Very Good The Searcher Your thinkin ! Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
very nice! Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
Haha! Nice and original! Good job on everything - Faved! Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
brilliant! Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
hahahaha awesome!!! Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
That's beautiful. If Jesus weren't so fair-minded, his faithful horse would already have eaten Mr. Darwin. (Edit: Dude, you even remembered the nail holes. Well done.) Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
I got Jesus at -300 and Darwin at +240. Any Divine intervention and all wagers will be NO ACTION. Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
ha ha! now that's science in action! The flying spaghetti monster really ought to step in and break that up. Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
He he he :-) Sharp... I would have a fight with Leonardo Da Vinci. That man was so damn clever he makes the rest of us look dumb, no matter what we do. -- Seen in my contacts' photos. (?) Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
Beautifully rendered. It's a tough call, one can call in a favorite to dad and change the laws of nature and the other one has the power of science. Oh wait, there's no proof that his dad exists. I put all my money on Darwin. Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
Great work! -- Seen on your photo stream. (?) Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
how brilliant are you? Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
I think this is likely the apex. Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
Hi searcher i good expression for thy face,..^^ Sorry Jesus Vs Darwin this cute^^ Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )
ha, that's good Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
Funny stuff! That creation museum is a complete and utter joke. Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Eye Candy!, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group. Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
jaja esta buenisima la imagen, saludos! bye :) Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
Too funny! Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
This one's perfect! I love the positives/negatives as well. -- Seen on your photo stream. (?) Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
*snicker* lays out my last tuppence on the Lord Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
This is absolutely BRILLIANT!! Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
you are genius! How does it feel like being one? Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
wow-this is just incredibly perfect! i love it! i can't believe i didn't see this before...one of my all-time faves for sure. love it... you have extraordinary talent!! Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )
That's pretty clever. Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )
Favorita desde hace mucho ;) Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )
Wow... I can't believe this "fell outside my safesearch filter". Cmon' flickr, this is NOTHING. (As in, nothing worth putting a filter on - great work!) Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )
That sounds like a fluke, or bug. The image is set as "safe". damn that hand-of-god crap. Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )
This is DARK ENLIGHTENMENT!!! Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )
Darwin has no chance here. That Jesus is one mean-looking SOB- Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
"THE CREATOR" VS the Created of the Creator. It may not be really what is in the real facts because the CREATOR never strives with regards to ALL HIS created. GOD-ALL MIGTHY never strives it is MAN that strives with his CREATOR. 1.)Human Carnal Perspectives:"GOD is my equal so I do not treat HIM with HONOUR & RESPECT.(nO REVERENTIAL FEAR WHATSOEVER) 2.)GOD'S SOVEREIGN PERSPECTIVES: "Nothing shall stand or exalt itself against the Name of:(Philippians 2:10) JESUS CHRIST ..is a Name ABOVE ALL NAMES.ALL KNEES SHALL BOW ..of those of the WHOLE EARTH & those Under the Earth. This is from the Holy WORD OF GOD our CREATOR. We are just MINUTE sands in arena of vast humanity GOD created. Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
I think her keyboard is broken, the caps keep coming on at odd times. Maybe it's a secret code! Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
It may not be really what is in the real facts uhh... what? Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
Women do not pick up fights with grown up man..it is childish & silly.I only want you all here to see 2 different perspectives.That's all to it.No more no less.No offense taken. Peace i give to you all. Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
I'm 17 years old. I don't see why you would want to pick up a fight, but if you need some help I can reach over and grab it for you. Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
darwin > jesus. and god. Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
at least darwin was real Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
Oh dude, your style is so amazing ! Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
I respect men who search, so I hope your name, "The Searcher" reflects your heart. There is really no contest between Darwin and Jesus. In fact Jesus loved him and formed him and held together the universe that he explored and enjoyed. The Bible - Colossians 1:13-17 13. For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15. And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. The Bible - John 1:9-13 9. There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13. who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Bible - John 14:6 (words of Jesus) 6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. The Question is? Is he a liar, a lunatic or Lord and God? There is really no other choice. If you ask Him to reveal it, you will find him to be Lord and God. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
random bible spam ftw! Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
There is a school of thought that posits that a creator, logically, strives to create something more than himself, better than himself. Any Mother or Father can attest to this. Thus it could be considered that man was not made in god's image, but was in fact made to be better than god. An improvement, a next generation. A child of god. in which case, man by virtue of his very creation, has surpassed god and god's wisdom in most respects. Which puts the money on Darwin to win out. Working against logic, as so much of the bible tends to do, Jesus is apparently both god AND god's son. So he's both god and more than god, at the same time. Which one is fighting Darwin at this moment? And the fight of Reason Vs Faith rages on. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
"Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends." attributed to Woody Allen Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
Searcher, Neither is fighting Darwin. God loved Darwin. I'm not sure Darwin ever fought against God any more than the rest of us. Darwin has only been used by some who probably know God exists but are afraid to face Him. Darwin probably realized that one would need an incredible amount of faith to imagine that everything just popped into being without a designer. I am an engineer, but studied biology for two years before getting my engineering degree. The more I know of biology and engineering, the more I am convinced that God designed us, the flowers, bacteria and the stars. Just consider the human heart. It is a pump unequaled by anything man ever made. But then consider the amazing eyeball, with all of it's moving parts that focuses and sends an image to the brain. Then consider that for an eyeball to have evolved, it needed the heart, but for the heart to be nourished, the man needed the eyeball to see. Then there is the brain... Think of how silly it is to consider God fighting Darwin, a mere man while He holds the planets in their orbits. No, He loves you and I and Darwin more than we could ever imagine. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
near as I can tell, Jesus wasn't around when Darwin lived, so you're going to have to take the piece as metaphor. The Bible should have given you some practice with this. And as metaphor, your words here about perfectly encapsulate the struggle between science and faith. Thank you for your contribution. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
mbryan777 : Ach, not the eye thing again. Please people, go take a class, read a book, talk to someone who understands, anything. If your misconceptions about biology parallels your understanding of engineering I hope never to encounter any project you have worked on. Please, no offense is meant by that but that is like saying that a computer is impossible because the equipment used to build them is so complex that they can only be made with the assistance of computers. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
random thought - scientists have proven that Bees cannot possibly fly. Something about power to weight ratio or the such... -- Seen in my recent comments. (?) Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
am i the only one turned on here? Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
Jasmic: actually I think some scientists (possibly graduated from similar school as our engineering friend here) haven't yet figured out how bees fly, however they haven't proven or disproven anything. In fact a bee in flight pretty much disproves the negative, and elegantly. John: I think to be same as the biology "argument", computers would have to have been created by better computers. Floating off in space omniscient computers. Blimpa: probably. but I thank you for your contribution, too. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
i thought the picture was enough to turn me on but all this religion/science back and forth has really got me hot. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
we love jesus as well, jesus brought peace to the world, one day jesus will be back to bring peace to the world. in jesus honour i took picture www.flickr.com/photos/welltaken/1153142633/ i hope you will like it. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
Searcher; Yes, you are right, I stand corrected. That is a much better analogy. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
i'm a photoshop junkie, and have stayed in my little comfortable box making money doing photography and graphic design, but man, you have totally inspired me. i've gotten off my ass and really been enthralled with illustration for the past month because of your work. you have amazing stuff. keep it up. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
The Searcher, you shared your beliefs and mbryan777 was simply sharing his. There is no need to insult his intelligence- he did not attack yours or your talent. You have a wonderful talent and a vivid imagination but have some respect for people who don't believe what you do. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
Actually I thought I thanked him for the contribution. Reconciling doctrines of faith with facts of science, is thankfully something that I do not have to do. Faith and logic seldom play well together, and I think his response was a good demonstration of that. How a man of science can envision an invisible creature literally holding the planets up, is honestly beyond me. Which again, is really the underlying message behind this piece. Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
i didn't care before, but now i hope so too! Posted 6 months ago. ( permalink )
That Jesus can throw one hell of a left cross. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
DAISY: Well said. The struggle is with man. Jesus is not struggling. God is not at a quandary. The light came into the world, but the world did not receive Him, because we loved darkness. SEARCHER: If something were 'greater than God,' then God would no longer be God. Furthermore, if God created me greater than himself, why do I not have infinite knowledge, creative power, and a transcendent nature? Interesting image. I think I get what you're trying to convey. From a humanist's perspective, it makes sense. Just know that Christians will not view it as an accurate portrayal of reality. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
First off, you lost me at "Daisy: well said". Then you lost me again with the random gibberish right after. That sort of rote, memory-speak is fine for keeping your flock in line, but doesn't help when you're trying to actually say something. Second, "Just know that Christians will not view it as an accurate portrayal of reality. " I'm sorry, but if your "christians" idea of an "accurate portrayal of reality" includes a disembodied all-powerful entity responsible for all things everywhere, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on what "reality" means. Third, perhaps you don't have "infinite knowledge, creative power, and a transcendent nature" because your creator did not, either. In the same way that your Father and Mother were no more human than you, yet they hoped to create something better than themselves, in you. In my experience, in most human experience, the act of creation, is about making something better, bigger, stronger, more powerful, more beautiful, etc. It seems, like many things in the bible, to be very illogical to set out to create something less than what you already are. Just guessing, though. But then, so are you. Thanks for stopping by. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
does anyone else get turned on by these comments the Searcher is making, or is it just me and my gay neighbors who follow this stream.. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
"...that your Father and Mother were no more human than you, yet they hoped to create something better than themselves, in you." I'm with you, Searcher, but let's remember that in plenty of cases, children (and lots of other things) arise not by some creative urge or intention, but by accident. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
Searcher: All I'm saying is that a Christian's view HAS to be based on the Bible... by virtue of being a Christian. For this reason, a Christian's view of reality is viewed through the lens of Scripture. The God of the Bible is simple, which is to say that He has no composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form. He is not "disembodied," as He does not preside IN space and time. This is why I stated that He is transcendent. A person does not HAVE to view reality through the lens of Scripture, but if he's a Christian, he will. As far as what "reality" means, I would define reality as a synonym of "existence." In other words, nothingness, would not exist in reality. A mountain of pure gold--although possible or conceivable--does not exist... unless one is discovered. Therefore, this mountain cannot be found in "reality." God's purpose in creation (as revealed through Scripture) is not illogical as you stated. In fact, it is conceivable, logical, and rational. The purpose of creation was the display of the glory of God through the demonstration of grace to undeserving sinners, justice upon wickedness, and majesty through design. More could be said, but I will await your reply to see where our disconnect now lies. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
This is mostly for Blimpa's sake, because there's little I like more than turning her on. But my disconnect now I guess is on the replacement of god with Jesus. I know there's this whole son, father, holy ghost thing where they're all really the same thing, but just table that for a second. Your response up there a bit was on my image, which depicts Jesus fighting Darwin, for ostensibly the hearts and minds of humanity (guess who's fighting for which?). The "accurate portrayal of reality" you described, had nothing to do with god, but with Jesus. So when you say : "He has no composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form. He is not "disembodied," as He does not preside IN space and time.." I wholeheartedly believe you. We agree on this point of reality; god is apparently not viewable nor touchable in any time zone. Got it. But Jesus? He on the other hand, according to this book you refer to, was around at some point. An actual guy, living and growing and walking among us. Very touchable, very in a specific time zone (GMT +2 hours, depending on daylight savings.) This book also says he died, and then got up again some time later. This book also said that at some point, he's coming back again. Ok. So if you take that (which I admit, is a lot to take), under certain circumstances, this guy, this flesh and blood guy, can find himself on the human plane of existence from time to time? It seems at least possible that he could have popped down in the 1840s sometime and had a go with a young Mr. Darwin, perhaps during one of his crisis' of faith. Considering the other magical things that are in your book as accepted facts to many, this does not seem unreasonable to me. If it seems unreasonable to you, then perhaps you should look inside and decide how deeply you truly believe in the things that are supposed to be possible to you. Oh yeah, also? The image is metaphorical. I didn't think a metaphor, of all things, would be so hard for theologians to pick up on. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
how very articulate of you. i'm getting a little turned on myself. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
I understand the abstract way in which you are making your point in the image. It's like the struggle between the religious creationists and the darwinian evolutionists. I get that. What I'm getting at is that a Christian worldview would have a follower of Jesus (or perhaps Moses who wrote the Genesis account) struggling with Darwin... not Jesus himself. This is due to the fact that Scripture reveals Jesus as 100% divine (while also 100% human). For this reason, the Christian would not see this as an "accurate portrayal of reality," as God never struggles. You can disagree with the theology all you want. All I was saying is that CHRISTIANS will not view the image as an accurate portrayal. I get the imagery. I get the message. I understand the logic. From the unbeliever's perspective, it makes perfect sense. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
So believing in reality (as opposed to proposals of reality) makes me an 'unbeliever'? Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
Liam: Pardon the expression, but "unbeliever" is a term used in the New Testament for one who has not placed his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, it's a non-Christian. "Unbeliever" doesn't mean you don't believe in anything. I should have been more clear. Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
Well, it isn't your fault. When you use loaded biblical terms like that, it's hard to be very clear at all. Almost as if it were written (or translated) in such a way, on purpose. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
It is evident from ratherbebiking's comment that he knew exactly what I meant by "unbeliever." It was just an opportunity to say something incongruous. I would extend a word of caution when trying to vilify the historicity, reliability, and divine origin of the Bible. The evidence requires the suspension of disbelief to continue to hold such disdain for the Word of God. I don't know why it would be offensive (which it appears to be) to say that something makes sense from one perspective while not from another. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
Really? I thought "suspension of disbelief" was a requirement for belief in the "word of god". That's the "suspension" part. I think some offense comes from the Orwellian use of loaded terms like "unbeliever". Of course as you've explained, neither Orwell nor totalitarian governments invented the concept. See, if someone doesn't believe in something, you would say usually that they are a "non believer", which implies in its language that they do not believe in that thing. When you, or as you say the new testament, tweaks it that little bit, with the "un", well you have a slightly different thing, now don't you? "Unbeliever" carries with it the idea that you are incapable of belief, that if there is no belief in your god, then there simply is no belief. With a broader explanation you try to clarify, but to most people sitting in listen when such words are read, the clarification is missing. Just the implication remains. And with most religions, it seems it can only be an "us vs them" mentality. As far as historicity goes? That's the easy part. Most of the happenings in the bible, have no historical congruity. Unlike say, when the New York Times reports on something, and the New York Post and CNN and Paul's Blog cover the same event from different perspectives. with the Bible, you got your parting of the red seas. But where's the other reports of the same event? Where's the Egyptian Daily Herald's hieroglyphic editorial response? Where's the man on the street journal that got handed down through generations, eventually published in a tell-all of red sea slavery survivors? Most of the 'reliability" you infer, has no support or secondary proofs. Something that science can't even function without. Something that human history doesn't exist without. History doesn't require faith, it just requires documentation, evidence, and verifiable witnesses. There's nothing slanderous about speaking opinion, so there's no vilification here, or at least intended. I can't denigrate or lower my estimation of the value of the bible or christianity, because I already do not hold it in any higher esteem than any other of the world's religions, belief systems, historical accounts, or fan fiction. It is what it is. It has its place, one I don't have to agree with or take part in, but a place that is no more or less important than any other deeply held personal faith or value system. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
Archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, prophetic evidence, and statistical evidence can all be imperically demonstrated to verify the reliability of Scripture. We'll start with the archeologist's spade: No doubt, there are some things in the Bible which will never be confirmed through archeology. For example, archeology has not found any evidence that Abraham lived — but, of course, that’s exactly what you would expect, since in terms of the politics of his day, Abraham was not exactly the most important historical figure. And because they don’t exist, archaeologists are obviously not going to dig up tapes and transcripts of Abraham having a conversation with Sarah, or for that matter with anyone else. All we can legitimately expect form archeology in matters like this is to show that the events described in the Bible make sense in context. And that, of course, has been done in a very spectacular manner. In fact, the skeptics laughed at the Bible for asserting that Ninevah was a real city that the Assyrians were, in fact, a real people. Perhaps you know the story — someone discovered a brick on the Tigris River. The brick had the name of “Sargon” on it which, of course, was one of Syria’s great kings. It was sent to a Paris museum and was soon declared a fraud. Not long afterward, Laird, the great Assyriologist, had the temerity to dig up the entire city with its temples and palaces. And once again, the critics were proved wrong and the Bible reliable. Pontius Pilate is another great example. He was thought to have never existed... until 1961... thanks to archeology. More could be said. I'll get into the manuscript evidences later... I'm out of time right now. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
I'm not refuting that the events in the bible supposedly took place in historically and archeologically provable locales. I'm not refuting Bethlehem, Jerusalem, or Alexandria didn't exist. I'm proffering that the things that the bible said occurred in these places, the big moment magical things, seem to only be evidenced in the bible. Or in the manuscripts that were gathered together to become the bible. So you know, some of the big things, the resurrection, the red sea split, the burning bush, those pesky ten commandments that no one seems to recall where they were kept? The plagues, the smiting, the angelic earthly visits, the walking on water, etc etc? These are the sorts of things that a faith is built from. The fact that there were people and places in the apparent time of jesus isn't in dispute. The idea that magical things happened to them, some witnessed by many thousands of people, yet there are no corroborating records of such events, is how the seeds of skepticism grow. Which really shouldn't matter. Faith is supposed to be about belief without proof, right? So you shouldn't have to defend the stories of your faith, at least not under the rigid structure of evidence and proof. Whenever people try, it quickly devolves into jesus riding dinosaurs. It simply isn't necessary, and diminishes your efforts with each attempt. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
The world's foremost leader in archeology Sir William Ramsey set out to disprove the book of Acts through archaeological methods. Afterwards, here's what he had to say: "Luke (the author of Acts) is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense." "In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians." SECULAR historian Flavius Josephus wrote the following in his Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3: “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Regarding the resurrection evidences, there is no dispute among credible scholars that a historical figure named Jesus suffered fatally at the hands of the Romans on a cross. Secondly, even the enemies of Christ verified the fact that 3 days later the tomb was empty. If the tomb was not empty, the opponents of Christianity would need only to produce a dead corpse of Jesus to squash the movement. Third, Jesus appeared to thousands of people over a period of 40 days AFTER the crucifixion. These witnesses were even willing to testify to the fact (an act that proved very costly). Finally, we see the transformation in the lives of those who encountered the resurrected Christ. James, the half-brother of Jesus, went from being embarrassed by Jesus' teachings to calling himself "a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ" after the resurrection. Saul of Tarsus went from being a persecutor of Christians to a bold witness for Christ to the Gentiles (non-Jews). Eleven of the twelve apostles (all of whom MET the resurrected Jesus) died a martyr's death. The 12th was exiled. Keep in mind that there is a distinct difference between dying for something you THINK to be true (i.e. a Muslim suicide bomber) and dying for something you KNOW to be FALSE (what the apostles would have done if in fact Jesus had not been raised). ALL their hopes rested on the resurrection. In fact, without the resurrection of Christ, Paul tells us that our faith is futile... we're still dead in our sins. While it is true that faith does not REQUIRE evidence, it should be noted that Christians do not hold to a "blind leap in the dark." It is a faith that is grounded in evidence. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
"Jesus appeared to thousands of people over a period of 40 days AFTER the crucifixion." What? Wow. So, in a time without cameras or documentary representations of living people, when most slaves and working class folk couldn't read, nor used a daily calendar, a bunch of people swear they saw a person that they've never seen before? They weren't operating under, oh, I don't know, someone telling them that this was jesus, and he was killed last week, no seriously I swear, this is the guy, honest? Fast forward to modern day. I got one for you. "Nicolas Cage look-alike fools Real Madrid" And that IS with cameras and internets and websites that track actors to where they are every minute of every day. Yet still, thousands of people believe that the Nicholas appeared to them, in spite of being thousands of miles away at that same instant. Magic? Or the power of suggestion? Besides, that's not proof. That's what's known as "anecdotal evidence", or "circumstantial evidence". The resurrection, in your example, is the thing to be proved. It isn't to be disproved, since the onus is on a thing someone claims to be proven. I don't need to disprove anything, since the mountains of evidence against the event (the small issue of no one having come back from the dead, like, ever.) add weight to the generally accepted theory of "dead is dead". So offering up some people who say, who swear, who even firmly believe that they saw a dead man walking, is similar to finding a murder suspect had a parking ticket a few blocks from the murder scene. It doesn't place him at the murder, nor prove he committed it, it just ties him to the "circumstance" of the event. Now, let's look at some of your other stuff. All those guys whose lives were changed as a result of the resurrection. I especially like the bit where Paul essentially pins the entire viability of his religion on the resurrection incident. If it didn't happen, christianity is dead. Combine that with the knowledge that the Romans would surely, as you say, have desecrated jesus' body if it was left in place? There's some serious motivation for some people to take it upon themselves to safeguard the body, and possibly invent a story to piss off the Romans, and empower the believers. That doesn't aid your version of events, it calls it into greater question. So if as you say, your faith is grounded in "evidence", I would say it isn't the sort of evidence that would convict anyone of anything. Which is to say it's devoid of actual proof. It's the sort of evidence that helps people who already believe, defend their faith. I'm still waiting for the big events and the witnesses of them. I think that Red Sea parting is a great example. Huge event, tons of people, variety of ethnic and socio-political groups on hand (the "good guys" and the "bad guys") and best of all, the "bad guys" had a wonderfully advanced and durable system of writing and language in place, even back then. They extensively documented mundane crap like the yearly crop markets. I'm sure they would have at least chiseled something down about a massive sea opening up and then swallowing thousands of soldiers. But so far, outside of the bible, there's no mention of it anywhere. Ever. Because here's the thing. When the only "witnesses" present are the people telling the tale, the people of the faith, the people trying to convince others of something, well there's unfortunately a bit of a reliability issue. What we need, I mean what you need, are people with nothing to gain from their tale. Historical objectivity. Because big things happened back then. Cataclysmic events, like earthquakes and volcanoes, tens of thousands of people dead. How do we know such things? Because there are historical accounts of these things occurring, from multiple sources that aren't related to each other in any way. All recounting the same thing from different perspectives. But so many of the Big Special Effects Events that occurred in the bible, seem to have only occurred in the bible. And without some sort of proof or verifiable accounts from people not affiliated with that particular book and faith? I kind of have to go with the "if no one saw it happen, it didn't happen" theory. Also generally accepted. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
No, Searcher, a "bunch of people" saw someone they HAD seen before. He was no stranger to the apostles and hundreds of others. In fact, many even ate with him after the resurrection. They were convinced it was Jesus. They gave their very lives for the fact. Regarding the Exodus account, which you seem so hung up over, I would point you to a couple of things... 1. Physical evidences discovered: www.anchorstone.com/content/blogcategory/29/5 3/ 2. A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes: * Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. * The river is blood. * That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin! * Trees are destroyed. * No fruit or herbs are found... * Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire. * Forsooth, grain has perished on every side. * The land is not light [dark]. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_papyru s) 3. When we look at Egyptian records from this period, we find that studying Egyptian history is like trying to reconstruct the history of the United States based on a smattering of tombstone inscriptions and the inscriptions on a few monuments. For example, the Thera volcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption ), could be given the same level of scrutiny based on "lack" of documented evidence from that time. 4. About the "chiseling down" a record of the Red Sea crossing, you may want to take into account the Sinaitic inscriptions in Wadee El-Mukattab, Sinai: INSCRIPTIONS START "The wind blowing, the sea dividing into parts, they pass over" "The Hebrews flee through the sea; the sea is turned into dry land." "The waters permitted and dismissed to flow, burst rushing unawares upon the astonished men, congregated from quarters banded together to slay treacherously being lifted up with pride." "The leader divideth asunder the sea, its waves roaring. The people enter, and pass through the midst of the waters." "Moses causeth the people to haste like a fleet-winged she-ostrich crying aloud; the cloud shining bright, a mighty army propelled into the Red sea is gathered into one; they go jumping and skipping. Journeying through the open channel, taking flight from the face of the enemy. The surge of the sea is divided." "The people flee, the tribes descend into the deep. The people enter the waters. The people enter and penetrate through the midst. The people are filled with stupor and perturbation. Jehovah is the keeper and companion." "Their enemies weep for the dead, the virgins are wailing. The sea flowing down overwhelmed them. The waters were let loose to flow again." The people depart fugitive. A mighty army is submerged in the deep sea, the only way of escape for the congregated people." INSCRIPTIONS END 5. In the first century BC, historian Diodorus Siculus described the Sinai Peninsula in his Library of History saying, "Moreover, an altar is there built of hard stone and very old in years, bearing an inscription in ancient letters of an unknown tongue. the oversight of the sacred precinct is in the care of a man and woman who hold the position for life." All this is simply to respond to your "outside of the bible, there's no mention of it anywhere. Ever." comment. Hope this proves helpful. I'm not trying to propose that one become a Christian based solely on emperical evidences of the Bible's historicity. The point is that the Bible does record historical events, and if the Bible is to be trusted, these historical narratives should, to some extent, be verifiable... which they are. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
well, first, because this is my page and there's no rule that says we can't. In fact that's sort of what the comment feature is for, actual discussion. And second, you know you can delete your own comments when you misspell something, you don't have to make two of them. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
I read that too. Considering the times, it's hard to equate our modern use of drugs with past times. People snorted some tobacco thing laced with opiates for millenium. Not to mention the peyote and other hallucinogenic rituals of many native american tribes. However, I trust MSNBC about as much as I trust the book of job. Similar level of fact-checking between them. But whether or not moses was high or really talking to a burning bush or just making stuff up, the proof is in the pudding. Or in this case, a couple stone tablets about 3 feet tall, with inscriptions on them not made by mortal hand. If those turn up someplace, then we've got a horserace. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
I think it's cool that this guy is finding historic accounts of the volcanic eruption of Santorini (Thera) and its affects on the people in the area via "plauges", tsunamis and the likes. What can an eruption like that do? I'm sure the inhalation of ash would have been a big killer by asphyxiation, and the ash cloud may have even blocked the sun out for a while. Cattle and other animals might have died from eating all the sulfur-laden material that sprayed over the landscape and onto their food sources--nasty stuff. What remained of the animals or insects may have swarmed the viable food sources that remained after the blast. Also because of this explosion you might even think there would be a pretty big diaspora of people leaving the area to find less affected lands. So it seems the people who recorded these catastrophic disasters explained them away through the use of religion. Not only did this give reasoning to something that they couldn't explain, but what a good choice by those who choose to use nature in their favor. I have no issues with seeing the Bible as a tool to understand the life and times of the people during the time in which it was written (Although you have to think that this was probably oral tradition before being written down. Then you must also consider the various translations throughout the generations.) But as we all know, written words can be interpreted in a variety of ways. When the story's original intent was to be remember important events through oral tradition, things might get a little aggrandized to help cope with the issue of things getting lost. Take any story from the Middle East that has been recorded (also including probable, historically-accurate facts, yet with a resoundingly religious twist). The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, has various versions starting in Sumerian times when Egyptians were building the pyramids, and 2,000 years later in Akkadian times where distinct variations have arisen from the same story. Imagine what the Bible has done in a similar time frame, at least with respect to the New Testament. Imagine was has happened when you double that time. Imagine all the edits and translations in a time before the printing press. People in power have agendas and religions evolve. You can see this from the Egyptian times where multiple gods have melded into one to reduce confusion, or more simply where cultural standards have shifted with the times. I'm sure some people remember when Catholics could only eat fish, in terms of meat, on Fridays. I'm sure others are aware that polygamy was once legal among the Mormons. Communion in many Protestant churches was a members only tradition, but many churches have now realized the importance of being all-inclusive. This wasn't my original intent, but I think Jesus is just delaying the inevitable. Times change and religions evolve with them. Otherwise don't you think we'd still be sacrificing lambs? Or maybe there would be no such thing as "Protestant" if Martin Luther didn't find the Catholic church so apprehensible. Even when considering the Bible you can see change. Jesus was an evolutionary force in giving Western religion a different trajectory. The God of the Jews was one who told His people to go forth and claim territories as your own. By the time Jesus comes into being, people are immersed in civilizations and are no longer nomadic. The people needed new guidance from someone who could tell them how to act properly in such an environment. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is drastically different from "Go forth and pillage the land, but take nothing." Maybe this is something that Darwin recognized but Jesus just isn't ready to accept. Maybe Jesus is upset that Darwin has finally figured out that religion is double-edged sword of the subjugation of a given group of people, while at the same time maintaining that group's social cohesiveness. It does seem kind of funny though that Jesus appears to be the aggressor in this illustration. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
William Ramsey is not the world's foremost archaeologist. He has been dead for almost 70 years. He was a 19th century archaeologist, and while those guys are appreciated and respected within the discipline for their contributions to starting the field...they are rarely given credit for being much more than the glory seeking pot-hunters they were. They are credited for pillaging sites and collecting artifacts with no provenience, no scientific methods in their excavations and no reference to anything but their own ideas about antiquities. Archeology back then was not about science, it was about "antiquities studies" in the name of fame, fortune and nationalism. Ask archaeologists and archeology students today if they've heard of him...and I bet most of them haven't. That's because, as far as I can tell, the people who are most proud of his accomplishments are the people who are clinging to his " archaeological proof" about Luke and the book of Acts because the current state of debates between "believers" and "non-believers" has made Christians feel as though then need to provide scientific evidence for their FAITH, even when that evidence is weak. I think if you're going to call anyone the world's foremost anything, they should be 1. alive 2. If not alive, and you mean to indicate credit as founders of a discipline, their name should be one of the first to spring to the lips of living practitioners of that discipline when questioned about important founders of the discipline. What other archaeologists backed up his points? Was his research supported by peer review? OK...so peer review as it exists now is a little too modern for him...but what work has been done by modern, scientifically respected, archaeologists to further bolster his assertions? Sorry, I latched onto a petty point, maybe...but just thought I'd point it out amongst all of the others... Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
Yeah. Like see, um. Wow. Now this is what I'm..yeah. Wow. That's what this is for. I mean.. Well. Jeez, Blimpa is going to get crazy hot from all this. Well done, and well said. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
