Mythology is mythology.

Trolls are trolls.

Truth is truth and mythology is mythology.

“If you abide in My Word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

If you bluer the lines between "good," "evil" and mythology you still get evolution...

Meh ...

Phrases like that one, although beautiful-sounding, are empty. Regardless of who is said to have uttered them.

"Truth" isn't a trump-card that "you" have, while all "the other, damned-to-hell schleps" around you do not. It isn't your bus-ticket to Paradise. If anyone thinks that there is something that they "know" which will put them above their fellow sojourner, or allow them to opt-out of some awful fate, then I suggest that this person -- whoever he is -- should ponder his own motives and motivations. In the story of the Last Judgment, let us remember that many of the condemned loudly protested that "they had done miracles in Your name," and we must presume that it was so. "The Pharisee" surely was a very religious man, but "the Publican" was approved-of. Surely that woman was condemned by "the Law," yet: "neither do I condemn you." And, so on. A very "not black-and-white" distinction.

"Mythology" is a word that gets a bad rap in the English language, because it implies "false." I rather like the phrasing that's in the current Wikipedia article on the subject:
Strictly speaking, the Bible is: "a compilation of some of the mythology of the Hebrew people, butted-up against the official State mythology of the Roman Empire." Nevertheless, this description is not meant to discount it nor to dismiss it.

One of the key features, unfortunately, of the Christian religion is that people are taught ... maybe "on pain of Eternal Death" ... to regard the book as sacred, and never to question it. Never to ask where and how it came from. Never to look behind the little curtain. "Well, I did that a long time ago," and it's my personal opinion that, for me, it added great depth to what I personally choose to believe. It also became a fascinating field of social study that very much continues to engage my interest. "I look at it from many sides, now."

Might I suggest, gentlebeings, that there is no cause to be confrontational about this subject.

So, your "opinion" is more valid than the words of Jesus? You are now the arbiter of Truth?


The Truth exists OUTSIDE of us, not INSIDE. We don't MAKE Truth, we FIND it (or, rather, it finds US).


As I already said, the Truth is OUTSIDE of us. It does not make one individual above or below another. Think carefully about why you have this attitude: you are not willing to admit that you may not have the Truth while someone else does. It produces resentment, pride, and envy - the very things that prevent you from finding the Truth in the first place.

Once again, you are placing your own opinion above that of objective Truth. You are not "strictly speaking", you are "opinionating".

What's more, I see you constantly depicting Paul as "that Roman". Where do you get that from? Paul was a high-ranking Jewish rabbi - a Pharisee. He was against everything that Rome stood for, both before and after his "road to Damascus" conversion. He was born in the province of Tarsus, but so what? He was anything and everything antithetical to Rome. More unfounded opinion.

Well, YOU may have been taught that, but *I* wasn't. There are many "religions" that call themselves "Christianity". I have asked all the same questions that you have, and came to the exact opposite conclusion. The difference? I humbled myself and considered that the Truth is not contained in my "opinions". God has revealed the objective Truth to us.

Your truth never existed until it was made up. Is there a computer in front of me? That's truth!

[Oregon]Jim, I herewith yield all of your points as being "true" ... from your chosen point-of-view. And, I do not now declare that this "point-of-view" is 'wrong.'

Perhaps, alas, except for one small thing: whether "Paul" was, in fact, "a Pharisee." :rolleyes: There's a lot of debate on that point. There are (educated ...) opinions(!) based on an assessment of his perspectives vis-a-vis those of other (un-contested) Pharisees. There are also, certainly, discussions of the fact that, "when the chips were down," he asserted that he was (and, could well prove ...) a Roman Citizen™, with the lawful right "to appeal to Caesar (himself!)," which he promptly exercised.

... (how he subsequently wound up 'poured out as a drink offering' is, unfortunately, lost to history ...)

"The mere fact that a man makes a claim about himself" does not automatically ... (much less, dogmatically!) ... make the aforesaid claim, "true!" :jawa:

"If we dare," we can talk about it.

Certainly, I smell "rather too much" of the lingering influences of "the now-official Religion of Rome™" in these texts, as they have now ("officially™ ??") been "passed down to" us. It smells rather-too-much of Empire.

- - -

Now, the question is: "can I make such a statement?" How might 'such a statement' be received? Quite frankly, I have become doubtful, such that I frankly expect that I shall momentarily bow-out of this thread ... for good.

(But, with a :hattip: to you all.)

Here's the problem: if you deny the Authorship of Scripture, you can make it out to be anything you want it to be. There is no longer objective Truth, and you are left with the pointless exercise of navel gazing (otherwise known as 'religion' or 'philosophy').

And here's the paradox: Once you accept that the Authority of the Truth is outside yourself, the Truth itself suddenly becomes clear - "sharper than any two-edged sword". The entire world and its real condition and its blindness and its solution are all made visible, cohesive, and far beyond the capabilities of human invention. Yet it remains "foolishness" to the natural man - the navel gazer - the one who sees himself as having the capability to be the judge OF Truth rather than be judged BY Truth.

Garbage In..>> ..Garbage Out. The "garbage in" is the above quoted premise "a living organism popped into existence". This is not what Science thinks is likely at all. You have it backwards. First came organic molecules, the building blocks of life which have been discovered in nebulae and comets, basically all over the Universe. It seems to be what chemistry does under a vast variety of conditions. Then likely came RNA replicating molecules and before long Natural Selection was in play, long before any one-celled animals existed, Then, possibly after many billions of years, the first crude cell membrane evolved to protect these molecules. Then after all this, slowly some cells began to develop metabolic processes. The "food" was likely chemical energy and possibly light - photosynthesis or some variation of what we see now. This is probably when RNA was enhanced by DNA.

Here's the full story - Origin of Life

There is no evidence that rules out a "Creator" encoding all this in the "blueprints of the Universe" but if there is a "Creator" this is what evidence supports is how it was done. Sorry. Adam was not made of clay nor Eve of his rib. The first recognizable humans came from a gene pool of at least thousands, not two individuals. While the majority of humans alive today can all trace back to what was possibly one man and one woman, they lived 10,000 years apart thus the genetic diversity needed for a healthy population did exist or we probably wouldn't be here.

Citation - Genetic Adam and Eve

@OregonJim - Regarding your deception, since it was already fully revealed I won't repeat it but just link both your post and my response

OregonJim inserting his conclusion into a quote (not <snip>) to pawn it off as evidence

The Reveal

Sigh. Once again - "we think", 'then possibly...", "then likely...". "it seems..." are phrases that litter your explanation. Yet you deny that you have any "faith", only "knowledge". No presuppositions here, no sir. Uh huh.


Pure religion. Not science.

And, JUST AS I PREDICTED, you left out the CONTEXT that followed. Pure dishonesty and deceit on your part.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5545958

Unlike Religion this actually has testable evidence. It is inconclusive yet, a fuzzy picture but it is the best we have that is consistent with much better documented data. See? Here's the difference. You crave a Black and White knowledge base. It doesn't and can't exist since answers always lead to more questions. Science recognizes degrees of confidence and fully recognizes some things will likely never be known by anyone.

FTR a "presupposition" is basically an opinion or construct that can come from a fever dream or out of some nether orifice. An axiom is either a self-evident truth ( A = A, 1 = 1 ) or a small step from that, 1 + 1 = 2. HUGE difference between the two that you apparently either don't get or conveniently ignore.