Ever the Expert

[Oncedeceived]

The Rights of the Colonists
Adopted by the Town of Boston

November 20, 1772

Printer-Friendly Version

[One of the clearest statements of principle published by an elected body during the founding era, this document gives a fuller account of the principles of the Declaration. — TGW]


1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.—

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can—Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature—

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another. —

When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.—

Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded remains. —

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity. —

As neither reason requires, nor religeon permits the contrary, every Man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. —

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. —

In regard to Religeon, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the true church" (footnote: See Locks Letters on Toleration.) & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society….

The natural liberty of Men by entering into society is abridg’d or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole—

In the state of nature, every man is under God, Judge and sole Judge, of his own rights and the injuries done him: By entering into society, he agrees to an Arbiter or indifferent Judge between him and his neighbours; but he no more renounces his original right, than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to Referees or indifferent Arbitrations. In the last case he must pay the Referees for time and trouble; he should be also willing to pay his Just quota for the support of government, the law and constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial Judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil ecclesiastical, marine or military. —

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule." — [Locke, Second Treatise, sec. 22.]

In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire" but then the same community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have no right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty. —

In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in [explicit] terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave—

2d. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians—

These may be best understood by reading—and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found closely written and promulgated in the New Testament—

By the Act of the British Parliament commonly called the Toleration Act [of 1689], every subject in England Except Papists &c was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And by the Charter of this Province it is granted ordained and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all christians except Papists, inhabiting or which shall inhabit or be resident within said Province or Territory. (footnote: See I. Wm. and Mary. St. 2. C. 18—and Massachusetts Charter.)…

3d. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects

A Common Wealth or state is a body politick or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity, by means of their union. (footnote: See Lock and Vatel—)

The absolute Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen in or out of Civil society, are principally, personal security personal liberty and private property.

All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential inherent & inseperable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which no men or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others

First, "The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths or States, is the establishing the legislative power; as the first fundamental natural law also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society." (footnote: Locke on Government [sec. 134]. Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto— ["Let the safety of the people be the supreme law." Locke, sec. 158])

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone. —

"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and known laws, and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People. "There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough." (footnote: Locke [sec. 136, 142] —)

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative. —

These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free states, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists. That these Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties and privileges of men and freemen, born in Britain, is manifest, not only from the Colony charter, in general, but acts of the British Parliament…. Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British parliament, it would only be hurtful; as from their local situation and circumstances it is impossible they should be ever truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures [that is, the British attempt to tax and rule the colonies without their consent], that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles distant from them….

A List of Infringements & Violations of Rights [omitted here].

[From Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Cushing, 2:350-369. The footnotes are in the original. Material in angular brackets was added by the editor.—TGW.]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Farewell Address (Excerpt on Religion and Morality)

George Washington
September 19, 1796

Printer-Friendly Version

[Religion and morality are necessary conditions of the preservation of free government. — TGW]


…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric

Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened….

[From George Washington, A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1989), 521-22.]

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

June 12, 1776

Printer-Friendly Version

[This was the first "Bill of Rights" to appear in America. It was printed at the beginning of the Virginia Constitution. Its principal author was George Mason. It became the basis for the Declarations of Rights of several other states, including Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. — TGW]


A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the Representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Government.

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the People; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

3. That Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community;—of all the various modes and forms of Government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration;—and that, whenever any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the publick weal.

4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments and privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of Magistrate, Legislator, or Judge, to be hereditary.

5. That the Legislative and Executive powers of the State should be separate and distinct from the Judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

6. That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.

7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the Representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by Jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

12. That the freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick Governments.

13. That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

14. That the people have a right to uniform Government; and, therefore, that no Government separate from, or independent of, the Government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

15. That no free Government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

16. That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now Aron-ra we have both supplied quotes that support our viewpoint, let this topic rest.

while I disprove every point you ever tried to make, and now you tell me I am not worth your time? Figures.

Then there is no point to continue. I have enjoyed our conversation but it seems that I have nothing of worth to say to you. If you can truly feel that you have disproven every point I have made I think this is an excerise in futility.

And do you know what is worse? In the last five years or so of debating these issues online, you have been hands-down the most honest and the most accountable by far, yet you're still not being either now.

I have been nothing but honest and sincere with you but all through this entire thread you have told me that I wasn't paying attention, that I was dishonest and deluded. I will take this one compliment if you can call it that (I wish to see it in that light) and wish you well. I am sure you will claim that I am quiting due to your great debating ability and so I will crown you victorious.

Goodnight.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I notice alot of creationists come here and make grandiose proclaations about the evidence, but I have to ask, are you really capable of making a judgement on this evidence?

After days and days of conversation on this thread I ask....who makes the judgement call? Who decides what the evidence supports. If we truly bring forth evidence of any form to support our views does the validity rest on the non-believers?

Do you really understand it sufficiently well to actually make a good contribution to the debate?

Again, after days and days of such debate did I make a good contribution? What constitutes "a good contribution"?

or are you just toeing the party line? I dno't mean to come across as agressive in this post, but it does concern me that many of the creationist posters are not really adressing any of the evidence and are not actually learning anything about the opposing view, preferring to just flippantly dismiss anything that disagrees with their preconcieved worldview.

Does the face of dismisal have a two faced image? Does a preconcieved worldview work two ways? And who knows and who determines what face is protrayed?

Perhaps others (even myself) are guilty of doing the same, however the difference I notice with the evolutionists, is that we tend to put forth a significant amount of evidence and analysis of the evidence, and this is something I think is lacking from the creationist side.

Perhaps, just perhaps the creationist is so put into a certain light that no matter what is said they can never make it out of the little box they are put in? I know that there will always be creationists that love the box and equally there will be those who disbelieve that love their little box but what of those who want to break free of the box and examine and touch and grasp outside of the box? Will those be always driven right back in again?

To the creationists, please recognise that you do not know it all, and you are not all experts on every facet of science, and please read the evidence that the evolutionists put forth.

Please evolutionists acknowledge that the creationists can read, do read and will read and have knowledge to understand that which is written. Maybe some do not wish to look but for those who do will you always keep them generalized and hold them as one rather than individual?

If you have a problem with it, please try to make clear in detail what your problems with the data are, and then perhaps you might either stand a better chance of convincing the opposition that you are right, or allow them to provide a better explanation and help you to learn. Flippant dismissals get nobody anywhere, and merely add to the frustration of those who often spend a good deal of time writing out lengthy responses to your problems.

And for all, for those on both sides of the fence do not flippantly dismiss an entire thread which has been hours upon hours of work in the making as a total loss. To do so makes time wasted on both sides.

I hope that we can all discuss the issues sensibly and maturely,

Again, who judges the outcome? I feel I gave a good showing and find that I have in the eyes of the opposition done nothing more than the "standard in the box" flippant dismisal with dishonestly and ignorance. So in this one thread I have seen that I must either be contained in this box or no longer post here in the forum. I am going to be considering that possibility for the next few days. I do want to say that I have enjoyed this conversation as well as the many I have had here in the past year and a half (almost). I have made great friends on both sides of the issues and feel I would miss them should I leave. So I have a lot to think about. Thanks for hearing me out.

Jet.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Postscript:

Jet Black although I was using your OP I was not in anyway claiming that you are to blame. You have shown me in our conversations that although you hold different views that you do take me as an individual and I feel you respect me as a person. Thank you.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Now Aron-ra we have both supplied quotes that support our viewpoint, let this topic rest.

Not quite yet. We have both provided quotes that supported my position exclusively. You have yet to post any which either contest mine or support yours.

The Rights of the Colonists Adopted by the Town of Boston -does assume that all Bostonians are Christian. But this document was written and distributed in 1772, while still under British rule. Although written in 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights was also technically under British rule. But it did not assume that all subjects were Christian, and refers not to God, but to "our creator" just as I said earlier. So you're proving my point there. And the excerp from George Washington's farewell address offers nothing significant to either side of this discussion except that it assumes no specific religious affiliation for anyone, and wouldn't as Washington was a Deist himself. Not one of these documents in any way allows or encourages Christianity specifically or religion in general to have of the powers of state in any branch.

Thank you for the link. Your claim was originally that the earliest depictions of "my" God were this Duc de Berry's paintings.

No, ma'am. My claim was the earliest renderings of Jesus depicted him the way de Berry did.

When in actuality there are numerous ones that are earlier and some at the same time period that never depict Christ in this manner. In fact, De Berry is the only one that seems to present Him in this way.

Obviously not. I told you before, if you'll look further back to the tomb presumed to be that of St. Peter, there also, Jesus is represented as Helios the sun-god, and this rendering is dated at only 160 CE.

I am unaware of any reference to the "crucified redeemer" anywhere in the OT. So you're going to have to show me where it says anything about that.

Zechariah 12:10 "They will look on me, the one they have pierced."

This chapter did contain one interesting prophesy, that of the state of Isreal, except of course that there was never a time when everyone's horse went blind. Otherwise, this would be a pretty good reference except that I don't remember Jesus being one of the angels of the lord. It seemed as though Zecharia was talking to Metatron. So I looked it up on the web, and sure enough, that is the case, at least according to Hebrew sources.

"Anytime someone claims to be talking to God, they're talking to me. Or they're talking to themselves".
--Metatron (Alan Rickman); DOGMA

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Likewise, I would have conceded that this was a good one too, had it not been for the fact that he seems to be describing himself being attacked by dogs, and it seems only natural that his hands and feet be pierced. But believe me, I would be much more open to your prophesies if they just weren't all so absurdly vague that anyone could interpret them however they liked. This one appears to be the single best reference you have. But it still doesn't really describe the crucifixion, and more importantly, there is not even a hint of the reason why there should ever be a crucifixion. Its as if that part of God's plan didn't come about until it happened.

Each of your other quotes did mention a redeemer. And the use of that word does appear to predate what we have for Dionysus and Krsna, if only just barely. The redeemer was still a common theme, however. And there still is no mention or description of your redeemer's crucifixion, or (and this is important) why there ever needed to be one.

Another movie?
And this is suppose to be evidence of something?

Only that others familiar with classical mythology also consider Prometheus to have been crucified.

here is one for the Son of God reference from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

(snip)

And at the same time, according to the Jewish Code of Law, "If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah. If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah."

The consumption of the eucharist is false and has been refuted.

When? And by whom? Because from what I can see, it hasn't been, and couldn't have been.

Okay, since I can't remember right now who, what and where this is I will ask you to provide the evidence of it. Since you made the claim it really is your responsibility to provide the evidence for this. So you do that and I will find my source for the refuted claim author. Deal?

I thought I already did. In the story of when the titans come upon the baby Dionysus and tear him to pieces, pomagranates trees sprouted from his blood drops. All the gods had magical blood. But Dionysus was the first god "consumed" by his followers in any fashion. And I believe I have already adequately shown that.
http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/animal-sacrifice-catholic-mass.html
http://www.adjunctcollege.com/Dionysus.html
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/nestor/outline_3-1.html

Show me [1.] where the OT says that Jesus (or the messiah) would be born from God's union with a mortal woman, (which already has ancient precents in paganism)

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Not Jesus. Who by the way, seems to be trying to make himself fit the job description rather like Manson did.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Again, all of these names would apply to anyone who stepped up to play the part. But the other prophesies paint a very different picture of the messiah than the one you've chosen.

"amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to: Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45) Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13) Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9) Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4)."
--www.messiahtruth.com

Your Jesus didn't do any of these. Or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[2.] that Jesus would create wine miraculously, or [3.] wine flowing where there was only water before,

Correct, there is no mention of the wedding/wine miracle in the Old Testament that I am aware of.

But there is that for Dionysus, just as there is for him, Hercules and Asclepius, all raising the dead from their graves. Dionysus turned water to wine, and declared himself to be a god. Indra could walk on water. And as I have already shown, Krsna made the blind see, declared himself to be God in the flesh, and revealed his true form, making good on his claim in a way that Jesus never did, all from documents known to be centuries older than any similar claims for your messiah.

[4.] that the messiah would raise the dead, and specifically [5.] where the messiah would be killed and then resurrected.

Job claims that the dead will rise again due to the Risen Redeemer.

This is vague, and seems to be talking about the general population of Sheol, not the resurrection of one guy.

Psalms foretells the death and resurrection.

You didn't tell me where. But I guess you don't mean Psalms 146:3.

Help me out here. Because I doubt very much that these same concepts can be found anywhere in the OT.

See above.

I still don't think there is any explanation of the plan you say was outlined since the beginning of the world.

The general aspects of these are not similiar.

But with this list of similarities, I have just shown that they are.

Where does it show sins, redemption for mankind and atonement.

The sin was granting humans forbidden knowledge, and the redemption for mankind came from the crucifixion of Prometheus, who endured this punishment to atone for that sin.

So far, you have only claimed that they are. I suspect this will be another of those occasions where the Bible doesn't really say what you thought it did, and must be severely "interpretated" to "mean" what you want it to.

I think they are pretty clear.

I do too. Once again, we see that all your prophesies and all the Bible's early explanations for later events are so vague that they remain hidden even after the fact.

The story of Pandora's box was part of Hesiod's Works and Days, a continuation of his earlier work, Theogony written in the late 8th Century BCE.

But of course we find that most scholars agree that Genesis was written down around 1500 BC or there about. Some claim earlier.

Most claim later, around 950 BCE. And (lest we forget) part of this trilogy involves the atonement in crucifixion for forbidden knowledge. And that's not in Genesis or anywhere else in the OT.

Genesis is a compilation of elder polytheist beliefs that have been associated with each other other many generations before finally being compiled into one book in a very different state than they began.

And the parallels therein still predate the Jesus miracles, which aren't detailed at all in the OT. And the exact content of the OT can't be verified beyond 2200 years ago anyway. But even if both were written at the same time, the pagan works are still talking about specific particulars of someone from their past, while the Dead Sea Scrolls are making some vague hints about an uncertain somebody in the future, and doesn't talk about any of the specific miracles which are now attributed to both Jesus and the gods of the "mystery religions".

It doesn't matter whether you attribute them to Jesus or not when discussing whether the ideas or concepts are original or earlier than the other. The Old Testament is dated prior to these concepts. I have shown that they were present in the Old Testament.

No you didn't. You listed the virgin birth, but that was it. All the other miracles of Jesus were dedicated to other gods first. Jesus himself is not an original concept.

The Dead Sea Scrolls in regard to the OT writtings are representative of the ones we now have. The only differences that have been found are some copying errors such as in letters rather than meanings.

Ironically, biological evolution is a matter of copying errors associated with letters too.

As for the flood myths you listed, the legends for the Inca and the Ojibwe bore no similarity to any other flood myth except for the common notion that everything was killed except the hero of the story. The other story about the Choctaws had only a couple similarities to the near-eastern flood myths, but they were suspicious ones. When told to settlers in the 1800s, the Choctaws would not have remembered what mammoths even were. And if they did, they should have listed a dozen other things, (like American lions, scimitar cats, and giant sloths) that disappeared along with the mammoths. As I said before, only the Near-eastern versions match each other in all the important details simultaneosly. And as I said before, we know for certain that no global flood ever happened.

If you can truly feel that you have disproven every point I have made I think this is an excerise in futility.

I think I adequately proved (1) that the miracles of Jesus were originally attributed to other gods, (2) that the Bible supports and condones abortion, (3) that the Bible includes many magic spells that don't work, (4) that the fables now in Genesis could have been a compilation of polytheist folklore, (and likely were) but that Genesis could not have been the original version, and (5) I proved that the concept of postumous judgement for Heaven as an option to Sheol is described in the Avesta centuries before any similar concept was ever mentioned in the Bible, and that what was mentioned in the Old Testament doesn't match what Christians want it to. As a final bonus, (6) I proved you don't have the faith of a mustard seed because you already know you can't wish a mountain to move no matter what the Bible says.

I have been nothing but honest and sincere with you but all through this entire thread you have told me that I wasn't paying attention, that I was dishonest and deluded.

And you said the same about me many times. But I didn't ignore any of your points or questions like you did mine. You have avoided several challenges from me, seemingly because you knew you couldn't answer them without conceding the point. If that's so, then it is not honest.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I didn't say anything about our comments on common ancestry because I'm going to start another thread about that, one that won't allow for any of the subjective feelings or emotional opinions such as there were in this discussion. The next thread will be much more definite, and independant of interpretation. So let's start again, and this time on my turf, which I think is much more stable ground.

 

[william jay schroeder]

I didn't say anything about our comments on common ancestry because I'm going to start another thread about that, one that won't allow for any of the subjective feelings or emotional opinions such as there were in this discussion. The next thread will be much more definite, and independant of interpretation. So let's start again, and this time on my turf, which I think is much more stable ground.

your information is so bad its funny to read it. You believe everything written and is the absolute truth EXCept the bible. your so far off on understanding the scriptures its almost annoying. your understanding of the prophecies is so off it cant be taught to you. You need to go back and restudy all you have done because its mostly misinterpreted. You seem very smart but this doesnt deem your study at all accurate. I think you have tried so hard to disprove religion and escpecially the Bilbe your willing to see whats not there. But its your life and you can do what you want and believe what you want. Im not going to see you any different one way or the other. or i guess read you different one way or the other. its all just my opionon

 

[Aron-Ra]

your information is so bad its funny to read it.

Yet you're the one who thought all the Biblical prophesies came true.

You believe everything written and is the absolute truth EXCept the bible.

You obviously haven't paid any attention to anything I've ever written. I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. So all you have are some things which can be proven to be reasonably accurate, and then you have the Bible, which has been proven to be inaccurate on many points.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Yet you're the one who thought all the Biblical prophesies came true.
You obviously haven't paid any attention to anything I've ever written. I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. So all you have are some things which can be proven to be reasonably accurate, and then you have the Bible, which has been proven to be inaccurate on many points.

well this sums it all up your just anti bible. i dont know why because most of it deals with showing people love and forgiveness. the old testament reveals the new and Christ for our sins and how to show love to others. If you dont care for christianity or other religions why dont you just look to what is good in them instead of belittleling them done to nothing. All prophecies have come true but the ones that deal with the end times, these i might imagine may convince you if your still around. what you mentioned were way off there meaning. Or you didnt get them near right. There are a lot that deal with Christ and seem minute by themselves but alltogether they were done as prophecied. virgin birth in a manger the other babies to be killed to try to get rid of him. Elizibeth, mary's aunt i believe, was with child. hung on a cross, no broken bones, some of these could not have been minipulated by Christ since he was a baby at the time. if there is no absolute truth then how come you believe anything you read, especially from long ago. you seem to think other writings are more correct then the Bible, yet from your understanding you shouldnt at all. There are absolute truths everything is either true or not true there is no inbetween. What would be inbetween.

 

[Christian_Victor]

it is anti-God and atheist.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISM!!!!!

If the evidence contradicts the bible, it is false. Simple as that, I wish people were more unbias and open minded to this possibility. We must approach the evidence with an open mind and the possiblity that God created the universe useing Creationism

Yes, I have been open-minded. For a long time. I've studied Evolution as long as I did Creationism, and Evolution adds up more.

Also, who says the evidence contradicts the Bible? Who says that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? Who says mine's is? But, hey, I have a reasonable interpetation that DOES NOT contradict the Bible and DOES NOT toy around with it. Also, it explains how Evolution ties in with it.


It seems that your post was based off the thought that "Evolution equals Atheism", a common mistake by many.




EDIT: Ya, I know that his post was on the first page, and this post is on the 30 somethingth. Doesn't matter. I always like to voice my opinion, no matter what page it is on.

 

[Aron-Ra]

well this sums it all up your just anti bible.

Wrong again, as always. I'm anti dogmatism. The Bible is to me no different than any of the other supposedly holy books men have written about the gods they made up.

i dont know why because most of it deals with showing people love and forgiveness.

You and I must have read different Bibles. The only ones I've ever seen talk about parents eating their children, or having sex with them, blood, rape, genocide, pillage, plunder and horror of all kinds for no reason at all. That's what most of the Bible is about.

if there is no absolute truth then how come you believe anything you read, especially from long ago.

I don't. Why did you think I did?

There are absolute truths everything is either true or not true there is no inbetween. What would be inbetween.

Everything is in between. There can be some truth even in a lie, and even your history book contains some errors. Nothing is absolutely accurate, and nothing is beyond question. There is no asbolute black or white for anything. Instead, there is a spectrum of color which can't be fit into your small, black or white fantasy vision of the world.

 

[Jet Black]

After days and days of conversation on this thread I ask....who makes the judgement call? Who decides what the evidence supports. If we truly bring forth evidence of any form to support our views does the validity rest on the non-believers?


Again, after days and days of such debate did I make a good contribution? What constitutes "a good contribution"?



Does the face of dismisal have a two faced image? Does a preconcieved worldview work two ways? And who knows and who determines what face is protrayed?


Perhaps, just perhaps the creationist is so put into a certain light that no matter what is said they can never make it out of the little box they are put in? I know that there will always be creationists that love the box and equally there will be those who disbelieve that love their little box but what of those who want to break free of the box and examine and touch and grasp outside of the box? Will those be always driven right back in again?



Please evolutionists acknowledge that the creationists can read, do read and will read and have knowledge to understand that which is written. Maybe some do not wish to look but for those who do will you always keep them generalized and hold them as one rather than individual?


And for all, for those on both sides of the fence do not flippantly dismiss an entire thread which has been hours upon hours of work in the making as a total loss. To do so makes time wasted on both sides.


Again, who judges the outcome? I feel I gave a good showing and find that I have in the eyes of the opposition done nothing more than the "standard in the box" flippant dismisal with dishonestly and ignorance. So in this one thread I have seen that I must either be contained in this box or no longer post here in the forum. I am going to be considering that possibility for the next few days. I do want to say that I have enjoyed this conversation as well as the many I have had here in the past year and a half (almost). I have made great friends on both sides of the issues and feel I would miss them should I leave. So I have a lot to think about. Thanks for hearing me out.

I understand why you have posed hese questions in the way you have - primarily I feel to the general direction the thread has taken, however I feel I should point out that the thread has taken an entirely different direction to that which was originally intended (not that I mind of course) The original intent was largely aimed at those who flippantly dismiss any scientific evidence which disagrees with their worldview without any real understanding of the issues which they address, and as a corollary accept anything which agrees with what they want to hear, irrespective of the basis of those things, or again with no understanding of the things that they talk about. Primarily these are things scientific in nature, and less theological or philosophical in nature - exmples I can point to rapidly include the evidence of common ancestry between humans and the rest of the great apes, the laws of thermodynamics, radioactive decay and pretty much all of geology, which many creationists seem to hate even more than they hate biology. It is not always nescessarily which side the evidence supports (though scientifically the evidence always supports the conclusion which was derived from the evidence) which is the issue, but the awareness and depth of understanding of the evidence itself which is often most lacking, with many as I pointed out, making proclamations well outside their scope of knowledge ("there are no transitional fossils" being an excellent one - it seems to me that many creationists do not even know the first thing about the fossils that there are, and could even less make an educated statement about them) and the worst thing is, that they know they do not know anything about these things, but go on to make those proclamations anyway. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, although I might argue loud and long about the disagreement between myself and them, however it does really get to me when it becomes abundantly apparent that the person I am discussing things with does not know anything about the subject on which they claim to have authority and do not even know the true nature of the position it is that they disagree with. As pointed out, this does indeed work both ways, which is why I personally rarely venture into apologetics on a basis of telling Christians what they think and why it is wrong - because I know full well that the odds of me being wrong about what they think are very high on account of not knowing much about what they think. I don't go round telling Christians that Jesus said this and that, because I may well be wrong about the context or be argueing against a heretical strawman point of view, because I do not know about the Bible in detail. My post was aimed primarily at those who do not make the effort to understand what they are argueing about irrespecitve of whether they agree with it at the end of the day or not. It is a waste of both their own time and mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I understand why you have posed hese questions in the way you have - primarily I feel to the general direction the thread has taken, however I feel I should point out that the thread has taken an entirely different direction to that which was originally intended (not that I mind of course) The original intent was largely aimed at those who flippantly dismiss any scientific evidence which disagrees with their worldview without any real understanding of the issues which they address, and as a corollary accept anything which agrees with what they want to hear, irrespective of the basis of those things, or again with no understanding of the things that they talk about. Primarily these are things scientific in nature, and less theological or philosophical in nature - exmples I can point to rapidly include the evidence of common ancestry between humans and the rest of the great apes, the laws of thermodynamics, radioactive decay and pretty much all of geology, which many creationists seem to hate even more than they hate biology. It is not always nescessarily which side the evidence supports (though scientifically the evidence always supports the conclusion which was derived from the evidence) which is the issue, but the awareness and depth of understanding of the evidence itself which is often most lacking, with many as I pointed out, making proclamations well outside their scope of knowledge ("there are no transitional fossils" being an excellent one - it seems to me that many creationists do not even know the first thing about the fossils that there are, and could even less make an educated statement about them) and the worst thing is, that they know they do not know anything about these things, but go on to make those proclamations anyway. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, although I might argue loud and long about the disagreement between myself and them, however it does really get to me when it becomes abundantly apparent that the person I am discussing things with does not know anything about the subject on which they claim to have authority and do not even know the true nature of the position it is that they disagree with. As pointed out, this does indeed work both ways, which is why I personally rarely venture into apologetics on a basis of telling Christians what they think and why it is wrong - because I know full well that the odds of me being wrong about what they think are very high on account of not knowing much about what they think. I don't go round telling Christians that Jesus said this and that, because I may well be wrong about the context or be argueing against a heretical strawman point of view, because I do not know about the Bible in detail. My post was aimed primarily at those who do not make the effort to understand what they are argueing about irrespecitve of whether they agree with it at the end of the day or not. It is a waste of both their own time and mine.

I understand and please understand that I was ranting and your post was the best vehicle around. I certainly do myself get upset about the things that you cited above and can understand the level of frustation on the part of all.

So sorry for derailing your thread although I know that you meant that it didn't bother you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aron-ra

I have taken the last few days to consider what to do. I prayed about it, I asked a good friend to assess the thread to bring to me an unbiased (well almost unbiased) oppinion of the thread and have come to these conclusions.

I look at this process of debate in a very different light than most of you. So in that light I need to understand that you and others look differently at it as well. See I don't look at it like intellectual tennis or a point to point scoring process. But I will try to remember that in most cases that is how the process works and I will try to remember that when "debating".

I can not and will not look at you or anyone else as an "opponent". I am sorry but that is just too hard for me to do and I just don't have that type of mindset.

I think that I over reacted to your comments as my unbiased friend felt that we were both polite and our behavior was good. So I feel that I was reading in something that was not present. I also let pride jump in there as no one really likes to be considered ignorant. But that is not my purpose and I did lose track of that.

So if you don't mind, I would like to go back and find those challenges of which you speak and bring up some of the ones I felt you didn't address. I think I have in mind a more organized way to do it as well. That is if Jet doesn't mind if we continue to derail this. I still feel that the posts that are based on interpretation (Sotah ritual, Genesis) are going nowhere as I will not be convinced and you will not so I think that is at an empass or is it impass?

Before we go off on common ancestors, can we get through what we have on the other topics first?

Also, I am taking my last exam for my coursework this week and then I need to study for my state exams immediately thereafter. So please don't get upset by my slow responses or lapses of memory during this next few weeks.

 

[Jet Black]

I understand and please understand that I was ranting and your post was the best vehicle around. I certainly do myself get upset about the things that you cited above and can understand the level of frustation on the part of all.

sure no problem. You did help to highlight though that it can be a problem from both sides

So sorry for derailing your thread although I know that you meant that it didn't bother you.

again, really no problem, sometimes threads just evolve away from the original intent and there is little one can do about that other than attempt to enforce my will and ruin others' conversation. The conversation was interesting and lots was said, and I value that far more than holding to my original purpose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good. So we will see if Aron-ra wishes to continue and eventually we will get to the scientific area of common ancestry. Then your thread will get back on track..yes?

 

[william jay schroeder]

Wrong again, as always. I'm anti dogmatism. The Bible is to me no different than any of the other supposedly holy books men have written about the gods they made up.

ALL OTHER BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY MAN, USELY ONE, AND didnt give prophecy to back it up as spiritual and from God.

You and I must have read different Bibles. The only ones I've ever seen talk about parents eating their children, or having sex with them, blood, rape, genocide, pillage, plunder and horror of all kinds for no reason at all. That's what most of the Bible is about.

you read the bible you want to read, show me these verses. At the very least this should prove it is the truth because it doesnt gloss over human nature and its evil. For no reason you seem to understand.

I don't. Why did you think I did?
Everything is in between. There can be some truth even in a lie, and even your history book contains some errors. Nothing is absolutely accurate, and nothing is beyond question. There is no asbolute black or white for anything. Instead, there is a spectrum of color which can't be fit into your small, black or white fantasy vision of the world.

you dont believe this and i know it because you believe in evolution. Or do you guestion evolution and believe it could be wrong. if you really believed this you would be paranoid because you would never know what was true or not. contain some errors which means some is true and some is not true. Nothing inbetween. again give me a examble of inbetween. if you tell some one something, is it true or a lie. if you drive, you go one direction or another but never no direction. your the one not in reality. you wish a world that means nothing and is what ever you wish it to be. But every thing you do means something even if you dont notice it. If you drink or smoke or always honest or kind or are a bully these things effect those around you. whether you want to believe it or not.You are what you believe. there is never truth in a lie, give me a example.

 

[Nathan Poe]

ALL OTHER BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY MAN, USELY ONE, AND didnt give prophecy to back it up as spiritual and from God.

Man wrote the Bible too, they just claimed to be inspired by God.
Some people choose to believe it. Whatever hoists your mainsail, I say...

you read the bible you want to read, show me these verses. At the very least this should prove it is the truth because it doesnt gloss over human nature and its evil.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn pulled no punches when it depicted the cruelty, hatred, ignorance, greed, stupidity, cowardace, gullibility, and sadness of human nature. Yet at the same time, in the midst of a moral labyrinth more twisted than the Mississippi river itself, the relationship between Huck and Jim shines a glimmer of hope for the human condition.

Therefore, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn must be the truth.

For no reason you seem to understand.
you dont believe this and i know it because you believe in evolution. Or do you guestion evolution and believe it could be wrong. if you really believed this you would be paranoid because you would never know what was true or not.

There is a middle ground between paranoia and blind faith.

I do hope you discover it somday.

contain some errors which means some is true and some is not true. Nothing inbetween. again give me a examble of inbetween. if you tell some one something, is it true or a lie.

So in your world, everything not "true" is a lie.
There is no such thing as a mistake in your world.
How blessed you must be to never make mistakes.

if you drive, you go one direction or another but never no direction.

Put the car in "park."

your the one not in reality.

"I know you are but what am I?"

you wish a world that means nothing and is what ever you wish it to be.

He understand that the world is not what we wish it to be. That our desires to not shape reality.

You see, not all of us have a pet God kept in a convenient Bible-shaped box.

But every thing you do means something even if you dont notice it.

Cause and effect. And this has what to do with anything?

If you drink or smoke or always honest or kind or are a bully these things effect those around you. whether you want to believe it or not.You are what you believe. there is never truth in a lie, give me a example.

Jesus told parables.
Did they really happen? No?
Then there is never truth in them.

Move along, folks; nothing to see here.