A thread like this may already have been made...but I don't see it so I thought I'd make one. Just a simple question...what is your religion? And why so?
Also..please try to keep arguments very limited. I'm not looking to start flame wars here..I am just interested in hearing about why people believe in what they do.
I lean toward atheism, although I do not dismiss the possibility of a deity, I feel it is unlikely. As morbid as it may be... I think we just rot in the ground after we die, only for other organisms to continue to live.
As morbid as it may be... I think we just rot in the ground after we die, only for other organisms to continue to live.
That's true with every other animal on this planet. Why would humans be any different? Why would our species alone be able to break the laws of science so our brainwaves could somehow leave our bodies after we died and enter some alternate world where they could flourish for an eternity?
Well most of them are things that naturally happen, like locusts swarms or disease. But they obviously didn't happen around the same time, or Egypt would have said something about it, and really every other place on earth had similar problems. Except the first born dying, that is definitely BS.
it did happen in that order in a 5 to 8 year time period. and the 1st borns dieing is not BS. it's also true.
just look for it, you will see.
Besides, wouldn't that be "roof" for Judaism, not Christianity, since it is in the Torah?
do i look like someone who cares. it's not like i believe in any religion anyway.
Why would humans be any different? Why would our species alone be able to break the laws of science so our brainwaves could somehow leave our bodies after we died and enter some alternate world where they could flourish for an eternity?
"bkuz god" covers most of that.
and the 1st borns dieing is not BS. it's also true.
Yep. The main 2 possibilities that I've heard of are: stored grain became moldy due to other plagues (firstborn eats the most due to importance of lineage); low-hanging lethal mold spores (the firstborn's bed was often very low as a sign of respect or something).
No; read what it is. One religion having more proof than the other? It's a bold statement. Brave; tenacious. Placing their religion on a higher shelf than others is bold. Does a Christian calling out another Christian for what they said deduce to "has no proof"? No. You'd be silly to think something like this.
Would I? He said he has no more proof then any other religion. No other religion has any proof. Thus he has no proof.
it did happen in that order in a 5 to 8 year time period.
Did it now? Can I have the Egyptian sources on this?
and the 1st borns dieing is not BS. it's also true.
just look for it, you will see.
Is it? Sources for that?
do i look like someone who cares. it's not like i believe in any religion anyway.
Maybe I was asking the person who stated it? Wouldn't that be a novel idea!
Yep. The main 2 possibilities that I've heard of are: stored grain became moldy due to other plagues (firstborn eats the most due to importance of lineage); low-hanging lethal mold spores (the firstborn's bed was often very low as a sign of respect or something).
It is possible that that would do some damage to the first born, but defiantly not "Killing each and every one of them (Except the Jewish ones)" kind of damage. I would also like the see the source on this.
Did it now? Can I have the Egyptian sources on this?
I'd be impressed if someone was able to find such a source...Ancient Egypt had a habit of only recording events that made them, basically, look good. So for them to record an event where a natural genocide happened seems very unlikely.
Now what of the plague of darkness? I'm surprised this hasn't been questioned yet...complete (and by complete I mean full on absolute) darkness over Egypt except for the homes of Israelites
I do not have a religious view. It's not that none of them intrigue me, it's just that a religion that I can completely stand behind and believe in 100% doesn't exist, and even if it did, I'd never truly be motivated by a religion. I respect all religions and those who follow them, but they just aren't for me.
It was on NatGeo a while back. I think this was the one. I can't seem to find the actual vid, but I'll keep looking.
A blog post?
It would take to long to read it, so I will look at the author. It looks like he believes in aliens, and writes about them on the same sight, so that doesn't exactly start well.
And then reading it a bit, it isn't asking "Did it occur", it is asking "Would it have been possible for it to occur", to paraphrase what was said in the link. It would be like saying "All right, did bigfoot exist?" and then you bringing up explanations on how bigfoot could exist.
The first link on the bottom doesn't sight any links, and seems to be focusing on mold. I want to know how he got those numbers.
The second link on the bottom is based of a National Geographic episode, which has not happened at the time of the writing.
Is the third link to a reality show?
And of course from the wiki:
"Secular historians assert that the plague stories are mythical, allegorical, and inspired by passed-down accounts of disconnected natural disasters. Religiously inspired historians have speculated on a possible series of natural disasters behind the story of the succession of plagues."
Don't ever listen to "Religiously inspired historians" regarding religion, listen to the secular ones, who say it is BS.
Would I? He said he has no more proof then any other religion. No other religion has any proof. Thus he has no proof.
No, he really didn't. He said it has more proof than any other religion. You say the opposite. Read the posts more carefully, else this leads to more misunderstandings and replies that contain false deductions. You know, like what happens normally.
The second premise is found due to what we know of religion, not what his post or the reply thereafter contained. Therefore, your conclusion is unreliable and shouldn't be used.
The first link on the bottom doesn't sight any links
It states: The Learning Channel recently aired a program on the Ten Plagues (4/98) that discussed the theory that the plagues weren't ten separate events, but one long series of connected events. The third link is an outline of that program, which has links of its own.
"it is more likely that Ipuwer is not a piece of historical reportage and that historicising interpretations of it fail to account for the ahistorical, schematic literary nature of some of the poemâs laments
Taken from your source..
Also...the only event I can find that it relates to is that of water turning to blood...and it even states that it should not be taken "absolutely literally" but metaphorically
