Christians, preach the Gospel. Do not debate.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by Joecroft
People.wrote.it.down.on.his.behalf

Originally posted by wildtimes
Um..duh? No need to get hostile and uppity.

You see that was me being slightly sarcastic and jovial, in a light hearted way. Its just part of my natural charm, and happy go lucky, personality.

Sorry if it came across any different. It’s just that this thread has been a bit of a roller coaster ride, with people telling me I’m 100% wrong, without even giving me the chance to discuss further, my own perspective, all because I was classified, as trying to have a debate etc.

But now that I’m on the subject, this is partly what I was trying to point out to the OP, in that the difference between debate and discussion (or more appropriately defined, by me, as either heated, or non heated), has really a lot to do with how 2 people, perceive each other.

Anyway, no disrespect intended.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Yup, maybe he did. But the chroniclers tell the story differently from one another ....and a long time after he died. By all accounts he was mostly speaking against corruption, exploitation, greed, and selfishness....trying to spread the word of loving one another.

Yes, the above are all true, Jesus does speak against all those things you mentioned above. But Jesus also speaks about many other aspects and topics, which is why it’s so difficult to just some him up in a few words. For me it all goes back to that question, which Jesus asks all of us, which is, “Who do you say I am?”

You see, for me, anyone can tell you the truth, but in order to know the truth, you have to go through your own spiritual journey with God and experience him for yourself, through Jesus. No man can give it to you; they can help lead you there, sure, but only you alone, with Gods help, can take it further. It’s really comes down to a decision of your own heart and soul, and a willingness to seek the truth.

The most important thing I did myself was to seek out the right questions first.

I thought to myself, “how can anyone expect to find all the right answers, if they don’t look for all the right questions first?”

In fact, in my personal opinion, in order to find the truth, in anything, one has to walk a very fine line between 2 opposing views, while sitting on your hands, so to speak, and trying not to make a quick snap decision. Easier said that done though.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Everything.else.is.extrapolation. NONE of those writers who are included and "credited" with writing their respective books of the Bible KNEW HIM personally.

This is partly true, but those accounts stemmed from, people who must have known Jesus at some point in history.

Originally posted by wildtimes
I doubt the man walked all over the place repeating the same tired lines over and over. Communication is a personal thing. Presuming he was skilled at it, he would've known how to deliver the message to the hearer by tweaking the way he explained it...

therefore, it is reasonable to think that each living person hears the message uniquely. Since he's not here to clarify, all we have is a bunch of third-hand descriptions of him by people with limited horizons.

Yes, most communication normally done on a personal level. I’m not sure the technical name for this, but there are a number of traditions in Judaism and Islam, where young men are made to remember complete texts, word for word. I think this is what the film, “The book of Ely” was partly trying to portray.

Originally posted by wildtimes
We can seek private communing with him in Spirit, and if we feel we received a response, it will have been a unique experience to everyone else's.

Well, this has happened to myself, in my own experience, with God. The spiritual response I received was confirmed by Jesus own words, in the bible.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Hence, it is an individual relationship -- there's no recipe for it.

Well said, , and among other things, Jesus is teaching us, how to do exactly that.

So your own spirit is confirming, the truth that Jesus, is speaking, in the bible.

You’re almost there lol


- JC

Originally posted by wildtimes

What?!! These things HAVE happened, all over the globe, since forever! We DO know about them now, based on archaeology and the discovery of evidence/chronicles...at the time Jesus lived, his contemporaries were unaware of what was going on in distant populations.

Again, show me a period in history when all of these events, fulfilled End Times prophecies as found in the Scriptures, have happened simultaneously.

But OK the conversation is over. And it's extremely hilarious that you accuse me of being condescending when you try to laud your "knowledge" that you claim to have over me.

And I'm "not open to learning"? Really? Hmm. How odd considering I asked you numerous times to provide evidence for your claims. Sounds like I am open to learning. Sounds like you don't want to "teach" or provide said evidence.

It would appear that really the topic being suggested here is called "Indoctrination", and in that interest the truth isn't the object of their direction. It is continuance of the ritual that is the object and that doesn't have to be true, and they don't even have a clue of what was the truth in those days, else they would be seeing all these natural mother earth issues in all those claims of god did this and that long after the times the Creator gods departed Earth.

The Gospel is the writings of various men, often termed devinely inspired---yet still man's minds dictating the words, in ancient times that had various perceptions and long standing superstitions or beliefs of gods. Indoctrination seeks followers that listen and rubber stamp the presentation, without questions. You got to say Amen when the preacher reads from their book and you got to sing their songs to fit in, and they presume to know the truth. Then you have to repeat the indoctrination to all you meet. Yet, most of the world doesn't follow their lock step methods.

Greek Orthodox of Russia considers Jesus was a Prophet, not god. Islam allows Jesus as a Prophet. Judaism allows Jesus neither to be Prophet or Messiah. Most think the Christians appear more a cult that can't listen to other views, discuss, debate, look for common ground and press ahead.

Indoctrination doesn't allow or like debate either, nor discussion of various points that run counter to the Indoctrination's goal. Else, lots of churches would teach about Jesus, the Man, and his values and find out the orgin of god / The Father.

The problem with indoctrination methods is the avoidance for objectives for truth seeking, which when those that easily surcome to Indoctrination and they are easily taken up by the methods, this tends to harm Govt and not keep it honest either. One of the things one notices is Critical Thinkers and highly educated folks are able to think for themselves and don't need a little click that says Amen for reading only one book. One group needs a herd's fellowship to feel safe, and others do well without codependence. But many times others are not safe from a herd that follows the wrong voice and tramples others.

There is nothing wrong with truth seeking and back in those times there were odd methods handed down from the concepts of Creator gods in the Fertile Crescent, and those issues echoed down to Nimrod, through Egypt, thought Greece, the Mayans and all around the planet. Trouble is lots was lost of the understanding over long periods of time and various attempts to gain power and following by writing on the subject of god and fear mongering the masses into following your message.

They were wishing for a messiah from day one from some of the more evil Creator god concepts, and needing a savior to tell them which way to go after the benevolent Creator god departed. All they had left was Abraham's deals and he didn't explain those clearly enough for these times. But one can go back now and see the area of the City of Ur and even find the ruins of Abrahams house, and begin to connect with what was happening in Sumeria in those interesting times. Christians can't do that because their indoctriatnion binds them to only one book's knowledge. They won't become the discovers of the whole truth.


Though those that want to have no disagreement in discussions want that to sell their point, it comes down to others notice their point does not contain the fullest truth, real history, agree with other histories, and they don't have a mechanism to change for the better via relevant discussion and debate.

When that occurs, it is Indoctrination in action. Something that is usually not considered good for those that want honesty in Govt., and truth being the object of religion.


Thus, the discussions get into the issues that the story of Jesus has been embellished beyond the reality and a lot because Jesus stepped over the boundard for calling himself god as did many others before he. Such didn't make Nimrod god, nor Jesus. Thought the theme for god came directly from the Sumerian history, and various later adaptations to those living long afterward.


So, what one finds is the indoctrination process via one book's teachings doesn't equip those indoctrinated to follower more lessons learned from the various old world histories and merge the information into a better understanding for what was termed god back then in the various forms.

In the times of Nimrod, the Yahwah flood and distroyer god needed replacing and Nimrod took up the role, but that was a wrong move. And in like fashion those trying to replace Yahwah with Jesus by calling Jesus god is just as wrong and perverted a theme for god.


Such indoctrination theology doesn't want to adapt to what is being discovered about these old times, and they remain lost in old history that is being shown day by day to be those lost from the seeking for the greater truths.

Indoctrination was also the method that formed the cults like Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones, and they could not enter into discussions of differing opionions, or debate. They all died due to that.

Which would be better to live and learn and apply what is learned, or die from inablity to move toward the truth.

reply to post by shaluach

Originally posted by Shaluach
No. I've had many discussions and it was never to "tear down" my "opponents" view points.

But peoples ideas and opinion can be “torn down” through polite discussions, sometimes without people even realizing it.

Originally posted by Shaluach
Absolutely not. Disagreeing isn't mocking. Mocking is mocking. You can disagree with someone and not mock them. I mean come on. Let's be serious here.

Yeah we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

I am being serious.

Below is the a definition of Mock

mock
   Show Spelled[mok] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2.
to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3.
to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.
4.
to challenge; defy: His actions mock convention.
5.
to deceive, delude, or disappoint.

If you mock someone, then you are challenging his or her position, partly because you disagree with it, so the word “mock”, in a certain context can be applied to a polite discussion.

Also if you point out in a polite discussion, why someone’s view is wrong, they may view that, from their perspective as being a form of ridicule, which gets back to what I was saying earlier, in that it’s all about how two people are perceiving each other. That’s where the fine line comes into play.

And just to add, within a polite discussion both sides can attack (albeit friendly) each other’s position. It’s just that the manner in which it’s being done, is different.

This is why I see all debate or discussions as the same thing, and that the best way to describe debate/discussion, is to say they are either, heated, or non heated, because other than that, they both contain all the other similarities to each other. But even that doesn’t do it justice, because one side may still see it as heated, and the other side may not.

Think about it…


Because what I’m describing above, is what happened in our discussion in this thread. That’s why I asked you, if you could see it?


Anyway, we can agree to disagree if you'd like?


- JC

Hit Google and seach words:
"Define Debate"

de·bate/diˈbāt/Noun: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

Thus, debate is a discussion, by defintion. One that is an orderely and formal discussion.

One that seeks to discover the truth of opposing subjects or materials.


One generally finds Critical thinking appears to be missing from indoctrination religion, even to the point of being oblivious of simple definitions.

reply to post by shaluach

And I'm "not open to learning"? Really? Hmm. How odd considering I asked you numerous times to provide evidence for your claims. Sounds like I am open to learning. Sounds like you don't want to "teach" or provide said evidence.

Really? So, I come on here offering what knowledge I have gleaned, and you immediately call it "absurd" and "ridiculous". I've dealt with apologists before. It's useless.

And I DID offer a source. ... here it comes again:
The Evolution of God
here are a few more:
The Politics of Paul from the Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory
and the syllabus and reading list for the upper undergrad student The Apostle Paul: Religion, Ethics, Politics, Context

W.S. Babcock (ed.) Paul and the Legacies of Paul (1990)
Alain Badiou Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (2003)
Daniel Boyarin A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (1997)
Lewis Donelson Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (2006)
Kathy Gaca The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early
Christianity (2003)
Michael Goulder Paul and the Competing Mission (2001)
Patrick Gray Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition (2004)
Richard Horsley (ed.) Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (2000)
Marianne Kartzow Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles (2009)
Michael Labahn and Jan L. Peerbolte (eds.) Wonders .ever Cease: The Purpose of .arrating Miracle Stories in the
.ew Testament and its Religious Environment (2006)
Abraham Malherbe Paul and the Popular Philosophers (2006)
Dale Martin The Corinthian Body (1995)
Christopher Mount Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (2002)
Richard Pervo The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (2010)
Paul Sampley (ed.) Paul in the Greco-Roman World (2003)
Stanley Stowers A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews & Gentiles (1994)
Joseph Tyson Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006)
Magnus Zetterholm Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (2010)

As for whether or not any of the writings included in the Bible were first-hand accounts...it is common knowledge that they were NOT.

You are not interested in discussing and learning. If so, you'd have asked politely, and not just attacked me as being "absurd" and "ridiculous" and asking me to prove things there is no proof for.

There are no extant ORIGINAL documents by the ORIGINAL apostles in their own words available to examine. And if there are any at all, they're probably in the Vatican's vault and will not be made available except by force.

It is what it is, and no amount of wishing changes that. Whether you claim to be "discussing" or "debating", your style has been found wanting. I'm done.

reply to post by Joecroft

You see, for me, anyone can tell you the truth, but in order to know the truth, you have to go through your own spiritual journey with God and experience him for yourself, through Jesus. No man can give it to you; they can help lead you there, sure, but only you alone, with Gods help, can take it further. It’s really comes down to a decision of your own heart and soul, and a willingness to seek the truth.

The most important thing I did myself was to seek out the right questions first.

I thought to myself, “how can anyone expect to find all the right answers, if they don’t look for all the right questions first?”

In fact, in my personal opinion, in order to find the truth, in anything, one has to walk a very fine line between 2 opposing views, while sitting on your hands, so to speak, and trying not to make a quick snap decision. Easier said that done though.

Totally agree with you. I have undergone a leg of my own journey, and it continues.

The OP is not interested in discussion or debate, obviously. Just another apologist shooting from the hip. They come and go. And as for him having "debating skills"? Um, yeah ...NO. He feels it's his duty to NOT debate anyway, so why even bother with the thread? Plus, wow, talk about unapproachable.

I'm outta here. Catch ya later, Joe!

The organized church typical reply is we don't want to deal with anything different. Don't want to learn, it might make our heads hurt.

Basically, We have been stuck in doctrine's rut for a thousand years and we don't wanna get out of it. Especially, since looking at the facts make us all look a little silly.

Organized Religion is not all that different than a cult, and they tend to die because of many wrong placed ideas, either in recent wars, or some of the originals that climbed too far out on a limb and got nailed upside down to a tree.


Religions are their own worst enemies, as there is only one unique truth and neither side appears to have gotten the Abraham theme told in the correct light of highest truth. Thus, all these wars over resistance to looking at the deeper details and debate for where the truth lies. And doing that with many outside the Bible sources, and there is coming to bare considerable weight toward what was really going on in Sumeria with Abraham.


The organized churches tell---we don't want to know. They become the Ostrich with heads burried in the sand to ignore issues. The rest of us don't mind finding the real history and talking about it in lively debate and discussion.

And especially on ATS, where the rule is deny ignorance. I think we have seen oraganized religion supports ignorance.

reply to post by Joecroft


Well when it comes down to the word mock meaning challenge or defy we have to fall back on Scriptures and Scriptures tell us how to engage our faith. Debate, in the negative connotation of the word, is not how we are supposed to go about it. We are to share and explain our faith. We are to answer questions. We are not to deride another person.

reply to post by wildtimes


Wildtimes, I thought you said you were done. Yet you still keep going.

Originally posted by wildtimes


The OP is not interested in discussion or debate, obviously.

Yes. Keep bearing false witness against me. I've said numerous times that I am for respectful discussion. If someone, such as yourself, cannot be respectful then I see no need to engage them.

Originally posted by wildtimes
You are not interested in discussing and learning. If so, you'd have asked politely, and not just attacked me as being "absurd" and "ridiculous" and asking me to prove things there is no proof for.

Then I guess you aren't interested in discussing and learning either considering you used those terms also. Or is it going to be you falling back on, "Well, you did it first"?

Furthermore, I am for learning, but you didn't bring anything to the table. Just some false claims without back up. Sorry but I'm not going to just believe you when you say something. That's not learning or teaching.

Originally posted by wildtimes
There are no extant ORIGINAL documents by the ORIGINAL apostles in their own words available to examine. And if there are any at all, they're probably in the Vatican's vault and will not be made available except by force.

Another example of a claim that you cannot possibly verify. You are just making things up now.

Originally posted by wildtimes
I'm done.

So you keep saying, yet you keep talking.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Though those that want to have no disagreement in discussions want that to sell their point, it comes down to others notice their point does not contain the fullest truth, real history, agree with other histories, and they don't have a mechanism to change for the better via relevant discussion and debate.

Those who will not allow discussion or debate in a religious atmosphere are actually Cult Leaders. My way or the highway.

Thought the theme for god came directly from the Sumerian history, and various later adaptations to those living long afterward.

You know that, and I know that, but get any Christian to admit that. They say either it's a myth, or that the Bible is older than Sumer.

Such indoctrination theology doesn't want to adapt to what is being discovered about these old times, and they remain lost in old history that is being shown day by day to be those lost from the seeking for the greater truths.

This is why I have Ideas instead of Beliefs. Beliefs are set in stone, and cannot ever change, no matter the new evidence or new truths discovered. These will quickly be labelled as myth, while their belief is all truth. It's like going to the world's largest library and only one book is true for them. They discount Ancient History with the story that Earth is only 6000 years old. That way they do not have to explain things made before then. Dinosaur bones? Placed by Satan to fool you. Ancient Megaliths? Men build them using primitive tools and no technology.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Hit Google and seach words:
"Define Debate"

de·bate/diˈbāt/Noun: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

Thus, debate is a discussion, by defintion. One that is an orderely and formal discussion.

One that seeks to discover the truth of opposing subjects or materials.


….. ….. …..

Thank you, and well said.

The definition of Debate, states nothing about it being heated or hostile, as an extra clarifying description.

Hence discussion and debate are one and the same thing.


- JC

Well knowing that the typical Christian can only recount the Bible Narratives and can't handle science and critical thinking too well---I kept it simple.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Really? I am willing to go a few rounds with you in the area of the sciences.

Originally posted by ScatterBrain

Well knowing that the typical Christian can only recount the Bible Narratives and can't handle science and critical thinking too well---I kept it simple.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Really? I am willing to go a few rounds with you in the area of the sciences.

Well, how about an extension of the Dead Sea geology. Science tells us the Dead Sea is part of the East African Rift zone and made from tectonic plate motion leaving a huge below Sea Level area. The Dead Sea supports lots of Asphalt formation deep below the surface and often bubbles to the surface and the material used way back in antiquity.

So, the geology of the area tells there is Asphalt and that comes from heat and oil deposits being mixed in these Rift effects. How would such apply toward a Lake of Fire in an earthquake, since oil floats on water and can burn.

Extend these same geological Rift Zone effects to the area of Midian and a Burning Bush. Lay down the geology of Saudi Arabia is loaded with oil domes and this Rift Zone near Midian could easily add heat and cook off volatile vapors rising from an upthrust mountain that Moses started to worship in some fashion due to the fire and rumbling.

Should Christian studies ignore the geology effects of matters that affected the OT views on god?

Rift Geology is tied to Soddom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea Crossing, and the Moses Mountain of Fire. Even when one gets into Mecca, one finds Mohammad sits in a cave like the one on Moses Mtn in Saudi Arabia and it looks geological similar to Moses upthrust Mtn., just no oil dome issues. The road to Mecca is loaded with Rift issues of Volcanic events and lots of Basalt Flows.

That is the use of science on the issues of Biblical Narrative exploration of fact and fantasy.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


So you are claiming all Biblical phenomena are natural explained. The problem is your whole response is nothing but speculation. Just because you think this COULD be the explanation doesn't mean that it was the explanation. And even if it is natural do you not think that the Most High can use natural things? Of course He can. Just like with end times prophecies. Some of them may be fulfilled via natural means. It's still a fulfillment of prophecy regardless.

Originally posted by autowrench
This is why I have Ideas instead of Beliefs. Beliefs are set in stone, and cannot ever change, no matter the new evidence or new truths discovered. These will quickly be labelled as myth, while their belief is all truth. It's like going to the world's largest library and only one book is true for them. They discount Ancient History with the story that Earth is only 6000 years old. That way they do not have to explain things made before then. Dinosaur bones? Placed by Satan to fool you. Ancient Megaliths? Men build them using primitive tools and no technology.

That is a good way of thinking! Even religion should be about the search for truth and to get there one has to compare ideas and check if the Bible Narratives mesh with the rest of the old world history. Nothing is wrong with the issues of reading Sumerian Texts and looking at what was going on with Abraham and the City of Ur. Even the Pope wanted to go to the Abraham house ruins at the City of Ur, but Soddam Houssein could not guarantee his safety in Iraq. City of Ur was for a long time in the defense zone for Tallit AFB, and has only recently been returned to archiological work and public access. Now folks can go stand on the Ziggarat there, study how the Euprates Once ran there and made the area an agriculturial paradise area with aquiducts for crops.

There is a lot to learn and lots to associate that give these times before Noah a special meaning in the history of religion. The City of Ur methods, spawned the City of Babylon and Even the Egyptian City methods along the Nile. The Bible Narratives should be seen as a launch pad for search of the extended knowledge, not as the only information available. Too many Bible speak types stop with the one book, which speaks to the need for maintaining ignorance.

The rest of us go forth and keep up the search through antiquity and find the issues of religion that mesh with the old limited insights of religious histories. And the City of Ur and subjects like the Annunaki and Abraham all meet right there in the history timeline, and when that issue is connected the light comes on as to what Angels may have been in these earlier times, as well as what started man's concept for god from heaven. The translations from the Sumerian texts explain much of the issues explicitly.

But the one book's limited knowledge keeps the typical Christian with only a tiny view that looks pale of their understanding of the concepts that led to god and angels. Most of us like the discussions of these factors and even debate to toss out the issues.

Others just stick their heads in the sand and say I have learned all that I ever need to know, which in a world of infinite learning that never stops is endorsement of ignorance.


Obviously there is something wrong with the Christian concepts of there is only one book of knowledge, which keeps them from learning and keeping an open mind for ideas that explain the very origin of god in the human mind, the creation concepts for Adam, and why Jesus god theme of The Father was different from the Yahwah theme of god from Moses and most of the Jewish issues derived from Abraham.

The rest of use use the god given gift of brain and critical thinking skills, and others just waste that gift with a closed mind for any new ideas.

Such closed minded thinking almost kill Gallileo. Closed mnded thinking is definitely cultish and causes problems in the world today. There will always be greater knowledge and better ideas that shape men's knowledge and one has to be open to reasoned changes and updates to these issues, exceptionally so for religion.

reply to post by shaluach

Originally posted by Shaluach
Well when it comes down to the word mock meaning challenge or defy we have to fall back on Scriptures and Scriptures tell us how to engage our faith. Debate, in the negative connotation of the word, is not how we are supposed to go about it. We are to share and explain our faith. We are to answer questions. We are not to deride another person.

But there you go again; by adding this extra criteria to the word debate, i.e. by stating that debate is the “negative connotation of the word”, when it is not (see my reply to MagnumOpus above)

For example…
You can have a polite discussion,
You can have a heated discussion
You can have a polite debate.
And you can have a heated debate.

The conduct part, is a separate aspect, which can be applied to both debates and discussions.


Anyway, the thing is, I don’t actually disagree with your OP in essence, I only disagree with how you’re incorrectly defining debate. What I agree with you on, is that we are not to deride the other person, just like you said, and that when communication between two people is just constantly attacking each other, in a negative and condescending way, then yes, there comes a point, like the scriptures say, when it’s time to dust the sand of your shoes and move on, or at least IMO change plan, or your approach.

But yet throughout this entire thread I’ve been told I’m 100% wrong by you, and 1 other poster even called me dense, for not seeing your perspective, which is pretty heavy stuff, when you think about it. And on top of all that, I was also accused of being condescending, and trying to draw you into a debate, (debate by your definition of the word.)

And the irony of all this is, is that our entire conversation, proves my whole point! And if a people had just taken the time and given me a chance to explain my perspective, then everything I have outlined above, would have become clear, long before page 9, of this thread.


- JC

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

So you are claiming all Biblical phenomena are natural explained. The problem is your whole response is nothing but speculation. Just because you think this COULD be the explanation doesn't mean that it was the explanation. And even if it is natural do you not think that the Most High can use natural things? Of course He can. Just like with end times prophecies. Some of them may be fulfilled via natural means. It's still a fulfillment of prophecy regardless.

Lets pretend that you have a need for knowledge and collect it and place the information in records from ancient history. We know there are nature's ways all around us everyday, sometimes these are destructive ways.

The Churches, in some areas, tried to explain the New Orleans was distroyed because of its evil ways to play off the Soddam and Gomorrah theme. But for most of us, it was an act of god, and one that was the random nature effects of massive ocean storms. We have anthropoligical effects driving up storm energies these days, and nature as acts of god.

I don't think I know anyone that assumes god planned to wipe out New Orleans with Katrina.

The same applies to Moses Mtn of fire. Was Moses Mtn of Fire spontaneous effects of Nature that were frequent with the Rift Zone there was highly active, or was there a force allied with Moses acting to trigger these events in a coordinated way.

I saw nature provides some clues as to what was going on there. The Rift Zone and Oil Domes can't be denied because of the geology.

You say there was more to it-------and I say introduce me formally to the intelligent force that did such for Moses.

Then explain why Jesus tells this Moses god was not his god. Yahwah and Jesus', god the Father, were different.

So, you have information collections from areas like geology, ancient history from Sumerian Texts, and several other old records. Sift those down and explain why they were there unless that applied to man's view of the literal history of those times, and then some interesting things pop up about what was god, what was angels, what was heaven, and what was the Creation of man.

That would mean that the Bible Narrative is only one tiny element in the collections of the knowledge of ancient history and that one should seek to mesh these together to determine a greater understanding.