Conquer Club

Religion vs Homosexuality

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:49 pm

mrswdk wrote:You guys keep ragging on about 'long-term consequences'. What long-term consequences of sex are you talking about, exactly?

Physical damage to begin with, followed by issues of too early pregnancy (fistulas have gotten a lot of press lately, but there are many other problems) -- after all, marrying girls off at young ages is common in some locations and the harm is pretty well documented.

Then you have all the other usual culprits, sexual diseases and so forth.

One point you rather side step is that part of what attracts some to the young, be it young women they marry in some context or other types of child-adult sexual relations, is the very fact that these young individuals are pliable. They can be taught much better than older individuals. That, alone, ought to be a major red flag to anyone with sense.

Seems, once again, you are merely trying to stir up a pot, not engage in honest discussion.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:51 pm

jgordon1111 wrote:first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.
The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby mrswdk on Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:54 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:You guys keep ragging on about 'long-term consequences'. What long-term consequences of sex are you talking about, exactly?

Physical damage to begin with, followed by issues of too early pregnancy -- after all, marrying girls off at young ages is common in some locations and the harm is pretty well documented.

Then you have all the other usual culprits, sexual diseases and so forth.

One point you rather side step is that part of what attracts some to the young, be it young women they marry in some context or other types of child-adult sexual relations, is the very fact that these young individuals are pliable. They can be taught much better than older individuals.


Haven't you ever heard of sex education? I've seen textbooks aimed at 11-14 year olds that dealt with STDs and methods of contraception in pretty comprehensive detail. They also dealt with grooming and how to deal with cases of sexual abuse and exploitation. If your kids don't know about this stuff then teach them. As you said yourself, children are easy to teach. Have a sensible discussion with them so that they develop a mature attitude and good habits early on.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby waauw on Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:46 pm

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:You guys keep ragging on about 'long-term consequences'. What long-term consequences of sex are you talking about, exactly?

Physical damage to begin with, followed by issues of too early pregnancy -- after all, marrying girls off at young ages is common in some locations and the harm is pretty well documented.

Then you have all the other usual culprits, sexual diseases and so forth.

One point you rather side step is that part of what attracts some to the young, be it young women they marry in some context or other types of child-adult sexual relations, is the very fact that these young individuals are pliable. They can be taught much better than older individuals.


Haven't you ever heard of sex education? I've seen textbooks aimed at 11-14 year olds that dealt with STDs and methods of contraception in pretty comprehensive detail. They also dealt with grooming and how to deal with cases of sexual abuse and exploitation. If your kids don't know about this stuff then teach them. As you said yourself, children are easy to teach. Have a sensible discussion with them so that they develop a mature attitude and good habits early on.


Kids are also told not to bully each other, do you think that stops bullying? Kids are told not to use drugs, do you think that stops all kids from using drugs? Or how about smoking or alcohol? The fact of the matter is that people are still in development during childhood. What people go through during childhood has much vaster effects on their psyche than it does during their adulthood.

Take for instance parental disputes and divorce. Statistics show many kids get traumatized because they don't understand it. Adults know better, have more equilibrated hormone levels and have more experience to cope with emotional issues.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby jgordon1111 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:46 pm

Wow player blind faith,ihistorical fact,only the rich and scribes knew how to read and write during the time frame you are speaking of. You must take this FACT into account when you put those texts up as pure FACT and truth, when did Adam,eve,noah,jesus Mohamed, learn to do this,much less the masses who followed their teachings, it was all passed down word of mouth generation to generation as was the custom in the time,do not confuse taught with reading and writhing,it just wasn't done that way at that time, I defy you to quote any passage in any text that specifically says read and wrote, for any of the above people. You won't find any, why because taught meant something different then.
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby mrswdk on Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:40 pm

waauw wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:You guys keep ragging on about 'long-term consequences'. What long-term consequences of sex are you talking about, exactly?

Physical damage to begin with, followed by issues of too early pregnancy -- after all, marrying girls off at young ages is common in some locations and the harm is pretty well documented.

Then you have all the other usual culprits, sexual diseases and so forth.

One point you rather side step is that part of what attracts some to the young, be it young women they marry in some context or other types of child-adult sexual relations, is the very fact that these young individuals are pliable. They can be taught much better than older individuals.


Haven't you ever heard of sex education? I've seen textbooks aimed at 11-14 year olds that dealt with STDs and methods of contraception in pretty comprehensive detail. They also dealt with grooming and how to deal with cases of sexual abuse and exploitation. If your kids don't know about this stuff then teach them. As you said yourself, children are easy to teach. Have a sensible discussion with them so that they develop a mature attitude and good habits early on.


Kids are also told not to bully each other, do you think that stops bullying? Kids are told not to use drugs, do you think that stops all kids from using drugs? Or how about smoking or alcohol? The fact of the matter is that people are still in development during childhood. What people go through during childhood has much vaster effects on their psyche than it does during their adulthood.


Sure, not every child will care, but then not all adults care either. That's just how it is. All you can do is give someone all the information they need to make their own decisions and then let them get on with it.

I cut the part about children's psyches because I'm pretty sure that upset from parents breaking up has way more to do with the way in which some parents handle divorce than the separation itself. Plenty of people whose parents separate when they're young are able to deal with it just fine.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby waauw on Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:44 pm

mrswdk wrote:Sure, not every child will care, but then not all adults care either. That's just how it is. All you can do is give someone all the information they need to make their own decisions and then let them get on with it.


You know full well providing information is not the same thing as educating.

mrswdk wrote:I cut the part about children's psyches because I'm pretty sure that upset from parents breaking up has way more to do with the way in which some parents handle divorce than the separation itself. Plenty of people whose parents separate when they're young are able to deal with it just fine.


And the bad parenting is horrible for the children. Unfortunately there are limits to how much the law can protect children. Protecting children from bad parents is much more difficult than protecting them from pedophiles.

As I already mentioned, children are more vulnerable of mind than adults. Why do you think african warlords like picking out little boys to become their soldiers? They are easier to manipulate and coerce. Or perhapse you think children should also be able to make their own choice on whether to join the army at a pre-pubescant age?
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby mrswdk on Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:47 am

waauw wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Sure, not every child will care, but then not all adults care either. That's just how it is. All you can do is give someone all the information they need to make their own decisions and then let them get on with it.


You know full well providing information is not the same thing as educating.


The point is the same, regardless of your semantics.

waauw wrote:
mrswdk wrote:I cut the part about children's psyches because I'm pretty sure that upset from parents breaking up has way more to do with the way in which some parents handle divorce than the separation itself. Plenty of people whose parents separate when they're young are able to deal with it just fine.


And the bad parenting is horrible for the children. Unfortunately there are limits to how much the law can protect children. Protecting children from bad parents is much more difficult than protecting them from pedophiles.


No it isn't.

As I already mentioned, children are more vulnerable of mind than adults. Why do you think african warlords like picking out little boys to become their soldiers? They are easier to manipulate and coerce. Or perhapse you think children should also be able to make their own choice on whether to join the army at a pre-pubescant age?


'coerce' being the key word. They abduct kids and force them to serve in their armies.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby waauw on Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:14 am

mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Sure, not every child will care, but then not all adults care either. That's just how it is. All you can do is give someone all the information they need to make their own decisions and then let them get on with it.


You know full well providing information is not the same thing as educating.


The point is the same, regardless of your semantics.


The point is moot. Perhaps if you took your dick out of the kids hole for one sec you'd realize that.

mrswdk wrote:
waauw wrote:
mrswdk wrote:I cut the part about children's psyches because I'm pretty sure that upset from parents breaking up has way more to do with the way in which some parents handle divorce than the separation itself. Plenty of people whose parents separate when they're young are able to deal with it just fine.


And the bad parenting is horrible for the children. Unfortunately there are limits to how much the law can protect children. Protecting children from bad parents is much more difficult than protecting them from pedophiles.


No it isn't.


Yu-hu! My my, you are getting ever more loquacious as things progress.

mrswdk wrote:
As I already mentioned, children are more vulnerable of mind than adults. Why do you think african warlords like picking out little boys to become their soldiers? They are easier to manipulate and coerce. Or perhapse you think children should also be able to make their own choice on whether to join the army at a pre-pubescant age?


'coerce' being the key word. They abduct kids and force them to serve in their armies.


Neat to know that and ignore the fact that kids get indoctrinated afterwards to serve willingly.
AGAIN, get your dick out of the kids hole you perv! Unless you're in the Vatican, that's not ok.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby jimboston on Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:22 am

You can't discuss things with mrswdk.

He/she refuses to acknowledge key arguments.
He/she takes parts of your response... generally the throw-away parts... and turns them around.

He/she is a fairly smart Troll, but no where near as sophisticated as Saxi whom he/she is trying to emulate.

mrswdk... you have repeatedly ignored the whole "consent" argument. You have also ignored how your "New World" would actually operate in terms of parental control or influence. You like to make blanket statements like "we should all be free", and "your rights can't interfere with my rights", but you ignore the REAL WORLD... where the rights of individuals often conflict with one another. Your blanket statements mean nothing if not applicable to the real world.

Furthermore, you propose Greece as a "shining example" of a culture which freely accepted Pedophilia. That statement is simply not accurate. Parts of Greece practiced something better called Pederasty. I'm not going to say I support that either... but at least you could make an argument for this activity (as practiced in ancient Greece), as it is more limited and more clearly defined than the blank Pedophilia that you desire. Check this out.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
Even if you accept Pederasty as some "ideal", you will note that there is great potential for abuse... and it was not a sustained social norm outside some liberal upper-class populations.

... from the Wiki article...
Geoffrey Gorer and others distinguish pederasty from pedophilia, which he defined as a separate, fourth type (of homosexuality) that he described as "grossly pathological in all societies of which we have record."

So you presented Greece as a place where your ideal pedophilia existed... but experts disagree.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:34 am

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:You guys keep ragging on about 'long-term consequences'. What long-term consequences of sex are you talking about, exactly?

Physical damage to begin with, followed by issues of too early pregnancy -- after all, marrying girls off at young ages is common in some locations and the harm is pretty well documented.

Then you have all the other usual culprits, sexual diseases and so forth.

One point you rather side step is that part of what attracts some to the young, be it young women they marry in some context or other types of child-adult sexual relations, is the very fact that these young individuals are pliable. They can be taught much better than older individuals.


Haven't you ever heard of sex education? I've seen textbooks aimed at 11-14 year olds that dealt with STDs and methods of contraception in pretty comprehensive detail. They also dealt with grooming and how to deal with cases of sexual abuse and exploitation. If your kids don't know about this stuff then teach them. As you said yourself, children are easy to teach. Have a sensible discussion with them so that they develop a mature attitude and good habits early on.

If you had actually paid attention to such classes, you would have heard the part about the power adults have to influence kids. Education does NOT prevent abuse by any stretch of the imagination, and that is the real issue here. An adult can manipulate a child into thinking they "want" or have even "encouraged" the behavior. It is a classic tactic of predators to abuse and then blame the victim. In some cases they may threaten families and such, which would go outside of what even you are suggesting. However, threats are not at all necessary. The predators "defense" is quite often to say "the [child] wanted this". They often truly believe the child does want it (and if you are doing anything other than just stirring the pot here, take that as a SERIOUS warning!), but its manipulation, pure and simple. Getting a child to say yes or simply to not protest does not really mean agreement.

There is no debate here when it comes to children. You can have some debate when talking about teenagers, though I would argue that most of those are misguided.

And... I am currently pushing to expand sex education in our schools here locally. Try educating YOURSELF before you step in here... and seriously, if you actually think like this, please, PLEASE do research or just plain get help.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:40 am

jgordon1111 wrote:Wow player blind faith,ihistorical fact,only the rich and scribes knew how to read and write during the time frame you are speaking of. You must take this FACT into account when you put those texts up as pure FACT and truth, when did Adam,eve,noah,jesus Mohamed, learn to do this,much less the masses who followed their teachings, it was all passed down word of mouth generation to generation as was the custom in the time,do not confuse taught with reading and writhing,it just wasn't done that way at that time, I defy you to quote any passage in any text that specifically says read and wrote, for any of the above people. You won't find any, why because taught meant something different then.

You can choose not to believe. I was simply pointing out that your disdain is not backed by historical evidence. Christians universally believe that the Bible IS put forward by witnesses, and both Jews and Christians believe that parts of the Old Testament are similarly first hand accounts. Portions of both have been verified by archeological evidence.

That Jesus was crucified is not really a point of debate, just whether he was God or not. Whether the disciples existed is not a matter of debate or that they declared what they saw. However, some will certainly say they lied, were misguided, etc.

At any rate, you don't seem interested in facts, just in putting forward opinion. No problem, as long as you don't try to pretend it is fact. (and no.. I have not done that, sorry).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby tzor on Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:46 am

I hate to break mrswdk's bubble but kids are kids. In fact there is a technical problem in general with humanity; the frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the early 20's.

The function of the frontal lobe involves the ability to project future consequences resulting from current actions, the choice between good and bad actions (or better and best), the override and suppression of socially unacceptable responses, and the determination of similarities and differences between things or events.


In short it is far easier for those under 20 years of age to act "impulsively." No amount of "education" is going to passively oppose these impulses without a fully functioning frontal lobe.

Brilliant, Brazen, Teenage Brains

In their excellent article on Teenage Brains (October, 2011), National Geographic quoted Aristotle, who wrote that "the young are heated by Nature as drunken men by wine."

It is remarkable that the comparison between teenage and inebriated behavior was made 2300 years ago. Neuropsychologists and parenting advisors (at least those who have a knowledge of neuropsychology) often try and calm parents down when they are pulling their hair out over their teens' rude, moody, disorganized, risk-taking, impulsive behaviors. The frontal lobes (or more correctly, the prefrontal lobes) of the teenage brain, they tell the parents, are still developing. By the age of twenty to twenty-five, the frontal lobes will be fully mature and the impossible teenager will morph into a normal person—a fully functional, socially well-adapted adult.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:38 pm

See sig.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby mrswdk on Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:36 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Getting a child to say yes... does not really mean agreement.


You can have some debate when talking about teenagers, though I would argue that most of those are misguided.


And people are stupid and need a strong leader to tell them what to do!
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby mrswdk on Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:44 pm

jimboston wrote:He/she is a fairly smart Troll, but no where near as sophisticated as Saxi whom he/she is trying to emulate.


I made a genuine point and you guys just started spewing nonsense. I'm not your teacher, I can't be bothered to go all the way back to square one and start from the start. If you guys wanna be neanderthals that's not my business.

You like to make blanket statements like "we should all be free", and "your rights can't interfere with my rights", but you ignore the REAL WORLD... where the rights of individuals often conflict with one another.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=215324&p=4740463#p4740463

This is why I don't bother addressing half of the things you say. You are intent on dragging the conversation round in round in circles arguing about points which I have already discussed.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby warmonger1981 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:11 pm

Mrwlk wrote:
And people are stupid and need a strong leader to tell them what to do!




Maybe your stupid and need a strong leader to tell you what to do OR think! It's called totalitarian.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby jgordon1111 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:17 pm

Player understand I am pointing out facts, there is no way to prove that the eyewitness accounts you claim are true, no signed documents, I have only pointed out what is known to be true of that time period. Tell you what, today what you say is fact in any court would be hear say and inadmissiable FACT.So prove me wrong,produce one shred of evidence,one signed document from,adam,eve,noah,jesus,mohamed, and when you produce one I will concede I am wrong,until then I ask you don't speak that blind faith is fact.
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby warmonger1981 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:29 am

Well Plato was a historian and wrote about Atlantis as being a real place. There is no shred of evidence that Atlantis actually existed. So now do the words of a famous historian and philosopher proclaiming Atlantis real become fantacy or is it provn fact? It's a quagmire.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby mrswdk on Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:33 am

Bush said 9/11 was Islamic terrorists.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby jgordon1111 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:54 am

Lol Warmonger, like Player you should make sure of your comments before you post them as FACT,here is some facts for you, Plato was a philosopher, you say he spoke of Atlantis as if he visited there, the story of Atlantis preceded Plato's birth by around 9000 yrs FACT. Suggestion don't think that the television tells you the facts,what they tell YOU is so they make ratings I.e, money.
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby warmonger1981 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:45 pm

It is a fact Plato wrote about Atlantis as if it were a real place. You must read Wikipedia alot. Here's your interpretation from Wikipedia..Plato's vague indications of the time of the events—more than 9,000 years before his day[5]—and the alleged location of Atlantis—"beyond the Pillars of Hercules"—has led to much pseudoscientific speculation.
5. ^ The frame story in Critias tells about an alleged visit of the Athenian lawmaker Solon (c. 638 BC – 558 BC) to Egypt, where he was told the Atlantis story that supposedly occurred 9,000 years before his time.


Is this where you got your 9,000 years from. I'll give you time to find an earlier account of Atlantis from a different resource. You may find similarities in Egyptian writings. Similar stories like that of Jesus and Osiris or Horus.

Here we go....Scholars the world over have repeatedly declared that ancient sources describing Atlantis are plentiful, "but before Plato—nothing". They make such a declaration because of several reasons: (1) they disregard every record in which Atlantis is not mentioned by name; (2) they disregard any record utilizing a variant spelling of Atlantis; (3) they imply (whether consciously or unconsciously) that we possess all the ancient manuscripts ever written between the time of Solon and Plato; (4) they seem to be unfamiliar with the Sanskrit writings of India—apparently forgetting that those Sanskrit speakers originated in Central Europe. For a timeline of ancient writers before and after Plato, click Here. Let's survey what we've found.

First of all we have Hellanicus of Lesbos (490-410 B.C.), an ancient Greek writer whom scholars consider "transitional" between the earlier mythographers and later historians. Some thirty works of chronology, geography, and history are attributed to him, but we possess only fragments. Hellanicus made a distinction between what he saw as Greek mythology from history, and is known among modern scholars as a "Greek historian whose work marks an advance in the development of historiography." (Enc. Brit., 1961 edition.)

Among these efforts was a work entitled "Atlantis" (Bell, 1920; Jacoby, 1923, et al.), which could well be the oldest Greek writing mentioning Atlantis. Although not much is known about the content, we find the mention of Poseidon (founder of Atlantis), Poseidon's firstborn son Atlas (first king of Atlantis), as well as his seven daughters. The very title itself demonstrates the use of the word "Atlantis" at such an early date.

Possibly more important is this example from the same era in which Herodotus, the "father of history," mentions Atlantis by name in referring to the body of water into which it sank. Below is the Greek text of a portion of Clio (History, Bk I, 202) in which the waters beyond the Straits of Gibraltar is said to be known as the Atlantis Sea.
Greek text of Herodotus
Greek text from Herodotus' History mentioning the Atlantis Sea

"But one of the mouths of the Araxes flows with clarity into the Caspian Sea. Now the Caspian Sea is by itself, not connected to the other sea; but the sea navigated by all the Greeks and the one outside the Pillars called the Atlantis Sea and Erythaean are one and the same." (Translated by R. Cedric Leonard)

From the above quote we can see that the body of water beyond the Pillars was known both as the Atlantis Sea and as the Erythaean Sea—the latter is NOT the Persian Gulf! A word of clarification: the well-known mythologist, Prof. H. J. Rose (1969; 111), reminds us that the Greeks knew of an island in the Far West named Erythaea, the name of this island deriving from the color of the setting sun. The erudite L. Sprague de Camp mentions "the Pillars of Herakles, Tartessos, Gades, and the island of Erytheia where Geryon kept his kine." (1970; p. 222) The body of water surrounding the island of Erythaea would quite naturally be called the Erythaean Sea.

I know of at least three bodies of water all called Erythaean in ancient times (the Greek root ery simply means "red"), one of which, according to a number of authorities on Greek mythology (Bulfinch, 1885; Rose, 1969; Stapleton, 1978, et al.), was immediately west of Gibraltar. In the above quote Herodotus is noting that the Atlantis Sea and the Erythaean are two Greek names for the body of water located "outside the Pillars". Like it or not, the context of the above quote includes waters to the west "outside the Pillars"—not bodies of water half way around the world!

But most importantly, Herodotus tells us that this body of water was also called the Atlantis Sea. Some translators are guilty of "fudging" their translations (cf. George Rawlinson's translation), and translate the word in the text as "Atlantic"; but as is clearly demonstrated in the above text, the word actually used by Herodotus is "Atlantis". The accuracy of the Greek text shown here—as well as my translation of it—can be verified at any university dealing with classical Greek texts.

Herodotus could have chosen the adjectival inflection, atlantikos ("Atlantic"), meaning "of Atlas," in which case could be construed to refer to Mt. Atlas in Morocco; however he did not do so. Furthermore, I know of no major body of water named after a mountain. The "Atlantic Ocean" article (Enc. Brit., 1961 edition) states: "The term is supposedly derived from Atlantis, presumed to be a submerged continent below the present ocean." Needless to say, The Britannica definition has become more "guarded" in later editions.

The point here is that Atlantis was known before Plato—well enough known that even in Herodotus' time the sea outside Gibraltar was on occasion called the Atlantis Sea. It had acquired that name because some believed that Atlantis had once occupied that area. We carry the same tradition down when we refer to that body of water as the Atlantic Ocean. However, further research demonstrates that the Atlantic Ocean also had a geographically descriptive name in ancient times.

Ancient Egyptian, Sanskrit, Greek, and even Latin sources (e.g., Pliny the Elder), occasionally referred to the Atlantic Ocean as the "Western Ocean"—important if one is looking for ancient records of Atlantis. Hesiod, in his Works and Days, refers to the Isles of the Blessed (makarôn nêsoi) as lying in the "Western Ocean"—Pindar does likewise. Given this clue, even older records concerning Atlantis can be identified.

The eminent Greek historian, Prof. Walter Burkert of the University of Zurich, notes that Achilles is transported to the White Island which may refer to Tenerife Island in the Canaries. Burkert notes that the island of Tenerife was sometimes referred to as the "White Isle" by explorers. (Burkert, 1985) Was this White Island one of the Isles of the Blessed spoken of by the ancient Greek Hesiod, and could there somehow be an Atlantis connection? We will learn more about a White Island called "Atala" shortly.

As we encounter these writings, it should be noted that Atlantis itself is sometimes represented by various spellings (Philo Judaeus spelled it "Atalantes"); but it should also be noted that when the context is properly considered, there is no doubt about the identity of the island being referenced. And, as will be demonstrated, there is no doubt that the "Western Ocean" mentioned is indeed our present-day Atlantic Ocean.

According to Critias, Solon was given the story by the Egyptian priests at Saïs which they had obtained from engraved columns within the temple precincts. Manetho, whose writings form the basis of our knowledge of ancient Egyptian history, obtained his famous King-Lists from similar sources. So what about this source?

THE EGYPTIAN WRITINGS

Over a half-century ago Cambridge scholar and explorer, Harold T. Wilkins (1946), noted the depiction of a great festival on column 8 of the Great Hall of the temple of Rameses at Karnak, along with an accompanying text memorializing "the loss of a drowned continent in the Western Ocean". The column mentioned cannot be easily dismissed, and is a relevant example of the type of source to which Solon (in Plato's Timaeus) refers.

Plato described Atlantis as being ruled by ten kings before its demise. Egyptian king-lists going back thousands of years before Plato (we will look at one example here) establish four important facts which we should notice. They are:

1) Egyptian tradition begins with the "reign of the gods"
2) In all there were ten of these so-called "god-kings"
3) They were said to have reigned in a foreign country
4) From all appearances they were called "Atlanteans"

This last statement will be challanged by scholars, so let's take a closer look at the Egyptian king-lists. One noticeable fact is that Manetho (250 B.C.) calls the first series of kings who ruled during the "reign of the gods" Auriteans. The latter may be nothing more than a corruption of the word "Atlantean". Further, Manetho says these god-kings ruled not in Egypt itself, but in a "foreign land".

The "Auritean" kings of Manetho should have been transcribed as "Auliteans". (The r/l, l/r alternation is an old phonic phenomenon of world-wide distribution and is well known to linguists; Dinneen, 1967, Shipley, 1977, et al.) Thus the "Auriteans" of Manetho could equally well be "Auliteans": phonetically almost identical to "Atlanteans".

This idea obtains credible support from the fact that the ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon (1193 B.C.) calls these very same kings Aleteans (Cory, 1826). Since "Auriteans" is obviously a borrowed word, it would be subject to the recognized rules of phonemic variation (Kurath, 1961; Ward, 1960), which could result in such a change.

Although there are numerous ancient Egyptian king-lists in existence, only a few include the famous "reign of the gods". These include the Palermo Stone (2565-2420 B.C.), the Turin Papyrus (1300 B.C.), and Manetho's Egyptian Chronicles (250 B.C.). Of these, the Turin Papyrus is by far the most complete source.

The Turin Papyrus (Gardiner, 1987; Smith, 1872) lists ten kings who ruled during the "reign of the gods," complimenting the fragments of Manetho which have come down to us. Most importantly, it informs us as to the correct number of actual kings, thus helping us to equate Egyptian names with the corresponding Greek names. Below is a list of god-kings from the Turin Papyrus, with Manetho's fragmented list alongside:

The Turin Papyrus Manetho's King-list
Ptah Hephaestus
Ra Helios
Su Agathodaemon
Seb Cronos
Osiris Osiris
Set Typhon
Horus . . .
Thoth . . .
Ma . . .
Horus Horus
So we have ten Aulitean (or, Aletean) kings reigning in a "foreign land" during the precise time Plato says ten Atlantean kings reigned in Atlantis. The Turin Papyrus also records the installation of the next series of kings in 9850 B.C.! This date is so close to the date given for the end of Atlantis that coincidence is virtually out of the question. In such a case, the equation "Aletean=Atlantean" doesn't seem out of the question.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby jgordon1111 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:19 pm

Well warmonger at least this time you brought substanceto the topic,my earlier disagreement was you alluded to that because Plato the (historian) said it it had to be Fact, I just stated Facts as they are Plato was a Philosopher, and that the event you spoke of happened 9000 yrs before he was born,and it was an account of his account, FACT. and even then he says he was taught this not saw this, my point was and is if your going to declare something as FACT, be able to prove it.I see you spent a lot of time looking all that info up, once I pointed the flaws out to you, imagine the time you would have saved if you had went that route first, instead of assuming everything you said would sound like truth If you used an official sounding title with a known name. Lmao
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:10 pm

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Getting a child to say yes... does not really mean agreement.


You can have some debate when talking about teenagers, though I would argue that most of those are misguided.


And people are stupid and need a strong leader to tell them what to do!

Yes, well.. I have humored you as long as you maintained the pretense of debate, but obviously you cannot even keep that up.

Back to the real topic, now, though this may have been hopelessly hijacked.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Religion vs Homosexuality

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:16 pm

jgordon1111 wrote:Player understand I am pointing out facts, there is no way to prove that the eyewitness accounts you claim are true, no signed documents, I have only pointed out what is known to be true of that time period. Tell you what, today what you say is fact in any court would be hear say and inadmissiable FACT.So prove me wrong,produce one shred of evidence,one signed document from,adam,eve,noah,jesus,mohamed, and when you produce one I will concede I am wrong,until then I ask you don't speak that blind faith is fact.

You are reciting opinion, and claiming it fact.

Disbelief in religion requires just as much substantial evidence as belief to be claimed fact. You don't have that. Sorry, but you do not.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users