There is no God

[Keith Hamburger]

correction, the Jews didn't have any contact with the Sumerians at the time that this belief cropped up. in fact, the Israelites had no contact with the people from the Fertile Crescent until after they took over Canaan. the Creation account of the Bible was written approximately 100 years prior to that, about when the Israelites were at Mount Sinai.

Perhaps you should study your own book a little better, from the King James Version, Genesis 11:31 ...

And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

From Ur, which was in Sumeria (otherwise known as Mesopotamia), into Canaan, which is now Palestine, where God told him that the land was to belong to his descendents. From there Abram went to Egypt and left Egypt back to Canaan, where God again said the land was his.

Interestingly, the statement "Ur of the Chaldees" makes little temporal sense. The Chaldeans were rulers in the area around 600bc, well after the time of Abraham.

It's interesting that all this fighting about Israel is based on a millenia old myth that God told Abraham that the land belonged to he and his descendents. Abraham, according to scripture, left that land TWICE. His descendents were enslaved in Egypt and, finally, God showed Moses the way back to "his" land. After that the Jews were sent out of the land at least two more times for "violating God's laws". And in 1948 the US and England "gave" them back their land?

Is this worth our country getting involved in numerous conflicts over?

Keith


Keith

[dthmstr254]

Perhaps you should study your own book a little better, from the King James Version, Genesis 11:31 ...



From Ur, which was in Sumeria (otherwise known as Mesopotamia), into Canaan, which is now Palestine, where God told him that the land was to belong to his descendents. From there Abram went to Egypt and left Egypt back to Canaan, where God again said the land was his.

Interestingly, the statement "Ur of the Chaldees" makes little temporal sense. The Chaldeans were rulers in the area around 600bc, well after the time of Abraham.

It's interesting that all this fighting about Israel is based on a millenia old myth that God told Abraham that the land belonged to he and his descendents. Abraham, according to scripture, left that land TWICE. His descendents were enslaved in Egypt and, finally, God showed Moses the way back to "his" land. After that the Jews were sent out of the land at least two more times for "violating God's laws". And in 1948 the US and England "gave" them back their land?

Is this worth our country getting involved in numerous conflicts over?

Keith


Keith

notice what I said, "when they had that belief." people who think like Athena forget that Abraham was in that area BEFORE the establishment of Sumerian polytheistic beliefs were, and he left before they were there as well. there is no mention of polytheism that dates back to Abraham's lifetime. this makes it more possible that the beliefs came from Abraham and not the other way around, in fact, it makes Athena's beliefs improbable at best.
oh, notice that the return of the Israelites is prophecied in the Bible.

[dthmstr254]

I never said anything about teaching evolution. I only stated that the government ideally, has no right to force PUBLIC schools to teach RELIGOUS beliefs. Also, you are now scoping down the population of Christians to this website yet you were arguing more nation-wide things.

considering that this website is the only area I have known that is diversified enough and large enough in participators, and the only thing which we both can join, it is really the most credible evidence I can find, because census papers tells us little truth, just what people say, and if we accepted facts based on what people say, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, now would we?
secondly, the public FORCES us to listen to macroevolution, even though it has less coincidental evidence than Christianity, and no physical, noncoincidental, experimental data. we don't claim to build our faith on physical evidence, we search to show the lack of physical evidence of evolutionary theory. I ought to email the writers of my science books and ask why they contradict themselves by saying that a theory requires experimental evidence, yet provide none to support the scientific LAW status they give evolution.

ps: just a thought, but according to Baptist International Missions Incorporated, the mission field in most need of more Christian preachers is the 10/40 Window, followed closely by America itself.

[Keith Hamburger]

notice what I said, "when they had that belief." people who think like Athena forget that Abraham was in that area BEFORE the establishment of Sumerian polytheistic beliefs were, and he left before they were there as well. there is no mention of polytheism that dates back to Abraham's lifetime. this makes it more possible that the beliefs came from Abraham and not the other way around, in fact, it makes Athena's beliefs improbable at best.

Can you document that? All references I can find to any Sumerian beliefs, back to about 6000bc, indicate they were polytheistic. Given the history of world religion, if they weren't polytheistic when Abram lived in Ur, then they must have had no religion, as polytheism predated monotheism.

oh, notice that the return of the Israelites is prophecied in the Bible.

Which return? Counting Abram's travels, the current return makes number five or so.

Keith

[Lullaby Chainer]

considering that this website is the only area I have known that is diversified enough and large enough in participators, and the only thing which we both can join, it is really the most credible evidence I can find, because census papers tells us little truth, just what people say, and if we accepted facts based on what people say, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, now would we?
secondly, the public FORCES us to listen to macroevolution, even though it has less coincidental evidence than Christianity, and no physical, noncoincidental, experimental data. we don't claim to build our faith on physical evidence, we search to show the lack of physical evidence of evolutionary theory. I ought to email the writers of my science books and ask why they contradict themselves by saying that a theory requires experimental evidence, yet provide none to support the scientific LAW status they give evolution.

lmao.. LAW? It's a theory kid. I hope you were just kidding.. And btw evolution has more evidence than Christian creationism.

considering that this website is the only area I have known that is diversified enough and large enough in participators, and the only thing which we both can join, it is really the most credible evidence I can find, because census papers tells us little truth, just what people say, and if we accepted facts based on what people say, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, now would we?

Are you really trying to tell me you are holding your observations of this particular site over the proffesional census of a well respected organization that doesn't just take into account one measley website, which is ludicrous, but instead records from our entire nation. And its NOT just what people say, kid. They aren't just saying it for the heck of it, its the real honest work of individuals attempting to find honest data. Of course its not precise, but it isn't just a guess. Your statement about not going to moon is rather funny yet sad. I can't believe you are trying to compare a proffesional census as little truth to your own observations at a single website. If you knew anything about statistics, you would know that such limited sample population, that is already full of variables such as perhaps a certain group of individuals on this site are less likley to speak up about their beliefs, is very baseless, useless, niave, and ridiculous. IT IS NOT CREDIBLE. IT IS LIMITED, AND MEANINGLESS. I hope you were just kidding with that post, I really do.

[dthmstr254]

lmao.. LAW? It's a theory kid. I hope you were just kidding.. And btw evolution has more evidence than Christian creationism.

and I respond to that with a quote from Mcgraw-Hill's biology book Life:

yet many scientists, aware of the amount of supporting evidence [disclaimer: I do not subscribe to this sentence, it is simply evidence against the above quote], call it a LAW.

a quote from National Public Radio:

[re:a question of whether or not string theory deserved the theory title.] science requires evidence of an assumption to call it a theory, and more to call it a law. as there is no actual evidence for String Theory, I would not necessarily call it a law. however, the Theory title does not apply to the Theory of Evolution, I, as a scientist, would be more correct to call it the LAW of evolution.

Are you really trying to tell me you are holding your observations of this particular site over the proffesional census of a well respected organization that doesn't just take into account one measley website, which is ludicrous, but instead records from our entire nation. And its NOT just what people say, kid. They aren't just saying it for the heck of it, its the real honest work of individuals attempting to find honest data. Of course its not precise, but it isn't just a guess. Your statement about not going to moon is rather funny yet sad. I can't believe you are trying to compare a proffesional census as little truth to your own observations at a single website. If you knew anything about statistics, you would know that such limited sample population, that is already full of variables such as perhaps a certain group of individuals on this site are less likley to speak up about their beliefs, is very baseless, useless, niave, and ridiculous. IT IS NOT CREDIBLE. IT IS LIMITED, AND MEANINGLESS. I hope you were just kidding with that post, I really do.

I hold STUDIES more credibly than a census. STUDIES seek the truth, not just what people say. if I say I am a football player, does that make me a football player? no. it is the playing of the sport that would make me one. If I say I am a Titans fan simply because I am in Tennessee, does that make me a Titans fan? no, it doesn't. this isn't the only place I debate. I debate on the hotseat. I seek to bring out Christianity in my conversations. I simply said Jesus's name in a bus and someone across from me decided he wanted to debate. pretty soon, we had the entire last four rows in the debate, with me and one other person debating against the rest. three of the people involved were in the armed forces, one was a financial assistant for Wachovia, three were colleagues from an office building, me and my ally were both college students, him from a college around Atlanta, and one was a veteran. that is a rather rounded out, though small group. since then I have been more open about bringing my Bible out to read in a bus, because eventually someone will ask me why I read it. studies in Mcgraw-Hill's Public and Private Families find that only 25% of people who claim to be Christians have even gone to a church service. that same study found that only 34% of the claiming Christians have a Bible in their house. what does that tell you of your census, assuming that Mcgraw-Hill is a reliable source.

ps: would you care to show EXPERIMENTAL DATA for macroevolution. oh, wait, that is impossible, you can't observe billions of years.

[dthmstr254]

Can you document that? All references I can find to any Sumerian beliefs, back to about 6000bc, indicate they were polytheistic. Given the history of world religion, if they weren't polytheistic when Abram lived in Ur, then they must have had no religion, as polytheism predated monotheism.



Which return? Counting Abram's travels, the current return makes number five or so.

Keith

actually, according to most historians, and found in Traditions and Encounters, Abram dates back to about 7500 BC. considering that UR was established about 8000 BC, this makes the biblical account accurate and predating the earliest evidence of polytheistic beliefs by nearly 500 years. using estimations of life expectancy, we can equate Joseph's arrival in Egypt to before the life of Amenhotep, who would have grown up in the years that Joseph was old. the stories of Abraham, including the locations of each and every well that is said to have not been destroyed in the Bible, have been corroborated by archaeological findings, and considering that Moses never set foot in the promised land, he couldn't have been that accurate by any human means and neither would legend.

[Keith Hamburger]

actually, according to most historians, and found in Traditions and Encounters, Abram dates back to about 7500 BC. considering that UR was established about 8000 BC, this makes the biblical account accurate and predating the earliest evidence of polytheistic beliefs by nearly 500 years. using estimations of life expectancy, we can equate Joseph's arrival in Egypt to before the life of Amenhotep, who would have grown up in the years that Joseph was old. the stories of Abraham, including the locations of each and every well that is said to have not been destroyed in the Bible, have been corroborated by archaeological findings, and considering that Moses never set foot in the promised land, he couldn't have been that accurate by any human means and neither would legend.

That's interesting, I would have sworn that the reference in preceding verses in Genesis 11 implied that Abram was born at or after the Old Babylonian period, which would have put that at 2000bc, well after Amenhotep. But, then again, it says he came from "Ur of the Chaldeans" and Chaldea was another millenium later, so there has to be some sort of error there. Of course, in Genesis 10:5 it implies that there were a variety of languages among the descendents of Noah saying, "every one after his tongue" but Genesis 11:1 says, every one after his tongue "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

And, I assume that you don't accept the Fundamentalist accounting for the age of the Earth as being 6000 years if you're claiming Ur was established 10,000 years ago.

But, of course, this all comes from the inspired and infallible book.

Why am I so confused?

Keith

[Lullaby Chainer]

I hold STUDIES more credibly than a census. STUDIES seek the truth, not just what people say. if I say I am a football player, does that make me a football player? no. it is the playing of the sport that would make me one. If I say I am a Titans fan simply because I am in Tennessee, does that make me a Titans fan? no, it doesn't. this isn't the only place I debate. I debate on the hotseat. I seek to bring out Christianity in my conversations. I simply said Jesus's name in a bus and someone across from me decided he wanted to debate. pretty soon, we had the entire last four rows in the debate, with me and one other person debating against the rest. three of the people involved were in the armed forces, one was a financial assistant for Wachovia, three were colleagues from an office building, me and my ally were both college students, him from a college around Atlanta, and one was a veteran. that is a rather rounded out, though small group. since then I have been more open about bringing my Bible out to read in a bus, because eventually someone will ask me why I read it. studies in Mcgraw-Hill's Public and Private Families find that only 25% of people who claim to be Christians have even gone to a church service. that same study found that only 34% of the claiming Christians have a Bible in their house. what does that tell you of your census, assuming that Mcgraw-Hill is a reliable source.

ps: would you care to show EXPERIMENTAL DATA for macroevolution. oh, wait, that is impossible, you can't observe billions of years.

This is too rich. To point out you obvious ignorance is a tautology but I will do so nonetheless. Do you really fail to realize that you cannot judge the percent of a religion in this nation by a single web site and that the census is not just what people say, its the hard work and real effort of trained people using intelligent methods to find data that is so unbelievabley more credible than your "observations" of a website that does not portray the nation's population. And than, even after your niave claims, you use the very same model of source used to find a census to provide stats. According to your insane logic, those stats are just "what people say" too and aren't real honest work of people trying to provide accurate data. And than you somehow claim that these stats are in some niave way arguments towards the previous census data I provided. Your stats have absolutley nothing to do with the percentage of Christians in the US.

I'm not sure at all what the purpose in declaring that you enjoy debating on the bus has to do with this thread.

PS: Your argument can just as well be turned around towards creationism. Were you around when your supposed god created the universe? Can that be recreated and experimented with? If you actually studied evolution seriously you would find that it has much more evidence than creationism. In court, can they go back in time to see who is guilty of an unwitnessed crime? Absolutley not, but what they can do is use the evidence left by the event to come to a sound and sometimes near definite conclusion of what happened which for you information is the same exact methods taking place in the THEORY of evolution. Once again, I said nothing about evolution OR creationism in my previous argument yet you insist on distorting my posts for your own purposes and it is not appreciated.

[dthmstr254]

This is too rich. To point out you obvious ignorance is a tautology but I will do so nonetheless. Do you really fail to realize that you cannot judge the percent of a religion in this nation by a single web site and that the census is not just what people say, its the hard work and real effort of trained people using intelligent methods to find data that is so unbelievabley more credible than your "observations" of a website that does not portray the nation's population. And than, even after your niave claims, you use the very same model of source used to find a census to provide stats. According to your insane logic, those stats are just "what people say" too and aren't real honest work of people trying to provide accurate data. And than you somehow claim that these stats are in some niave way arguments towards the previous census data I provided. Your stats have absolutley nothing to do with the percentage of Christians in the US.

wrong. actions define the person more than words. ask any person that. ask any licensed psychologist. psychologists don't look at the words a person says, but at the actions of the person. if words were what made your personality, you could say things that made you seem like a basketball player in the NBA. for one thing, you look at the census, then the studies. studies in the 2005 Farmer's Almanac show the same numbers, as well as studies found on BIMI. now you have not one, not two, but three sources agreeing. DL Moody claimed that he didn't believe that 15% of his congregation were truly saved. who was a more devout and learned Christian than him in his time? he was definitely one of the top dogs.

I'm not sure at all what the purpose in declaring that you enjoy debating on the bus has to do with this thread.

personal illustration. approximately a 2:10 ratio of Christians to non-Christians on that bus.

PS: Your argument can just as well be turned around towards creationism. Were you around when your supposed god created the universe? Can that be recreated and experimented with? If you actually studied evolution seriously you would find that it has much more evidence than creationism. In court, can they go back in time to see who is guilty of an unwitnessed crime? Absolutley not, but what they can do is use the evidence left by the event to come to a sound and sometimes near definite conclusion of what happened which for you information is the same exact methods taking place in the THEORY of evolution. Once again, I said nothing about evolution OR creationism in my previous argument yet you insist on distorting my posts for your own purposes and it is not appreciated.

the problem is, Creationism doesn't claim to be anything more than it is. we don't claim to be anything more than faith, like evolution does. this argument can only be applied to something that claims to be science. Creationism is more like a forensic case, compiling the minutia with the major facts to support its argument. the only thing available to test against for that time period is this "forensic evidence." this means it is a scientific argument that SUPPORTS our faith. there is a big difference between that and science.

[dthmstr254]

That's interesting, I would have sworn that the reference in preceding verses in Genesis 11 implied that Abram was born at or after the Old Babylonian period, which would have put that at 2000bc, well after Amenhotep. But, then again, it says he came from "Ur of the Chaldeans" and Chaldea was another millenium later, so there has to be some sort of error there. Of course, in Genesis 10:5 it implies that there were a variety of languages among the descendents of Noah saying, "every one after his tongue" but Genesis 11:1 says, every one after his tongue "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

And, I assume that you don't accept the Fundamentalist accounting for the age of the Earth as being 6000 years if you're claiming Ur was established 10,000 years ago.

But, of course, this all comes from the inspired and infallible book.

Why am I so confused?

Keith

you have got to remember WHEN the book was written. people of Moses's day were not familiar with a lot of the older civilizations, because it was before the days of public education. the Chaldeans lived during Moses's life. how else do you think Abram could have given birth to a country of nearly two million people?
secondly, there is no actual reference to the age of the earth in the Bible. the age of the earth has been established by estimations. technically, the earth could be a few thousands of years older than we claim, definitely not younger. I would allow for anywhere between 15000 and 10000. the facts we know are:
Adam's descendants refused to spread, deciding instead to centralize around a tower. pop count: approximately 1 million.
flood pop count following, 40 give or take, plus all the animals.
growth and expansion: by the time Ur was built, there were already people inhabiting China and India. obviously someone had figured out how to make a boat and took a drew that somehow managed to make it to the New World many aeons before it was discovered, either that, or they crossed what would have been the Bering Land Bridge and later on "sunk."
then we come to the enslavement, with approx 2 million of the people in the world being Israelites. this gives a very high estimation for people of that age.

PS: you would probably find a great resource for people to find at Focus on the Family, which just happens to be based out of you current city of Colorado Springs Colorado, 80995.

[pubmanager]

flood pop count following, 40 give or take, plus all the animals.

You forgot to mention the millions of ducks who were quite happy bobbing about for forty days.

Noah did offer two of them a place on his massive boat but they thought he was being ironic.

While the people on the ark dispaired, wishing the rain to stop and longing for land, the evil ducks mocked them; "up your quack, you bearded old mentalist", they shouted as they stuck two feathers up at Noah.

And lo the world to this day is over run with ducks...evil bastards.