Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So much for that 9th commandment

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 6
 [ 111 posts ] 
So much for that 9th commandment
Author Message
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:It's clearly both shared and plagiarized. The event occurred in what is now Iraq, centered on the city of Shuruppak roughly 4900 years ago. The earliest accounts from a couple centuries later are all so similar that coincidence is impossible. They're all obviously talking about the same event, but still attributed to the old gods of the time. Then a thousand years later, we get the same story re-cast, this time for a new god, adapted from a template of one of the old Canaanite gods.


If you acknowledge that the event happened and that multiple sources report it that’s not plagiarism… it’s journalism. The lens is different, to be sure but the relevant details are retained. Fox will report the same even with similar details but from an entirely different worldview just like this. Can you please expound on the idea that Yahweh was a template of a Canaanite god? I would be interested to see your citations on that one to know where it comes from. It is one I have not really heard before. It is an interesting proposition which seems difficult to defend given the difference between the way Canaanite gods and Israelite Deity are defined and act. I would think if it was any God that Yahweh would be accused of being a template for it would be the God of justice from the Stele of Hammurabi. Shamash. He shares far more with Yahweh than any of the Canaanite gods I have heard about. He was Mesopotamian, I believe.

AronRa wrote: No. When Gandalf uses his magic, we understand that he's not doing slight-of-hand tricks. When the djinn granted Aladdin's wishes, those weren't illusions either. Likewise, when Spock does his mind meld or Obi-wan manipulates the force, none of those are "chicanery". When Hermione Granger points her wand and utters the incantation, we understand that she's not creating the illusion that the troll went to sleep. Her spell has actually put the troll to sleep.


Ok, so I stand corrected. I think that I hear you saying that you do, in fact, believe that magic (at least in definition) has to do with supernatural invocation perceived or believed to be real by the practitioner and marketed as such?

AronRa wrote:Stage magicians often refer to themselves as illusionists because they don't want people to confuse what they do with magic. Magic/miracles are the evocation of supernatural forces or entities to control or forecast natural events in ways that are inexplicable by science because they defy the laws of physics, and are thus physically impossible.


This is where we always diverge and I think I have a better understanding of why. What supernatural forces exist other than higher dimensional entities? In other words, what intrinsic power does the mind of a man have that can be said or even written in fiction to be able to alter the fabric of reality in ways contrary to the laws of physics? When a magician casts a spell or does a ritual why does he (or she) do it to specific rules and according to prescribed rituals which involve very particular and human significant ingredients and theater? Either the magician has inherent and intrinsic supernatural power through the faculty of their own will… or some other thing is empowering them through cooperation. To a Christian worldview the man has no such power so all magic is essentially cooperation with evil entities. These entities allow your will to become reality through supernatural means. Miracles are God allowing HIS will to manifest as a gesture to show us His power, and his Love. You can’t make miracles happen by a ritual or a spell… they can only happen when God makes them happen. Magic you can manifest by use of ritual, spell, or other complex method because that’s how you demonstrate the sincerity of your purpose. I have read some fascinating accounts of rituals by LeVay and by Aquino. They of course are doing the rituals in hope of eliciting the cooperation of their respective higher powers, Satan, or Set. Even Crowley, the most active and prolific Magician of his day, admitted he appealed to higher powers for his magic. The Book of the Law was dictated to him, no written by him… at least as he tells it. The practitioners of Thelema would of course attest to the reality of their faith. Peaches Geldof recently passed from a drug overdose after telling some interesting stories about the Thelema practice in Hollywood.

AronRa wrote:You don't need gods for magic, although gods are made of magic. The Lord of the Rings didn't evoke any gods. Neither did Harry Potter nor Gandolf nor Samantha Stevens either. They and the Djinni use traditional magic like Merlin. Spock, Obi-wan and Doctor Strange use psionics, powers thought to reside in the potential of the mind. But they're all effectively the same thing, using the power of will (faith) to change reality with the magic powers of the mind. Curses, enchantments (blessings) incantations, golems, faith-healing, exorcism, casting of wards, transformation, necromancy and all other supernatural manifestations such as the Bible describes are all magical, including the fruit of the tree of eternal life and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Although that is obviously metaphorical, a literal reading would have to be magical.


In fact, the Lord of the rings was dripping with Gods. The Silmarillion adds an awful lot of depth to the stories in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf was originally a Maiar which are essentially angels in Middle Earth. The main God in Middle Earth was Eru Ilúvatar and beings like Gandalf started out as spirits made by him who were helping shape and guide the growing creation. That’s why Gandalf was in Middle Earth. He and his order were literally angels sent to help defeat Sauron. Sauron was a fallen Maia, a fallen angel.
Harry and Samantha had powers which were never revealed to be higher dimensionally produced but the existence of higher dimensional beings is mentioned in these stories. Unicorns, Dumbledore’s ascending soul speaking to Harry from beyond the grave, and the fact that Witches and Warlocks called people like Darrin ‘mortals’ all speak to a higher level of reality in which exist beings with power we would call magic. Samantha and Harry were never, to my recollection, ever accused of performing a miracle.
Faith-healing and exorcism are the only two from your list that are by definition miracles. A man cannot exorcise a demon, only the power of God can do that. A man cannot heal something with his own magical will (medicine doesn’t count in this context) but the power of God can. Faith healers are pretty much all frauds anyway. God gave us doctors for a good reason.

AronRa wrote:Same with a talking donkey or a talking snake. They have to be magically enchanted. That's what a "blessing" is. When someone says "have a blessed day", they're literally saying "have a magically enchanted day".


Again the definition asserts itself rooted in our worldview. To me they are saying, “May God grant you good things today.” God is the ultimate authority from which is derived the authority of all other powers. If someone does magic it’s because a higher being enabled them to from their greater power. God is the top of that food chain of powers, man is at the bottom.

AronRa wrote: So when you read about King Arthur or Aladdin's Lamp or the Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, you imagine that they're all praying to God? You really can't see how their evocation of supernatural forces doesn't necessarily have to involve any deity, much less yours? If miracles/magic are exclusively God's domain, then why does the Bible say that Pharoah's magi were able to turn their staves into snakes? That wouldn't be possible in the context of that story given your definition.


Kings in English lore are chosen by divine right. Kings have their authority appointed to them by God directly. His sword was given special power to help him preserve his rule and unite his people as a divinely chosen King. This divine favor was demonstrated by him being the only one who could pull the sword… the sign of the King’s authority, from the stone. Arthur sent one of his knights in search of the Holy Grail. He sent someone looking for the cup of Christ to heal his land. I can think of no way in which this is not attempting to solicit power from a deity.
Alladin’s lamp was occupied by a Djinni (Romanized word for jinn). Djinni are Quranic lore. In the Quran it says… ““And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees (Satan). He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord” Chapter 18 (Al Kahf) - Verse 50. Satan was a Djinni. The magic of the Djinni came from either Allah, or Ibliss. Appeal to deity.
Harry Potter wasn’t appealing to any higher power that his author mentioned… but he was a boy who at a very young age was given the purpose of saving the whole world from the evil serpent wizard with immortal power… and had to sacrifice himself at the hands of this same evil wizard and be resurrected to defeat him. That does sound uncannily familiar.

The story of the rod and the snake was meant to illustrate exactly the point we are discussing. The miracles of God were contrasted against the powers of the Pharaoh’s magicians to show which was a miracle and which was magic. The magicians either used power from Satan or sleight of hand and illusions to do their magic. The power of God demonstrated in the miracles successively hit Egypt harder and harder, climbing in severity asymptotically. At some point they went hyperbolically far beyond the magicians abilities and they gave up even trying. This showed everyone watching exactly who the real one in power was. It wasn’t the Pharaoh. Egypts gods were shown to be false ones and their magic to be ineffective in the face of the real authority in the universe… and it wasn’t Pharaoh.

AronRa wrote: I have noticed that believers use equivocation in this way. So I posted a list of definitions of relevant terms for the sake of clarity.


I find these definitions fascinating. We could spend years just debating the specifics of your definition of religion. The one I found the most telling is for faith, “Faith: A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.” There is a premise here that no logical argument for faith could be compelling enough to be a proof and that no believer ever receives physical evidence of the existence of the supernatural. The logical case for faith is the strongest one and almost every believer I know will attest to having the physical experience of God. Your definitions have premises and opinions in them. I hope we get a chance to flesh this one out. The way these are worded is a fascinating study in comparative worldviews. There is so much more information communicated by what is said, how it is said, and what is left out.

For example many of your definitions are based on the concept of ‘fact’ as thus defined
“Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.” If it cannot be verified by something that is outside of a human mind then it is not fully objectively verifiable in a philosophical or epistemological sense. If it exists only in mind then it is not objective. If it takes a person to measure it… it is always in the mind of a person even when shared. If only the mind is used to perceive something… even if multiple minds see the same thing it does not make it objective by the very definition of subjective… that is, with an existence which can be verified external to human mind. This would require a non-human mind to validate.

Your definition of Creationism includes the phrase “Creationists posit supernatural assertions regardless of evidence, based instead on assumed conclusions, subjective impressions, perceived commitment to community, arbitrary desires, emotional dependancy, and faith.” This is more of a judgement than a definition. It contains a large amount of information about your feelings on the subject and your opinions. I appreciate these definitions, however, because at least if I understand even the basic premises of your ideas about certain concepts of faith, science and other facets of this discussion I can perhaps better understand your arguments and respond to them more precisely and with less clarification on your part.

AronRa wrote:For example, what I "believe" is only a logical consequence of my understanding of the facts, meaning that I think this is mostly true or most likely true, but I don't necessarily know it if I can't demonstrate that my understanding is accurate. However "believers" treat belief as an act of conscious deliberate will, of mind over matter; that you can change reality through the power of positive thought if you can just believe "hard enough", so believe with all your heart. In other words, "believe" means "make-believe". Or as one Southern Baptist minister I know put it, "fake it 'til you make it", meaning that you should lie to yourself until you convince yourself through the power of pretend.


There are a lot of phonies in the world. The Bible said there would be, though, and that many would try and pretend to have faith but only few would really have it.

It makes me really sad that people teach garbage like that minister did. Faith is not something that you do, it’s really something that happens to you from the outside in. You don’t choose faith, you suddenly realize you have been given it by inspiration. The word “inspiration” derives from a root which means “indwelt by spirit”. If you have to “fake it till you make it” in the faith sense then you never touched the Spirit. There is a long period in the beginning of Martin Luther’s life as a Catholic where he tries this approach. He simply can’t practice Catholic dogma hard enough to make himself believe. Then he realizes that the dogma and the actions taken to try and make believe were in the way. The faith was given to him by God alone and inspired by the Scripture as he read it. This is why we have Protestantism… because you can’t fake it until you make it. You have to have it made for you or it’s fake.

Belief is not the conscious act of will they should be practicing. Obedience is the conscious act of will we as Christians use to demonstrate that we already have faith. All the Jesus Radar hand waving and wacky falling down in pews is an attempt to show off. Jesus says that he who prays in public to be seen gets his reward by being seen and forfeits the rest. Fake faith is practiced in public. Real faith is in public, private and everything in between and demonstrated by obedience.

AronRa wrote: Objective: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’ Contrasted with subjective
1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
‘a matter of objective fact’
-Oxford Dictionary


If it came from a person, it by this definition can’t be objective. Only a non-person can be uninfluenced by personal feelings or opinions. If a thing depends on mind to be perceived it cannot have its existence verified independent of mind.. by mind.

I have to cut this here and start again shortly. I have much further to go but I’m out of time tonight… your next point about Hume was very eloquent and contained a lot I wish to respond on. Absolutely impressive and humbling, the depth to which you have considered these matters. The Torah discussion alone will probably take a week more to finish hacking in a response to. I have to write a longer post this week so please be patient and give me just a few days to try and hack all this in… I appreciate that you took the time to respond so elaborately and I hope you’ll grant me the time to respond in kind. Have a good weekend. I’ll try and write more very shortly.
Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:26 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Greetings,

MatthewLee wrote:In fact, the Lord of the rings was dripping with Gods. The Silmarillion adds an awful lot of depth to the stories in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf was originally a Maiar which are essentially angels in Middle Earth. The main God in Middle Earth was Eru Ilúvatar and beings like Gandalf started out as spirits made by him who were helping shape and guide the growing creation. That’s why Gandalf was in Middle Earth. He and his order were literally angels sent to help defeat Sauron. Sauron was a fallen Maia, a fallen angel.

That's simply not the case.

Sauron was one of the elves, not a "fallen angel".

Nor was Gandalf, and the other wizards, "angels sent to help defeat Sauron".

MatthewLee wrote:Harry and Samantha had powers which were never revealed to be higher dimensionally produced but the existence of higher dimensional beings is mentioned in these stories.

"Samantha"? Do you mean Hermione?

MatthewLee wrote:Unicorns, Dumbledore’s ascending soul speaking to Harry from beyond the grave,

Dumbledore wasn't "speaking to Harry from beyond the grave" - as he tells Harry, it's all happening in his head.

MatthewLee wrote: and the fact that Witches and Warlocks called people like Darrin ‘mortals’ all speak to a higher level of reality in which exist beings with power we would call magic.

"Darrin"? From where are you getting all these incorrect names?

MatthewLee wrote: Samantha and Harry were never, to my recollection, ever accused of performing a miracle.
Faith-healing and exorcism are the only two from your list that are by definition miracles. A man cannot exorcise a demon, only the power of God can do that. A man cannot heal something with his own magical will (medicine doesn’t count in this context) but the power of God can. Faith healers are pretty much all frauds anyway. God gave us doctors for a good reason.

You continue to believe, as the rest of your post shows, that there are "powers" other than the physical - there aren't. The burden of proof is on you.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:18 pm
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Dragan Glas wrote: Sauron was one of the elves, not a "fallen angel".

Nor was Gandalf, and the other wizards, "angels sent to help defeat Sauron".


“Sauron (or Þauron (Thauron); Quenya; IPA: [ˈsaʊron] or Vanyarin; IPA: [ˈθaʊron] - "The Abhorred"), the eponymous Lord of the Rings, was a fallen Maia, the creator of the One Ring, and the most trusted lieutenant of his master Melkor (Morgoth, the first Dark Lord). After Melkor's defeat in the First Age, Sauron became the second Dark Lord and strove to conquer Arda by creating the Rings of Power.”

“Sauron was originally a Maia of Aulë the Smith, named Mairon, meaning "the admirable", and learned much from him in the ways of forging and crafting, becoming a great craftsman, and mighty in the lore of Aulë's people.[4] Although he was a Maia spirit, and not as mighty as the Valar, Mairon was one of the most if not the most powerful Maiar.”
“… Mairon was as Eru had created him.”

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Sauron

“The Maiar (the singular of which is Maia) were nearly-primordial spirits that descended into Arda to help the Valar first shape the World. They were supposed to be numerous, yet not many were named. Their chiefs were Eönwë, banner-bearer and herald of Manwë, and Ilmarë, the handmaid of Varda.[1]

Five of these spirits, in the Third Age, were the incarnated Wizards.”

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Maiar

“The Wizards, initially known as the Istari, were five Maiar spirits sent to Middle-earth as human forms to aid the Free Peoples against the threat of Sauron.”

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Wizards

Dragan Glas wrote: "Samantha"? Do you mean Hermione?”

And

“"Darrin"? From where are you getting all these incorrect names?”


AronRa wrote: ”You don't need gods for magic, although gods are made of magic. The Lord of the Rings didn't evoke any gods. Neither did Harry Potter nor Gandolf nor Samantha Stevens either.”


“Bewitched is an American television sitcom fantasy series, originally broadcast for eight seasons on ABC from September 17, 1964, to March 25, 1972.”

“Plot
A beautiful witch named Samantha (Elizabeth Montgomery) meets and marries a mortal named Darrin Stephens (originally Dick York, later Dick Sargent). While Samantha complies with Darrin's wishes to become a normal suburban housewife, her magical family disapproves of the mixed marriage and frequently interferes in the couple's lives. Episodes often begin with Darrin becoming the victim of a spell, the effects of which wreak havoc with mortals such as his boss, clients, parents, and neighbors. By the epilogue, however, Darrin and Samantha most often embrace, having overcome the devious elements that failed to separate them. The witches and their male counterparts, warlocks, are very long-lived; while Samantha appears to be a young woman, many episodes suggest she is actually hundreds of years old. To keep their society secret, witches avoid showing their powers in front of mortals other than Darrin. Nevertheless, the effects of their spells – and Samantha's attempts to hide their supernatural origin from mortals – drive the plot of most episodes.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bewitched#Plot

Dragan Glas wrote:”Dumbledore wasn't "speaking to Harry from beyond the grave" - as he tells Harry, it's all happening in his head.”


“Harry Potter: "Tell me one last thing. Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?""
Albus Dumbledore: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
— Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore in Limbo

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Limbo

Dragan Glas wrote:“You continue to believe, as the rest of your post shows, that there are "powers" other than the physical - there aren't. The burden of proof is on you.”


“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”

Max Planck.

Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy, Archiv zur Geschichte der Max Planck Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797

“Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) is the originator of modern quantum theories and one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planc ... out_Planck
Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:24 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 564Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

leroy wrote:But again what difference does it makes? Aronra won’t admit his mistake and you wont even try to correct him because you are on his side

I would like to add the fact that Aronra is the who is asserting as fact that the myth of Adapa was plagiarized by the authors of Genesis. Shouldn’t he carry the burden proof and show that his assertions are true?
I like proving people wrong, especially when they make such negative judgement of me. My own allies here are the same way and would sell me out immediately if I had actually made a mistake. Alas I cannot admit a mistake I never made.

According to your source, Adapa was created by the father god, just like Adam, and he was forbidden to eat.

"Both Adam and Adapa were apparently tested with food (and drink, in the case of Adapa); and, according to some interpreters, both failed the test, hence the parallel between the two accounts. But whether Adapa in fact failed is a moot question."

Whether the character failed that test doesn't change that parallel. This article did not refute these parallels; it listed them. It even acknowledged that although "Adapa, unlike Adam, is not the first man on earth, he does represent mankind in a special sense. According to fragment A, line 6, he is a "model of men," a human archetype;" ...."Adapa is not a "sinner," but a "perfect man." He is therefore a model man".

Otherwise your source spoke more about the moral of the story than the elements contributing to it. I wasn't talking about the moral of the adapted story in the hands of the new religion. My statement was that the character of "Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith."

"The parallels we have noted in the accounts may suggest that the two characterizations have a common origin".

Your citation proved my point. Thus my statement was NOT "refuted by scholars" as you alleged. Instead they acknowledge that the same ethnic culture conjured both stories, which is why these common elements exist.

The story of Adam as found in the Bible was reportedly brought from Babylon around 450 BCE. For all these acknowledged elements to be original, the story of Adam would have to be older than that of Adapa. But the story of Adapa is at least a thousand years older, from the second mellium BCE, and authored by the very ancestors of the folks who eventually re-wrote classic tropes for the new religion once they invented Rabbinic Judaism.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:01 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 564Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

MatthewLee wrote:
AronRa wrote:It's clearly both shared and plagiarized. The event occurred in what is now Iraq, centered on the city of Shuruppak roughly 4900 years ago. The earliest accounts from a couple centuries later are all so similar that coincidence is impossible. They're all obviously talking about the same event, but still attributed to the old gods of the time. Then a thousand years later, we get the same story re-cast, this time for a new god, adapted from a template of one of the old Canaanite gods.
If you acknowledge that the event happened and that multiple sources report it that’s not plagiarism… it’s journalism. The lens is different, to be sure but the relevant details are retained. Fox will report the same even with similar details but from an entirely different worldview just like this.
If it were journalism, then it would have read that King Ziusudra survived another of a few known flash floods of Shurruppak in 2900 BCE because he happened to be on a barge loaded with livestock heading for market. Instead what we got is mythology claiming a one-of-a-kind flood and blaming all these gods who wanted to drown men for being too noisy. Further embellishments were added over time, including the most obvious exaggeration that the flood covered the whole world. At this point we should agree that THAT "event" never happened at all.

Then Fox News' Biblical scribes put their spin on it a couple thousand years later and blamed a completely different middle-eastern god. They do the same with a lot of other mythology too, even borrowing the snow-globe earth idea from the Orient. So not even remotely like journalism; just tall tales and propaganda which was then plagiarized.

Can you please expound on the idea that Yahweh was a template of a Canaanite god? I would be interested to see your citations on that one to know where it comes from. It is one I have not really heard before. It is an interesting proposition which seems difficult to defend given the difference between the way Canaanite gods and Israelite Deity are defined and act.
I haven't studied that specific point well enough to comment on it further than just repeating what I've read.

I would think if it was any God that Yahweh would be accused of being a template for it would be the God of justice from the Stele of Hammurabi. Shamash. He shares far more with Yahweh than any of the Canaanite gods I have heard about. He was Mesopotamian, I believe.
Your god is a composite of many, including Shamash and El of course. I changed my surname to Ra as a nod to the Egyptian composite air-god and sun-god, Amen-Re, which I see as a template for your god too. Amun-Ra and Yahweh were once even married to the same woman! Although Yahweh is a sun god only in the New Testament and is more commonly depicted as a volcano in the Old Testament. Although he is still also an air god in both compilations.

When Gandalf uses his magic, we understand that he's not doing slight-of-hand tricks. When the djinn granted Aladdin's wishes, those weren't illusions either. Likewise, when Spock does his mind meld or Obi-wan manipulates the force, none of those are "chicanery". When Hermione Granger points her wand and utters the incantation, we understand that she's not creating the illusion that the troll went to sleep. Her spell has actually put the troll to sleep.
Ok, so I stand corrected. I think that I hear you saying that you do, in fact, believe that magic (at least in definition) has to do with supernatural invocation perceived or believed to be real by the practitioner and marketed as such?
Yes. I know what magic is, or at least what it is supposed to be, even though I don't believe it's real.

Stage magicians often refer to themselves as illusionists because they don't want people to confuse what they do with magic. Magic/miracles are the evocation of supernatural forces or entities to control or forecast natural events in ways that are inexplicable by science because they defy the laws of physics, and are thus physically impossible.
This is where we always diverge and I think I have a better understanding of why. What supernatural forces exist other than higher dimensional entities?
There are no supernatural entities, not even higher dimensional entities. All of that is fantasy folklore. However within the stories, I know that people believe in all sorts of spirtual woo that doesn't depend on any god. Throughout my youth, I was essentially a Jedi. I believed exactly what Obiwan described, "the force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together". In one of the books, he went on to say that you can control the force to a point, but it also controls you like trying to make waves or be moved by waves in the ocean. Had I read the Tao te Ching before seeing and reading Star Wars, I might have called myself a Taoist instead, because the force was based on a combination of Taoism and confucianism.

Other religions also hold magical/spritual beliefs that--like mine--were based on a bottom-up emergence rather than top-down authority. This is because we know that masses of incremental components will create large scale patterns, but there is no way for a top-down designer to change or arrange that.

In other words, what intrinsic power does the mind of a man have that can be said or even written in fiction to be able to alter the fabric of reality in ways contrary to the laws of physics?
I didn't think psionics were against physics. I thought telekenisis and telepathy were simply higher order systems of communication/manipulation using biologically generated energy fields that scientists simply hadn't identified yet. It wasn't until I was in a second level class in biology for science majors before I really understood why there wasn't any necessity for life-force to animate living tissue the way I had previously believed. When I very young and didn't know shit, I couldn't figure out how living flesh was animated, and that left me susceptible to bogus explanations.

When a magician casts a spell or does a ritual why does he (or she) do it to specific rules and according to prescribed rituals which involve very particular and human significant ingredients and theater? Either the magician has inherent and intrinsic supernatural power through the faculty of their own will… or some other thing is empowering them through cooperation.
Some other thing moves our ships when we set the sails. Before we knew that air was particulate matter, it was believed that the winds were spirits. Now we know about nuclear forces and tectonic forces, magnetism, gravity and other effects on our reality which we might be able to manipulate. Manipulating magic is as mysterious as it is for the same reason there is such a range of explanations for how to travel backward in time. It's because nobody really knows how to do it, but it must be weird, whatever it is, and we must assume that everything better be aligned just right to make it work.

I used to know a lot of pagans. Animists and Druids I had no problem with. They saw the Dharma as a Democracy of innumerable synapses as I did, but I always made fun of Wiccans, because (1) they believed in gods. If you appeal to their god, their god might do something. But the god didn't have to do anything. Whatever psychic power the god had people had too, if we could just learn how to use it. Earlier in this thread, Leroy posted an article about Adapa, which talked about Adapa using what I would call magic words, saying that he "clearly was in possession of magic power". The same applied to LIlith and a number of others too. That's why the gods are always so worried that we'll learn their secrets and become like they are. That's why they all have issues with man learning forbidden knowledge.

(2) there was no reason of any kind given for anything. Why does the wand have to be made of dogwood picked at midnight on a full moon? What about different time zones? What does having maximum lunar refraction got to do with anything? What if I picked a twig from a cottonwood tree at midnight on a full moon? What difference does it make? I pissed off a lot of witches in my day.

To a Christian worldview the man has no such power so all magic is essentially cooperation with evil entities.
Why would that be? How do gods do anything that they do? What is the mechanism they use? Why can we not also manipulate those forces and powers that ebb and flow through all things in the supernatural as in the natural?

These entities allow your will to become reality through supernatural means.
Why do they have to be entities as opposed to forces? A better question would be how could they be entities mastering these forces? Why not just have the forces with no one to master them? That's how the real world is.

Miracles are God allowing HIS will to manifest as a gesture to show us His power, and his Love.
It is at this point when you should realize that God has failed both of these demonstrations so spectacularly that it would be fair to be atheist just for his failure in either one alone. That's not my problem with believing in a god, but I know a lot of other people have pointed out God's consistent failure in all applications of either power or love dating all the way back to Epicurus. Knowing as you do that (1) every religion claims the same kinds of justification on faith, if you just make-believe hard enough then you'll see it, feel it, whatever: and knowing as you do you can't demonstrate any "power" to your god beyond what others can do for theirs, and you certainly can't justify that comment about showing his love, and knowing that none of this possible, nor would it be logical even if it was possible, then how could you believe in it? You certainly can't demonstrate your god beyond the compelling paranormal experiences I've already had as a pagan. Yet I rejected that as illusory, even though I remember all these things happening. Because I know now how easy it is to fool the mind, especially through faith.

You can’t make miracles happen by a ritual or a spell… they can only happen when God makes them happen.
God can't do it either, because none of this is real. But if I pretend for a moment that it's all real, then why do we need God to control all these mystic energies that effect karma? Why do we need someone to tell the river which way to flow?

Magic you can manifest by use of ritual, spell, or other complex method because that’s how you demonstrate the sincerity of your purpose.
Not always.

Image
"You know what I got here? This is the mojo hand, a Louisiana voodoo charm, the winning boys' magic. They say there's only one last true mojo left in the world. Take it, Lightin'. Take it and go up there and do your stuff. I'm giving you all the magic I got!"

I have read some fascinating accounts of rituals by LeVay and by Aquino. They of course are doing the rituals in hope of eliciting the cooperation of their respective higher powers, Satan, or Set. Even Crowley, the most active and prolific Magician of his day, admitted he appealed to higher powers for his magic. The Book of the Law was dictated to him, no written by him… at least as he tells it. The practitioners of Thelema would of course attest to the reality of their faith. Peaches Geldof recently passed from a drug overdose after telling some interesting stories about the Thelema practice in Hollywood.
I've never heard of any of these people, other than LeVay and Crowley, and everyone told me LeVay was atheist. I know a few Satanists, all of them atheist. I really admire what the Satanic Temple has done in defense of the first amendment under Lucean Greaves. But I'm not Satanic myself because I'm not young or pretty enough, and I can't afford their clothes. ;-)

You don't need gods for magic, although gods are made of magic. The Lord of the Rings didn't evoke any gods. Neither did Harry Potter nor Gandolf nor Samantha Stevens either. They and the Djinni use traditional magic like Merlin. Spock, Obi-wan and Doctor Strange use psionics, powers thought to reside in the potential of the mind. But they're all effectively the same thing, using the power of will (faith) to change reality with the magic powers of the mind. Curses, enchantments (blessings) incantations, golems, faith-healing, exorcism, casting of wards, transformation, necromancy and all other supernatural manifestations such as the Bible describes are all magical, including the fruit of the tree of eternal life and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Although that is obviously metaphorical, a literal reading would have to be magical.
In fact, the Lord of the rings was dripping with Gods. The Silmarillion adds an awful lot of depth to the stories in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf was originally a Maiar which are essentially angels in Middle Earth. The main God in Middle Earth was Eru Ilúvatar and beings like Gandalf started out as spirits made by him who were helping shape and guide the growing creation. That’s why Gandalf was in Middle Earth. He and his order were literally angels sent to help defeat Sauron. Sauron was a fallen Maia, a fallen angel.
I understand that Tolkien was a Christian and a friend of C.S. Lewis, so that is likely, but even so, the sort of gods you're talking about may be magical anthropomorphic immortals, but they're not the source of the supernatural, and they didn't create reality by any communal effort either.

Harry and Samantha had powers which were never revealed to be higher dimensionally produced but the existence of higher dimensional beings is mentioned in these stories. Unicorns, Dumbledore’s ascending soul speaking to Harry from beyond the grave, and the fact that Witches and Warlocks called people like Darrin ‘mortals’ all speak to a higher level of reality in which exist beings with power we would call magic. Samantha and Harry were never, to my recollection, ever accused of performing a miracle.
Once again, miracles are the magic that gods do, much like killing a homeless person would not typically qualify as an assassination, because only VIPs of some sort can be assassinated. It's just a trick of the language.

Faith-healing and exorcism are the only two from your list that are by definition miracles.
So Gandalf drawing Sauroman out of Theodan counts as a miracle? It would if it were a god doing it instead of a wizard.

A man cannot exorcise a demon, only the power of God can do that.
Or a wizard.

A man cannot heal something with his own magical will (medicine doesn’t count in this context) but the power of God can. Faith healers are pretty much all frauds anyway. God gave us doctors for a good reason.
Faith healers advertise that it is actually the power of will that both cures and prevents diseases.

Same with a talking donkey or a talking snake. They have to be magically enchanted. That's what a "blessing" is. When someone says "have a blessed day", they're literally saying "have a magically enchanted day".
Again the definition asserts itself rooted in our worldview. To me they are saying, “May God grant you good things today.” God is the ultimate authority from which is derived the authority of all other powers. If someone does magic it’s because a higher being enabled them to from their greater power. God is the top of that food chain of powers, man is at the bottom.
You've got everything backwards. Life is an emergent property. There is no authority at the top. If magic were real, it would be the same way.

So when you read about King Arthur or Aladdin's Lamp or the Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, you imagine that they're all praying to God? You really can't see how their evocation of supernatural forces doesn't necessarily have to involve any deity, much less yours? If miracles/magic are exclusively God's domain, then why does the Bible say that Pharoah's magi were able to turn their staves into snakes? That wouldn't be possible in the context of that story given your definition.
Kings in English lore are chosen by divine right. Kings have their authority appointed to them by God directly. His sword was given special power to help him preserve his rule and unite his people as a divinely chosen King. This divine favor was demonstrated by him being the only one who could pull the sword… the sign of the King’s authority, from the stone. Arthur sent one of his knights in search of the Holy Grail. He sent someone looking for the cup of Christ to heal his land. I can think of no way in which this is not attempting to solicit power from a deity.
Except that Merlin wasn't Christian. He was supposed to be Druidic, Hence the Gaelic charm of making, "Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha".

Alladin’s lamp was occupied by a Djinni (Romanized word for jinn). Djinni are Quranic lore. In the Quran it says… ““And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees (Satan). He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord” Chapter 18 (Al Kahf) - Verse 50. Satan was a Djinni. The magic of the Djinni came from either Allah, or Ibliss. Appeal to deity.
The djinni were air elementals while the efreet were fire elementals. Their power was their own. Their legend grew out of ignorance of the particulate matter of air. Primitive people thought that air was a spirit. That's why they imagined efreeti in their fire light and that's desert whilrwinds are called dust devils. It wasn't that there is a god who holds all the supernatural currency and only lets some characters borrow some. The supernatural realm is supposed to flow with myriad supernatural energies and effects whether there is a god or not.

Harry Potter wasn’t appealing to any higher power that his author mentioned… but he was a boy who at a very young age was given the purpose of saving the whole world from the evil serpent wizard with immortal power… and had to sacrifice himself at the hands of this same evil wizard and be resurrected to defeat him. That does sound uncannily familiar.
But if I were to use your logic, there are differences between Dowlings wriiting and Abrahamic scripture, and that means she can't have adapted these already familiar tropes into her story the way we know that everyone always does.

The story of the rod and the snake was meant to illustrate exactly the point we are discussing. The miracles of God were contrasted against the powers of the Pharaoh’s magicians to show which was a miracle and which was magic. The magicians either used power from Satan or sleight of hand and illusions to do their magic.
Wrong. There was no mention nor indication nor even possibility of Satan in this story. These magi were of a different religion with different gods.

The power of God demonstrated in the miracles successively hit Egypt harder and harder, climbing in severity asymptotically.
Which only happened because God hardened Pharoah's heart, because God plays both sides of the chessboard at once.

At some point they went hyperbolically far beyond the magicians abilities and they gave up even trying. This showed everyone watching exactly who the real one in power was. It wasn’t the Pharaoh. Egypts gods were shown to be false ones and their magic to be ineffective in the face of the real authority in the universe… and it wasn’t Pharaoh.
You know that none of that really happened, right? Not a bit of it. It's all just religious propaganda with not a word of truth to it.

I have noticed that believers use equivocation in this way. So I posted a list of definitions of relevant terms for the sake of clarity.
I find these definitions fascinating. We could spend years just debating the specifics of your definition of religion. The one I found the most telling is for faith, “Faith: A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.” There is a premise here that no logical argument for faith could be compelling enough to be a proof and that no believer ever receives physical evidence of the existence of the supernatural.
Correct. Mind you, I say this as one who has had several paranormal encounters far more impressive than Christians typically tell.

The logical case for faith is the strongest one and almost every believer I know will attest to having the physical experience of God.
Yeah, they do. Even the ones who are now atheist clearly remember having made that claim once upon a time.

Your definitions have premises and opinions in them. I hope we get a chance to flesh this one out. The way these are worded is a fascinating study in comparative worldviews. There is so much more information communicated by what is said, how it is said, and what is left out.

For example many of your definitions are based on the concept of ‘fact’ as thus defined
“Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable.” If it cannot be verified by something that is outside of a human mind then it is not fully objectively verifiable in a philosophical or epistemological sense. If it exists only in mind then it is not objective. If it takes a person to measure it… it is always in the mind of a person even when shared. If only the mind is used to perceive something… even if multiple minds see the same thing it does not make it objective by the very definition of subjective… that is, with an existence which can be verified external to human mind. This would require a non-human mind to validate.
I think you grossly misread that, or added something into it that was never there. There is no dependence on the human mind. Human minds can't detect gravity waves or see in gamma radiation. Sometimes we depend on devices to confirm what our minds cannot.

Your definition of Creationism includes the phrase “Creationists posit supernatural assertions regardless of evidence, based instead on assumed conclusions, subjective impressions, perceived commitment to community, arbitrary desires, emotional dependancy, and faith.” This is more of a judgement than a definition.
It consistently applies though, doesn't it.

It contains a large amount of information about your feelings on the subject and your opinions. I appreciate these definitions, however, because at least if I understand even the basic premises of your ideas about certain concepts of faith, science and other facets of this discussion I can perhaps better understand your arguments and respond to them more precisely and with less clarification on your part.
Thank you.

For example, what I "believe" is only a logical consequence of my understanding of the facts, meaning that I think this is mostly true or most likely true, but I don't necessarily know it if I can't demonstrate that my understanding is accurate. However "believers" treat belief as an act of conscious deliberate will, of mind over matter; that you can change reality through the power of positive thought if you can just believe "hard enough", so believe with all your heart. In other words, "believe" means "make-believe". Or as one Southern Baptist minister I know put it, "fake it 'til you make it", meaning that you should lie to yourself until you convince yourself through the power of pretend.
There are a lot of phonies in the world. The Bible said there would be, though, and that many would try and pretend to have faith but only few would really have it.
There are a lot of phonies, and not one bona fide authentic.

It makes me really sad that people teach garbage like that minister did. Faith is not something that you do, it’s really something that happens to you from the outside in.
Like a drug addiction or a disease? As long as it can be treated and corrected.

You don’t choose faith, you suddenly realize you have been given it by inspiration.
The word for that is fooled or duped.

The word “inspiration” derives from a root which means “indwelt by spirit”. If you have to “fake it till you make it” in the faith sense then you never touched the Spirit.
No one's ever touched any spirit. What you're demonstrating here is that there are different categories for the same delusion.

There is a long period in the beginning of Martin Luther’s life as a Catholic where he tries this approach. He simply can’t practice Catholic dogma hard enough to make himself believe. Then he realizes that the dogma and the actions taken to try and make believe were in the way. The faith was given to him by God alone and inspired by the Scripture as he read it. This is why we have Protestantism… because you can’t fake it until you make it. You have to have it made for you or it’s fake.
This is the same guy who said "Whosoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason". .
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."


It's a jumble of quotes I know. Martin Luther is NOT the guy any sane Christian should be quoting. He was a mad man.

Belief is not the conscious act of will they should be practicing. Obedience is the conscious act of will we as Christians use to demonstrate that we already have faith. All the Jesus Radar hand waving and wacky falling down in pews is an attempt to show off. Jesus says that he who prays in public to be seen gets his reward by being seen and forfeits the rest. Fake faith is practiced in public. Real faith is in public, private and everything in between and demonstrated by obedience.
Lots of hypocrisy; no legitimacy.

Objective: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’ Contrasted with subjective
1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
‘a matter of objective fact’
-Oxford Dictionary


If it came from a person, it by this definition can’t be objective. Only a non-person can be uninfluenced by personal feelings or opinions. If a thing depends on mind to be perceived it cannot have its existence verified independent of mind.. by mind.
Once again, it doesn't come from one mind. The definition is that it is NOT dependent on the mind. That means that it's existence, the fact of the matter can be independently corroborated either by a collection of different minds or by devices. For example, I don't have to rely on my own authority to say "trust me I know what it is". Instead I can show a consensus of independent sources showing that that's what it is.

I have to cut this here and start again shortly. I have much further to go but I’m out of time tonight… your next point about Hume was very eloquent and contained a lot I wish to respond on. Absolutely impressive and humbling, the depth to which you have considered these matters. The Torah discussion alone will probably take a week more to finish hacking in a response to. I have to write a longer post this week so please be patient and give me just a few days to try and hack all this in… I appreciate that you took the time to respond so elaborately and I hope you’ll grant me the time to respond in kind. Have a good weekend. I’ll try and write more very shortly.
I wrote four video scripts for this month already, and my wife has had me remodeling our house to the point of exhaustion. I still have to write a presentation for next month, and I have to officiate a wedding tomorrow. So I'm glad that you are still patient with me, because time is always an issue anymore.

I remember decades ago spending days on the couch trying to find something worth watching on TV. I can't have a single day like that anymore.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:45 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:["The parallels we have noted in the accounts may suggest that the two characterizations have a common origin".

Your citation proved my point. Thus my statement was NOT "refuted by scholars" as you alleged. Instead they acknowledge that the same ethnic culture conjured both stories, which is why these common elements exist.

.


really? lets look at the relevant parts of the paper

In short, then, we conclude that parallels do indeed exist
between Adam and Adapa, but they are seriously blunted by the
entirely different contexts in which they occur.

....

Does the Adapa myth then present us with a parallel or a contrast to the story of Adam? The best answer to this question may well be that Adam and Adapa represent two distinct charac- terizations of human nature. The parallels we have noted in the accounts may suggest that the two characterizations have a common origin,
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/ ... ament-pubs


Scholars say that the story of Adam and the story of Adapa might have a common origin, you assert (as fact) that it was plagiarism



is there any good reason to trust you, rather than scholars?
AronRa wrote:Whether the character failed that test doesn't change that parallel. This article did not refute these parallels; it listed them. It even acknowledged that although "Adapa, unlike Adam, is not the first man on earth, he does represent mankind in a special sense


no one is denying that there are some vague parallels, the point is that these parallels don't prove "plagiarism" at most they show that there is a small possibility of common origin.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:55 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 564Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

leroy wrote:
AronRa wrote:["The parallels we have noted in the accounts may suggest that the two characterizations have a common origin".

Your citation proved my point. Thus my statement was NOT "refuted by scholars" as you alleged. Instead they acknowledge that the same ethnic culture conjured both stories, which is why these common elements exist
really? lets look at the relevant parts of the paper

In short, then, we conclude that parallels do indeed exist
between Adam and Adapa, but they are seriously blunted by the
entirely different contexts in which they occur.

....

Does the Adapa myth then present us with a parallel or a contrast to the story of Adam? The best answer to this question may well be that Adam and Adapa represent two distinct charac- terizations of human nature. The parallels we have noted in the accounts may suggest that the two characterizations have a common origin,
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/ ... ament-pubs


Scholars say that the story of Adam and the story of Adapa might have a common origin, you assert (as fact) that it was plagiarism


is there any good reason to trust you, rather than scholars?
Once again, my statement was that the character of "Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith. Not only did "the scholars" not refute that, despite your claim, they didn't even disagree with that.

Whether the character failed that test doesn't change that parallel. This article did not refute these parallels; it listed them. It even acknowledged that although "Adapa, unlike Adam, is not the first man on earth, he does represent mankind in a special sense
no one is denying that there are some vague parallels, the point is that these parallels don't prove "plagiarism" at most they show that there is a small possibility of common origin.
Small possibility? Your scholars admit that these specific and particular parallels exist and that these characters probably come from the same source. Not just a small possibility at all, but a definite probability.

As I said, your source is more concerned with the moral of the new story, where I was talking about characters taken from the old stories, which your source doesn't contest in the least. So you don't have to trust me OVER your scholars; trust me AND your scholars, for we are in agreement.

Once again, I repeat, in order to refute my contention that the character of Adam is a combination of Adapa and Enki, you would have to show that Adam was the original. I often hear Christians claim that the ancient Mesopotamian myths were adaptations of the original Biblical fables, but given the context of each of the stories implicated, the scholars admit that this is not even possible, but it IS possible--and definitely probable--that the reverse happened, that the fables in the Bible drew their inspiration from the characters and tropes in the elder mythos of polytheism.

One of these scholars was my teacher in a course on the history of comparative world religions. Prof. Mark Hanshaw, PhD is also a Christian teaching at a University affiliated with the United Methodist Church. I already know exactly where he stands on this, and more importantly, his reasons why.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:07 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:
Once again, my statement was that the character of "Adam was obviously based on a composite of Adapa and Enki while Eve was based on a compilation of Ninti and Lilith. Not only did "the scholars" not refute that, despite your claim, they didn't even disagree with that.



The authors of the paper that I quoted concludes that Adam and Adapa are independent characters (that may or may not have a common origin) while you are asserting that the authors of genesis “plagiarized” the Babylonian myth.

So we do have to descide between trusting the author and trusting you
quote from the article (https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/ ... ament-pubs)
How, then, shall we explain this "seesaw" parallelism? Does Adapa represent a parallel to the biblical Adam, or should Adam and Adapa rather be contrasted? The suggestion of this essay is that in Adam and Adapa we have the representation of two different anthropological characters,



Why should we trust you?


AronRa wrote:
Once again, I repeat, in order to refute my contention that the character of Adam is a combination of Adapa and Enki, you would have to show that Adam was the original.


No, all I have to do is show that Adam is not a copy of Adapa, and I already did that.

AronRa wrote:One of these scholars was my teacher in a course on the history of comparative world religions. Prof. Mark Hanshaw, PhD is also a Christian teaching at a University affiliated with the United Methodist Church. I already know exactly where he stands on this, and more importantly, his reasons why.



That is fine, can you quote any article where your former teacher shows that Adam was Based on Adapa?


Are you aware of all the parallels between Kenedy and Lincon?
In Life
Both Lincoln and Kennedy were born second children and named after their grandfathers.
Both presidents had seven letters in their last name.
Both presidents were over six feet tall.
Both studied law and were associated with the civil rights movements during their respective presidencies.
Both the presidents served in the military before entering politics.
Mr. Lincoln was elected to the House of Representatives in 1846, while Mr. Kennedy was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946.
Lincoln was elected president in 1860, while Kennedy was elected in 1960.
Neither liked having bodyguards.
Both lost a son while serving as presidents.
Each of them had 4 children, but two died before reaching their teens.
It is said that Abraham Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy while John F. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln, but this is widely debated.

Lincoln and Kennedy were both shot.
Both the presidents were shot in the head on a Friday.
Lincoln was shot at the Ford's Theater in Box 7, while Kennedy was shot in his Ford Lincoln Limousine, which was the 7th car in the Dallas Motorcade.
Both were warned not to go to the place where they would eventually be shot, by their secretaries.
The assassins of both the presidents used three names: John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln while Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy.
Both the assassins had 15 letters in their names.
Both the assassins were Southerners and were born just over a hundred years apart. Booth was born in 1838 while Oswald was born in 1939.
Both assassins served as in the military.
Booth shot Lincoln at the theater and was cornered in a warehouse, 30 days later. While Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy from a warehouse and was cornered at a theater.
The assassins of both the presidents were detained by an officer with the surname Baker: Booth was trapped by Lt. Luther B. Baker while officer Marion L. Baker detained Lee Harvey Oswald.
Both the killers were eventually assassinated before their trials
Read more at Buzzle: https://www.buzzle.com/articles/similar ... nnedy.html


These parallels are far more “shocking” than the parallels between Adam and Adapa, and yet we all accept that these parallels are just coincidences.

So why can’t the paralles between Adam and Adapa be simply coincidences? When the author of Genesis wrote his story there where already thousands of myths circulating , any original story would have coincidences whith some of the myths that where already circulating.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:30 pm
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Greetings all...

Working on a response to several points here that's taking a bit but this discussion is worth fielding out. Just wanted to check in... In the discussion about Adapa, Enki, Ninti... Etc...

Can someone just link the debated passages of text from the original stories themselves in a couple different translations? Then maybe we can see for ourselves how closely the parallels run?
Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:02 pm
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Ok let's start with a large passage of Enki and Ninhursag to place the appearance of Ninti in context...
http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/ ... ninhur.htm

"‘Enough is enough!’ exclaimed the Great Mother, Mistress and Supreme Queen of the Earth, outraged and furious at Enki’s disdain for all beings, human or plants. ‘ Enki, you’ve gone too far by taking over the hearts’ essence of not only young goddesses, but also by taking into yourself eight primeval samples of the Plants World. It is good to feel desire and experience the need to be one with the beloved. But there is a profound responsibility implicit in falling in love and captivating someone’s mind, body, heart and soul. You, Enki, came out of the blue into many maidens’ lives, set yourself up like a squatter within their hearts only to leave them afterwards, never to return. But even then you were not satisfied in your lust to know and experience everything, so you turned to the newly created Plants World. You, Enki, tasted each one of the eight sacred plants, devouring them next with greed. You never asked, but always took without giving anything back, a sign of acknowledgement, a simple caress. To how many did you bring a little death to their spirit, to their hopes about a future with you? For all this, you deserve a mighty lesson, for it is high time that you, Enki, learn in sorrow what you did not learn in happiness: I will never look at you with a life-giving eye from this moment on. May the suffering you inflicted return to you threefold!’

With these words, Great Ninhursag disappeared, leaving Enki clearly divided between the joy of seeing the one and only to his heart and the growing concern for her parting words.

Because indeed Enki’s health began to fail. A strange illness this was: eight organs of his body fell progressively ill. Indeed, they started to die in Enki’s living body. The Anunnaki, the Great Gods, were disconsolate with Enki’s suffering. Father An, the Skylord, Enlil, Lord Air and Enki’s beloved older brother, all healer gods and goddesses of the land tried everything they could to no avail. Only Ninhursag could not be found anywhere, while Enki’s health deteriorated little by little day after day.

It soon came a time when Enlil left Enki’s side to sit on the dust, so immerse he was in despair and worry for the health of his younger and favorite brother. The Air Lord grieved for Enki. A world without the Lord of the Sweet Waters, Magic and Crafts, how sad it would be! Enlil simply could not conceive life without Enki’s cunning, humor and sheer energy.

It was then that a fox, a creature of the wild sacred to Ninhursag, came to console Lord Air:

‘I’ve seen the suffering of the Sweet Waters Lord, I’ve witnessed the lament of the greatest of the Anunnaki for Enki, their beloved brother. Only Ninhursag can heal him, only the Mistress of All Creation can make him whole again. I’ll do my best to go and find the Greatest Lady of Earth, holy Ninhursag I am sworn to worship and serve till the end of my days. I will find the Great Goddess and bring her here to accomplish the healing of the sick god.’

The fox disappeared, but kept her promise, for Ninhursag relented and came running to Enki’s aid. She went straight to the chamber where Enki laid in agony, and, with a wave of her mighty hand, Ninhursag dismissed healers, nurses and well-wishers. Their work was done. Ninhursag’s had just begun.

With immense tenderness, the Mistress of All Creation made herself comfortable by on the bed, carefully placing Enki’s head on her vagina. She then leaned forward and wrapped herself, arms, legs, breasts around the body of the Sweet Waters Lord. Enki was this way lovingly embraced by the Great Lady, kept safe and protected by her warmth, and arms that felt strong yet very sweet. Like a nurturing womb, the Great Lady wrapped herself around the Sweet Waters god.

Ninhursag whispered softly in Enki’s ear:

‘Dearest, what hurts you?’

‘O beloved, my whole body hurts me.’, Enki managed to answer with visible effort.

Ninhursag rocked gently back and forth with much care the sick god:

‘I know your body hurts, dear heart, but soon you will be made whole again. Because I’ll receive in my Womb of Abundance, the nest of creation, the seeds that you so greedily ate and that made you so ill. I’ll take them all into my body so that they can bring healing, not harm to all beings. Let the Work begin!’

Enki felt he could not move a fingertip. At the same time, warmth started spreading all over his body, bringing new vitality, life force with it. Enki heard Ninhursag’s voice resonate all over his being:

‘The first seed you ate and made you ill, I take its power into my myself and transform it into a newly born god, a younger brother and son to you, dearest. I therefore have given birth to the god Abu to set your body free.’

The Great Lady continued her mighty healing ritual, asking Enki for the names of the organs that had been affected. :

‘Dearest, what hurts you?’

‘My jaw hurts me.’

‘To the god Nintulla I have given birth for you to set your jaw free. Where else do you hurt, dearest?’

‘My tooth hurts me.’

‘To the goddess Ninsutu I have given birth for you to set your tooth free. Where do you still feel much pain, dearest? What hurts you?’

‘My mouth hurts me.’

Ninhursag kissed Enki in the mouth.

‘To the goddess Ninkasi I have given birth for you to set your mouth free. What hurts you still, dear?’

‘My throat hurts me.’

‘To the goddess Azimua I have given birth for you to set your throat free. What hurts you still, dear?’’

‘My limbs hurt me’.

‘To the god Enshag I have given birth for you to set your limbs free. What hurts you most, dearest?

‘My rib hurts me.’

'To the goddess Ninti, the Lady of the Rib and the One who makes Live, I have given birth for you to set your rib free.’

As soon as Ninhursag uttered the last sentence, Enki felt no pain or ache, revitalized and stronger than ever. Indeed, as if he himself had been reborn in the close embrace of Ninhursag. Gone was the pain, the fever, the shivers.

‘I am alive,’ he said very simply, his voice full of wonder, ‘and yet it feels so different from the moment I came out of the sea of mother Nammu or when I met Ereshkigal in the Underworld.’

He moved into Ninhursag’s arms, for he wanted to see her face too. The Great Lady had closed her eyes, but there was a smile on her lips. She rested against the pillows of Enki’s bed, still holding him in a loose embrace.

Now it was his turn to act with immense tenderness, as he shifted positions to make her rest on his chest.

‘You healed me by sending your soul into my body’, he said, deeply moved by the Gift of Life he had been given, and more. ‘This is why you are so wearied. And the reason why I feel so much more part of yourself as a consequence. How could I have been so stupid not to understand you or myself until now? It was you I longed for, your embrace, your touch. But beforehand I wanted you for me only, and desired all maidens, because I knew not of the extent of my longing for you and only you. How impossibly stupid of me to think that I should find your image in every maiden I came across just to leave them when I realized they were not you!’

They kissed passionately.

‘I would never bind you to me against your True Will, beloved,’ said simply Ninhursag. ‘ And because you understood this great mystery, because you and I are indeed two of a kind, let all worlds know what I now declare: from this very moment on let it be known that I, Ninhursag, the Earth Mother, Wisest beyond all Beings in the Ways of Nature, built a house for my beloved and myself on a Rock, steadfast and solid...’

‘Let me finish this for you... for us, dearest,’ interrupted Enki Ninhursag with a kiss,’ I, Enki, the Lord of Sweet Waters, say that from this strong and solid rock that means Life, Love and Fruition for me the Waters of Life will flow forever in all worlds we dare to fare’.

They kissed and hugged passionately, sealing their shared Fate forever, for as long as they wanted to be together."

One of the quotes I found interesting from this site was...

"‘Enki and Ninhursag’ is perhaps one of the most difficult Mesopotamian myth for Judeo-Christian Westerners to understand, because it stands as the opposite of the myth of Adam and Eve in Paradise found in the Old Testament Bible. Indeed, ‘ the literature created by the Sumerians left its deep imprint on the Hebrews, and one of the thrilling aspects of reconstructing and translating Sumerian belles-lettres consists in tracing resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical motifs. To be sure, Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they had ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews in the land later known as Palestine’ (Kramer, 1981:142)"

This is Biblical. In fact one of the enduring sources of God's pain with the Hebrews is their willingness to adopt the ways and gods of the Canaanites. Solomon lost the kingdom for this reason. The Israelite's constantly had to be reminded to stay away from the neighbors kids because they were a bad influence.

What is also important here is that this author is in support of the idea that the Hebrews did borrow from Sumerian mythos via way of Canaanite influence. Several parallels are mentioned in the beginning of the exposition here. The one I find the most interesting is...

"6) most remarkably, this myth provides no explanation for one of the most puzzling motifs in the Biblical paradise story - the famous passage describing the fashioning of Eve, the mother of all living, from the rib of Adam. Why a rib instead of another organ to fashion the woman whose name Eve means according to the Bible, ‘she who makes live’? If we look at the Sumerian myth, we see that when Enki gets ill, cursed by Ninhursag, one of his body parts that start dying is the rib. The Sumerian word for rib is ‘ti’ . To heal each of Enki’s dying body parts, Ninhursag gives birth to eight goddesses. The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib is called ‘Nin-ti’, ‘the lady of the rib’. But the Sumerian word ‘ti’ also means ‘to make live’. The name ‘Nin-ti’ may therefore mean ‘the lady who makes live’ as well as ‘the lady of the rib’. Thus, a very ancient literary pun was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible, but without its original meaning, because the Hebrew word for ‘rib’ and that for ‘who makes live’ have nothing in common. Moreover, it is Ninhursag who gives her life essence to heal Enki, who is then reborn from her (Kramer, 1981:143-144)."

This is correct in that Eve, the Hebrew word for Eve (Strongs 2332 'Chavvah') can be translated as life giver so the idea of a pun is very well supported. That would strongly indicate that the authors of the Bible narrative knew of the Sumerian myths and were borrowing linguistically but not plagiarizing the entire story. The reasons they used the word for one who gives life may be as simple as using the rib to call to mind one who is the mother of all living. I have no problem with believing they borrowed a word, or even a concept but the story as a whole is quite different than the Biblical narrative and Ninti's place is to be found nowhere beyond the pun.

Ninti is also not well represented in other literature where seemingly we could establish any other kind of similarity.
Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:08 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

The following excerpt is taken from "Myths From Mesopotamia:Gilgamesh, The Flood, and Others" Translated by Stephanie Dalley.

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/texts/enki/adapa

"He (Ea) made broad understanding perfect in him (Adapa),
to disclose the designs of the land.
To him he gave wisdom,but did not give eternal life.
At that time,in those years, he was a sage, son of Eridu.
Ea created him as a protecting spirit among mankind.
A sage-nobody rejects his word-
clever, extra-wise, he was one of the Anunnaki,
holy, pure of hands, the pasisu-priest
who always tends the rites.
He does the baking with the bakers of Eridu,
he does the food and water of Eridu every day,
sets up the offerings table with his pure hands,
without him no offerings table is cleared away.
He takes the boat out and does the fishing for Eridu.
At that time Adapa, son of Eridu,
when he had got the leader Ea out of bed,
used to feed the holy bolt of Eridu every day.
At the holy quay Kar-Usakar he embarked in a sailing boat
and without a rudder his boat would drift,
without a steering-pole he would take his boat out
into the broad sea.
...
South Wind...
send him to live in the fishes home.

South wind, though you send your brothers against me,
however many there are,
I shall still break your wing!

No sooner had he uttered these words
than South Wind's wing was broken;
for seven days South Wind did not blow towards the land.
Anu called out to his vizier Ilabrat,

Why hasn't South Wind blown towards the land
for seven days?

His vizier Ilabrat answered him,

My lord, Adapa the son of Ea has broken South Wind's wing.

When Anu heard this word,
he cried Heaven help him!; rose up from his throne.

Send for him to be brought here!

Ea, aware of heaven's ways, touched him
and ... made him wear his hair unkempt,
clothed him in mourning garb,
gave him instructions,

Adapa, you are to go before king Anu.
You will go up to heaven,
and when you go up to heaven,
when you approach the gate of Anu,
Dumuzi and Gizzida will be standing in the gate of Anu,
will see you, will be asking you questions,
Young man, on whose behalf do you wear mourning garb?

Two gods have vanished from our country,
and that is why I am behaving like this.

Who are the two gods who have vanished from the country?

They are Dumuzi and Gizzida.

They will look at each other and laugh alot,
will speak a word in your favor to Anu,
will present you to Anu in a good mood.
When you stand before Anu
they will hold out for you bread of death, so you must not eat.
They will hold out for you water of death, so you must not drink.
They will hold out a garment for you, so put it on.
They will hold out oil, so annoint yourself.
You must not neglect the instructions I have given you:
keep to the words I have told you.

The envoy of Anu arrived.

Send me to Adapa,
who broke South Wind's wing.

He made him take the way of heaven
and he (Adapa) went up to heaven.
When he came up to heaven,
when he appraoched the gate of Anu,
Dumuzi and Gizzida were standing in the gate of Anu.
They saw Adapa and cried Heaven help him!

Young man, on whose behalf do you look like this?
Adapa, on whose behalf do you wear mourning garb?

Two gods have vanished from the country,
and that is why I am wearing mourning garb.

Who are the two gods who have vanished from the country?

Dumuzi and Gizzida


They looked at each other and laughed alot.
When Adapa drew near the presence of king Anu,
Anu saw him and shouted,

Come here, Adapa! Why did you break South Wind's wing?

Adapa answered Anu,

My lord, I was catching fish in the middle of the sea
for the house of my lord Ea.
But he inflated the sea in a storm
and South Wind blew and sank me!
I was forced to take up residence in the fishes' home.
In my fury I cursed the South Wind.

Dumuzi and Gizzida responded from beside him,
spoke a word in his favor to Anu.
His heart was appeased and he grew quiet.

Why did Ea disclose to wrtched mankind
the ways of heaven and earth.
give them a heavy heart?
It was he who did it!
What can we do for him?
Fetch him the bread of life and let him eat!

They fetched him the bread of life, but he would not eat.
They fetched him the water of life, but he would not drink.
They fetched him a garment, and he put it on himself.
They fetched him oil, and he annointed himself.
Anu watched him and laughed at him.

Come, Adapa, why didn't you eat? Why didn't you drink?
Don't you want to be immortal? Alas for downtrodden people!
But Ea my lord told me:'You musn't eat! You musn't drink!'


Take him and send him back to his earth."

In context, I don't really see a lot of similarity between the story of Adam and the story of Adapa. It is possible that the word for man simply sounded like Adapa to the Hebrews as well but the word for Mother is mama in most of the worlds ten most spoken languages.

"In the 10 most widely spoken languages in the world, the word for mama (meaning “mother”) is: māma, mama, mamá, ma, mama, mamã, maa, mama, haha and mamī.

Another way to see it: 3.35 billion people speak either Mandarin (Mãma), Hindi (māṃ), English (mama), or Arabic (māma).

The sound “ma” is nearly universal among the Indo-European languages. (Check out the long list of amazingly similar European words for mama on this Wikipedia page.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa

But even in non-Indo-European languages, very similar sounding words correspond to the word for “mother.” Navajo is amá, Quechua is mama, Ancient is Egyptian is mut, Korean is eomma and Swahili is mama.

The modern English word “mother” comes from Middle English moder, deriving from Old English mōdor.

While this seems like evidence of an ancient universal language or collective unconscious, research shows it’s actually because the m, p, and b sounds are the first consonant sounds babies can make. Babies only need to open and close their lips to make these sounds (no teeth or tongue required).

So why “mama” and not “papa” or “baba?” In “Why Mama and Papa” linguist Roman Jakobson notes that babies make the sounds for “mama” as a “slight nasal murmur” while breastfeeding.

So, for babies around the world (and through ancient time) “mama” first means “food” before it means “mother” as we think of it. (Indeed, in Latin mamma means “breast,” which is where our word “mammary” comes from.)"

https://www.parent.com/mama-is-most-universal-word/


The reasons for linguistic similarities can be, by Occam's razor, more easily explained by simple, rational similarity in the human experience perhaps?
Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:29 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Finally here is a translation from "Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the nether world" from The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature by the University of Oxford's Research and Equipment Committee (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/project/pilot.htm)

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm

"1-26In those days, in those distant days, in those nights, in those remote nights, in those years, in those distant years; in days of yore, when the necessary things had been brought into manifest existence, in days of yore, when the necessary things had been for the first time properly cared for, when bread had been tasted for the first time in the shrines of the Land, when the ovens of the Land had been made to work, when the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens, when the fame of mankind had been established, when An had taken the heavens for himself, when Enlil had taken the earth for himself, when the nether world had been given to Erec-kigala as a gift; when he set sail, when he set sail, when the father set sail for the nether world, when Enki set sail for the nether world -- against the king a storm of small hailstones arose, against Enki a storm of large hailstones arose. The small ones were light hammers, the large ones were like stones from catapults (?). The keel of Enki's little boat was trembling as if it were being butted by turtles, the waves at the bow of the boat rose to devour the king like wolves and the waves at the stern of the boat were attacking Enki like a lion.

27-35At that time, there was a single tree, a single halub tree, a single tree, growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates. The force of the south wind uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the Euphrates picked it up and carried it away. A woman, respectful of An's words, was walking along; a woman, respectful of Enlil's words, was walking along, and took the tree and brought it into Unug, into Inana's luxuriant garden.

36-46The woman planted the tree with her feet, but not with her hands. The woman watered it using her feet but not her hands. She said: "When will this be a luxuriant chair on which I can take a seat?" She said: "When this will be a luxuriant bed on which I can lie down?" Five years, ten years went by, the tree grew massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled its young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart. But holy Inana cried!

47-69When dawn was breaking, when the horizon became bright, when the little birds, at the break of dawn, began to clamour, when Utu had left his bedchamber, his sister holy Inana said to the young warrior Utu: "My brother, in those days when destiny was determined, when abundance overflowed in the Land, when An had taken the heavens for himself, when Enlil had taken the earth for himself, when the nether world had been given to Erec-kigala as a gift; when he set sail, when he set sail, when the father set sail for the nether world, when Enki set sail for the nether world -- against the lord a storm of small hailstones arose, against Enki a storm of large hailstones arose. The small ones were light hammers, the large ones were like stones from catapults (?). The keel of Enki's little boat was trembling as if it were being butted by turtles, the waves at the bow of the boat rose to devour the lord like wolves and the waves at the stern of the boat were attacking Enki like a lion.

70-78"At that time, there was a single tree, a single halub tree, a single tree (?), growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates. The force of the south wind uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the Euphrates picked it up and carried it away. I, a woman, respectful of An's words, was walking along; I, a woman, respectful of Enlil's words, was walking along, and took the tree and brought it into Unug, into holy Inana's luxuriant garden.

79-90"I, the woman, planted the tree with my feet, but not with my hands. I, Inana (1 ms. has instead: the woman), watered it using my feet but not my hands. She said: "When will this be a luxuriant chair on which I can take a seat?" She said: "When will this be a luxuriant bed on which I can lie down?" Five years, ten years had gone by, the tree had grown massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled its young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart. But holy Inana cried!" Her brother, the young warrior Utu, however, did not stand by her in the matter.

91-113When dawn was breaking, when the horizon became bright, when the little birds, at the break of dawn, began to clamour, when Utu had left his bedchamber, his sister holy Inana said to the warrior Gilgamec: "My brother, in those days when destiny was determined, when abundance overflowed in the Land, when An had taken the heavens for himself, when Enlil had taken the earth for himself, when the nether world had been given to Erec-kigala as a gift; when he set sail, when he set sail, when the father set sail for the nether world, when Enki set sail for the nether world -- against the lord a storm of small hailstones arose, against Enki a storm of large hailstones arose. The small ones were light hammers, the large ones were like stones from catapults (?). The keel of Enki's little boat was trembling as if it were being butted by turtles, the waves at the bow of the boat rose to devour the lord like wolves and the waves at the stern of the boat were attacking Enki like a lion.

114-122"At that time, there was a single tree, a single halub tree, a single tree (?), growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates. The force of the south wind uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the Euphrates picked it up and carried it away. I, a woman, respectful of An's words, was walking along; I, a woman, respectful of Enlil's words, was walking along, and took the tree and brought it into Unug, into Inana's luxuriant garden.

123-135"The woman planted the tree with her feet, but not with her hands. Inana watered it using her feet but not her hands. She said: "When will this be a luxuriant chair on which I can take a seat?" She said: "When will this be a luxuriant bed on which I can lie down?" Five years, ten years had gone by, the tree had grown massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled its young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart. But holy Inana (1 ms. has instead: I, holy Inana,) cried!" In the matter which his sister had told him about, her brother, the warrior Gilgamec, stood by her.

136-150He strapped (1 ms. has instead: ......) his ...... belt of 50 minas weight to his waist -- 50 minas were to him as 30 shekels. He took his bronze axe used for expeditions, which weighs seven talents and seven minas, in his hand. He killed the snake immune to incantations living at its roots. The Anzud bird living in its branches took up its young and went into the mountains. The phantom maid living in its trunk left (?) her dwelling and sought refuge in the wilderness. As for the tree, he uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the sons of his city, who went with him, cut up its branches and bundled them (1 ms. has instead: piled them up). He gave it to his sister holy Inana for her chair. He gave it to her for her bed. As for himself, from its roots, he manufactured his ellag and, from its branches, he manufactured his ekidma (the correct pronunciation of this word is unknown) ."

It is obvious there are ideas here which had deep significance to the people who wrote these lines. The idea of the south wind is reflected again, for example (27-35). I still don't see any significant similarities other than some conceptual memes that would have been used as devices of language.
Last edited by MatthewLee on Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:49 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

So the charge here is plagiarism...

http://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

"Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
to use (another's production) without crediting the source
to commit literary theft
to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."

"All of the following are considered plagiarism:
turning in someone else's work as your own
copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)"

Therefore there are three significant questions which must be answered before we can conclusively say these stories were plagiarized by the Biblical authors... I will skip over the deliberate intention to deceive criteria because if these questions are answered in the affirmative then fraud is absolutely indicated.

1. Do the earlier stories communicate even approximately the same overall message as the Bible stories which are supposed to be plagiarizing them?

2. Are the similarities evident in context when the two narratives are put side by side?

3. Are the characters the same with different names or are they entirely different characters put in entirely different situations with some similar cultural tropes?

If not then another answer besides plagiarism must be indicated.
Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:13 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 564Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

I am willing to concede that plariarism may be too strong a word. Although "to steal and pass off other people's ideas as your own" certainly fits here, the Biblical stories are only taking established character tropes and adapting them to new versions intended for a different moral. All I will maintain is that the fables in the Bible cannot fairly be called original.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:18 am
thenexttodiePosts: 894Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote: All I will maintain is that the fables in the Bible cannot fairly be called original.
What you maintain is fully insignificant. The Bible does not even suggest itself to be the earliest record of any event in it. Original accounts or reports of an event are not always the most accurate to begin with. Haven't you ever watched the news?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:53 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

AronRa wrote:I am willing to concede that plariarism may be too strong a word. Although "to steal and pass off other people's ideas as your own" certainly fits here, the Biblical stories are only taking established character tropes and adapting them to new versions intended for a different moral. All I will maintain is that the fables in the Bible cannot fairly be called original.


That would be a problem; do you have any evidence for it? Can you cite any source (perhaps from your former teacher?) That supports the assertion that the authors of genesis based their story on Babylonian myths?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:29 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

thenexttodie wrote:
AronRa wrote: All I will maintain is that the fables in the Bible cannot fairly be called original.
What you maintain is fully insignificant. The Bible does not even suggest itself to be the earliest record of any event in it. Original accounts or reports of an event are not always the most accurate to begin with. Haven't you ever watched the news?


That is true, if the bible is reporting true historical events it wouldn’t matter if there are other earlier sources reporting that event.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:31 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

thenexttodie wrote:
AronRa wrote: All I will maintain is that the fables in the Bible cannot fairly be called original.
What you maintain is fully insignificant. The Bible does not even suggest itself to be the earliest record of any event in it. Original accounts or reports of an event are not always the most accurate to begin with. Haven't you ever watched the news?

Sure but it is generally the case that stories that primarily spread by word of mouth, or by being copied by hand, quickly degenerate and change meaning, details and so on. Particularly when the people copying or re-telling the stories are enthusiastic about it they tend to exaggerate and will frequently confabulate or simply misremember. It would be preposterous to imagine this didn't take place for the origin and spread of christianity.

Also you seem to have completely missed Aron's point. He was not saying the Bible is unoriginal in the sense that the stories in the bible are not the earliest possible attestations of the events described therein. Rather he is saying that the mythological concepts, such as a dying and rising God, salvation through professed faith and death, miraculous stories of healing, betrayal, resurrection and so on are not original in the sense that it is the first time in recorded history such mythical stories are in circulation. They clearly draw from earlier religious traditions and mythologies. That the bible is in large part adaptations of even older religious myths that would have been circulating in the region for centuries already.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:41 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

thenexttodie wrote:
AronRa wrote: All I will maintain is that the fables in the Bible cannot fairly be called original.
What you maintain is fully insignificant. The Bible does not even suggest itself to be the earliest record of any event in it. Original accounts or reports of an event are not always the most accurate to begin with. Haven't you ever watched the news?



Rumraket wrote:Sure but it is generally the case that stories that primarily spread by word of mouth, or by being copied by hand, quickly degenerate and change meaning, details and so on. Particularly when the people copying or re-telling the stories are enthusiastic about it they tend to exaggerate and will frequently confabulate or simply misremember. It would be preposterous to imagine this didn't take place for the origin and spread of christianity.

Also you seem to have completely missed Aron's point. He was not saying the Bible is unoriginal in the sense that the stories in the bible are not the earliest possible attestations of the events described therein. Rather he is saying that the mythological concepts, such as a dying and rising God, salvation through professed faith and death, miraculous stories of healing, betrayal, resurrection and so on are not original in the sense that it is the first time in recorded history such mythical stories are in circulation. They clearly draw from earlier religious traditions and mythologies. That the bible is in large part adaptations of even older religious myths that would have been circulating in the region for centuries already.


First off, let me thank Aron for continuing to come back and interact with this discussion. He thanked us for our patience but I keep coming back because this discussion has exceeded the sum of its parts. It has been extremely entertaining and informative. I wish I could respond to a lot of the points he has made already and I have a large Word document going to this end. I, like Aron, have serious time constraints... I miss days surfing channels, too. This forum is a great place to disagree to positive effect.

I just wanted to make a quick note... it has occurred to me that the burden of proof for the idea that the Bible is adaptations of older religions requires a serious needle to be threaded.

1. You must assert the source of the myth in it's appropriate Scripture (I.E. Epic of Gilgamesh, Theogony, Avestas, Bhagavad Gita etc) and demonstrate the parallels, text to text, to the Hebrew Scriptures. You must do so from an authoritative translation of this Scripture and with authoritative theological resources respective to the discussed religious traditions. Some of these other Scriptures are books, tablets, and scrolls written in a handful of ancient languages which are not even agreed upon in translation anymore let alone with theological certainty. The Bible has ample resources for this and it is written in two languages which are still alive and spoken. There is also two thousand years of theological interpretation and discussion for the Bible defender to draw upon in defending it.

2. Then, there are two load bearing members to this argument upon which it must be built. You must assert and prove the date of authorship of the Books of the Bible you claim are simply adaptations or thefts of other mythology. You also have to assert and prove the date of authorship of the materials from which the Biblical authors supposedly borrowed to verify that it was not derived from Hebrew sources instead. Your argument can only be as well-established as these dates.

3. You must assert and prove that during this time the myths in question were circulating and known to the literate few in the Hebrew culture. In other words, the myths may have been circulating but can you prove the Hebrews were copying those and not some other common stories of events of the time? Do we have proof the Hebrews were copying from someone else's work and not just reporting a commonly known event passed down like the flood?

4. You have to match your timeline of the authorship to the history of the Hebrew nation in a way that works with Archaeological facts about the nation. For example, there was a temple manned by literate scribes at the time of the Babylonian captivity...circa 600 BC, the one they destroyed. It's why it's generally accepted that the Temple mount is the ruins of the second temple burned down by the Romans. This would make it illogical to assume Hebrew Scriptures... which outline Temple construction and worship practices... were written after the temple was destroyed. They had writing, paper, and literate scribes well before the Babylonian captivity.
http://www.jpost.com/Not-Just-News/Anci ... ago-389864

5. You have to establish a motive. Why did they do it? You can't just suppose it, you have to prove it.

6. You must prove the exact same planks to verify any similarities between other mythos and Christian Scripture from the New Testament about the authors of the Gospels and NT books.

The Biblical claim is the same as it has been for two thousand or more years. Moses wrote the Torah under direct instruction from God before the first millennium BC. If Rabbinical Judaism didn't still believe this then the oral Torah would make no sense. It was supposedly given to Moses with the written Torah. That would mean that there had to be a Moses, there had to be a written Torah and there had to be someone to write it down and pass it down.

Establishing any claim of Biblical sources being derivative of other traditions and not based on the unique experience of the Hebrew people is fighting a stream of recorded history that is more copious than any other I can think of. This claim is a chicken and egg problem of monumental proportions. Especially when all the original sources say 'chicken' and only modern scholarship has started to cry 'egg!'
Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:23 am
thenexttodiePosts: 894Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So much for that 9th commandment

Rumraket wrote:Sure but it is generally the case that stories that primarily spread by word of mouth, or by being copied by hand, quickly degenerate and change meaning, details and so on. Particularly when the people copying or re-telling the stories are enthusiastic about it they tend to exaggerate and will frequently confabulate or simply misremember. It would be preposterous to imagine this didn't take place for the origin and spread of christianity.

Also you seem to have completely missed Aron's point. He was not saying the Bible is unoriginal in the sense that the stories in the bible are not the earliest possible attestations of the events described therein. Rather he is saying that the mythological concepts, such as a dying and rising God, salvation through professed faith and death, miraculous stories of healing, betrayal, resurrection and so on are not original in the sense that it is the first time in recorded history such mythical stories are in circulation. They clearly draw from earlier religious traditions and mythologies. That the bible is in large part adaptations of even older religious myths that would have been circulating in the region for centuries already.


None of this helps you or Aron Ra. BTW I have started a thread on "Dying and Rising Gods" here before. It was a pretty quiet thread.

You and Aron Ra are not proving that the beliefs of the ancient hebrews were something that was adpted from other ancient cultures. It's just something you keep suggesting over and over again.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:17 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 6
 [ 111 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests