The Genesis Seal

[MRC_Hans]

I could understand the calls for evidence, but not the assumption that there is only one kind of evidence. Good skepticism does not spring from a dogmatic assumption that something is not true unless proven to be so. A thing that is true is no less true while you are waiting for proof of it, any more than something false would be more or less false.

I suggest you are not in a position to teach people here what it means the be a skeptic. If scepticism was paid, we would all be professionals.

Of course the truth of things does not depend of whether they happen to be proved, only a complete idiot would think that. However, we are talking about plausibility.

We are weighing the plausibility that some secret messages about past and future events might be hidden and only recently discovered by you, against the known fact that interpretable patterns can be extracted from any random sequence of letters.

Your own assertions that I am following a religious motive are particularly presumptuous. I am sure I have not given any good cause to make that judgement; if I seem to have then the error is either my own sloppy writing or my reader’s misleading preconception.

Considering your otherwise careful composition of your posts, the religious undertone is hardly coincidental. Also, we have seen this before: Someone arrives, carefully hiding their motives (very often starting with "Fellow skeptics"), trying to sell some mystery, after which I suppose they will move on to revelation. I say suppose, because, nobody has yet made it past the first state, and you are no exception.

We may, of course be wrong, but .... well, if you do not want to be taken for a duck, walk not and quack not as one.

In fact, I have made some quite challenging assertions that both Judaism and the Christian Church are guilty of peddling self-serving, propagandist nonsense.

Oh, we have met many believers who are critical to mainstream doctrine. Commendable in itself, but not making a skeptic of you.

I have even wondered whether some of the hostile responses to my posts might be knee-jerk reactions to those controversial ideas of mine.

Don't flatter yourself. Your ideas are not the slightest controversial, they are nonsense.

To be honest, I doubt that any extant religion will come out unscathed from a comparison with the Genesis Seal. I will go so far as to suggest that the Seal may be capable of demolishing the foundations of some.

Don't be silly.

Hans

 

[Sideroxylon]

Controversial is not the word that comes to mind, is it. Even if you were onto something it would remain a dull and inconsequential.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Wait, what? Since when does eyewitness testimony trump forensic evidence in a court of law?

Not what I said.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

lol, were you foaming at the mouth when you screamed that nonsense ?

either way, theres another lie from you, remember you were supposed to be pretending that the genesis seal isn't supernatural, and now youre claiming a link with supernatural relics that have never existedlaughable

Note the highlighting. Of course they don't exist as physical objects; they are the creations of lively imaginations, but all inspired by the same Genesis Seal, which each of those authors used as a story-board. The concept of a Grail was invented to substitute for the Genesis Seal, and to poke fun at the over-blown egotism of the Church.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

So his answer - and yours, by extension - to people who deny the existence of the Holy Grail (or Genesis Seal, whichever) is just to say "The Grail is awesome!", rather than to, oh, I don't know, present evidence of its existence?

You might make more headway if you adopted the latter approach, you know.

I would be happy if everyone would take as a starting point that the Genesis Seal has, in the past, been recognised (rightly or wrongly) as something special. It just took me more time than I intended to get the basic information into the daylight, before I could focus on this angle. Of all my assertions, this is the one that Hans once said is plausible (or words to that effect).

 

[dafydd]

I would be happy if everyone would take as a starting point that the Genesis Seal has, in the past, been recognised (rightly or wrongly) as something special. It just took me more time than I intended to get the basic information into the daylight, before I could focus on this angle. Of all my assertions, this is the one that Hans once said is plausible (or words to that effect).

You have provided no evidence of this. It is your own invention. How could it have been recognized in the past? Did you learn nothing from the Corn Gods thread?

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Has Kingfisher ever been in a court? When I lived in Liverpool I used to sit in the public gallery now and again at the Crown Court and eyewitness accounts without forensic evidence were not taken all that seriously. I don't know why I'm typing this, Kingfisher will ignore it as he has ignored all replies to his posts in this thread. Expect another wall of meaningless text from him.

dafydd, This is a more a more reasoned post than any I have seen from you in a long time. I only ignore the ones that are insulting or derisory.

What I was trying to say is that quantitative scientific evidence is not the only kind around. If its available, and of a sufficient quality, then by all means let it trump other kinds. But it isn't always a practical option. And I'm talking here about textual analysis, not courts of law

 

[Nonpareil]

Not what I said.

No, you said that eyewitness accounts are evidence in a court of law. They aren't, unless they are supported by forensic evidence. Eyewitness accounts are worthless unless they can be substantiated.

I would be happy if everyone would take as a starting point that the Genesis Seal has, in the past, been recognised (rightly or wrongly) as something special.

You've given us no reason to accept that.

 

[dafydd]

dafydd, This is a more a more reasoned post than any I have seen from you in a long time. I only ignore the ones that are insulting or derisory.

What I was trying to say is that quantitative scientific evidence is not the only kind around. If its available, and of a sufficient quality, then by all means let it trump other kinds. But it isn't always a practical option. And I'm talking here about textual analysis, not courts of law

What you are doing is playing a word game that you made up. Hans has explained that to you. Textual analysis is quite different to your hunt the words pastime.

 

[tsig]

I would be happy if everyone would take as a starting point that the Genesis Seal has, in the past, been recognised (rightly or wrongly) as something special. It just took me more time than I intended to get the basic information into the daylight, before I could focus on this angle. Of all my assertions, this is the one that Hans once said is plausible (or words to that effect).

ETA:I would be happy if you take as a starting point that the Genesis Seal has, in the past, never been recognised (rightly or wrongly) as something special.

 

[Marduk]

Note the highlighting. Of course they don't exist as physical objects; they are the creations of lively imaginations, but all inspired by the same Genesis Seal, which each of those authors used as a story-board. The concept of a Grail was invented to substitute for the Genesis Seal, and to poke fun at the over-blown egotism of the Church.

so what you are saying, is that the concept of the grail which appears in celtic and gaelic mythology before the invention of Hebrew and which is known to be the origin of the holy grail, which has no mention in the bible, was actually drawn from time travellers who took the seal back in time to early western Europe and told the Celtic tribes about it, who then incorporated it into their own mythology, so that it could later appear in french literature of the middle ages in order to poke fun at the over-blown egotism of a Church which didn't exist until thousands of years after the concept was originally invented

dry that out and you can fertilise your lawn with it

really, you have no idea do you

 

[Sideroxylon]

so what you are saying, is that the concept of the grail which appears in celtic and gaelic mythology before the invention of Hebrew and which is known to be the origin of the holy grail, which has no mention in the bible, was actually drawn from time travellers who took the seal back in time to early western Europe and told the Celtic tribes about it, who then incorporated it into their own mythology, so that it could later appear in french literature of the middle ages in order to poke fun at the over-blown egotism of a Church which didn't exist until thousands of years after the concept was originally invented

dry that out and you can fertilise your lawn with it

really, you have no idea do you

In Internet vernacular I believe that is what is referred to as "pwnage".

 

[Marduk]

In Internet vernacular I believe that is what is referred to as "pwnage".

the way things are going, a better defence would be OMGAliens, it explains all the inconsistencies and you never know, it may turn out that an Amoeba on a far off planet turns out to be Kingfishers God. It would certainly explain where his ability to reason came from

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Quote some eye witness accounts of the 'Genesis Seal'.

1. Perceval, by Chretien of Troyes
2. Parzeval, by Wolfram von Eschenbach

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Of course the truth of things does not depend of whether they happen to be proved, only a complete idiot would think that. However, we are talking about plausibility.

We are weighing the plausibility that some secret messages about past and future events might be hidden and only recently discovered by you, against the known fact that interpretable patterns can be extracted from any random sequence of letters.

I want to pursue your (in my opinion fair) suggestion that interpretable patterns can be extracted from any random sequence of letters. But I also want you to contemplate what might have happened in the pre-scientific period if an educated person had come face to face with the Genesis Seal.

Forget for a moment that we might reasonably expect to see patterns in the text. Someone in the Middle Ages or earlier would not think that way. They would be more impressed by the fact that the first two verses of Genesis reveal 'interpretable patterns'. Such a person would have seen as easily as I have seen that among the possible interpretations are some Old and New Testament episodes that are core material in Judaism and Christianity.
Others evidently went for the copycat approach and wrote new literary works that interpret the same story-board in novel ways.
The one common factor is the ability of the Genesis Seal to be interpreted in all those ways. Without it, we see only a random assortment of unrelated literary masterpieces. But with the genesis Seal there comes order out of chaos. This is not just about seeing patterns in a short text; it is about seeing evidence that others saw them too.
Unless my critics read my contributary posts carefully, and check my reasoning as a complex whole, much of their criticism is, at best, poorly informed.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

so what you are saying, is that the concept of the grail which appears in celtic and gaelic mythology before the invention of Hebrew and which is known to be the origin of the holy grail, which has no mention in the bible, was actually drawn from time travellers who took the seal back in time to early western Europe and told the Celtic tribes about it, who then incorporated it into their own mythology, so that it could later appear in french literature of the middle ages in order to poke fun at the over-blown egotism of a Church which didn't exist until thousands of years after the concept was originally invented

dry that out and you can fertilise your lawn with it

really, you have no idea do you

Celtic and gaelic cauldrons and the like are often assumed, for want of a better provenance, to be precursors of the mediaeval Grail concept. Be that as it may, the versions introduced by Chretien of Troyes, by Robert de Boron and by Wolfram von Eschenbach possess novel attributes that are not only best explained by the Genesis Seal, but Seal is the only extant explanation that fits them all, and other esoteric threads in that later literature

 

[Nonpareil]

1. Perceval, by Chretien of Troyes
2. Parzeval, by Wolfram von Eschenbach

You do know that Parzival was based on Perceval, right? And that Eschenbach never claimed to have been witness to the events, but rather that he had heard them from another poet? And that Perceval was not an eyewitness account, either? And that no evidence exists to support either epic being anything more than fiction? And that, even if there was, both are about the Holy Grail rather than your Genesis Seal?

The one common factor is the ability of the Genesis Seal to be interpreted in all those ways. Without it, we see only a random assortment of unrelated literary masterpieces.

No, they're not unrelated. See above. Many of them are based on or inspired by others. Even those not directly related to any others are likely influenced by them, since the Holy Grail was a common legend.

 

[Nonpareil]

Celtic and gaelic cauldrons and the like are often assumed, for want of a better provenance

No. They are concluded to be such.

Be that as it may, the versions introduced by Chretien of Troyes, by Robert de Boron and by Wolfram von Eschenbach possess novel attributes that are not only best explained by the Genesis Seal, but Seal is the only extant explanation that fits them all, and other esoteric threads in that later literature

No. Your ignorance of literary history does not constitute evidence for the Genesis Seal.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Celtic and gaelic cauldrons and the like are often assumed, for want of a better provenance, to be precursors of the mediaeval Grail concept. Be that as it may, the versions introduced by Chretien of Troyes, by Robert de Boron and by Wolfram von Eschenbach possess novel attributes that are not only best explained by the Genesis Seal, but Seal is the only extant explanation that fits them all, and other esoteric threads in that later literature

Don't tell us, show us. Explain how this is so. Make the argument because I can't see anyone taking your word for it.

 

[EvilQuest]

so what you are saying, is that the concept of the grail which appears in celtic and gaelic mythology before the invention of Hebrew and which is known to be the origin of the holy grail, which has no mention in the bible, was actually drawn from time travellers who took the seal back in time to early western Europe and told the Celtic tribes about it, who then incorporated it into their own mythology, so that it could later appear in french literature of the middle ages in order to poke fun at the over-blown egotism of a Church which didn't exist until thousands of years after the concept was originally invented

dry that out and you can fertilise your lawn with it

really, you have no idea do you

love this post!