A Book You Can Trust

Post Reply New Topic

Civilizations require particular social relationships. When that requirement is necessary it frequently emerges. The world is presently going through a similar cusp. We might make it. We might not.

Last edited by Sand on 04 Jul 2011, 9:43 am, edited 4 times in total.

Not a new thought either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts

Ocam's razor. Right now, the evidence we have could work in the case the ancient astronauts theory is right, but it is a much more complicated theory than we have today which just requires evolution. We should go with the simplest theory that fits the evidence, else we would have to consider invisible dragons everywhere.

If tomorrow a bunch of aliens land and claim that indeed they did this, then the ancient astronauts theory would become the simplest one that explains the events, but until then, it is better not to take it seriously.

So you think that humans are too stupid to be capable of inventing fantastical stories, eh?

So which planets are George Lucas and J.K. Rowling from?

About Lucas I know and care nothing. I am pretty sure about the origins of Rowling and Tolkien, who come from different regions of my planet.

Tolkien actually came close to designing a viable alternative OT. He is, after all, both from my part of the planet and a language - comparative philology - history centered scholar. But - as with his assembled languages [and mine] - the fictive cannot match the complexity of the real thing.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the OT does not in toto [not an Oz reference] match the structure of myths and folklore and authored fiction. It contains some seemingly [feel free to come discuss it] unique features.

Of course, I see no reason to buy into the ancient alien scenario. Evidence to support such a hypothesis is at least as slim as the communicable evidence for a divine entity, and one would want to postulate a technology and a motivation for another Kosmos-bound folk to do such a thing.

The hypothesis of a stranded spaceship populating Pitcairn's Island would be more plausible.

Googling for "George Lucas is an alien" gives many results.

GL took a lot from folk stories and common tropes. In fact, one of the many SW reasons to exist was his attempt to show that those common themes are universal and will work the same in a futuristic setting as in a medieval setting.

Rowling has a similar story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pott ... _analogues

That statement is so stupid it isn't even useful as a bad example.

Okay, mon ami, explain to me:

WHY is stranded aliens becoming what we see as Homo sapiens less convincing than aliens manipulating pongids into hominids or boostin hominid brainpower or whatever and then departing?

Both of them, admittedly, are pretty desperate Occam-baiting and a leetle [to use your word] stupid. But why does the latter seem to you significantly less stupid than the former?

This is a very sincere question which I would hope you would answer.

My reasoning for the opposite weighting:

Evidence for a is zilch, evidence for b is nil.

Odds on an alien craft getting here by accident are close enough to the odds favoring an alien expedition making this landfall on purpose.

Odds on an alien race being close enough to go native and pass for indigenous if shipwrecked are slim, but then so are the chances of an alien race having techniques that would make the required changes in indigenous hominids and leave them viable.

To me, motive is the clincher. It seems highly probable that intelligent castaways - especially ones of a construction close enough to terrestrial - would be motivited to survive and multiply. To me, it seems highly unlikely that even alien scientists and scientific aliens would go, plant themselves on a suitably distant planet, and modify one species - or even a few species.

There is no reason to doubt whatever seems more or less likely to you. Nevertheless others have other choices.

No. I'm tired of your trolling, your word games, and your generally confrontational attitude.

Je ne vous aime pas, et je ne suis pas "votre ami"!

Behold, mes élèves:

My trolling, sezzee.

I guess that means my tendency not to debate political points or to post threads on "Was Jesus into SM". So typical of "trolls" to want to discuss the eucharist.

My word games, quotha.

Well, I know what that means. I raise my ugly head and howl when people use words stupidly.

My generally confrontational attitude, forsooth.

Wall, shucks, golly gee, ain't nobody on PPR more confrontational than I am.

Fnord [That statement is so stupid it isn't even useful as a bad example.] of course is never confrontational.

Citoyen Fnord, I will nominate you [politely] as I please. And I will call your oops toktok as I see it.

I can trust the bible as far as it is translated correctly. I can completely trust the Book of Mormon. And now that I've said this, people are gonna be haters and say bad things about what I believe, but whatev, because that's what I trust. Sorry if it's not that same for you.

I guess it is very convenient the bible version you like the most turned out to be the one and only correctly translated bible. People being haters does not mean you are right...

Toktok does not change truth - and truth will meet the seeker.

I happen not to trust the Book of Mormon [most of my knowledge of which comes from my sister's Mormon period].

I am not a hater [though there are some I despise] and I was not brought up to slime others' beliefs.

What do you know about the script of the tablets? My sister's material had samples - writing systems is one of my things.

Which translation is the correct one, and how do you confirm it?

Why do you trust it? Did the Elders tell you to trust it, or did you perform your own research?

Telling the truth about a book of lies does not make people "haters"; it makes them honest.

No, you are not. You are a Mormon. There is a big difference.

They [Mormons] think that the Bible is inferior to the Book of Mormon because of "great and universal apostasy". They further believe that many "plain and precious things" were removed from the Bible and have to be corrected by modern-day revelation. Orson Pratt, an early Mormon apostle said, "Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution?" Mormons belittle the Bible because their beliefs and practices are totally inconsistent with it.

They [Mormons] believe that God was once a man. Mormon males think that one day they will be a god, JUST LIKE God the Father. Does the God of the Bible say that there are many gods?

Isaiah 43:10 "...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Isaiah 44:6 "...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8 "...Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..."

Isaiah 45:6 "...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."

Isaiah 45:21 "...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."

Isaiah 45:22 "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

Isaiah 46:9 "...I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,"

Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

They [Mormons] believe that God has a physical body with which He has sexual intercourse with many wives, having spiritual children which are born on this earth as human beings. They think that God and Mary had physical relations - she was His wife (Orson Pratt, The See, p.158).

They [Mormons] further believe that black people are angels that did not fight valiantly in the war in heaven - that's why they are black. In a letter dated 7-17-47, the first Presidency reaffirmed its historic policy concerning black people: "From the days of the prophet Joseph even until now... Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel."

So, any true Mormon does not believe the Bible, believes that only male Mormons can become God or God-like, and he or she believes that African-Americans all go to Hell when they die. So any Mormon that trusts wholly in the Book of Mormon is anti-Bible, a sexist, and a racist - in other words, A HATER!

But of course Brutus is an honorable man and Fnord is by no means confrontational.

The facts about Brutus are quit debatable. There is evidence one way and the other. Shakespeare, of course, loved a good story and his version is no more reliable than the Bible.