To love your neighbour like yourself, meaning

[Kirbztomp]

May I remind you of what you said




I have just given you EXACTLY what you have tried and failed to find right there in Matthew 16:13-20.

Now what other places say or do not say is IMMATERIAL.

You said you want to find a place where Jesus claimed to be the Christ.

I gave you one place in Matthew and then another in John 4:25-26 (see this post) where Jesus claims to be the Messiah called the Christ.

We are getting fairly off topic now but I was looking for a scene wherein JC walks in and says something along the lines of "JC is here ya'll" which there isn't. All we have is agreement with a presupposition or accusation which is meant with pacifism acceptance.

Yes I prefer concrete in my foundation, sadly I agree with you that the Bible is built upon contradicting sand

 

[Leumas]

Also Jesus is quoted in Luke 4 as to saying "Get thee behind me Satan" to Satan and also says the same to Peter in Matthew 16:23. Strange for his "rock". Go neighbors!

I concede this was a good little trick he pulled on her (read the whole chapter) calling her bluff that she "had no husband" but he (JC) knew of five that she had. She then says there are messias (plural?) And JC says he is "he" singular. One wonders what kind of a woman would have "five husbands" though, at least I do. Besides he just wanted a cup of water in that scene really.

So what you are saying is that the NT is a contradictory load of rubbish?... no argument there.

Are you also saying that Jesus is a FOUL MOUTHED TRICKSTER? ... no argument there either.

One wonders what kind of a woman would have "five husbands" though, at least I do. Besides he just wanted a cup of water in that scene really.

Are you wondering that this is all RUBBISH FICTION?

Or are you actually saying this did in fact happen as is depicted and you are wondering how bad the REAL woman was?

You do realize that this woman never in fact existed nor in the highest probability did Jesus and the whole conversation is a FICTION... no?

But what does all this have to do with this

.... I have tried, but with little success, to find where in the Bible he specifically claims to actually even be Jesus Christ....

I have just shown you two places where Jesus CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY claims to be Jesus the Christ as it says right there in the NT.

 

[abaddon]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/9.html

Verses 19-21 makes no mention of exalting Peter and he immediately commands to never say such things.

Whoa. You were provided with Matthew 16 and you refute by citing Luke 9?

From the SAB (from which you cite) we find http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/16.html which absolutely lines up with Leumas' post.

If you really want to play the game of "one of these gospels is not like the others" you will certainly lose. Each of the four canonical texts contains elements which are not present in the others.

 

[Craig B]

... I have just shown you two places where Jesus CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY claims to be Jesus the Christ as it says right there in the NT.

Yes you have indeed. There are several passages in which he makes that claim, and whether a woman he is supposed to have spoken to had or did not have five husbands makes no difference either way.

 

[Leumas]

We are getting fairly off topic now but I was looking for a scene wherein JC walks in and says something along the lines of "JC is here ya'll" which there isn't. All we have is agreement with a presupposition or accusation which is meant with pacifism acceptance.

Yes I prefer concrete in my foundation, sadly I agree with you that the Bible is built upon contradicting sand

Unless you want a special Bible written specifically for you in the Southern American Slang, this should be sufficient for any NT READERS who can actually read the words written down without some kind of filtering device on the brain (and of course that is not counting the numerous claims that he was the Christ by all the other protagonists and antagonists as well as the extras and comparses and the editorial voices of the Mythical Fairy Tale):

Mark 9:39-42

9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.​

Mark 14:61-62

14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.​

Luke 24:15-27

24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
....
24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
....
24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ​

John 7:26-31

7:26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?
7:27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
7:31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
​

John 4:25-26

4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.​

Matthew 16:13-20

16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.​

 

[Leumas]

Yes you have indeed. There are several passages in which he makes that claim, and whether a woman he is supposed to have spoken to had or did not have five husbands makes no difference either way.

Indeed... also the below is a very intriguing comment too...

... Besides he just wanted a cup of water in that scene really.

What does that have to do with doubting the CLARITY and UNDENIABILITY of the fact that he is right there claiming to be the Messiah which is called the Christ?

Earlier he says

She then says there are messias (plural?) And JC says he is "he" singular.

How does that cast any doubt or ambiguity on JESUS clearly and undeniably claiming to be the Messiah (singular) which is called the Christ ... singular again?

But maybe all this has to do with this

....I find it, again, curious that you read litterally...

I am guessing he cannot read stuff literally and has to try and find all the

.... misinterpretation and symbolism/allegory/parables is what writers have used for a very long time to preserve their work....

 

[fromdownunder]

I actually live in a small enclosed couple of acre area of 11 self contained units. I do not love my neighbors, nor do I hate them. I am totally indifferent to them and rarely talk to any of them outside of the odd 'nod' when we walk past each other, which again is not that often.

I am wondering where I sit in this hierarchy? Where does indifferent sit in the equation?

Norm

 

[Leumas]

<snip proving too much illogical fallacy so as to slip in a special pleading illogical fallacy which I will respond to later>

Also I do not believe in apologetics but my point with bringing up "Metatron"

<snip lots of apologetics and casuistry about how slavery in the bible is not really as bad a slavery as other kinds of slavery>

If something like that can be determined (and scholars have pointed out misinterpretation and mistranslation for years) it does change somethings but still doesn't quite change some of the immoral things that ARE in the Bible (and other texts), it just means that we aren't done yet.

Yes...yes.... I heard that casuistic numerous times from people trying to lessen the impact of slavery in the bible. They try to explain how slavery if Jews are doing it is not really slavery but rather a kind of serfdom at worst or debtor employment if we are to be realistic about it. But yet it is really bad slavery if gentiles are doing it to the Jews.... yah... I understand.

Have a look here for a bit of clarification:

The Hebrew term for slave, eved, is a direct derivation from the Hebrew verb la'avöd ("to work"), thus, the slave in Jewish law is really only a worker or servant. The eved differs from the hired worker (sakhir) in three respects: he receives no wages for his work; he is a member of his master's household; and, his master exercises patria potestas over him - for example, the master may choose a wife for the slave and retains ownership of her and he has proprietary rights in him.​

Have a look at what Leviticus 25:44 in the Masoretic Text has to say

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

מד וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ-לָךְ: מֵאֵת הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם--מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ, עֶבֶד וְאָמָה.​

Notice the words עֶבֶד וְאָמָה Ebed WeAmah which means male slave and female slave. Here slave is the only way you can translate it since they are BOUGHT from among the gentiles. But notice how they are translated in most bibles as "bondmen and bondmaids" which is a gentler way of saying "male slaves and female slaves" because the intent is to lessen the impact of the bible regulating, ordaining, condoning and sanctifying slavery.


Now notice what Ezra 2:65 in the Masoretic Text has to say:

65 beside their men-servants and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven; and they had two hundred singing men and singing women.

סה מִלְּבַד עַבְדֵיהֶם וְאַמְהֹתֵיהֶם, אֵלֶּה--שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה; וְלָהֶם מְשֹׁרְרִים וּמְשֹׁרְרוֹת, מָאתָיִם.​

The word עַבְדֵיהֶם (Ebedihem) is a compound word meaning “Their Male Slaves” and it is the plural possessive of the plural of עַבְדֵ (Ebed).

The word וְאַמְהֹתֵיהֶם (WeAmahotihem) is again a compound word that means “And Their Female Slaves” and it is made up of We which means “and” and Amahotihem which is the plural possessive of the plural of אַמְהֹ (Amah).


So I personally think that Ezra 2:65 is saying that those unemployed freed slaves are now owners of 7337 slave men and women.

Even if they were servants, what exactly are unemployed freed slaves doing with 7337 male and female servants? They are unemployed after all so can't they serve themselves? And how are they going to pay those servants if they are not slaves? They are unemployed freed slaves, where do they get the money to pay 7337 male and female servants of their own if they are not slaves?

 

[HansMustermann]

Are you offering absolution for all sins public and private?

Well, if I'm a high priest, and high enough at that, I can certify that, "duude... hur-hur-hur... like... duuude... nobody cares about your sins. Go love yourself some more..."

So, you know, all you have to do is provide the *ahem* incense

 

[Leumas]

hmm, I see you lean again to the faith issue while I do not. Naturally your points are valid under the presumption that "God" wrote the Bible (I take this book because it is what I know the most about, mind you, but that is not say I know a lot) while most sources I have read or listen to states it is "inspired" by God. So yeah it was wrote by man/men/woman/women (once they were allowed to read and write that is). Also it is silly to believe that (and I shift now to include ancient Roman Gods and/or Norse mythology and/or Egyptian mythology and/or Ancient Sumerian mythology) Gods and the like (to also include angels) were not "inspired" by actual living people. Every story that has ever been told/written/read/seen has at least SOME basis in reality, that is my point. The hype and the supernatural is the telephone game which blows it so far out of proportion you end up with these "believers" who refuse to say "I don't know, but let's find out" and chose instead to say "Goddidit" or "Thordidit".

OK so let's parse the above stuff just for clarity

• Naturally your points are valid under the presumption that "God" wrote the Bible
• most sources I have read or listen to states it is "inspired" by God
• So yeah it was wrote by people
• once they were allowed to read and write that is.
• Also it is silly to believe that Gods and the like were not "inspired" by actual living people.
• and that includes ancient Roman Gods and/or Norse mythology and/or Egyptian mythology and/or Ancient Sumerian mythology
• and angels
• Every story that has ever been told/written/read/seen has at least SOME basis in reality

So here we have a case of Proving Too Much in order to slip in Jesus and the Bible among all the other myths as them too having "SOME basis in reality" and thus avoiding it becoming a blatantly obvious Special Pleading.

What we are told is that it is SILLY to not think that EVERY STORY ever fabricated by humans about some gods has a basis in reality.

We are also told that MOST SOURCES say that the Bible is "inspired by god" and that some people were eventually ALLOWED to write it down. This is of course two more illogical fallacies of Argumentum ad populum and Argument from authority.

We are told

"it is silly to believe that Gods and the like were not "inspired" by actual living people" and that includes ALL gods and even ANGELS too.​

Which is also two more illogical fallacies of Appeal to Ridicule and Argument by Assertion.

In other words here we have a case where it is asserted that all Gods of humanity must have had a basis in reality and thus also Jesus must too and we would be really silly not to admit that.

So could you please Kirbztomp explain what are the basis in reality for the following myths, and who are the real people who were behind the following mythical characters

...

Billions of people also believed for thousands of years in vampires, fairies, demons, satyrs, Cyclopes, golden fleeces and Hercules.

The list of woo and supernatural claptrap is as long as the history of humanity and as convoluted as their languages and imaginations.

Do you think nonbelievers in all this claptrap ought to be searching for historical grain of truth behind all the poppycock ever conjured up by infantile benighted frightened imaginations or fabricated by wily poltroons and huckstering shysters?

Do you think we should be searching for historical germs for Zeus or Achilles or Romulus and Remus?

How about Baal and Moloch and Quetzalcoatl and Osiris and Anubis do they have historical spores too that we as nonbelievers ought to be searching for?

Do you think there was a historical sperm of truth behind the story of Zeus swallowing his wife before she gave birth to Athena and then giving birth to his daughter out of his head like you think there is a historical basis for Moses meeting god as a burning bush in the middle of a desert?

Do you think there was a historical ovum for a story about Earth fornicating with the Sky so as to engender Titans one of whom eventually used a sickle to cut off the penis of his Sky Daddy while he was penetrating his Earth mummy ?

If you think the story of Gaia the earth mummy and Uranus the sky daddy castrated by his son Cronus is the result of the fecund benighted imaginations of ancient peoples that had absolutely no basis in reality let alone historical ovules.... why then all this TORTURED special pleading for the Bible fables?

Do you think the nonbelievers in Nosferatu have the challenge to find the historical kernel for the stories of vampires?

...

 

[HansMustermann]

• Also it is silly to believe that Gods and the like were not "inspired" by actual living people.
• Every story that has ever been told/written/read/seen has at least SOME basis in reality

While I will even agree with your other points and general gist, I have a general problem with the above assumptions. Not the least because it leads directly to such assumptions as the historical Jesus, Moses or Abraham. Or the euhemerization of the Greek or, yes, Norse gods by people like Euhemerus or Saxo, although we're pretty sure that both just made **** up and are no more writing history than a Star Trek episode starring Wessley

Actually there are plenty of stories which we know from their authors that they're not based on any real events or persons at all. (E.g., the canonical example would be the story of the spammer found dead with a can of spam shoved down his throat. Which became circulated as true even while the author was saying it's fiction and the original was still available online as fiction.) And a lot of messianic stories (miraculous or not) which we know are made out of whole cloth. (E.g., Reubeni, which was actually just a scammer and very much annoyed by the messianic stories about him, because, as he rightly feared, they eventually cost him his life.)

Yes, you could say that they're "inspired" by stuff like that spammers exist and people hate them, or respectively that some people did expect the messiah to do the stuff they expected of Reubeni. But that's about it. Any attempt to find any real events that inspired those stories is just an exercise in deluding oneself.

And occasionally such ridiculous stuff like searching for Atlantis, even though even the most superficial reading of Plato makes it clear that it's allegorical fiction and that the rest of the historical description of lands in there is made up too.

Actually what happens more often is exactly euhemerizing purely mythological stories, by inventing some earthly event they're supposedly based on. Presumably exactly because people want to believe that that kind of stuff can't be pure fiction.

That said, sometimes we can get hints at actual historical events from myths, but in another ways than just assuming that the myth is inspired by something real. You routinely get stuff like hierarchies of Gods being reshuffled, or Gods being killed (e.g., Akhenaten's inventing the death of Amun) or otherwise taken out of the running (several ancient castrated gods, Tyr's losing his right hand, gods freely giving their powers to Marduk, etc), based on which clan or ruler got at the top and wanted THEIR gods at the top too.

But again, that's not being inspired by real events. There wasn't any real person's death that inspired the death of Amun story, for example. What happened was that some fiction authors (even if they were priests or seers or whatever) sat down and wrote a new myth, that created that godly power reshuffle. The new clan that wanted Odin as the war god, sat down and created a new myth in which the old god Tyr (which we know from the Romans that he was worshipped as the war god back then by the migrating Germanics) loses his hand to Odin's puppy. Or the guy who decided he wanted Aten as the top and only God wrote a story in which Amun, the former effectively chief god, dies. Or the guys that worshipped Marduk and took over increasingly more land and power, wrote stories where the gods of the other cities (e.g., Inanna) just give their powers to Marduk. Etc.

But that's not trying to preserve history via some oral myths (and in fact some of that ain't oral at all, because the Egyptians and Mesopotamians sure could and did write.) It's some people deliberately composing a propaganda lie to support their own claim to power. They were inventing history like the Pravda newspaper during Stalin's time, only in their case it was inventing a history of the gods they claimed their power from.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes...yes.... I heard that casuistic numerous times from people trying to lessen the impact of slavery in the bible. They try to explain how slavery if Jews are doing it is not really slavery but rather a kind of serfdom at worst or debtor employment if we are to be realistic about it. But yet it is really bad slavery if gentiles are doing it to the Jews.... yah... I understand.

Have a look here for a bit of clarification:

The Hebrew term for slave, eved, is a direct derivation from the Hebrew verb la'avöd ("to work"), thus, the slave in Jewish law is really only a worker or servant. The eved differs from the hired worker (sakhir) in three respects: he receives no wages for his work; he is a member of his master's household; and, his master exercises patria potestas over him - for example, the master may choose a wife for the slave and retains ownership of her and he has proprietary rights in him.​

Have a look at what Leviticus 25:44 in the Masoretic Text has to say

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

מד וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ-לָךְ: מֵאֵת הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם--מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ, עֶבֶד וְאָמָה.​

Notice the words עֶבֶד וְאָמָה Ebed WeAmah which means male slave and female slave. Here slave is the only way you can translate it since they are BOUGHT from among the gentiles. But notice how they are translated in most bibles as "bondmen and bondmaids" which is a gentler way of saying "male slaves and female slaves" because the intent is to lessen the impact of the bible regulating, ordaining, condoning and sanctifying slavery.


Now notice what Ezra 2:65 in the Masoretic Text has to say:

65 beside their men-servants and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven; and they had two hundred singing men and singing women.

סה מִלְּבַד עַבְדֵיהֶם וְאַמְהֹתֵיהֶם, אֵלֶּה--שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה; וְלָהֶם מְשֹׁרְרִים וּמְשֹׁרְרוֹת, מָאתָיִם.​

The word עַבְדֵיהֶם (Ebedihem) is a compound word meaning “Their Male Slaves” and it is the plural possessive of the plural of עַבְדֵ (Ebed).

The word וְאַמְהֹתֵיהֶם (WeAmahotihem) is again a compound word that means “And Their Female Slaves” and it is made up of We which means “and” and Amahotihem which is the plural possessive of the plural of אַמְהֹ (Amah).


So I personally think that Ezra 2:65 is saying that those unemployed freed slaves are now owners of 7337 slave men and women.

Even if they were servants, what exactly are unemployed freed slaves doing with 7337 male and female servants? They are unemployed after all so can't they serve themselves? And how are they going to pay those servants if they are not slaves? They are unemployed freed slaves, where do they get the money to pay 7337 male and female servants of their own if they are not slaves?

Beautifully done!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, if I'm a high priest, and high enough at that, I can certify that, "duude... hur-hur-hur... like... duuude... nobody cares about your sins. Go love yourself some more..."

So, you know, all you have to do is provide the *ahem* incense

...not the post-liturgical corn chips?

 

[HansMustermann]

Nah, the church will happily provide the communion twinkies

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nah, the church will happily provide the communion twinkies

I'm there!

 

[Kirbztomp]

OK so let's parse the above stuff just for clarity

• Naturally your points are valid under the presumption that "God" wrote the Bible
• most sources I have read or listen to states it is "inspired" by God
• So yeah it was wrote by people
• once they were allowed to read and write that is.
• Also it is silly to believe that Gods and the like were not "inspired" by actual living people.
• and that includes ancient Roman Gods and/or Norse mythology and/or Egyptian mythology and/or Ancient Sumerian mythology
• and angels
• Every story that has ever been told/written/read/seen has at least SOME basis in reality

So here we have a case of Proving Too Much in order to slip in Jesus and the Bible among all the other myths as them too having "SOME basis in reality" and thus avoiding it becoming a blatantly obvious Special Pleading.

What we are told is that it is SILLY to not think that EVERY STORY ever fabricated by humans about some gods has a basis in reality.

We are also told that MOST SOURCES say that the Bible is "inspired by god" and that some people were eventually ALLOWED to write it down. This is of course two more illogical fallacies of Argumentum ad populum and Argument from authority.

We are told

"it is silly to believe that Gods and the like were not "inspired" by actual living people" and that includes ALL gods and even ANGELS too.​

Which is also two more illogical fallacies of Appeal to Ridicule and Argument by Assertion.

In other words here we have a case where it is asserted that all Gods of humanity must have had a basis in reality and thus also Jesus must too and we would be really silly not to admit that.

So could you please Kirbztomp explain what are the basis in reality for the following myths, and who are the real people who were behind the following mythical characters

yes, expounded myths. Daedalus' labyrinth is a myth, no such structure exists that we know of. But a winding and twisting puzzle that could have been figured out, like Theseus, even if that specific person did not totally exist (along the lines of historical Jesus versus Biblical Jesus versus the myriad of Jesus' that are in history. Proving one does not prove all etc). However, the Phaistos disc (which was supposedly found in a Minoan Palace) predates Bible times and appears (to me) to be the first attempt at a "braille system" or at least matches up with hieroglyphics in terms of pretty pictures to tell a story (which, by the way, there is an inside joke in the StarGate movie where one of the leads says "It is easy once you know the vowels" because Egyptologists do not know the vowels still) and ends with, on A side, a "marked one" and a flower which sometimes means peace. This is exactly the special circumstances that "God" has set about since "The Fall". Now that can be special pleading or a new idea, take it as you will. History does show that it takes outside the box thinkers to solve riddles and problems and we are STILL smack dab in the middle of a problem that has been going on seemingly forever because:

1. literal interpretations
2. interpretations that end with "My God is greater than your God so I will now kill you"
3. "You are a sinner. enjoy Hell/Hades/whatever"

furthermore in all 3 cases above (which you can feel free to add to as I am sure I am not an authority on anything, trust me there) presuppositions are afoot. Sure there are evil people that do and have done wicked things and we as people are doing our best to "correct" that situation.

Women were not allowed to learn to read and write, in some cultures and throughout history. That is a fact. That is what I meant by not allowed. Today we are getting better about it (not fast enough though I think).

Educating the young was not allowed but ancient philosophers tried anyway only to be persecuted (or really were boy touchers, whatever) for it. That is very factual and we are now starting child education at what? 3? 4? 5? But still in questionable ways by some accounts (this reaches also to in school versus out of school versus online learning)

Blind/sick/diseased people were ostracized and outcast from society whether that be from a religious or a health aspect. That is a fact. But now we keep and care for them and make them better.

These groups of people (and even more) have been in a struggle much longer than any stupid religion and the best way they saw fit (as far as I can tell) is to learn the information on their own (since they would not get help) and weave in their stories into literature that would survive their ever fleeting existence for future generations to find. To me, that is the greatest treasure map. To me, that is the greatest mythology; the person living in the gutter caring THAT much about his future gutter dwellers in the hopes that one day their time would come when can live a "normal" life. And they are winning. Just sit back and watch. This is not, as pointed out in some above posts, about religion but about people. Those on high and those below their feet, and those that want to raze and raise equally for a level playing field because (Goddammit) this is their world too.

That is my point. Also, the marked one is not born, he rises from the gutter.

 

[Gaetan]

To Love your neighbour like yourself means to treat your neighbour like yourself, it is to have the same attitude towards your neighbour than your own person.

Look, the exemple of the good samaritan is a situation where the samaritan love his neighbour as himself, he took care of his neighbour like he would take care of himself:

ESV:

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[a] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

 

[HansMustermann]

TBH, as one of the people who understood it in Stargate, it didn't really sound like a joke to me. More like a matter of fact statement. That was exactly what was needed, in order to speak the language.

 

[HansMustermann]

@Kirbztomp

About the disk... if it were as simple as basically a comic book, it would have been long decyphered. Ancient writing systems could have twists like the Rebus system of Egyptians and Mesopotamians, or like the qualifier system that cuneiform used for ALL words.

Interpreting either system as just what the symbol looks like to you is naive and counterproductive.

The system of the cuneiform writing worked like this, basically: you had a sign which told you how the word is read, and one which told you in which category it is, but wasn't actually read aloud. So for example because both arrow and rib were pronounced "ti", to write "rib" you'd write the sign for meat, and the sign for arrow. That told you to read "ti", as in arrow, but you'd know it actually means the "ti" meaning "rib". Trying to naively coerce some meaning from meat and arrow as separate words in a narrative, would not work.

ETA: and if you think that, yeah, "meat arrow" would probably work as a kenning for rib, consider that "ti" could also mean "life". So, yeah, you'd write "life" with a horizontal arrow too.

Or if you saw the signs for water and eye, what would you understand, trying to work it out naively as a narrative? Maybe crying? No, it meant "foam".

Or in the Rebus system of Egyptians -- and actually it was the realization that it is Rebus that the Rosetta stone enabled, that allowed people to finally figure it out -- words would be used as syllables in some bigger word that didn't have its own sign.

To use a made up example in English, imagine you wanted to write "charitable" but didn't have the signs for that. But you have the signs for "chair" and "table", so you'd just write those and call it a good approximation. That's exactly how Egyptian writing worked, albeit obviously with different words.

Why do I mention all that? Well, the relatively small number of different signs on the Phaistos disk suggests it might possibly also be some kind of a rebus system. So just building your story from the images might not work well.

 

[Giordano]

Perhaps we can have a sequel thread explaining exactly what "Thou shalt not kill" means?