Old and New Testament, and Koran, as a mystical Egyptian initiation

[Datguy]

In my opinion, videos should not be used except for purposes of illustration, and my main objection is that often those who post a video with only minimal text in their thread are being lazy, and arrogant in expecting forum members to sit through a video, which can be quite long.

so, is this your TLDW version of obfuscation.
Why else would someone post a video except to illustrate a point.
The video was included to provide material for discussion.

I don't care about your bloviated "credentials" or which books you read, in the time you have taken to respond to me and edit your responses you could have watched the video so lets not pretend you don't have the time...
I get it, you've been hurt in the past by poor videos or bad presenters, just watch the video and then comment on the actual contents instead of some perceived slight, which by the way would me far more on topic than continuing this inane and childish back and forth over irrelevant personal credentials.

In any case, I wont be responding further unless its in regards to the topic of the thread

[Wepwawet]

In any case, I wont be responding further unless its in regards to the topic of the thread

But you haven't even been engaging on the topic, all you've been doing is try your best to annoy me, fail by the way.

Perhaps you can make a post about who you think the pharaoh of the Exodus was, and why, which would mean providing some form of evidence.
Btw, if you had read anything on this except for the Bible, I'm sure you would have mentioned it, wouldn't you, so I have to assume that your knowledge is confined only to what the Bible says.

[Randyvine]

That's rather presumptuous, Randy, considering im on the fence about the existance of God. 

But if Moby-Dick proved whales exist because a book says so, then every school library is a zoological disaster.

That argument basically boils down to "the story contains miracles, therefore the miracles are true
And by that logic, the more absurd the claim, the more convincing it becomes.


The Bible being about God doesn't automatically prove every supernatural claim any more than Moby-Dick proves a giant vengeful whale stalked sailors.

On the fence- *I don't care, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I never said anything about proving anything exists.

I find it phenomenal how people lose comprehension regarding theology.

"That argument basically boils down to "the story contains miracles, therefore the miracles are true
And by that logic, the more absurd the claim, the more convincing it becomes."


Exactly! Because it is illogical to use allegory, metaphors, lies and fantasy and expect to
be taken seriously.

Do you not think the authors were serious? I'm sure you see the point.

You scoff at one particular account in the Bible as if God isn't capable of ventriloquism.

And by that kind of logic I'm sure you have a problem with Moses parting the red sea
and on down the line of everything God can do over man ACCORDING to what IS WRITTEN.
The only thing I am proving is that you want a different story that suits you personally. Once
again good luck with that.

The point is The Story not the existence of anything.

[andy06shake]

On the fence- *I don't care, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I never said anything about proving anything exists.

I find it phenomenal how people lose comprehension regarding theology.

"That argument basically boils down to "the story contains miracles, therefore the miracles are true
And by that logic, the more absurd the claim, the more convincing it becomes."


Exactly! Because it is illogical to use allegorymetaphors, lies and fantasy and expect to
be taken seriously.

Do you not think the authors were serious? I'm sure you see the point.

You scoff at one particular account in the Bible as if God isn't capable of ventriloquism.

And by that kind of logic I'm sure you have a problem with Moses parting the red sea
and on down the line of everything God can do over man ACCORDING to what IS WRITTEN.
The only thing I am proving is that you want a different story that suits you personally. Once
again good luck with that.

The point is The Story not the existence of anything.

 You have basically wandered into the exact problem you're trying to solve.
 
You say "The point is the story, not the existence of anything."

And yet five minutes ago, you were arguing that talking donkeys are more believable because they're written seriously. LoL

Which is it?

Is the point that the events happened, or that the story presents them as meaningful?
 
Nobody is asking for a "different story." 

But one where the ""authors"" sincerity is evidence that the events occurred might be nice.
 
People can be completely serious and still be mistaken, Randyvine...

History is full of sincere people who believed in the likes of witchcraft, omens, dragons, orgone's, and all sorts of crazy mumbo jumbo we now reject.
 
And the ventriloquist argument is comedy gold.

If God can make a donkey talk because he's ""omnipotent?""

Thats a hell of a big magic escape hatch you have created where every claim becomes true by definition.

At that point, you've stopped arguing and started granting yourself infinite DLC powers.
 
The irony is that you're accusing others of rewriting the story while rewriting the rules yourself.

Just because you imagine the ""author"" was serious, It doesn't mean he was right.
 
Otherwise, every religion wins simultaneously.

Which would be a neat trick, considering they are not all claiming the same things, or anything reminiscent of the sorts...

[Randyvine]

 You have basically wandered into the exact problem you're trying to solve.
 
You say "The point is the story, not the existence of anything."

And yet five minutes ago, you were arguing that talking donkeys are more believable because they're written seriously. LoL

Which is it?

Is the point that the events happened, or that the story presents them as meaningful?
 
Nobody is asking for a "different story." 

But one where the ""authors"" sincerity is evidence that the events occurred might be nice.
 
People can be completely serious and still be mistaken, Randyvine...

History is full of sincere people who believed in the likes of witchcraft, omens, dragons, orgone's, and all sorts of crazy mumbo jumbo we now reject.
 
And the ventriloquist argument is comedy gold.

If God can make a donkey talk because he's ""omnipotent?""

Thats a hell of a big magic escape hatch you have created where every claim becomes true by definition.

At that point, you've stopped arguing and started granting yourself infinite DLC powers.
 
The irony is that you're accusing others of rewriting the story while rewriting the rules yourself.

Just because you imagine the ""author"" was serious, It doesn't mean he was right.
 
Otherwise, every religion wins simultaneously.

Which would be a neat trick, considering they are not all claiming the same things, or anything reminiscent of the sorts...

DUDE! the story involves God.

Omnipotence (All-Powerful): The ability to do anything that is logically possible and consistent with His nature. This includes the power of creation \(ex\ nihilo\) (out of nothing), control over nature and the cosmos, and ultimate sovereignty over human history. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

By definition he can make a donkey talk. That isn't my definition it is THE definition.
You can't just pick parts of the story for ridicule without ridiculing the whole
story.  So logically your engagement serves only the purpose of ridicule. And frankly that
just comes off as chilish to me for a person your obvious calibur. You have the final
word Andy.


"And the ventriloquist argument is comedy gold."

I thought you might like that

[andy06shake]

DUDE! the story involves God.

Omnipotence (All-Powerful): The ability to do anything that is logically possible and consistent with His nature. This includes the power of creation \(ex\ nihilo\) (out of nothing), control over nature and the cosmos, and ultimate sovereignty over human history. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

By definition he can make a donkey talk. That isn't my definition it is THE definition.
You can't just pick parts of the story for ridicule without ridiculing the whole
story.  So logically your engagement serves only the purpose of ridicule. And frankly that
just comes off as chilish to me for a person your obvious calibur. You have the final
word Andy.


"And the ventriloquist argument is comedy gold."

I thought you might like that

You're still skipping over the key step.
 
Nobody disputes that if an omnipotent God exists, then making a donkey talk would be trivial.

The issue was never "Could God do it?" The issue is "How do you know He did?"
 
You've smuggled the conclusion into the premise. 
 
"God is omnipotent, therefore the miracle happened" only works after you've already established that the story is an accurate account of what God actually did.
 
And no, questioning a miracle isn't ridiculing the entire story.

That's like saying if I doubt one anecdote in a biography, I need to reject the existence of the person altogether.

Reality isn't all-or-nothing.

What's funny is that you accuse others of cherry-picking while demanding a package deal.

Accept every miracle exactly as written or you're rewriting the story. LoL 

That's not an argument.

That's a subscription model.

And that's all organised religious practice in a nutshell.

The irony is that you're the one who keeps saying "the story involves God." 

Yes, everyone noticed.

The disagreement is whether invoking God settles the question or merely restates it.
 
A talking donkey isn't evidence for omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the explanation offered for the talking donkey.

Those are not the same thing.
 
But I did enjoy the ventriloquist bit.

It's probably the first theological argument in history that accidentally made Balaams donkey sound like a divine puppet show. 

[Randyvine]

You're still skipping over the key step.
 
Nobody disputes that if an omnipotent God exists, then making a donkey talk would be trivial.

The issue was never "Could God do it?" The issue is "How do you know He did?"
 
You've smuggled the conclusion into the premise. 
 
"God is omnipotent, therefore the miracle happened" only works after you've already established that the story is an accurate account of what God actually did.
 
And no, questioning a miracle isn't ridiculing the entire story.

That's like saying if I doubt one anecdote in a biography, I need to reject the existence of the person altogether.

Reality isn't all-or-nothing.

What's funny is that you accuse others of cherry-picking while demanding a package deal.

Accept every miracle exactly as written or you're rewriting the story. LoL 

That's not an argument.

That's a subscription model.

And that's all organised religious practice in a nutshell.

The irony is that you're the one who keeps saying "the story involves God." 

Yes, everyone noticed.

The disagreement is whether invoking God settles the question or merely restates it.
 
A talking donkey isn't evidence for omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the explanation offered for the talking donkey.

Those are not the same thing.
 
But I did enjoy the ventriloquist bit.

It's probably the first theological argument in history that accidentally made Balaams donkey sound like a divine puppet show. 

So I asked AI to make us a talking donkey and you know what?




He did.

Therefore the story is true.

You actually think I'm this daft?

[andy06shake]

So I asked AI to make us a talking donkey and you know what?

[Image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX_tE0M3ZCI][Image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX_tE0M3ZCI][Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX_tE0M3ZCI]

He did.

Therefore the story is true.

You actually think I'm this daft?

I don't think you are daft at all.

A bit presumptuous, and argumentative this evening, maybe...

But not stupid.

I would point out, however, nobody looked at your AI donkey and thought, "My God, zoology has changed forever."