Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:53 am**

You're welcome.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:12 pm**

I checked with the author that I quoted from and his explanation was that the oldest "written" archaeological find was the The Larsa Weld Prism (dated c. 2170 B.C.)

The key to the 2200 B.C. date was if it was written or not.

All the finds dated prior to 2200 B.C. did not have a written language, they were only individual pictures, so far as archaeologists have been able to establish. (I think hieroglyphics, which would be a series of pictures, would count as a language. But a single picture, apparently is not classified as a language.)

The Temptation Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.) not "written", just a single picture
The Adam and Eve Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.) not "written", just a single picture

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:39 pm**

Here are more details about the archaeology:
I normally do not like to do just a big copy and paste, but I think this is interesting info. But just like anything else you read in any forum, aside from the facts of the archaeological finds, this is all just the opinion of men. But if these are accurate descriptions and translations of the finds, then I think there is a strong evidence here to make a case that backs up the biblical account. And I believe the translations to be accurate, because The Columbia History of the World is a secular writing, with no apparent agenda, Christian or otherwise.

Jad, if you want to use these you may want to verify from additional sources before using them.

Strand Study Bible wrote:Due to the fact that origins are beyond the reach of science to test (i.e., we are unable to experimentally “observe” how the universe came into existence), neither evolution nor creation can ever be scientifically proven. Thus, both become theories requiring faith to believe in them. Seeing I choose to trust God over man, my faith is in the Scriptures. There are four reasons for this trust:
1. Historians agree that HISTORY BEGAN in the Near East (Columbia, p. 49-51).
Genesis 2:7-14 agrees! Historians also agree that:
* Agriculture began in the Near East (Columbia, p. 52). Genesis 4:1-3 agrees!
* The invention of writing began in the Near East (i.e., Sumerian) (Columbia, p. 56). The Usborne Illustrated World History book states (p. 4),

“Writing develops in Sumer (c. 3300 B.C.)” 1

Moses, the man God used to pen Genesis through Deuteronomy, was a direct descendant of Abraham, who was from Sumerian - Genesis 11:31!
* The earliest preserved lawbook ever recovered came from the Near East (the law of Ur-Nammu, a king of Ur - written c. 2060 B.C.) (Columbia, p. 50,58)
* Hammurabi's laws (written c. 1800 B.C.) came from the Near East (Columbia, p. 62-63)
2. Historians agree that BABYLON and EGYPT are the main source of our historical memory (Columbia, p. 49). Genesis 11-12 agrees!
In a systematic presentation of the evidences in the field of Christian apologetics, it is necessary to review the Babylonian and Egyptian records as they bear upon the text of the Scripture, and illuminate its meaning. For it is here that the streams of History and Revelation converge, to continue their flow in mingled harmony throughout all the centuries, which follow this original conjunction.

3. Historians agree that EPICS OF CREATION, in various forms, on tablets, which were in circulation before the time of Abraham (c. 1800 B.C.), were recovered in the Near East (Columbia, p. 56,59,66). The Bible agrees!
It is generally conceded by ethnologists (i.e., people who study the different races of men) that when races of people hold a strongly developed idea or belief, in common, there must have been an historical incident as the basis of that universal tradition. Early Babylonian inscriptions abound in references to a “tree of life,” from which a man was driven, by the influence of an evil spirit personified in a serpent, and to which he was prevented from returning by guardian angels. For example:
* The Eridu Creation Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)
This account of Creation was discovered in Eridu, twelve miles south of Ur (Columbia, p. 56,59). This ancient Babylonian inscription reads,

“Near Eridu was a garden, in which was a mysterious Sacred Tree, a Tree of Life, planted by the gods, whose roots were deep, while its branches reached to heaven, protected by guardian spirits, and no man enters.”

* The Adapa Tablets
This account of Creation was discovered on four cuneiform fragments, three from Ashurbanipal's library in Nineveh (c. 650 B.C.) and the fourth from the archives of the Egyptian Pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV at Amarna in Egypt (c. 1400 B.C.) and refers to the Garden of Eden story (Genesis 3) (Columbia, p. 66). It is so strikingly parallel to the Biblical story of Adam that he (i.e., Adapa) has been called the Babylonian Adam. Consider the similarity of the two stories,

“Adapa, the seed of mankind,” —“the wise man of Eridu,”—“blameless,” —“then he offended the gods,” —“through knowledge,” —then he “became mortal,” —“food of life he ate not,” —“sickness he imposed on the people,” —the gods said, “he shall not rest,” —“they clothed him with a mourning garment.”

* The Temptation Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)
This seal was discovered among ancient Babylonian tablets and refers to the Creation story (Genesis 3). In the center is a tree. On the right is a man; on the left, a woman, plucking fruit. Behind the woman is a serpent, standing erect, as if whispering to her.

* The Adam and Eve Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.)
This seal was discovered twelve miles north of Nineveh. An inch in diameter and engraved on stone, it too is strongly suggestive of the Creation story (Genesis 3). Walking as if utterly cast-down and broken-hearted, a naked man and a naked woman are followed by a serpent.

Classics of Creation, in diverse forms, have also been found in Persia, India, Greece, China, Mongolia and Egypt. The earliest Egyptian record recounts how the god Khnum took a lump of mud, and placing it upon his potter's wheel, molded it into the physical form of the first man.

Adam no doubt, told the original story of the Garden of Eden to Methuselah, and Methuselah to Noah, and Noah to his sons; and in the national cultures that followed due to the confusion of tongues at Babel it became variously and grossly modified.
4. Historians everywhere agree that EPICS OF THE FLOOD, also on tablets, which were in circulation before the time of Abraham (c. 1800 B.C.), were recovered in the Near East (Columbia, p. 66,67,69,189). The Bible agrees!
Early Babylonian inscriptions abound in references to a universal “Flood” that once destroyed mankind. For example:
* The Gilgamesh Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)
Gilgamesh, the fifth king of the Erech dynasty, which was one of the first Dynasties after the Flood, records for us a conversation he had with a man by the name of Utnapishtim (no doubt a grossly modified name for Noah) (Columbia, p. 66,67,69). The following is Utnapishtim's reply to King Gilgamesh:

“The assembly of the gods decided to send a DELUGE. They said, On the sinner let his sin rest. O man of Shuruppak, build a ship, save your life. Construct it with six stories, each with seven parts. Smear it with bitumen inside and outside. Launch it upon the ocean. Take into the ship seed of life of every kind. I built it. With all that I had I loaded it, with silver, gold, and all living things that I had. I embarked upon the ship with my family and kindred. I closed the door. The appointed time arrived. I observed the appearance of the day. It was terrible. All light was turned to darkness. The rains poured down. The storm raged; like a battle charge on mankind. The boat trembled. The gods wept. I looked out upon the sea. All mankind was turned to clay, like logs floating about. The tempest ceased. The FLOOD was over. The ship grounded on Mt Zazir. On the seventh day I sent out a dove; it returned. I sent out a swallow; it returned. I sent out a raven; it alighted, it waded about; it croaked; it did not return. I disembarked. I appointed a sacrifice. The gods smelled the sweet savor. They said, Let it be done no more. ” (See - Genesis 7:1 - 8:20)

* The Berossus Tablet (dated c. 300 B.C.)
Berossus, the famous third century B.C. Babylonian priest/historian, recorded for us the event of the Flood when he copied an account of it out of the archives of the Temple of Marduk in Babylon (Columbia, p. 189). This is what he recorded:

“Xisuthros (no doubt a grossly modified name for Noah), a king, was warned by one of the gods to build a ship, and take into it his friends and relatives and all different kinds of animals, with all necessary food. Whereupon he built an immense ship, which was stranded in Armenia. Upon subsidence of the Flood, he sent out birds; the third time, they returned not. He came out, builded an altar, and sacrificed.” (Gen 7:1 - 8:20)

* The Larsa Weld Prism (dated c. 2170 B.C.)
This fine prism of baked clay was written by a scribe by the name of Nur-Ninsubur (c. 2170 B.C.). It was recovered and secured in 1922 at Larsa by the Weld-Blundell Expedition. It is the earliest known outline of world history, written around 174 years after the event of the Flood (c. 2344 BC). The Weld Prism records for us not only the list of the ten Pre-Flood kings but the “Event” that ended that history as well. Consider Nur-Ninsubur's account:

Alulim Reigned at Eridu 28,000 years
Alalmar Reigned at Eridu 36,000 years
Emenluanna Reigned at Badgurgurru 43,000 years
Kichunna Reigned at Larsa 43,000 years
Enmengalanna Reigned at Badgurgurru 28,000 years
Dumuza Reigned at Badgurgurru 36,000 years
Sibzianna Reigned at Larak 28,000 years
Emenduranna Reigned at Sippar 21,000 years
Uburratum Reigned at Shuruppak 18,000 years
Zinsuddu (Utnapishtim) 64,000 years

“Then the deluge (i.e., FLOOD) overthrew the land”

It is interesting to note here that although the earliest known author of world history over exaggerated the ages of the ten Pre-Flood kings, he certainly believed there existed a Flood. He said so.

* The Sumerian Flood Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)
This tablet records for us a legend of a man who was saved from a Flood by the intervention of the gods, in a huge boat.

* The Sumerian Kings Tablet (dated c. 2000 B.C.)
This tablet records for us a legend of a Deluge that had swept over the earth.

* Other traditions of a great Flood abound throughout the world. For example:

- Early Egyptian accounts record for us a legend of the gods who at one time purified the earth by a great Flood, from which only a few shepherds escaped.

- Early Chinese accounts record for us a legend of a man by the name of Fa-He (no doubt a grossly modified name for Noah), founder of the Chinese civilization, who had escaped from a Flood sent because man had rebelled against heaven. Fa- He had a wife, three sons and three daughters.

- Early Hindu accounts record for us a legend of a man by the name of Manu (no doubt a grossly modified name for Noah) who was warned to built a ship in order to escape the Deluge, which ended up destroying all creatures.

- Early Greek accounts record for us a legend of a man by the name of Deucalion (no doubt a grossly modified name for Noah) who was warned that the gods were going to bring a Flood upon the earth because of the great wickedness of man. Deucalion is said to have built an ark, which ended up resting upon Mt. Parnassus from which a dove was sent out twice.

- Early Druid accounts from England record for us a legend that the world had been re-peopled from a righteous man who had been saved in a strong ship from a Flood that was sent to destroy man for his wickedness.

- Early Greenland accounts record for us a legend of the earth once tilting over in which all men drowned, except one man and a woman, who re-peopled the earth.

- Early Polinesian accounts record for us a legend of a Flood from which eight people escape.

- Early Mexican accounts record for us a legend of a man and his wife and children who were saved in a ship from a Flood, which overwhelmed the earth.

- Early Peruvian accounts record for us a legend of a man and a woman who were saved in a box that floated on floodwaters.

- Early American Indian accounts record for us legends of between 1,3, and/or 8 people were saved in a boat above the waters on a high mountain.

These primitive records, carved on stone and clay tablets, at the very dawn of history, in the original home of man, preserved under the dust of the ages, and now at last brought to light by the spade of archaeologists, are evidence that the main features of the Biblical story of Creation and the Flood became deeply fixed in the thought of ancient man.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:55 pm**

Thanks so much YLTYLT. This may come in very handy!

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:53 am**

YLTYLT wrote:I checked with the author that I quoted from and his explanation was that the oldest "written" archaeological find was the The Larsa Weld Prism (dated c. 2170 B.C.)

The key to the 2200 B.C. date was if it was written or not.

All the finds dated prior to 2200 B.C. did not have a written language, they were only individual pictures, so far as archaeologists have been able to establish. (I think hieroglyphics, which would be a series of pictures, would count as a language. But a single picture, apparently is not classified as a language.)

The Temptation Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.) not "written", just a single picture
The Adam and Eve Seal (dated c. 3500 B.C.) not "written", just a single picture

The earliest written cuneiform tablets (cuneiform being a written language), date to around 3,000 BC. Written language is agreed to have started at around 3,500 BC. Details here.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:21 pm**

i'm interested if you guys are familiar with Kurt Vonnegut's fantastic "Slaughterhouse Five".

in the beginning the main character (billy pilgrim) is involved with a historical event, the bombing of dresden germany in world war 2. after which many fantastic events happen (such as time travel) and he recounts several moments of his life (even his death). i guess what i am asking is, since what happened early in the book is an actual event, should i believe what comes later as a real event also. or could it all just be historical fiction? (that is intended to give a good story, and offer some moral symbolism)

i'm interested in your thoughts, if you're familiar with the book of course.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:30 pm**

YaDinka wrote:i'm interested if you guys are familiar with Kurt Vonnegut's fantastic "Slaughterhouse Five".

in the beginning the main character (billy pilgrim) is involved with a historical event, the bombing of dresden germany in world war 2. after which many fantastic events happen (such as time travel) and he recounts several moments of his life (even his death). i guess what i am asking is, since what happened early in the book is an actual event, should i believe what comes later as a real event also. or could it all just be historical fiction? (that is intended to give a good story, and offer some moral symbolism)

i'm interested in your thoughts, if you're familiar with the book of course.

Yes, I had to read it. Hated it, hated it, hated it....actually preferred his "Cat;s cradle". I hated the swearing, I hated the irreverance, I hated the fatalism....

Billy Pilgrim could have been delusional from his experiences from the war....It could have happened...It could have been meant as simply a good story...he could have had brain damage and we are witnessing the results of that brain damage.

(Vonnegut had a truly amzing gift for making the reader hate life and be depressed about life. I saw his writings as being reflective of somebody that has no joy, does not know His creator, and saw like as meaningless, absurd, and useless. )

And yet, amazingly, his books also loved to delve into the miseries of life and the abject horror of life. So he loves to bring up misery and show the realities of life and yet offer no answers/comfort/reasons for the way the world is the way it is. THe only comfort he brings is the meaningless nature of life "so it goes"

Let's be clear, though, about your point in bringing up the book...why bring it up in this thread? What are you meaning to imply about this book in relation to the Evidence for Jesus?

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:33 pm**

zoegirl wrote:
YaDinka wrote:i'm interested if you guys are familiar with Kurt Vonnegut's fantastic "Slaughterhouse Five".

in the beginning the main character (billy pilgrim) is involved with a historical event, the bombing of dresden germany in world war 2. after which many fantastic events happen (such as time travel) and he recounts several moments of his life (even his death). i guess what i am asking is, since what happened early in the book is an actual event, should i believe what comes later as a real event also. or could it all just be historical fiction? (that is intended to give a good story, and offer some moral symbolism)

i'm interested in your thoughts, if you're familiar with the book of course.

Yes, I had to read it. Hated it, hated it, hated it....actually preferred his "Cat;s cradle". I hated the swearing, I hated the irreverance, I hated the fatalism....

Billy Pilgrim could have been delusional from his experiences from the war....It could have happened...It could have been meant as simply a good story...he could have had brain damage and we are witnessing the results of that brain damage.

(Vonnegut had a truly amzing gift for making the reader hate life and be depressed about life. I saw his writings as being reflective of somebody that has no joy, does not know His creator, and saw like as meaningless, absurd, and useless. )

And yet, amazingly, his books also loved to delve into the miseries of life and the abject horror of life. So he loves to bring up misery and show the realities of life and yet offer no answers/comfort/reasons for the way the world is the way it is. THe only comfort he brings is the meaningless nature of life "so it goes"

Let's be clear, though, about your point in bringing up the book...why bring it up in this thread? What are you meaning to imply about this book in relation to the Evidence for Jesus?

interesting. i want to tackle all these points one at a time. i must say i clicked on your profile (i hope you don't mind) and to learn that you are an adult and the first thing that you said you didn't like about it was 'the swearing'. i remember the first time i read that book (i have since read it several times) the swearing wasn't the first thing i came away with. but to each his own i guess. but with all the gore that is found in say the bible, the fact that a few swear words would turn you off is interesting to me i think. then a book about an entire doomed mankind (cat's cradle) you perfer, again, to each his own. (I also like cat's cradle better, but i like it because i think it's more mature, and humorous). in regards to fatalism, any well read vonnegut fan would say a common theme is his satire of that notion. the fact that the whole book happens after a tramatic war event shows that he isn't saying "this is how things are... we can't control it" (as the Tralfamadorians do later); he's actually saying "humans have the ability to control their life, but the damage they do to each other is a choice they indeed make". a similiar notion is found in 'cat's cradle' as awful as the notion of armaggedon is, the events a wholly set in motion by human beings. it's more about freewill, but it is definitely not supporting fatalism (and none of his books do).

then you say this, that makes me think you are not well read on vonnegut (but are prepared to make very assertive declarations): "(Vonnegut had a truly amzing gift for making the reader hate life and be depressed about life. I saw his writings as being reflective of somebody that has no joy, does not know His creator, and saw like as meaningless, absurd, and useless. )" the fact is is that he loved life, he just wished humans we kinder to one another. i've read a great number of his books and never hate life afterwards, quite opposite actually, i am completely in awe that this life offers someone as brilliant as that. check out 'dead-eye ****' (my favorite vonnegut book by the way) in it he claims the only thing a person is responsible to do in their life is to seek their own version of their 'katmandu'. which is a place that they are truly 100% happy (everyone's is different). i can't see for one second how you could see this as a person that see's life as meaningless. in 'slapstick' he proposes a society where people are joined by several new middle names so everyone has a larger extended family. this, he assumes, would help many peoples feelings of extreme loneliness. again, he was hardly a person who saw life as 'useless'. sure he thought life was very painful, but again this was usually from other humans wrong-doing. i mean why except war, when it just causes grief (to say the least).

then to say "And yet, amazingly, his books also loved to delve into the miseries of life and the abject horror of life. So he loves to bring up misery and show the realities of life and yet offer no answers/comfort/reasons for the way the world is the way it is. THe only comfort he brings is the meaningless nature of life "so it goes" " and yet all this misery and abject horror isn't a) found in the bible or b) actually present in real life. i am ok if you guys don't like this book, but please know why. if you don't understand the book then thats not really fair to vonnegut and yourself. i mean if i rejected the bible because the gore, and fantasy what would you say to me?

as far as "so it goes" isn't that in a nut shell what life is. if you reread the book you'll notice that is said only when death is spoken of/or someone dies. i know when i die someday this world will not miss a beat. it's sad i know, but so is reality.

i would urge you all to read just one chapter in a vonnegut book. in 'deadeye ****' there is a chapter where a family goes to a funeral and it is written as if it where a play. it says all i need to about what this compassionate man had to say about life, death, love, and remorse.

i also notice via your profile you are a teacher. i hope these 'reading-between-the-lines' skills improve when you are in the classroom. that isn't meant as an insult (please don't take it as one), i feel teachers should stimulate and help; not (unjustly) criticize and give students their opinion to read something or not.

and to answer your final question... isn't it clear why this was posted? though it is interesting you were the only one to pick up on it. it jesus' existance is traced to historical events (and no eye-witness accounts) does this make him real? and does it make everything that happens before and after reliable? even if it is highly implausible?

just curious.

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:18 pm**

YaDinka wrote:
zoegirl wrote:
YaDinka wrote:i'm interested if you guys are familiar with Kurt Vonnegut's fantastic "Slaughterhouse Five".

in the beginning the main character (billy pilgrim) is involved with a historical event, the bombing of dresden germany in world war 2. after which many fantastic events happen (such as time travel) and he recounts several moments of his life (even his death). i guess what i am asking is, since what happened early in the book is an actual event, should i believe what comes later as a real event also. or could it all just be historical fiction? (that is intended to give a good story, and offer some moral symbolism)

i'm interested in your thoughts, if you're familiar with the book of course.

Yes, I had to read it. Hated it, hated it, hated it....actually preferred his "Cat;s cradle". I hated the swearing, I hated the irreverance, I hated the fatalism....

Billy Pilgrim could have been delusional from his experiences from the war....It could have happened...It could have been meant as simply a good story...he could have had brain damage and we are witnessing the results of that brain damage.

(Vonnegut had a truly amzing gift for making the reader hate life and be depressed about life. I saw his writings as being reflective of somebody that has no joy, does not know His creator, and saw like as meaningless, absurd, and useless. )

And yet, amazingly, his books also loved to delve into the miseries of life and the abject horror of life. So he loves to bring up misery and show the realities of life and yet offer no answers/comfort/reasons for the way the world is the way it is. THe only comfort he brings is the meaningless nature of life "so it goes"

Let's be clear, though, about your point in bringing up the book...why bring it up in this thread? What are you meaning to imply about this book in relation to the Evidence for Jesus?
interesting. i want to tackle all these points one at a time. i must say i clicked on your profile (i hope you don't mind) and to learn that you are an adult and the first thing that you said you didn't like about it was 'the swearing'. i remember the first time i read that book (i have since read it several times) the swearing wasn't the first thing i came away with. but to each his own i guess.

Interesting....I say I don't like swearing and you are surprised that I am an adult? This is a sad commentary on your thoughts on what defines an adult. I was always taught that those who swear do so out of a lack of communication skills and immaturity. I thought so in high school and I still think so. Those that resort to purile words to prove their point or communicate their anger are immature. I cringe when people used language like that. Is that immature? prudish? I always had the greatest respect for those who can communicate without resorting to 4 letter words.

In addition, I NEVER said that was the first thing I took away from the book. Seems you are the one reading between the lines. I said I hated the swearing, I hated the irreverance, and I hated the fatalism. I then FOCUSED on the fatalism. Gee, didn't seem like I was obsessed with the swearing bit.

yadinka wrote:
but with all the gore that is found in say the bible, the fact that a few swear words would turn you off is interesting to me

The entire Bible focuses again and agin on the need for a savior and the horrors of humanity. People ARE depraved. People ARE mean. War IS bad. People DO sin. People do hate each other.....Throughout the entirety of scripture we see NOT ONLY that people are sinful BUT a solution to that sin. And no, I don't enjoy reading about the gore. Is it enjoyable to read about a sinful people? No, is is MEANINGFUL? Absolutely. We read about a God who is so gracious His own son dies in our place so that we may have a restored realtionship with Him. I grieve when I read about David sinning with Bathsheba. I grieve when I read about the wars fought, I grieve when I read about the rejection of Leah. Are people mean? You betcha. Is life full of suffering and pain? absolutely! Is there grace? yes Is there love? Absolutley!! Is there a solution to life's misery? and apparent meaningless? Yes!!

yadinka wrote: i think. then a book about an entire doomed mankind (cat's cradle) you perfer, again, to each his own. (I also like cat's cradle better, but i like it because i think it's more mature, and humorous).

Again, you are puttin words in my mouth AND making a false conclusion about why I liked cat;s cradle . (Stop reading between the lines and making assumptions

) I never said "I like cat's cradle better because it has less swearing, less gore, and less fatalism" I like it better because I liked the storyline better IN SPITE of the swearing.....

Cat's cradle addressed the discovery in science at the expense of the existence of the human race. It addressed the need for ethics and morality in science. I liked that topic better....maybe it is my love of science.

yadinka wrote: in regards to fatalism, any well read vonnegut fan would say a common theme is his satire of that notion. the fact that the whole book happens after a tramatic war event shows that he isn't saying "this is how things are... we can't control it" (as the Tralfamadorians do later); he's actually saying "humans have the ability to control their life, but the damage they do to each other is a choice they indeed make". a similiar notion is found in 'cat's cradle' as awful as the notion of armaggedon is, the events a wholly set in motion by human beings. it's more about freewill, but it is definitely not supporting fatalism (and none of his books do).

Ok, let me clarify. All Vonnegut's books seemed to do is Point out that there is evil in the world. YOu say he wanted society to see there is a choice. Does He offer any solution? He brings up the meaningless of the world to satire this philosophy, and yet does he offer any alternative? People are mean, war is bad, we shouldn't do these things" Well, gee, tell me something I don't know. Any teenager who has been teased in school knows that people *shouldn't* do these things. The problem is...considering that everybody *knows* that teasing is bad and war is bad and humans do evil things, He offers nothing more than "so it goes"

yadinka wrote: then you say this, that makes me think you are not well read on vonnegut (but are prepared to make very assertive declarations): "(Vonnegut had a truly amzing gift for making the reader hate life and be depressed about life. I saw his writings as being reflective of somebody that has no joy, does not know His creator, and saw like as meaningless, absurd, and useless. )" the fact is is that he loved life, he just wished humans we kinder to one another. i've read a great number of his books and never hate life afterwards, quite opposite

And yet again, you are reading between the lines and assuming things. I NEVER said I was well-read on Vonnegut. I pointed out right away that I was no fan. I appreciate your knowledge and I trust you on his other works. You do indeed know more about Vonnegut.

Maybe in retrospect this book fails for me because I AM comparing it to God's word. God's solution and response to the horrors of humanity is so much more beautiful, gracious, loving, and meaninglful that Vonnegut's offerings seem paltry in comparision. Yoy are welcome to disagree.

yadinaka wrote: i can't see for one second how you could see this as a person that see's life as meaningless. in 'slapstick' he proposes a society where people are joined by several new middle names so everyone has a larger extended family. this, he assumes, would help many peoples feelings of extreme loneliness. again, he was hardly a person who saw life as 'useless'. sure he thought life was very painful, but again this was usually from other humans wrong-doing. i mean why except war, when it just causes grief (to say the least).

Well, I have my right to havemy opinion.
Look, you ASKED if anyone here had read the book. Why ask for an OPINION if you are so unwilling to entertain the idea that somebody else does not enjoy the same work? Sounds like you are the intolerant one here.

I personall loved "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoyesky. It is a fasciniating work describing the mind of an ax murderer and describes in detail his descent into murdering a old woman. Gory? Absolutely! Did I enjoy the gore? no! (about an axe murdere named Raskonikov) But C& P shows a man who wrestles with his conscious and is wracked with guilt. It demands that the main character find peace. It offers not only the misery in this life but a solution, a response from the character.

I also loved Jane Eyre (but way too slow in the beginning). I also liked Villete, another one of Bronte's work. Interestingly enough, I also found "Lord of the Flies" fascinating. It really did not sugar-coat the horrors of humanity. Go figure. Crime and Punishment and Lord of the Flies alongside Jane Eyre. Try to figure that out!!

yadinka wrote: then to say "And yet, amazingly, his books also loved to delve into the miseries of life and the abject horror of life. So he loves to bring up misery and show the realities of life and yet offer no answers/comfort/reasons for the way the world is the way it is. THe only comfort he brings is the meaningless nature of life "so it goes" " and yet all this misery and abject horror isn't a) found in the bible or b) actually present in real life.

I never said it wasn't found in the bible. Stop putting words in my mouth

. Absolutely the Bible addresses the grief, the pain, the loneliness, the sin, the corruption, the meanness of humanity. Good grief....that's the whole message of the Bible. There is sin. What is doesn't do it say life is meaningless. We have a meaning, we have significance....If you really think the Bible does not provide and meaning to life then you truly have no notion of the meaning of the Bible.

yadinka wrote: i am ok if you guys don't like this book, but please know why. if you don't understand the book then thats not really fair to vonnegut and yourself. i mean if i rejected the bible because the gore, and fantasy what would you say to me?

Um, again, you asked if anyone had read the book. You never said we must had a perfect understanding of the book....

Ah, but wait, YOU want me to not reject a book because I do not understand it. May I respectfully say the same for you and the Bible? Do NOT reject the Bible because you do not understand it (and don't say you understand it. You have written over a page accusing me of not understanding Vonnegut . My contention is that you don;t understand the meaning of the bible

yadinak wrote: as far as "so it goes" isn't that in a nut shell what life is. if you reread the book you'll notice that is said only when death is spoken of/or someone dies. i know when i die someday this world will not miss a beat. it's sad i know, but so is reality.

You expressed sorrow that I am simply not understanding a book!! And yet I am saddened tremendously that you are not understanding life. I am sorry for you. My Bible is true, My God is true, My savior is true. JEsus Christ lives today, lives in me, and I wish I could open your eyes to see this and see that He could live in you. You say you wish I could understand Vonnegut! Vonnegut is simply a man! And you are almost mad and yet sorry that I do not understand him? Then how much sadder I am to know that you do not understand God and His love for you.

yadinka wrote: i would urge you all to read just one chapter in a vonnegut book. in 'deadeye ****' there is a chapter where a family goes to a funeral and it is written as if it where a play. it says all i need to about what this compassionate man had to say about life, death, love, and remorse.

By all means, people can read his books. I never said I didn't learn anything from it, simply that I didn't like his message.

yadinak wrote: i also notice via your profile you are a teacher. i hope these 'reading-between-the-lines' skills improve when you are in the classroom. that isn't meant as an insult (please don't take it as one), i feel teachers should stimulate and help; not (unjustly) criticize and give students their opinion to read something or not.

How laughable. You have put words in my mouth, read between my lines, made false conclusions and you then have the audacity to proclaim that "you hope I don't do this in my classroom". THEN you quickly retract and say it is not an insult. If you feel that I have indeed done all of these things, then certainly you are meaning to insult. Don't hide your teeth. Doubt it will do any good to contend that I don't do this in the classroom, but there it goes.

I never said I would not have students read the book. YOU ASKED FOR AN OPINION, not a dissertation. I did not like the book. I think his message is bad. Even you think at the heart his message of "so it goes" is correct. I disagree. I still feel my criticisms are just. I wrote a quick reply to your question.

I do respect your knowledge of the book and gladly concede that you now your stuff about Vonnegut. You are making me remember high school days...I read it my Junior year.

I have forgotten a lot. I did a quick search on Wikipedia to refresh my memory.

yadinka wrote: and to answer your final question... isn't it clear why this was posted? though it is interesting you were the only one to pick up on it. it jesus' existance is traced to historical events (and no eye-witness accounts) does this make him real? and does it make everything that happens before and after reliable? even if it is highly implausible?

just curious.

Yes, I knew that was where you wanted to go with this. I just wanted you to state it. Let's not hide behind ambiguous questions about obvious works of fiction. You wanted to bring up a book that talks about imaginative events and wonderful time travel and then you want to somehow compare it to scripture that has a wealth of archaeological accuracy. You see scripture as fiction, Ok, but to use SH-5 to illustrate your criticism of the Bible by comparing SH-5 with a work spanning over 2000 years with an astonishingly high agreement in meaning and theme is stretching things considerably. . I respectfully assert that you need to understand the historical accuracy of the scripture better AND that you need to understand the MEANING of scripture better. And lest you say you do understand, remember, you have stated you know your Vonnegut and obviously can point out flaws in my conclusions. You are now in a web forum of those that study the scripture like you seem to study Vonnegut. We know when somebody is getting even the basics wrong. I respectfully say that you do not even understand the basics.

The main website has a section on Biblical authneticity. Check it out and refute the points.

Thanks for the refresher in literature. I have indeed forgotten much. Must be my adult mind

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:22 am**

YaDinka wrote:check out 'dead-eye ****' (my favorite vonnegut book by the way) in it he claims the only thing a person is responsible to do in their life is to seek their own version of their 'katmandu'. which is a place that they are truly 100% happy (everyone's is different).

Hi YaDinka,

Is that what you believe yourself, that life is all about finding true 100% happiness?

-

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:34 pm**

zoegirl and jad thanks for the replies and questions, they are as follows below. but first i would like to say that i would like this discussion to continue, but as i was warned yesterday that (though my discussion was neither offensive or aggressive to anyone but was simply "Despite this board being open to all for registration, this is a private board and has certain rules all posters must agree to abide by which have been clearly spelled out in our board purpose and guidelines. If you are quite decided that Christianity is not for you then this board is not for you. There are many other boards on the Net that facilitate debating, but this is not one. This is a Christian community board pure and simple.") i may not be able to continue. i will continue this discussion as much as i can. i came looking for a discussion, to be clearer in both my beliefs and yours; though perhaps a force beyond my control may end that (and it is not god almighty). we will see of course. i hope i am not excluded however, i want to be on the record as saying that. otherwise we'll have to continue these discussions over drinks (jk).

without further ado:

zoegirl wrote:Interesting....I say I don't like swearing and you are surprised that I am an adult? This is a sad commentary on your thoughts on what defines an adult. I was always taught that those who swear do so out of a lack of communication skills and immaturity. I thought so in high school and I still think so. Those that resort to purile words to prove their point or communicate their anger are immature. I cringe when people used language like that. Is that immature? prudish? I always had the greatest respect for those who can communicate without resorting to 4 letter words.

In addition, I NEVER said that was the first thing I took away from the book. Seems you are the one reading between the lines. I said I hated the swearing, I hated the irreverance, and I hated the fatalism. I then FOCUSED on the fatalism. Gee, didn't seem like I was obsessed with the swearing bit.

i assumed it was the most prevailing thing you came away with since it was the first thing you listed. much as if i saw a film and you asked me what i thought, chances are my first response would be my prevailing opinion. this is just how humans critique and review the arts. if i was way off perhaps you should have been a little clearer.

But just as you say you cringe as you hear "4-letter words" (i'm glad you said that; because lets not forget exactly what they are-- just words), i cringe that as adults we can't act as such. i agree there are times when swearing is completely unnecessary or vulger, but never have i been in a situation wearing a 'four letter world' is going to do significant damage to me or others. i agree adults should speak with advanced vocabularies, but shouldn't we also be able to tolerate profanity, different thoughts, and adult topics?

zoegirl wrote:The entire Bible focuses again and agin on the need for a savior and the horrors of humanity. People ARE depraved. People ARE mean. War IS bad. People DO sin. People do hate each other.....Throughout the entirety of scripture we see NOT ONLY that people are sinful BUT a solution to that sin. And no, I don't enjoy reading about the gore. Is it enjoyable to read about a sinful people? No, is is MEANINGFUL? Absolutely. We read about a God who is so gracious His own son dies in our place so that we may have a restored realtionship with Him. I grieve when I read about David sinning with Bathsheba. I grieve when I read about the wars fought, I grieve when I read about the rejection of Leah. Are people mean? You betcha. Is life full of suffering and pain? absolutely! Is there grace? yes Is there love? Absolutley!! Is there a solution to life's misery? and apparent meaningless? Yes!!

ok, so what we have here is you trying hard to understand one book and passing one off. that was a theme in my first post, and a thesis of many of my posts. lets try not to make snap decisions on certain things and not others. if you argue one is better then the other thats fine, but lets call it what it is your opinion (which you are more then entitled to have) and i have mine. lets also try and back this stuff up with more then just emotion. and by the way, the opinion that i beleive all should have on this forum, i am not able to have evidently (see above). i just think all things in this world should get the same scrutiny, thought, and admiration. if i have invested 100 hours in book x, and only 5 in book y it is not fair to critique book y as inferior to book x. it has not been given the same chance. you are doing yourself a disservice as well in this instance.

zoegirl wrote:Again, you are puttin words in my mouth AND making a false conclusion about why I liked cat;s cradle . (Stop reading between the lines and making assumptions ) I never said "I like cat's cradle better because it has less swearing, less gore, and less fatalism" I like it better because I liked the storyline better IN SPITE of the swearing.....

Cat's cradle addressed the discovery in science at the expense of the existence of the human race. It addressed the need for ethics and morality in science. I liked that topic better....maybe it is my love of science.

agreed. perhaps my snap decision would have been different had i been given all the information initially.

zoegirl wrote:Ok, let me clarify. All Vonnegut's books seemed to do is Point out that there is evil in the world. YOu say he wanted society to see there is a choice. Does He offer any solution? He brings up the meaningless of the world to satire this philosophy, and yet does he offer any alternative? People are mean, war is bad, we shouldn't do these things" Well, gee, tell me something I don't know. Any teenager who has been teased in school knows that people *shouldn't* do these things. The problem is...considering that everybody *knows* that teasing is bad and war is bad and humans do evil things, He offers nothing more than "so it goes"

this is where you start to lose me. the solution he offers is that he wanted people to react differently they they are doing. also solutions are listen in other points of my reply (see what i said about 'slapstick' for example). the alternative that he offers is a better world thru better understanding of things (see my 'thesis' remarks). i also enjoy how in one sentance you equate both 'teasing' and 'war' to being 'bad' (i would say as bad as teasing is, war is a little worse). made me chuckle. maybe you have a future as a satirist.

zoegirl wrote:And yet again, you are reading between the lines and assuming things. I NEVER said I was well-read on Vonnegut. I pointed out right away that I was no fan. I appreciate your knowledge and I trust you on his other works. You do indeed know more about Vonnegut.

this is what i don't understand, in back to back paragraphs you say this: "All Vonnegut's books seemed to do is Point out that there is evil in the world." then you say "I NEVER said I was well-read on Vonnegut."

i'm lost... which is it? my head hurts. anyone?

zoegirl wrote:Maybe in retrospect this book fails for me because I AM comparing it to God's word. God's solution and response to the horrors of humanity is so much more beautiful, gracious, loving, and meaninglful that Vonnegut's offerings seem paltry in comparision. Yoy are welcome to disagree.

and i will. how are they more beautiful, gracious... ect. i would like examples (even if just your personal opinion). don't just say it is, show me act like i'm one of your students that can't handle swearing. (as i did with a selected chapter). as far as god's solution isn't it just repent and bow? (obviously paraphrased)

zoegirl wrote:Well, I have my right to have my opinion.

kudos! and i do to (unless of course i am expelled; for no real reason other then disagreeing-- but isn't that what a discussion is, hence discussion board?)

zoegirl wrote:Look, you ASKED if anyone here had read the book. Why ask for an OPINION if you are so unwilling to entertain the idea that somebody else does not enjoy the same work? Sounds like you are the intolerant one here. I personall loved "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoyesky. It is a fasciniating work describing the mind of an ax murderer and describes in detail his descent into murdering a old woman. Gory? Absolutely! Did I enjoy the gore? no! (about an axe murdere named Raskonikov) But C& P shows a man who wrestles with his conscious and is wracked with guilt. It demands that the main character find peace. It offers not only the misery in this life but a solution, a response from the character.

I also loved Jane Eyre (but way too slow in the beginning). I also liked Villete, another one of Bronte's work. Interestingly enough, I also found "Lord of the Flies" fascinating. It really did not sugar-coat the horrors of humanity. Go figure. Crime and Punishment and Lord of the Flies alongside Jane Eyre. Try to figure that out!!

i am assuming this portion was to prove how well read you are. great, i meet many adults who do not have a happiness for reading, that makes me shrill, just as a sidebar i thought i'd mention that. so great i'm glad you are active in literature. i mainly stick (for pleasure anyway) to post-modern stuff. 'white noise' by don delillo is something that i think everyone should read. perhaps will discuss that at some point unless i get the boot.

zoegirl wrote:I never said it wasn't found in the bible. Stop putting words in my mouth . Absolutely the Bible addresses the grief, the pain, the loneliness, the sin, the corruption, the meanness of humanity. Good grief....that's the whole message of the Bible. There is sin. What is doesn't do it say life is meaningless. We have a meaning, we have significance....If you really think the Bible does not provide and meaning to life then you truly have no notion of the meaning of the Bible.

what is the meaning if you don't mind? i'll say mine in the end in response to 'jad'. again if you don't want words put in your mouth then don't say what it doesn't say, then not say what it actually says. i mean you seem to think i am wrong, then you do not offer a correction. i thought you were wrong with vonnegut so i took time to correct where i thought you were mistaken. if the bible is so great tell me why... don't be so vague, you clearly hold this stuff dear, but i don't see the same passion in your dissection of it.

zoegirl wrote:Um, again, you asked if anyone had read the book. You never said we must had a perfect understanding of the book....

we would you want to read something and not try to understand it. that seems like a waste of ones time. so yes, i was assuming that if someone read it they would be able to understand it... should i not make that assumption around here, that you guys read something and don't always understand?

zoegirl wrote:Ah, but wait, YOU want me to not reject a book because I do not understand it. May I respectfully say the same for you and the Bible? Do NOT reject the Bible because you do not understand it (and don't say you understand it. You have written over a page accusing me of not understanding Vonnegut . My contention is that you don;t understand the meaning of the bible

i think i understand it ok. but i think understanding the bible is the problem. look at all the various versions we have of christianity, every group feels there version is 'the correct one.' i would guess yours differs from many on this board. but again, if you feel i don't understand it help me... much as i did with you in regards to vonnegut. isn't that the point of this board is to collectively reach a better understanding? (as long as i don't get axed of course)

zoegirl wrote:You expressed sorrow that I am simply not understanding a book!! And yet I am saddened tremendously that you are not understanding life. I am sorry for you. My Bible is true, My God is true, My savior is true. JEsus Christ lives today, lives in me, and I wish I could open your eyes to see this and see that He could live in you. You say you wish I could understand Vonnegut! Vonnegut is simply a man! And you are almost mad and yet sorry that I do not understand him? Then how much sadder I am to know that you do not understand God and His love for you.

yes, this sounds like a faith based on it's humbleness. rather then help you turn up your nose and offer pity. thanks.

zoegirl wrote:How laughable. You have put words in my mouth, read between my lines, made false conclusions and you then have the audacity to proclaim that "you hope I don't do this in my classroom". THEN you quickly retract and say it is not an insult. If you feel that I have indeed done all of these things, then certainly you are meaning to insult. Don't hide your teeth. Doubt it will do any good to contend that I don't do this in the classroom, but there it goes.

I never said I would not have students read the book. YOU ASKED FOR AN OPINION, not a dissertation. I did not like the book. I think his message is bad. Even you think at the heart his message of "so it goes" is correct. I disagree. I still feel my criticisms are just. I wrote a quick reply to your question.

i think you missed the point, so i'll re-clearify. if a student came to you with that book and said "should i read this?" would you say "by all means do so, judge for yourself" or would you go on the uninformed tirade you did earlier. i believe teachers should just be a conduit to stimulate students, not give opinion on things that will do just the opposite. sure i connected the dots (i think justly), but only you know how you act to young minds. you have the big guy (or is it girl) to answer to i don't. i mean clearily you judge things how it apples to your bible (your words: "Maybe in retrospect this book fails for me because I AM comparing it to God's word."), and to a young mind i think that is giving knowledge a biased framework; let that mind grow into what it is ultimately going to on its own.

zoegirl wrote:I do respect your knowledge of the book and gladly concede that you now your stuff about Vonnegut. You are making me remember high school days...I read it my Junior year. I have forgotten a lot. I did a quick search on Wikipedia to refresh my memory.

thanks, i'm glad you respect my knowledge, just not enough to not agree with it. i'm sorry i should've just taken that compliment and moved on, i'm working on that though.

zoegirl wrote: Yes, I knew that was where you wanted to go with this. I just wanted you to state it. Let's not hide behind ambiguous questions about obvious works of fiction. You wanted to bring up a book that talks about imaginative events and wonderful time travel and then you want to somehow compare it to scripture that has a wealth of archaeological accuracy. You see scripture as fiction, Ok, but to use SH-5 to illustrate your criticism of the Bible by comparing SH-5 with a work spanning over 2000 years with an astonishingly high agreement in meaning and theme is stretching things considerably. . I respectfully assert that you need to understand the historical accuracy of the scripture better AND that you need to understand the MEANING of scripture better. And lest you say you do understand, remember, you have stated you know your Vonnegut and obviously can point out flaws in my conclusions. You are now in a web forum of those that study the scripture like you seem to study Vonnegut. We know when somebody is getting even the basics wrong. I respectfully say that you do not even understand the basics.

The main website has a section on Biblical authneticity. Check it out and refute the points.

Thanks for the refresher in literature. I have indeed forgotten much. Must be my adult mind

that was why i posted that. i mean you will argue with me till we are blue in the face that 'archeological evidence' supports jesus' existence. if i went to dresden i would find much rumble from the bombing, does this 'archeological evidence' support then, everthing that happens later? thats what i want to know. also it's curious that in your defense you pushed me somewhere else, tat would have been like me replying to your initial critique by just sending you to a vonnegut website. but no, i enjoy/believe in his talent that i can hold my own. i mean what do these arguments mean if you can't speak of them on your own. i would say a belief that can't be explained, is a belief not worth having. i believe vonnegut is sublime as a writer, and i think you could get that from my posts.

and finally yes, juda that is what i think life's purpose is. but before you think i have fallen into your trap realize that my 'katmandu' may be completely different from yours, and may happen on earth. i mean wasn't it belinda carlisle that said; "heaven is a place on earth'.

i'll right thats it. i hope (fingers crossed) this continues.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:26 pm**

First,

You asked for an opinion, I wrote a quick reply. I'll repeat again, I don't like his style nor his philosophies. YOu must agree that there are some books that people just don't like, for whatever reason. I will gladly admit he is a brilliant writer. I will gladly admit that he is creative. At the time that I read it, I hated it. I didn't learn much from it, I am glad that you did.

I also didn't like Siddhartha, or A Farewell to Arms, or Candide.

I learned much more from Crime and Punishment, Jane Eyre, Lord of the FLies, any Shakespeare play, and Steinbeck. We could turn this in into Lit class again, but frankly let's simply agree that some like Vonnegut and other don't. I will gladly concede to his skill.

As to the swearing, we must also agree to disagree. Swearing to me is indicative of losing control, a lack of discipline, a lack of maturity, and and lack of consideration, as well as poor communication skills. Gone are the days of simple etiquette where we think of the other person.

From a state of humanity perspective, it is also an indicative of anger. Simply look at any Jerry Springer show and observe how vicious and angry they are and listen to the number of censored words. It is reflective of us not understanding our own minds, being reminiscent of a child hitting another child because he doesn't understand his anger and taking it out on to the other child.

As to the damage it does, may I respectfully suggest that wallowing in filth induces a tolerance for that very filth? Those who continue to litter their languange and mind with such poor expression and anger soon learn to tolerate it and don't see it's damage.

It is sad to see society enjoy the level of anger and expressing this anger. But for those who swear, they feast on that anger.

Now whether or not one can handle swearing, why should we stoop to that level? As someone who seems (lest I assume

) to enjoy literature, one would think that the highest forms of language and communication would be esteemed, rather the brutal, angry, simplicity of swearing.

Even Shakespeare's swearing was more poetic and witty than any form of gritty language today.

yadinka wrote: and i will. how are they more beautiful, gracious... ect. i would like examples (even if just your personal opinion). don't just say it is, show me act like i'm one of your students that can't handle swearing. (as i did with a selected chapter). as far as god's solution isn't it just repent and bow? (obviously paraphrased)

Glad you asked

I will gladly provide. This must obviously be the Cliff notes version

You see in scripture that humanity is made of of sinful and corrupt people. We have sinned. We were created in God's image, to be but a reflection upon His nature. He made us and declared us along with the creation good. He established us in a place with free reign except with the fruit of the tree. We rebeled against the Holy and Righteous Creator. This Creator is perfect, sinless, pure, as well as perfectly just. Being perfectly just and righteous, He cannot dwell with those that are unrighteous and sinful. We dared to presume we know what we should do. We dared to liken ourselves to God. That is really the original sin. The rebellion of eating the fruit revealed of selfishness, our deceit, our not trusting God, our placing ourselves at the same level of God. We are condemned to be separated from God, by our very rejection of HIm. But even in Garden, God declares to the serpent that a man will crush his head. God already has set a plan of salvation. Christ will be the incarnate Son of Man to crush the serpent's hold on humanity. Thus we see the redemption set in place even in the beginning of this book. We see this redeemer theme come up again and again in the midst of observing the need for a savior again and again. God establishes that we cannot live a life that is pure and holy. We are in need of saving.

Humans are sinful, they are mean, hateful, deceitful, proud, selfish, cruel, arrogant, and inconsiderate. They cannot have a relationhsip with God, we have rejected Him.

But we see a God who so loved His creation that He sent His own son to live a perfect life (thus satisfying the holy and righteous requirement to have a relationship with God) and died a death that was meant for us (thus satisfying the payment for sin). Not only do we see Christ's life and crucifixition, but we see His resurrection. He conquered death! He restores the broken relationship with God. He died for those who are willing to acknowledge and claim this death and resurrection as payment for their sins.

Beautiful? hmm, a God who loves His creation so much He is willing to suffer for our rejection...I would say say so
Gracious? hmmm, a God who forgives those who rejected Him....
Is life meaningful? Absolutely! A God who created us and declared our existence good, A God who would love for people come back to Him
Does scripture show the horrors of humanity? sure, already addressed this. Throughout scripture we see that we are not capable of living just, pure, righteous lives. We are sinful, we are hateful, everyone of us. We are in need of saving...
Can we have a relationship with this God? yes! and not only does He want to have a relatiohsip with us, He himself came and died for us....

Amazing grace!! How sweet the sound! Amen! My savior, who died for me!!

Makes me shake my head in disbelief every time.

NOW, whterh or not you believe this to be true, for the sake of argument, let's assume so. Would not a savior sacrifing himself for His people make life meaningful? Significant? Worthy of living eveyr moment of life to its fullness? THAT, to me, is a significant book!

yadinka wrote: just think all things in this world should get the same scrutiny, thought, and admiration. if i have invested 100 hours in book x, and only 5 in book y it is not fair to critique book y as inferior to book x. it has not been given the same chance. you are doing yourself a disservice as well in this instance.

Ok, I agreed already that was not an expert on Vonnegut. But right back at you. Unless you tell me that you have exhausted every apologetics book out there, spending 20 times the energy and focus on the Bible that you have with Vonnegut, you cannot claim expertise on the Bible, nor can you even remotely offer criticism on it. See, you have now established what it takes to be authentic in your criticism on a book. To you, I cannot offer any opinion on Vonnegut unless I know my stuff. Ok, quite valid....What makes you think we should even listen to your criticisms of the Bible unless you tell us that you have read 20 times and spent 20 times more hours on the material on the Bible ? Hoist by your own petard, I would say.

You yourself did not paint yourself as an honest seeker, so you reject Christianity at this time and are not seeking to change that. Yet by your very standards you cannot claim the expertise to reject Christianity if indeed you have not spent more time understanding it.

yadinka wrote:i would guess yours differs from many on this board. but again, if you feel i don't understand it help me... much as i did with you in regards to vonnegut. isn't that the point of this board is to collectively reach a better understanding? (as long as i don't get axed of course)

I did not include the list to prove to you how great a reader I am, to be honest, I don't read much now, simply don't have the time, unless it would be Christian apologetics, science textbooks, or journal articles. I read those lit books back in High school. I simple wanted to provide a comparison to what I liked to read. I do love to read, but Villete was the last lit book I can claim to have read outside of college.

No, scratch that, I did read tolkein again and I read C.S. Lewis's Space trilogy....awesome, awesome books, btw.

Don't know why you would think my version of Christianity is any different? You must clarify that positiion. What I wrote would be considered mainstream. Sure, you have differences in the mechanics involved, different doctrinal positions, but what belief doesn't have tension? Check out the website's section on the essetianl belief statment.

yadinka wrote:thanks, i'm glad you respect my knowledge, just not enough to not agree with it. i'm sorry i should've just taken that compliment and moved on, i'm working on that though.

Why in the world should your expertise necessarily change my opinion about whether or not I liked the book? Our expertise in the bible doesn't change your mind, does it?

I think you must be willing to simply accept the fact that for all of us, we don't like some books. I could probably offend some Hemingway fans on some literary forum because I am not a fan. You are quite possibly wondering what in the world I find to like about Jane Eyre? Any expertise in this area would not convince you to like it. You may be willing to concede that Bronte writes well, or that she used some interesting literary devices, but if you find here writing prosy and ponderous, then you'll never want to read her books. I didn't like His writing, although he was certinaly clever with the circular plot device.

yadinka wrote:i mean what do these arguments mean if you can't speak of them on your own. i would say a belief that can't be explained, is a belief not worth having.

Ok, here you are just being silly. I have explained my belief above. Let's be clear. I POINTED YOU TO THE SECTION OF THE WEBSITE THAT DEALT WITH THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. I am sorry you feel that this is a deficit, but I am quite willing to reference a good place to start. Quite honestly, why would I only trust you on Vonnegut? I did quick websearches on my own and did quick research myself. I would have be happy if you included any sources you deemed relevant and would have checked them. You seem to want me to trust you implicitly on Vonnegut and then you dismiss entirely any expertise on our subject.

yadinka wrote:and finally yes, juda that is what i think life's purpose is. but before you think i have fallen into your trap realize that my 'katmandu' may be completely different from yours, and may happen on earth. i mean wasn't it belinda carlisle that said; "heaven is a place on earth'.

Well, pedophiles are probably quite happy when they are abusing children and satisfying their lust, so I guess their happiness justifies what they do. After all, their heaven on earth is having sex with children? Hitler's katmandu was the total annihilation of a race of people. Guess he was just fulfilling his responsibility to find katmandu. The white supremacists down in Louisiana and quite pleased with themselves in supressing the rights of the jena 6 currently. Guess they are finding their katmandu. Rapists, after all, are simply exploring their happiness.

And lest you think you can simply say that ones' happiness should not interfere with another's....that is not stated in the philosophy. Nor can that be true, for after all, if we supress pedophile's lust, then they aren't happy. Guess we trampled all over Hitler's katmandu. Sorry, Hitler, guess you can't enjoy gassing all those people, you don't get to enjoy your heaven on earth.

Regards

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:47 pm**

zoegirl wrote:Interesting....I say I don't like swearing and you are surprised that I am an adult? This is a sad commentary on your thoughts on what defines an adult. I was always taught that those who swear do so out of a lack of communication skills and immaturity. I thought so in high school and I still think so. Those that resort to purile words to prove their point or communicate their anger are immature. I cringe when people used language like that. Is that immature? prudish? I always had the greatest respect for those who can communicate without resorting to 4 letter words.

Just to add my two cents... I really enjoyed what you said here zoe. Not resorting to 4 letter words these days is an extreme rarity... Don't be surprised if you find yourself living alone in our world of chaos.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:17 pm**

Thanks

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:37 pm**

YaDinka wrote:and finally yes, juda that is what i think life's purpose is. but before you think i have fallen into your trap realize that my 'katmandu' may be completely different from yours, and may happen on earth. i mean wasn't it belinda carlisle that said; "heaven is a place on earth'.

i'll right thats it. i hope (fingers crossed) this continues.

juda?

When you say life I presume you mean life on earth. I'm not talking about anything outside of that. Also there is no trap to fall into, I just wanted to share with you that as a Christian life is actually not about finding 100% happiness on earth. It's about something that transcends any kind of pain or pleasure. Sure a Christian will enjoy life more than ones does not enjoy life just like most people would but the priority in our lives is far greater than any kind of happiness. If you take a look at the disciples for instance, even if you don't believe they were first hand eye-witnesses, they lived and died for Christ through great trials and tribulations. Think of the apostle Paul for example. He received the 39 lashes five times, he was beaten with rods 3 times, he was shipwrecked 3 times and he was almost stoned to death; in the end he was beheaded for preaching the Gospel. His goal was never 100% happiness.

Below is a remembrance comment at the beginning of a book I recently read…

“To the memory of Dr. Charles Smith, a mentor who prayed for his cancer to return if it would bring him closer to God. In the last year he found God in a measure he had never known before. And then he died - of cancer.”

Hopefully that gives you a better idea of what a Christian is like, or should be like. That and what zoegirl showed with the examples of pedophiles, rapists and the likes of Hitler. I think these examples also show that life is not about 100% happiness to anyone at all let alone the humble Christian.

Oh and on a side note I quite agree with zoegirl as well when it comes to swearing. I remember seeing an interview with a stand-up comedian. He said "anyone who gets up on stage and uses 4 letter words all the time is simple looking for a cheap laugh." Anyone can swear, there is nothing talented about it.
And from a different perspective, like at my workplace, every second word is a swear word. It's spoken so often that they have pretty much become meaningless. There is no power of expression left in them. It's becoming like that in the cinemas as well.

-
-

Evidence for God from Science

The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus

Re: The Evidence For Jesus