Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Zoe
“He IS an active *HATER* of God’s Word, and any intillegent observer, would SEE right through him, simple, not in any way an intellectual, downright IGNORANT, on matters he likes to get involved with, which then GLARINGLY exposes his unlearned FOLLY, to the point of being embarrassing for BU and Barbados.”
I suppose all that makes you correct. This is what god’s word does to you. It causes you to disrespect people.
Because I have a different opinion I am a hater of god’s word. I already stated that the bible never discriminated against anybody… but the behaviour displayed by Zoe above is acceptable behaviour in any decent society.
@Zoe
“he IS an *ARCH* enemy of Righteousness…”
All because I have a different opinion and because I was able to point out the folly of the practitioners. So because I rebuke them for their over zealousness, I am a most dangerous man.
I will advise you to stick within the boundaries of “FAITH” and you cannot go wrong. FAITH NEEDS NO TRUTH OR NO PROOF. As soon as you get into trying to prove your faith, you have over-stepped your boundaries.
Here it is you want to prove the existence of the man on earth but you are backing down from what he looked like, which is the first thing you must establish if you want to say that he existed on earth. How can you prove that he existed but yet he is elusive?
If you are trying to prove that he existed, of course what he looked like is important and very relevant.
Look how ROK gine mek Zoe blow a gasket!!
Zoe says…’At NO TIME in any of the posts of GP, Dictionary or me, have we EVER represented Jesus Christ, as a blue eye blonde hair man, nor have we EVER hinted at, far lest speculated on what Jesus looked like! Why not?
Dictionary says…’I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that when I spoke of God being encountered in the face of Christ — which BTW is primarily about the meaning of “Persona” in the doctrine of the Trinity — his face was MIDDLE EASTERN.
Hmmmmmm….interesting.
@ Dictionary….
Can you elaborate this statement you made…’Sadly, the crusades, though strictly counter offensives to hundreds of years of jihads…’
@Zoe
“ROK, you are an IDIOT!!! You are of your ‘father’ the Devil!”
I thank you kindly and I will remain an idiot all the days of my life. My father died more than a decade ago and neither your christ nor your satan, for that matter, is my father.
My life is dedicated to fighting evil and the fact that your christianity is on my radar screen under scrutiny, does speak of the volumes of evil emanating from your faith.
True christians do not get on a blog or anywhere else trying to prove the existence of christ. They believe and that is enough. You so-called evangelist have something to prove as did Jim Jones, Swaggart and the lot.
You people are all about attracting people to church because each person you attract represents a tithe which you sit and reap. It is therefore in your material interests to be trying to prove a faith. No doubt, you too would like to take over from the Vatican.
It is only a matter of time before you are exposed. You can’t continue with this evil because it will make you an enemy of christianity and believe me, christianity and the RC church are far more powerful than you. They already have their eyes on people like you. Time longer than twine.
@Technician
“Look how ROK gine mek Zoe blow a gasket!!”
Not me “T”. That gasket done blow every since. Right now he sputtering.
ROK said on “December 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Merry christmas to all christians, especially to Saint GP, Lord of Lords. I am sure you are happy that I am off this thread so you could practice your craft without interruption.””
++
rok Just when you thought that you was out they pulled you back in
… retreat
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
– Sun Tzu, the Art of War
This note on Jude 20-24 is to the faithfull. This important passage has enthralled me since I first divided it in 1981-82. It instructs the believer what he must do in times of apostasy, and in the face of apostatates.
Jude 20–“But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.”
In Jude 20-23, Jude is still writing about the defense against apostasy.
And in verse 20, again, he uses the term for “beloved,” ”avgaphto,j, referring to the saints’ position in Christ.
These “beloved” are to “build themselves up,” which is evpoikodeme,w, i.e., “in plain language, to give constant increase in Christian knowledge.”
In other words, one of the best defenses against apostasy is spiritual advancement, Eph. 2:20 and Acts 20:32 which says, “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his
grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”
And how is this advancement accomplished? Through their “most holy faith,” which is their ‘separated unto God doctrine.’
In other words, through those true Christian doctrines which they believe and which separate them as royal family of God from all the unbelievers. Additionally, they are to “pray in the Holy Spirit;” i.e., they are to pray to God the Father while they are filled with the Spirit.
To accomplish this filling of the Spirit, they must claim I John 1:9, confessing their sins or judging themselves.
Ephesians 6:18 supports this command given by Jude in verse 20: “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.” (Eph. 6:18)
Jude 21–“Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.”
Here, Jude reminds them to maintain their devotion-type love (virtue love) as they prosde,comai, which is ‘wait with keen anticipation’ for the ev,leoj, the ‘grace in action,’ or ‘mercy’ of our Lord.
In other words, this is the anticipation of eternal life with our Lord. And this same ‘anticipation’ is used in Titus 2:13 for the Rapture of the Church, “While we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Jude 22–“Be merciful to those who doubt.”
The best manuscripts give cause for a different translation in this verse. The confusion revolves around evle,gcw and evlee,w, with the former term being commended by the textual criteria. And evle,gcw, means “to rebuke with sufficient cause, and also effectually, so as to bring the one rebuked to a confession or at least a conviction of sin. In other words, it means to convince.”
So the revised translation might read, “and some (apostates), keep on refuting them when they dispute with you.”
So Jude tells his readers to take aggressive action when faced with argumentative apostates: they are to refute them, and to attempt to
convince them of the true doctrines of God.
Jude 23–“Snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear — hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.”
Here, Jude instructs his readers that some of the unbeliever/apostates will respond to the gospel and to the truth — they are to save them from the fire (Amos 4:11, Zechariah 3:3, and Psalm 106:18) of judgment by providing the gospel.
“To others show mercy,” refers to providing the true doctrines of God to believer/apostates. And “mixed with fear” gives the motivation for these grace actions: “through or because of their own respect, reverence and regard for Christ.”
“Hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh,” is an interesting and misunderstood phrase. The “clothing” is the apostasy itself; note, though, that clothing (the apostasy) is to be hated, not the person. And this is in keeping with the devotion-type love commanded in verse 21.
The “corrupted flesh” is the ‘old sin nature,’ which causes the apostasy. In other words, hate the apostasy and its source, but demonstrate devotion-type love and compassion toward the person — provide them with the gospel, which is the only hope of salvation for anyone.
Jude 24 and 25—“To him (God the Father) who is able (omnipotent) to keep you from falling (eternal security) and to present (to establish) you before his glorious presence without fault (blameless because of the work of Christ on the Cross)and with great joy (the extreme joy that the saints will experience in heaven alone) to the only (the unique Person/the God-Man) God our Savior (Jesus Christ) be glory (preeminence at the right hand of God the Father), majesty (greatness), power (ruling power) and authority (ruling authority, the right to rule under primogeniture),through Jesus Christ our Lord*, before all ages (from eternity past), now (the present) and forevermore (the future)! Amen (I acknowledge it, I concede it).
Jude 14,15 are two of my favorite second coming verses along with 2 Thess 2 & 2 Peter 3
Like 2 Peter 3 it deals with apostates and false teachers. which is the subject of most of the book of Jude.
–“Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Here Jude is asserting that as long ago as Enoch, apostates and the Baptism of Fire were prophesied. There is indeed ‘nothing new under the sun.’
Enoch was the son of Jared, and Enoch was the father of Methusaleh, Gen. 5:21, Luke 3:37. Both lived during the antediluvian period; and just before the Flood took place, Enoch was translated into heaven (Paradise), and Methusaleh died and went to heaven (Paradise).
And two passages from Scripture, Genesis 5:24 and Hebrews 11:5, state that Enoch “pleased God.” To this is added, according to our passage in Jude 14, the fact that Enoch had the gift of prophecy, and that he propheteuo , prophesied concerning, specifically, the apostasy of unbelievers during the Tribulation (which is still to come) of the Jewish Age.
The reference to the “coming of the Lord” in verse 14 of Jude is to the Second Advent at the end of the Tribulation.
And the phrase “thousands upon thousands of his holy ones,” is an idiom for a enormous, unknown number of saints (holy ones) from the Church Age, who return with Christ and, these saints are clothed with resurrection bodies.
I Thess. 3:13b states, “when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.”
And Revelation 19:9,14 state, “Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.”
Here, then, in verses 14 and 15 of Jude, Jude uses Enoch, who used the Second Advent of Christ, to notify the unbelieving apostates of his (Enoch’s) own day as to their fate and the fate of all unbelieving apostates throughout time.
Now why would Enoch use the Second Advent as an example and not some other period?
Three reasons: 1) Enoch only had six prior generations to glean from, and 2) apostasy will reach its greatest concentration just before the Second Advent; finally, 3) our Lord actually deposits all unbelieving apostates in the Lake of Fire at the Second Advent.
Verse 15 of Jude uses the term “ungodly” four times. The Gr. is asebes, and means ‘impious’ in the sense of rejection or unbelief. And note that the ‘judgment’ comes before the ‘conviction’ in verse 15.
Why? Because judgment is the reason, the purpose, the objective, the intention of the Second Advent. The judgment is stated to be against “all”, which is pas, the adjective of totality, and refers to “all” of a distinct category, which category is unbelievers.
This category is further described as without production of divine good (ungodly acts), without the filling of the Spirit (ungodly way), without the perfect Righteousness of God (ungodly sinners), and as blasphemers (harsh words) of God.
Revelation 20:12-15 states that they will be condemned by their own deeds, which deeds are recorded in the Books of Works: “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened “Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each
person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of Fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
Thus, the unbelievers will be judged not on the basis of their sins, for those were judged at the Cross, but on the basis of their works of self-righteousness, which self-works are insufficient.
Only the work of Christ was sufficient — and the unbeliever has rejected it — and selected to stand on his/her own works. Hebrews 3:19 sums it up, “So we see that they were not able to enter (either the Land or heaven), because of their unbelief.”
Those in the “book of life” are not judged, because of the law of double jeopardy, which is stated in John 3:18: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
The believer cannot be tried again for that which was already tried on the Cross: the law of double jeopardy. And after being judged they are assigned to the Lake of Fire. This concept demands our attention:
@GP
“Those in the “book of life” are not judged, because of the law of double jeopardy, which is stated in John 3:18: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.””
Such fear-mongering! Note. For the “unbeliever” all of this is simply null and void. This is for the comfort of the believer and a sales pitch to win over people.
Wait, let me state that properly: The above by GP is a measure of last resort to scare people into becoming christians.
He really knows how to use his selective passages on people. From now on he should be referred to as the Great Fear-monger. GF.
Onlookers:
It is plain that ROK — sadly — has now willfully passed the pale of basic civility, and so until he acknowledges and does the decent thing and turns back, I will only use him as an example. (And I warn him that in the Internet era, he is not so anonymous as he may fondly imagine [how do you think all those hackers get caught?], and is subject to tort action should his behaviour cause damage to reputation through willful neglect or defiance of duties of care.)
Now, the key example, is the subtle problem of what may be called “passive” lying [often connected to the spiritual problem of an obstinately closed, en-darkened mind operating in willful rebellion against God and truth (cf. here Jn 3:19 – 21)], as opposed to the active lies where one is fully conscious of willful deceit.
A Dominical discussion is a good place to begin:
Jn 8:31To the Jews who had [but from context no longer did] believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” [Notice: discipleship among other benefits, liberates us from lies and the thralldom to the Father of Lies.]
33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants[b] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you [former disciples!] are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.[c]”
39″Abraham is our father,” [the party-line: we are Jews, so specially favoured of God!] they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[d] do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” [meant to subtly attack Jesus as illegitimate: jamming-out the opposition through “shut up” ad hominem rhetoric in action . . . ] they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” [More party-line slogans]
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are UNABLE to hear what I say. [notice how deception and closed-mindedness lock out truth] 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! [If you believe a lie, you will reject the corrective truth because in your faulty view, the truth is a “lie”] 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” [As Paul put it, the god of this age (Satan) blinds the minds of those who willfully reject the truth they know or should know is in the gospel; never mind the evidence as summarised ever so many times in this thread]
Let us observe, carefully, zooming in tight:
“Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are UNABLE to hear what I say . . . . BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH, you do not believe me!”
In short, there comes a time where one has so closed his or her mind to the duty to the truth, the right and to others, that one fails on basic duty to the truth, and spews out willful, damaging or potentially damaging falsehoods that one SHOULD know better than.
Falsehoods that in Jesus’ case, were paving the way for attempted murder, and which eventually led to the kangaroo court that abused him, breaking its own laws to try him by night and to manipulate the colonial power [“If you don’t do what we want, you are not Caesar’s Friend . . . ” — i.e we are going to slander you too, Pilate, in a way that would cost you your life . . .] into executing him (by crucifixion on a cross that had a little upward projection to hold the sign announcing to the world the “why” of his execution, just above his head) within 24 hours of his arrest.
So, the passive lie is an immoral act of the willfully closed mind that asserts or implies — with intent to discredit or prejudice, or to express bigotry, hostility and even outright hate — that which is contrary to and suppresses the truth that one knows or SHOULD know. (And, I have repeatedly linked on what that rejection of truth one SHOULD know looks like in God’s courtroom.)
In the case of ROK, sadly, he has had abundant opportunity to ascertain the truth, but has insistently willfully disregarded it on his agenda to push his ideology.
This is particularly evident on his willful slander that Zoe, GP and I are promoting a notion of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus. Words he has put in our mouths that simply do not belong there.
This, he insisted on and refuses to apologise for; in the teeth of e.g. GP’s patient correction above, and my explicit statement that Jesus’ face is Middle Eastern. Such a party-line, propagandistic Big Lie loaded assertion is designed to appeal to unhealed wounds from the colonial past, to prejudice onlookers, and to polarise and cloud the atmosphere so that the truth will be lost in the rage.
In short, in the teeth of truth that was directly stated to him several times, he has chosen to ignore or suppress the truth and duty of basic respect and fairness that he knows or should know, and has instead chosen to spew out willful falsehoods that he thinks will advance his cause.
So, onlookers, I ask you: when this same man comes to you in say the guise of a public official or an advocate for some socially uplifting charitable/ social/ policy cause as an advocate and activist, or — horrors — as a teacher in the classroom or in the public lecture hall, or — God forbid — in a newspaper column or TV news item, we need to know that he has the habit of pushing an agenda without proper regard for duty to truth and respect to the reputation and rights of others. indeed, that he is willfully slanderous, even in the face of correction and protest.
In short,t hat he has yielded to the temptation of incivility and mendacity.
That is — and it pains me to have to say this in so many words (and I wish he would simply repent, acknowledge wrong, apologise and amend his ways) — he is now plainly an enemy of civil community and sound democracy.
This is of course, sadly, now a routine practice and pattern, as can be seen from the ongoing climategate scandal that somehow by a strange coincidence — NOT — just hardly makes it into our regional media or the once trustworthy BBC.
I can only counsel you, dear onlooker, to familiarise yourself with the Straight or Spin grid, and use it to grade and correct media sources and public advocates.
[ . . . ]
You should also know that drumbeat propagandistic repetition of uncorrected false assertions tends to create the misleading and deceptive impression that the party-line claims are “the consensus” of truth. (Cf here on exposing and correcting such techniques.)
Not so, as I learned when I used to work in a centre that advocated several policies that are now “consensus” in our region.
For, there is a whole strategy out there called Mainstreaming, that — among other deceptive tactics — is duly taught to our region’s NGOs and CBOs and Journalists and policy spokesmen etc in seminars using manipulative indoctrination — i.e. mind-closing, polarising deceptive pseudo-education — techniques that I used to strongly object to; when I had to deal with them. if a policy is sound, it does not need to be pushed by manipulative, Plato’s Cave shadow shows.
(And — anticipating a turnabout false accusation rhetorical tactic — ROK et al should know that I am also known as the person who publicly exposed a manipulative pseudochurch that preyed on our region’s university students for many years. . . )
As Kupelian pointed out, the idea and strategy in marketing evil and deception as ideology and “truth” or”rights” is to :
(1) desensitise us to the evilness of evil through oversaturation and sympathetic portrayal, to
(2) jam out those who object by making hem look bad [using turnabout false accusation tactics] and to then
(3) induce conversion and support through manipulating guilt and perceived peer pressure of a manipulated “consensus” or similar strong emotions and socio-psychological forces.
[Notice, anticipating yet another turnabout slander, how such tactics NEVER teach us to use critical thinking, help us escape selective hyperskepticism, never help us learn principles of warrant for claimed facts, nor help us analyse worldviews and show us how to select one in a world of diversity, error and deceptive rhetoric. All of which I have made freely available in this thread — having taught the principles at High School and College levels, and even in public (guess why NGO and CBO ZOPP-twisting advocates?)– and have taken time to explain and apply.]
How else do you think we have reached a pass where people who know the obvious implications of maleness, femaleness and the requirements of sound nurture of children can look you in the face and call you a bigot or worse for suggesting that the novelty that Adam can “marry” Steve and Eve can “marry” Sue is obviously a distortion of marriage? (Go back and read George Orwell’s 1984, folks, and compare with what now obtains!)
So, let us understand: we live in an ideologised, deeply polarised age dominated by ideologues influenced by avant garde evolutionary materialism and related ideas, which are inherently amoral and both personally and socially destructive.
As Plato warned against as long ago as 360 BC in The Laws, Bk X, with the devastating impact of the ever so clever and glib Alcibiades in mind. here, he speaks in the voice of the Athenian Stranger in the dialogue:
They [the avant garde elites] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . .
these people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They [the youths] are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [i.e. ideological radical agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them.
So, we have — long since — been warned that what is at stake once such avant garde evolutionary materialism and radical relativism and manipulation are injected into a community is not only philosophical truth but the very foundations of a just and decent community.
DV, I will next pause to scoop out a few of the “jamming-out” rhetoric examples being used above, and expose them for what they are.
(Remember, onlookers: ROK et al are insistently repeating assertions that have been long since corrected cogently, and are using the trifecta fallacy of distraction, distortion,and demonisation to polarise people and suppress the truth. Notice especially how, on being invited to address the proper procedure for moving towards the truth, serious dialogue on critical thinking and comparative difficulties techniques, they have consistently ignored or declined, even trying to dismiss these techniques that I know for a fact that people pay good money to learn as they are so valuable and vital. And, that at no point do they ever acknowledge the importance of such critical thinking skills and comparative difficulties methodology, not to mention, that those who have counselled them to heed such skills and principles have hard-earned relevant and important knowledge and wisdom. That should tell you exactly what is going on.)
Okay for the moment,
but with sadness . . .
D
David, a part comment is in the mod pile, sorry.
Onlookers:
Regional Journalist and philosopher-theologian Billy Hall often used to say that “one slice of a cake has in it all the ingredients.”
So, instead of a tedious point by point rebuttal of the multiple, multiple fallacies that are being repeated in an endless drumbeat — in the teeth of having long since been (often repeatedly) corrected; let us zoom in on a crucial case in point:
ROK (about the most gentlemanly commenter at BU, Dr GP): Such fear-mongering! Note. For the “unbeliever” all of this is simply null and void. This is for the comfort of the believer and a sales pitch to win over people. Wait, let me state that properly: The above by GP is a measure of last resort to scare people into becoming christians. He really knows how to use his selective passages on people. From now on he should be referred to as the Great Fear-monger.
a –> First, ROK fails to simply read the IMMEDIATE context, in his haste to dismiss the gospel as fear-mongering on an allegedly irrational, petulant and angry God unjustly pitchforking into hell those who dare to disagree with him:
Jn 3:13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]
16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.[g]
19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”[h]
b –> Immediately, we see that the core claim is that Jesus is the Logos who has come into the world, in love, to rescue it, not to condemn it. For, the just verdict of condemnation — that men, on seeing the light run from it and choose comfortable evil instead — is already here.
c –> And so, just as the snake in the desert was lifted on a pole so that there would be life for a look of trust in the promise of God even thought he deadly snake venom was already in one’s veins, we can have life for a penitent, trusting look to him who in love hung on a cruel tree for us, dying for our sins, being buried and rising from death, triumphant — with over 500 witnesses and a stream of MILLIONS to date who have experienced the blessing of eternal life.
d –> All of this, we know, or SHOULD know, here in the Caribbean.
e –> So, the real issue is not the turnabout slanderous accusation: “fear mongering,” but instead that ROK plainly refuses to face the well-warranted truth he knows or should know, and would now mislead others into error through selectively hyperskeptical slander and name-calling jamming-out tactics.
f –> We must therefore pause to say that we have a Dominical warning to those who would put up such misleading that can deceive the innocent and naive: ’twere better that a millstone be put around their necks and that they would then fall into the deepest sea.
g –> Now, too, as you may easily see by simply scrolling up to the discussion on Ac 17 etc, and following, e.g. this link to prof Yamauchi on the resurrection [in the teeth of the various pagan copycat legend rhetorical dismissals — including Osiris and ilk], I have repeatedly pointed out that as the recorded [AD 55] testimony of 1 Cor 15:1 – 11 summarises, the death burial and resurrection of Jesus with 500+ eyewitnesses and a steam of outpoured liberating and transforming spiritual power over 20 centuries is the central warranting argument of the Christian faith; one that rises to the level of moral certainty, i.e. proof of a matter of fact beyond reasonable doubt, in more familiar terms. [Cf the often linked duscussion on selective hyperskepticism vs warrant and reasonable worldview level faith, here.]
h –> Observe the jamming out tactic in action: AT NO POINT HAS ROK OR ANY OTHER OBJECTOR TO THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE GOSPEL EVER SERIOUSLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUES ON THE MERITS. (Indeed, they have — telling point given what we saw earlier from Jn 8 — complained of the right way to address serious matters being “confusing.” [Remember, onlookers, in several cases these are probably University-trained people with at least BA’s or maybe even MAs or the educational equivalent, or at minimum O Level education that should be more than enough to access the first steps in critical thinking!])
i –> Instead, they have consistently put up distractive red herrings, dragged them out from the track of serious investigation of the truth, leading out to ad-hominem soaked slanderous and demonising strawmen distortions of arguments and people — this latest being GP — that hey have ignited them to throw off choking and confusing smoke, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere.
j –> We know why. Sadly.
k –> An so when we see how ROK then culminates in a demonising name-calling tactic against GP, we know just why.
l –> So, the reply is this, ROK: You are plainly rebelling against and rejecting and seeking to suppress truth you know or should know, and are resorting to tactics of deceptive rhetoric that will easily lead children astray, as Jesus warned.
m –> Worse, you are now an unrepentant serial false accuser and slanderer.
n –> So, ROK, ,i>if you care anything about truth or your soul or even your reputation, STOP IT, and turn back from this path to self-destruction and deception of others, NOW.
___________
Okay, onlookers, I trust this “deconstruction” of what is going on will help you.
God bless in the new year
D
PS: Oops on formatting there, lost the end ofg a blockquote.
PPS: Thanks again David. Sorry to have to be so direct and plainspoken in your blog.
Kiki Riddim (*/**)
(*)=T.O.K. (**)=Merciless
Before The White Man Came (*)
(*)=Last Poets
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
I understand your passion for music, but i’ll never understand jewish religious sense of predestination. Maybe it’s because of political stakes involved in what we call nowadays “jewish lobby”. It leads unfortunately to cultural poverty, misunderstandings, nationalism, etc. Governements implicated in what you call “reconstruction of the lost empire” create antisemitism. It’s that ridiculous that one day I think the term “Jewish” will be an insult(if you’re not jewish yourself of course).Too bad
Village Of The Pharoahs, Pt 1 (**)
(**)=Pharoah Sanders
Finally,
Let us remember — back on the theme for this thread — how all of this reflects teh precise prophecies about the last days, from 2 Peter 3:
2 Peter 3:3 Above all, understand this:8 In the last days blatant scoffers9 will come, being propelled by their own evil urges10 3:4 and saying,11 “Where is his promised return?12 For ever since13 our ancestors14 died,15 all things have continued as they were16 from the beginning of creation.” 3:5 For they deliberately suppress this fact,17 that by the word of God18 heavens existed long ago and an earth19 was formed out of water and by means of water. 3:6 Through these things20 the world existing at that time was destroyed when it was deluged with water. 3:7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, by being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.21
3:8 Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice,22 that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day. 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise,23 as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish24 for any25 to perish but for all to come to repentance.
We have been warned, by a man who KNEW he was facing imminent crucifixion [in the end he actually requested that he be nailed up upside down, for he was not worthy to be crucified int he same position as his Lord] for the testimony he gave:
2 Peter 1:12 . . . I intend to remind you constantly42 of these things even though you know them and are well established in the truth that you now have. 1:13 Indeed, as long as I am in this tabernacle,43 I consider it right to stir you up by way of a reminder, 1:14 since I know that my tabernacle will soon be removed,44 because45 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed this to me. [Cf Jn 21:15 – 19, in a post resurrection meeting and meal with the risen Christ] 46 1:15 Indeed, I will also make every effort that, after my departure, you have a testimony of these things.47
1:16 For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return48 of our Lord Jesus Christ;49 no,50 we were51 eyewitnesses of his52 grandeur.53 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that54 voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.”55 1:18 When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves56 heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain.57 1:19 Moreover,58 we59 possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing.60 You do well if you pay attention61 to this62 as you would63 to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star64 rises in your hearts.65 1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize66 this:67 No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination,68 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men69 carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
So, let us heed a word to the wise . . .
G’day
D
The System (*)
(*)=Mutabaruka
Them Belly Full (**)
(**)=Robert Marley
Concious Classics Vol 2. (***)
(***)=Aswad, Barrington Levy, Beres Hammond, Black Uhuru, Bob Marley, Burning Spear, Dennis Brown, Freddie McGregor, Jacob Miller, Jimmy Cliff, Max Romeo, Maxi Priest, Peter Tosh,
Tags: Dancehall, DJ, mixtape, Reggae Music
ROK
You are so hard-headed and bent on discrediting Africa from its glory and would rather place that glory in the hands of some blue-eyed blonde man that could never have existed in Jerusalem
The reason that you attribute to the flood are at best dubious. There is indeed a water mark showing the level of the water of the flood. It did not rise to higher lands and happened at a time when the gods had already departed this earth.
From the evidence, the flood was no more than a natural disaster and it had to do with the Nile and its flow
Don’t you know that Noah’s Ark was based on Khufu’s boat which is one of the oldest if not the oldest on the planet…and wait for the name……..Noark!
It is interesting to note that Noah’s ark was never found, yet the flood would have occurred as recent as some time around 1700 B.C. and we can find miniature artifacts from Egypt dating back 4000 BC but no Ark?
I tell you, the lack of evidence to support anything in the bible is blaring.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have taken some of your writings and organised them above.
Here are a few questions.
Is your position based on fear that acceptance of the Bible will lead to the conclusion that all Africans after the Flood (today) are descendants of Noah and that we are in fact all human beings, not a collection of distinct races?
Are you afraid of investigating the possibility that if the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in Turkey, part of modern day Europe, that Africans after the flood came out of Europe and the Egyptian civilisation after the flood likewise?
Isn’t it rash to totally reject the Bible and its message, God and Jesus Christ based on this one aspect of the Bible because it conflicts with your beliefs?
Have you actually studied the Bible and is there anything at all true in it?
…. it can’t be all false, can it?
Too many people have used its contents in history to cling to when faced with life’s downs (and ups) and that faith has been justified over and over again.
@Dictionary
You remind me of one eccentric old man that expects people to do as you say. Even Kiki you trying to order around. Why do you think that you could tell people what they can contribute to a blog?
This is the kind of Hitler type dictatorial behaviour you trying to resort to in order to preserve your religion? Your religion is but a faith and when you take it in order of priority, it comes last:
Facts = truths; can be verified.
Beliefs = no truths; conjecture; cannot be verified.
This dictatorial, autocratic approach, based on the dictates of an imaginary divine right, is just an example of how stigma and discrimination is perpetrated on poor people.
“(And I warn him that in the Internet era, he is not so anonymous as he may fondly imagine…”
I did not realise that I was anonymous. Is this a demonstration that you cannot accept truth?
Onlookers:
ROK simply continues the dishonest activist’s agenda of the trifecta fallacy: distraction, distortion, demonisation and dismissal.
He apparently refuses to recognise that he has a duty of care towards the truth and towards those he has decided to name-call, demonise and slander.
In short, unrepentant incivility.
Sad.
D
It is sad for the learned to adopt debating techniques which they would quickly attribute to lesser mortals. BU hopes it is a lapse brought on by the season when a mind is often known to wonder given its inebriated condition.
Question for ROK which touches on John’s recent comment:
Given the body of learning in the world today if the Bible is so questionable a document as you and others make out why not the outward rejection. Are you saying there is a conspiracy of global proportion?
@John
To answer your questions:
1. Having already accepted christianity as a youngster, I now reject it.
2. African had civilisations thousands of years before Europe.
3. My beliefs started with the bible until the day came when beliefs were simply not good enough as it left one in a state of ignorance.
4. I have studied the bible and contemporary texts extensively. Much of its philosophy, plagiarised from ancient religions, is applicable and useful, but the authorship is in question. For example, “Ye shall know them by their fruit.”
5. People have also used Chinese philosophy, Buddhism and many other religions and philosophy which they cling to when faced with life’s ups and downs and their faiths have been justified as history would reveal. This is not exclusive to the bible and the bible has no monopoly on faith.
Your assertion that it can’t all be false should be addressed within the context of its plagiarism of the Ancient cultures and religion. Therefore, is your question about how much of the plagiarism is true?
PS: And, he in particular refuses to engage the point made by Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the theoty of evidence, on the degree of warrant that we may have for matters of fact: moral — as opposed to demonstrative — certainty [which as I have shown above is indeed an accessible degree of warrant for the core claims of the gospel], not to mention the further demonstration that ALL worldviews inevitably embed faith points so the challenge is to engage comparative difficulties so that one may have a reasonable faith, not a closed minded agenda. No prizes for guessing why, and no prizes for guessing why after these points have been pointed out to him many times.
@David
“Given the body of learning in the world today if the Bible is so questionable a document as you and others make out why not the outward rejection. Are you saying there is a conspiracy of global proportion?”
Totally correct! Why do you think the Muslims are advancing in their bid to take over and shift the balance of economic power away from the Illuminati? Because they recognise that christianity and the illuminati have no divine right to power and that they can have it too. They understand that it is a global conspiracy and they are putting their own conspiracy in place with great effect. It is like saying, if christianity can do it, we can do it too.
There can be no outward rejection of the bible unless you want bloodshed. It would be like taking a comforter out of a baby’s mouth.
Some examples of how a faith in something can affect people with the same effect as the baby soother.
I have a friend who believed that his 93 year old father could not survive without eating. All his father wanted was tea and biscuits. He took to forcing the food down his father’s throat and his father died choking on the meat.
If you check the records of both UDC and RDC, you will find reports of elderly people whose houses were repaired or upgraded against their will and on “so-called” humanitarian grounds. I know of one old lady who died the night of the day she moved in. Some spent a couple days before they simply passed away.
There was an elderly gentleman who spent most of his pension on cigarettes and beer. Along comes his daughter returning from UK and decides that her father cannot be smoking and drinking away his pension so she controlled it and stopped him from smoking and drinking. After about a month of him crying his heart out, she was mourning the loss of her father.
One of the reasons why this is a job for education is that when you shatter people’s faith, you harm them. That is exactly what is wrong with christianity.
In all the examples above, christian thinking was behind corrective measures and were imposed rather than the observance of and respect for the wishes of the person.
There is no doubt that we are doing ourselves a great injustice by persisting with the present education system that produces dependent graduates who cannot survive with their education but have to find a job. We continue to teach our people to fall into the dictates of Western culture which is supported by the bible and christianity to our own peril. Somehow we feel that we can’t do without them, but my challenge to you is to take away christianity with its concept of hierarchy and only good governance can result.
In contrast, Buddhism teaches that if you see the Buddha coming down the road, kill him. There is no hierarchy among men. All men are equal and should be equally respected by every other man for their worth.
We replicate the hierarchical system of the bible and christianity in our lives: families, work, politics, etc. So look at some of the tangible effects:
1. Spousal abuse because the man think that he is head of the household and what he says goes; a principle of the god of the bible.
2. The corruption in high places continues with impunity because somehow we think that our leaders should be perfect even if they are not. If, however, the men that corrupted are already labelled thieves or nobodies, the law moves swiftly after them with the full backing of the christian-minded.
3. Imagine that we encouraging people to spy on one another. I know, you will say, how then will we get rid of the crime, but really, is it reasonable that we could have so many people in jail for hemp and so many free to drink alcohol? Why doesn’t our education system teach people to fish rather than give them a meal? So long as people feel that they are serving no purpose on this earth and have to beg to stay alive, we will have serious social problems. Hemp (labelled narcotic by the west) is not the problem as demonstrated by the alcohol that is a legal and more lethal narcotic.
4. When the white man was pirating, plundering and stealing wealth there were no money laundering laws. Do you think that money laundering really constitutes a crime? No. It is simply a means of controlling money and ensuring that those who can’t earn it can’t get it. You are therefore a slave to the system. Case in point, public betrayal by the 4th estate to suppress information in exchange for income.
5. Because we are so apt to believe unsubstantiated misinformation, we get caught in the traps set by western culture and believe the myths which work to our disadvantage. Not to mention the fear-mongering to get people to do what the west wants them to do.
@Dictionary
“And, he in particular refuses to engage the point made by Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the theoty of evidence…”
You missed the point. However, I did not miss your ploy. I keep telling you that faith needs no truth or no proof. This is the exact danger in christianity or more accurately, the modern practitioners of the faith who are straining at a gnat to find proof as I have been trying to explain all along. I really wonder who has the closed mind and the hard head.
It is dangerous to try to profess truth because in doing so, you are saying that you (the person) knows best, which you do not. This is also giving you a sense of superiority in dealing with people but even more dangerous is that in doing so, you convey a sense of inferiority to people, when in truth and in fact, you have no absolute truth; no more than the Muslims, “Atheist”, Buddhist or any other theology or philosophy.
Even the same bible says man can choose. People like you set out to give people NO CHOICE.
WHAT EVIDENCE WHAT? I will not be drawn into your intellectual foolishness and that is all.
See A Man’s Face
(*)
(*)=Horace Andy/Prince Moonie
Things a Come Up To Bump (**)
(**)=The Bassies
Righteous Works
(***)
(***)=Earl Zero
Spying Glass (*)
(*)=Horace Andy
What percentage of the global population shares the religious views of the three BU preachers?
See http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm
The global population in 2000 was estimated to be 6 055 048 000. Christians were estimated to number 1 999 242 789. However Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans (who beliefs and practices Zoe has repudiated) account for 1 352 106 452. So the number of Christians whose practices are likely to be similar to our three friends is at most 647 457 386. This represents 10.7 % of the global population.
Now if we hope to build a more peaceful, safer and sustainable world (which are probably NOT the objectives of our three friends re. “many are called, few are chosen” Matt 22:14 (?)), can we afford to indulge in a shrill contempt of the beliefs of 89.3% of the world’s population? Of course similar behaviour from the other side must also be rejected.
I believe that the promotion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a secular, democratic polity is our best approach to building a happier world. This does not mean the removal of religious belief at the personal (individual) level but hopefully the preservation of space for each person to live their lives as they see fit so long as this does not inconvenience others.
Great post Anonymous.
@Anonymous
Are we to resort to managing faith based issues by the numbers?
“Mi throw mi corn, but me no call no fowl”. refers to the conversational
technique of throwing out a provocative statement (throw corn) in an indirect
manner, thus forestalling any accusations of personal insult.
Throw Me corn (*)
(*)=Larry Marshall/Brentford All Stars/Winston Shand/Maxi Priest
Found this interesting to read…so any questions, so few answers.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~thetruth/tracts/08religion.html
@David
We do not need to manage faith based issues that is why we have laws. What needs to be done is that it should be recognised that religion is breaching the rights of people and these breaches should be dealt with. For example, just as we shut down fetes and entertainment managers have to apply to the police to make loud noise, etc. so too should these people who come into your district and keep loud noises “in the name of christianity” and if you say anything to them they does go off into a kind of madness crying persecution. They do not see how they are persecuting people; especially in the middle of the week when children should be doing homework in the peace of their household, they invading the peace of the household because they believe they have a god-given right.
Anonymous
Now if we hope to build ……
++++++++++++++++++++++
You need to answer the question “who is we” before you jump to any assumption that people want to build this utopia of which you speak?
How many out of the 6 055 048 000 make up the “we” who share your assumption and “hope to build …..” ?
How many of the 6 055 048 000 have no desire whatsoever to do anything, …
….. have no faith ….
… or worse, plan and actively set out to destroy ……?
I doubt very much you or any living human can answer these questions ….
….. and I am positive you, (ROK too) would agree with me.
So ……
….. Who do you suppose can?
“….. not my will but Thy Will be done.”
Maybe these simple words provide a clue.
When any issue is categorised as “faith-based” one should exercise skepticism. Is it actually an issue for which religious beliefs are germane beyond that which may influence individual behaviour? In other words, my religious beliefs influence my actions but should MY beliefs be referenced in proscribing YOUR actions.
The ‘we’ includes those who behaviour towards others is referenced to what they want for themselves.
That there are many not so committed is not disputed.
Anonymous
Re
What percentage of the global population shares the religious views of the three BU preachers?
How is this relevant to what the Bible teaches Sir?
Are you saying that the majority should rule? Or that the majority are right?
If 90 % of the world are homosexuals, then 90 % of the world are wrong according to what the Bible teaches.
If 90 % of the world are murdering or stealing or are in contravention of the law of God or the laws of their countries, then 90 % of the world are murdering or stealing or are in contravention of the law of God or the laws of their countries.
If 1 352 106 452 of the world’s population are However Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans and claim to be Christian, and do not walk habitually according to the light as declared in 1 John 1:5, then 1 352 106 452 of the world’s population are WRONG!
If only 10.7 % of the global population. Are walking habitually according to the dictates of the Word of God, then 83.7% are WRONG! If we are going by the Bible. Simple.
You are engaging in the use and abuse of statistics. This used to be required reading at UWI in Use of English classes when I attended in the early 70’s.
Re Now if we hope to build a more peaceful, safer and sustainable world (which are probably NOT the objectives of our three friends re. “many are called, few are chosen” Matt 22:14 (?)), can we afford to indulge in a shrill contempt of the beliefs of 89.3% of the world’s population?
Can you say that any of us have engaged in non peaceful, unsafe or un sustainable practices, Sir? Do you really know any of us, and our contributions, to either Bajan society or any society in which we have been a part?
What has the declaration of our faith, and our exegesis of the word of God on BU has to do with building a more peaceful, safer and sustainable world, Sir?
How does the declaration of our faith, and our exegesis of the word of God on BU interfere with the “preservation of space for each person to live their lives as they see fit so long as this does not inconvenience others.” Does the declaration of the ideologies of others promote the “preservation of space for each person to live their lives as they see fit so long as this does not inconvenience others” because they are in the majority?
How many Baptists or other Evangelicals are acting as suicide bombers or in any way engaging in non peaceful, unsafe or un sustainable practices, Sir?
Sir you are of course entitled to your beliefs (even though ours are mocked and scorned) but can you explain how the promotion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a secular, democratic polity is our best approach to building a happier world?
How long has this declaration been promoted Sir? How successful is it, Sir? How successful is the IMF, and NATO, WHO, UNICEF, UN etc building a happier world, Sir?
GP
I hoped that it is clear that I deplore contempt laden opposition to anyone’s religious beliefs yours included.
I do not ask you to accept the views of the other 89.3% as “right” but if I am going to engage you in an attempt to build a society we can both live in should I (we) not attempt to determine a model that accommodates us.
I well understand that your proclamation of your faith has little to do with making this a “better” world. I suspect that you might actually believe this “present” world to be doomed.
Rushing out on an errand and will revert to you later.
Anonymous
….. you know, come to think of it, ….
…… if I were to go strictly by the numbers …..
….. knowing what I know of some of the few humans of different persuasions that I have met in my life …..
… and seeing on TV and reading what many I have never met routinely do and think to be normal behaviour inkeeping with building a better world …
…. and then extrapolating that behaviour from the sample to the total population of mankind ……
….. any logical person, basing their thoughts on the dispassionate examination of facts and things known would throw their hands up in the air and give up.
TimePeace (*)
(*)=Terry Callier
Technician
Man I see you go’ ah picture too…
You see David it catchin’ on. Wonder what type of pic Georgie gun chose..? (I got a good idea a’ready)
ROK // January 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM
@David
We do not need to manage faith based issues that is why we have laws.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
… and in a democracy, laws are enacted by law givers …..
…. who exist only because we ….
…. who are faith based creatures …..
…. give that existence to them!!!
Therefore laws should in theory reflect the faith of the society that enacted them ….. providing it is a democracy and the one man one vote rule applies.
This must be simply because of how the laws are formed.
It follows also that laws in any such given society will change to reflect the changes in faith of the faith based creatures who make up that society.
eg Sodom and Gomorrah demonstrate God’s view on sodomy.
At one time Barbadian society thought alot of God and took notice.
They ensured their law givers passed laws to reflect what they believed about sodomy.
Things changed, our faith may not be as great and our knowledge of the Bible as clear or we may have seen a new light.
As a result society’s views on sodomy change.
If they have not already changed, the laws on sodomy will change to reflect the revised faith that society has adopted.
Laws are thus by their very nature, faith based issues.
ROK ….. you really studied your head about what you are writing or just regurgitating what you have been brainwashed with?
@ BAFBFP….
Yeah man….might as well make de place look nice, aint putting up my pic though..lol.
@ John…
…..’ROK ….. you really studied your head about what you are writing or just regurgitating what you have been brainwashed with?
Isn’t this the same point Anon is trying to make?
Aren’t you guilty of the same behavior you are accusing ROK of?
Regardless of what others say, if they are honest, they will see that the behavior is on both side regardless of how eloquently one presents themselves.
@John
I see you have problems.
ROK // January 1, 2010 at 1:36 PM
I have not come here to deceive. Anybody can do the research and they will find three basic fundamental truths.
2. Ancient Egypt was the last of the Nile Valley Nations and much of the religion which Egypt adopted was handed down from generation to generation for tens of thousands of years.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let us take this second fundamental truth on which you have based your declaration, “I have not come here to deceive.”
Check this link and you will find that “4000 BC: Egyptians trace their origins to the Mount Rwenzori range in East Africa ”
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/egyptian.html
….. not tens of thousands of years ago!!
Here is what wikepedia has to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt
Neither one comes up with any information that would allow you to claim #2 as one of your three fundamental truths which would allow you to make your claim.
#2 is thus,as far as I can see, just that …. #2.
I don’t however believe anybody really knows for sure … myself included.
I have always read that the Sumerians of the Euphrates Valley were the oldest civilisation and they dated from 6000BC if my memory serves me right, …..
…. but it depended on how civilisation was defined.
You can prove the following logic wrong by referring me to a source which claims tens of thousands of years as the correct figure and I can independently cross check it.
Hieroglyphics were incomprehensible to modern man until 1817, not even 200 years ago.
That was when the Rosetta Stone was first decyphered and permitted modern man to glimpse the wonders of the civilisation of ancient Egypt through its actual writings.
Any writings on which you are basing your position which themselves are based on hieroglyphic writing has thus only been in existence over the last 200 years.
From the timeline in the first link this writing begun in 3100BC
” 3100 BC: hieroglyphic writing in Egypt ”
…. so while I am sure scholars of the time wrote about their history and recorded what happened prior to 3100BC, it would suffer from the same flaws you claim the Bible suffers from.
Please note that noone, including you, has claimed that these hieroglyphic writings are inspired by any god.
The fact that you can produce this figure of tens of thousands of years as one of your fundamental truths and the fact that you can declare that you have not come here to deceive indicates to me that you earnestly believe what you are saying.
Since simple research brings your second fundamental truth into question and since you have not come here to decieve, then either your own research is flawed, or you have been brainwashed.
Since you insist that you have read in depth and researched deeply, then you must have been brainwashed because as I see it, what you are saying and what is actually available to be read do not match.
….. and you claim you do not come here to deceive.
Hence my refrain to you.
I would appreciate you proving my logic wrong and if you are able, I will unhesitatingly apologise …..
….. problem (s) solved.
@John
As the last nation emerging from the Nile Valley, Egypt is said to have started sometime within 6000 – 5000 BC. The Sumerian nation is said to have been the first. You need to do some research on the Nile Valley Nations. Check here for a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_powers#Ancient_Powers
@John
Correction “6000 – 5000 BCE.”
Futher, prior to the Sumerians which is being termed as the first civilisation, peoples, villages, nations, however you want to term them existed long before.
Some scholars have estimated this at beginning some 30,000 years before the common era (BCE) as a conservative estimate.
Why conservative? When we consider that the oldest fossils of Homo Sapiens found in Africa is about 200,000 years old, you would understand (check for the San People). See how far religion came from? Yet the biblical scholars have dated the beginning of the world at 5000 years.
You are ready to believe that there could be nothing before Egypt when in actual fact, we talking hundreds of thousands of years.
I did say that I did not come to deceive. I hope that satisfies you.
@Technician
“Regardless of what others say, if they are honest, they will see that the behavior is on both side regardless of how eloquently one presents themselves.”
I know that you are correct about that because I have found myself deliberately throwing back their tactics in their face on many occasions.
However, I think that more research will put the thing in perspective. I also have to admit that I have not been putting sufficient information on the table, but that is because I am wary about putting info up which cannot be corroborated by an internet search of independent sources. The information seems to be getting on though but a lot is still missing.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.