Possible evidence of the Exodus found in Jordan

[khazarkhum]

5 minutes ago, Harte said:

Well, after "Freddie Versus Jason," those two are dead to me.

Myers is left standing.

Harte

I was on a judging panel with Freddie. Now, I can't speak for the others, but he was pretty cool. 

[khazarkhum]

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

Now we have American pseudo-Biblical scholars applying Ezekiel to America, Russia and Iran when my Rabbi teacher-friend  told me he considered it garbage. 

There's a Bible College near me. It's in a house, behind the crummy pizza place.

[Harte]

Well, meekness is a virtue I suppose.

Harte

[Harte]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

One should've used a chainsaw. 

Copyright infringement.

Harte

[Piney]

35 minutes ago, khazarkhum said:

I was on a judging panel with Freddie. Now, I can't speak for the others, but he was pretty cool. 

Did he handle the farrier work too? 

[khazarkhum]

Nah, he was too busy wondering how that one entry got into the dress.

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Now we have American pseudo-Biblical scholars applying Ezekiel to America, Russia and Iran when my Rabbi teacher-friend  told me he considered it garbage. 

Isn't it amazing how 'prophecies' can be applied to so many different situations?

Long & long ago, I created a post that listed all of the times the world was supposed to end "according to the bible" or other doomsayers.

I think I stopped at @ 50 examples. Since then, there have been dozens more.

And how many "scholars" have gone to the Middle East, seeking proofs of their holy book, and (ASTOUNDING!) found such proofs? Almost as if they had the answer and were looking for the question...

[Habitat]

11 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Isn't it amazing how 'prophecies' can be applied to so many different situations?

Long & long ago, I created a post that listed all of the times the world was supposed to end "according to the bible" or other doomsayers.

I think I stopped at @ 50 examples. Since then, there have been dozens more.

And how many "scholars" have gone to the Middle East, seeking proofs of their holy book, and (ASTOUNDING!) found such proofs? Almost as if they had the answer and were looking for the question...

So the bible is full of dud stories, but you kept reading? Go figure !

[Piney]

13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So the bible is full of dud stories, but you kept reading? Go figure !

I was taught by many prominent seminarians, including a Rabbi that except for Maccabees, it was all pretty much fiction.  Go figure! 

[Jodie.Lynne]

26 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So the bible is full of dud stories, but you kept reading? Go figure !

LOL

 

Oh Habitat (sorry, I get you lot on the "other team" confused... ) you know so little about me!

I am a reader. I read tech books, fiction, true life, and, yes, comic books. I will read a book from cover to cover. My philosophy is: "If the author took the time to write it, and I picked it up, the least I can do is read it to the end. If only as a curtesy to the writer. And, no matter how bad, I keep hoping it will get better.

 

And the bible? Yeah, as a story it is lacking. It is inconsistent with its own internal logic.

Let's say you were a Spiderman fan. You know his origins, his motivations, what makes him a hero. Then, you read a story that is so NOT what Peter Parker/Spidey would do, you'd pause and say 'wait, that's not right'. Your "belief' in Spidey would be shaken, yes?

Well, that's how I am with the Bible. And the Torah. And the Koran, and the book of Mormon. They have all made me stop and say "Wait. That doesn't make sense!" based on the internal logic of the stories.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Jodie.Lynne
editted to correct the respondent. :)

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I am a reader. I read tech books, fiction, true life, and, yes, comic books. I will read a book from cover to cover.

 I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!........Who would've thought?????  

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

 I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!........Who would've thought?????  

You should hear my 'naughty' bed time stories!

Lil Red Riding Hood is a fan favorite!

Especially when the Big Bad Wolf 'eats' Grandma.... 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

LOL

 

Oh Habitat (sorry, I get you lot on the "other team" confused... ) you know so little about me!

I am a reader. I read tech books, fiction, true life, and, yes, comic books. I will read a book from cover to cover. My philosophy is: "If the author took the time to write it, and I picked it up, the least I can do is read it to the end. If only as a curtesy to the writer. And, no matter how bad, I keep hoping it will get better.

 

And the bible? Yeah, as a story it is lacking. It is inconsistent with its own internal logic.

Let's say you were a Spiderman fan. You know his origins, his motivations, what makes him a hero. Then, you read a story that is so NOT what Peter Parker/Spidey would do, you'd pause and say 'wait, that's not right'. Your "belief' in Spidey would be shaken, yes?

Well, that's how I am with the Bible. And the Torah. And the Koran, and the book of Mormon. They have all made me stop and say "Wait. That doesn't make sense!" based on the internal logic of the stories.

 

You are kidding, if a book does not hold your interest, and books that purport to be true stories, but you know are not, do not hold any interest. Comparisons to spiderman comics, complete irrelevancy.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are kidding, if a book does not hold your interest, and books that purport to be true stories, but you know are not, do not hold any interest. Comparisons to spiderman comics, complete irrelevancy.

Not irrelevant you twitster!

I read to learn, even from sources that are, shall we say, 'dubious'. I have read Shakespeare, Heinlein, Sitchen, Hancock, Hawking, Hammett and Feynman.  Tolkien, Doyle, Howard, and Coyle, Lee, Byrne, Burns, and even Trump . And a hundred other authors.

The point I was making is that all the 'holy books' I have read, none of them have an internal sense of logic or continuity.

 

One of my niece's sent me a copy of a book she wrote. She later regretted it, because I read through it three times. Once for the content, once for critical review, and the third to make corrections and evaluations. 3 years later and she still won't discuss the book with me....

 

[+Pettytalk]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Not irrelevant you twitster!

I read to learn, even from sources that are, shall we say, 'dubious'. I have read Shakespeare, Heinlein, Sitchen, Hancock, Hawking, Hammett and Feynman.  Tolkien, Doyle, Howard, and Coyle, Lee, Byrne, Burns, and even Trump . And a hundred other authors.

The point I was making is that all the 'holy books' I have read, none of them have an internal sense of logic or continuity.

 

One of my niece's sent me a copy of a book she wrote. She later regretted it, because I read through it three times. Once for the content, once for critical review, and the third to make corrections and evaluations. 3 years later and she still won't discuss the book with me....

 

Are you shouting down Habitat? Or perhaps, as they say, cutting him down to size?

Are you really serious by mentioning Trump alongside with all those real authors? Talk about dubious! Like everything else with Trump, he just likes his name on things. Trump never wrote Trump, as it's all ghost writing. 

My! what range you have in reading. I suppose that you would be a true representation of that urban dictionary term, bookworm?

And as to your point you were making, is it sharp enough to include Plato as a holy book author without an internal sense of logic? I will not ask on continuity, since we know Plato left somethings undone. But then, this undone is relevant to your study and listing of all those dubious and failed prophetic doomsayers projected doomsday.

And the only book I ever read through three times, from cover to cover, has yet to be written.....mine. But certain passages in certain books do merit our keenest attention, and repetition should not be restricted to number of times, as much as to the necessary number of times to rereading for true understanding.

I respect the contents of you critical reviews, with your sharp and pointed corrections, to which I'm subject, at times. Therefore, like any other disciple sitting at their master's feet, I will ask. Master, which of those holy books that you have read is, in your opinion, the most dubious, most illogical, and most noncontinuous?

[Jodie.Lynne]

21 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Master, which of those holy books that you have read is, in your opinion, the most dubious, most illogical, and most noncontinuous?

That is a hard tie between  the Book of Mormon, Dianetics/Scientology, and the Urantia Book.

And, you can knock of the "master" bushwa, you snarky git.

 

Bookworm? No, more like a book locust, because I devour the written word. Hell, I would even read your book, with the same deterrence I give to all books. And I would give it a fair and impartial review, as well.

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

the Urantia Book.

 

How many times have you read the Urantia Book cover to cover?

 

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

How many times have you read the Urantia Book cover to cover?

 

 

I am still wading through it for the first time. So far, I am thoroughly unimpressed with it as a guide to living one's life. I can only read so much before it makes my brain melt.

 

As a fiction novel, it has a long way to go to reach up to "sub par".

 

[Will Due]

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I can only read so much before it makes my brain melt.

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. It takes a while.

 

 

[Piney]

31 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yeah, I know what you mean. It takes a while.

For your brain to melt? 

[+Pettytalk]

3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 I would give it a fair and impartial review, as well.

A review sure to be sharp and a pointed one, no doubt!

Would you also correct it for grammar and sharpen it for better reading for the others? I know I'm not your niece, but would you charge me only once to read it through three times, or more, as the case may be?

I'm glad you understood that I, informally, was paying you a compliment, as being a bookworm. Where bookworm = a person who enjoys reading. You read well, as well as a wide variety. That is quite an education one gets from such extensive reading, and getting so many different ideas and perspectives from many others, fiction or facts, and also while extracting entertainment from them; those sharp and pointed weapons you use, figuratively, and literally with your humor..  

No one like you will ever end up in hell, as you understand the spirit of God's law. God does not want mere believers, but well read ones, the ones that do the works and read them well, and a lot. Because, as you bid me, rising from your feet and taking my rightful place at the feet of Socrates, where I belong, a poor disciple of poor man, and poorly parrot what my true Master says.

A life unexamined is not worth living. The irony is this. For the soul when on her progress to the world below takes nothing with her but nurture and education; and these are said greatly to benefit or greatly to injure the departed, at the very beginning of his journey thither.

Does not this thread, pretty much, boils down to what we believe is Nature? And what is the cause of Nature? Did Nature produce itself randomly? Which then, at some point in time, also by chance, created us? And our minds are now engaged in asking, by chance, who is our parent, nature, or a being we have come to identify as God? And the minds here are of three schools. One group is of mind that Nature, the material universe, the one of the ancients which they identified it as being composed of the four elements of earth, fire, air, and water, and having a mind of its own, which by chance again, created the physical laws of nature to govern herself and also us. The second group are of mind that something prior to these elements created the elements and also the laws that govern the elements, a God (One or more, as the mind may be), but not by mere chance, (randomly) but by will and reason (purpose), Then it seems that we also have a third mind, those that cannot tell which is which, and therefore take no sides with the other two. Since they claim, usually, but not exclusively, that there is not sufficient evidence either way, and these can be our swing voters, turning and siding with the current better argument, the better rhetoric, I suppose. Therefore what we are attempting to discuss between ourselves is not new, but of old. Our three groups are the Atheists, the Believers, and the Agnostic, respectively.

And although long for some, you, as a book-devouring locust, should not mind reading the following, and tell me if it contains some of the same arguments we are discussing in this thread, and elsewhere on this forum? But perhaps you have already digested the text from a previous dining on it, because I cannot believe that you would take the time to read something that Trump supposedly wrote, while not having had time, or the inclination to read Plato cover to cover?  Be as it may, what do you say? Is not the essence of our discussions of what we are attempting to accomplish here with this thread you started, which is now nearing 200 pages of virtual text, in essence is what Plato is having his characters discuss in this excerpt from his Laws dialogue? 

O my son, you are young; time and experience will make you change many of
your opinions. Do not be hasty in forming a conclusion about the divine nature;
and let me mention to you a fact which I know. You and your friends are not the
first or the only persons who have had these notions about the Gods. There are
always a considerable number who are infected by them: I have known many
myself, and can assure you that no one who was an unbeliever in his youth ever
persisted till he was old in denying the existence of the Gods. The two other
opinions, first, that the Gods exist and have no care of men, secondly, that they
care for men, but may be propitiated by sacrifices and prayers, may indeed last
through life in a few instances, but even this is not common. I would beg of
you to be patient, and learn the truth of the legislator and others; in the mean
time abstain from impiety. ’So far, our discourse has gone well.’
I will now speak of a strange doctrine, which is regarded by many as the
crown of philosophy. They affirm that all things come into being either by art
or nature or chance, and that the greater things are done by nature and chance,
and the lesser things by art, which receiving from nature the greater creations,
moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are termed works of art. Their
meaning is that fire, water, earth, and air all exist by nature and chance, and not
by art; and that out of these, according to certain chance affinities of opposites,
the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth have been framed, not by any action
of mind, but by nature and chance only. Thus, in their opinion, the heaven and
earth were created, as well as the animals and plants. Art came later, and
is of mortal birth; by her power were invented certain images and very partial
imitations of the truth, of which kind are the creations of musicians and painters:
but they say that there are other arts which combine with nature, and have a
deeper truth, such as medicine, husbandry, gymnastic. Also the greater part
of politics they imagine to co-operate with nature, but in a less degree, having
more of art, while legislation is declared by them to be wholly a work of art.
’How do you mean?’ In the first place, they say that the Gods exist neither
by nature nor by art, but by the laws of states, which are different in different
countries; and that virtue is one thing by nature and another by convention; and
that justice is altogether conventional, made by law, and having authority for
the moment only. This is repeated to young men by sages and poets, and leads
to impiety, and the pretended life according to nature and in disobedience to
law; for nobody believes the Gods to be such as the law affirms. ’How true! and
oh! how injurious to states and to families!’ But then, what should the lawgiver
do? Should he stand up in the state and threaten mankind with the severest
penalties if they persist in their unbelief, while he makes no attempt to win them
by persuasion? ’Nay, Stranger, the legislator ought never to weary of trying to
persuade the world that there are Gods; and he should declare that law and
art exist by nature.’ Yes, Cleinias; but these are difficult and tedious questions.
’And shall our patience, which was not exhausted in the enquiry about music
or drink, fail now that we are discoursing about the Gods? There may be a
difficulty in framing laws, but when written down they remain, and time and
diligence will make them clear; if they are useful there would be neither reason
nor religion in rejecting them on account of their length.’ Most true. And
the general spread of unbelief shows that the legislator should do something
in vindication of the laws, when they are being undermined by bad men. ’He
should.’ You agree with me, Cleinias, that the heresy consists in supposing
earth, air, fire, and water to be the first of all things. These the heretics call
nature, conceiving them to be prior to the soul. ’I agree.’ You would further
agree that natural philosophy is the source of this impiety–the study appears
to be pursued in a wrong way. ’In what way do you mean?’ The error consists
in transposing first and second causes. They do not see that the soul is before
the body, and before all other things, and the author and ruler of them all.
And if the soul is prior to the body, then the things of the soul are prior to the
things of the body. In other words, opinion, attention, mind, art, law, are prior
to sensible qualities; and the first and greater works of creation are the results
of art and mind, whereas the works of nature, as they are improperly termed,
are secondary and subsequent. ’Why do you say ”improperly”?’ Because when
they speak of nature they seem to mean the first creative power. But if the soul
is first, and not fire and air, then the soul above all things may be said to exist
by nature. And this can only be on the supposition that the soul is prior to
the body. Shall we try to prove that it is so?

[+Pettytalk]

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. It takes a while.

 

 

Will, it sounds as if your brain has already melted, like mine. But my meltdown is not from reading that book, as I got nauseated just from reading the introduction, and had to seek immediate medical attention, my Plato. The law should demand the placement of warning labels on the cover of certain books. Warning: Reading this nonsense can be deleterious to your beliefs!

What topic is this?

I thought the thread on the Urantia book was closed? It's a good thing I cross-thread too. For a long moment I though I had parked myself at I don't believe you. Oh well, I don't believe any of it. anyway.

[Will Due]

6 hours ago, Piney said:

For your brain to melt? 

 

No. For your mind to expand when you begin to grasp its spiritual content.

 

 

[Piney]

33 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

No. For your mind to expand when you begin to grasp its spiritual content.

I have, and I have to say. Very Fundamentalist American. 

[Will Due]

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

I have

 

Good. Because the spiritual content of the Urantia Book is meant for the individual. 

 

 

Quote

Very Fundamentalist American.

 

Yet the UB has been translated into two dozen languages or so. And it's in those other countries where the most activity is seen growing.

Here's a list of the translations or the ones in the works:

• Chinese
• Danish
• Dutch
• Estonian
• Farsi
• Finnish
• French
• German
• Hebrew
• Hungarian
• Indonesian
• Italian
• Japanese 
• Korean
• Lithuanian
• Polish
• Portugese
• Russian
• Spanish
• Swedish