja this may come as a surprise to you, but churchs don't really open the floor for debate. That would be horribly detrimental to the entire organisation.


casket this may come as a suprise to you but i know that.
Knowledge is power