Life after Death : are we going to dance among ghosts and have a toast to our legacy?

[fkizz]

But it's not all. The primary stories all seem to come from the Near East, specifically Mesopotamia. And then was imported to cultures colonized or influenced by the various Near Eastern empires, particularly Babylonia, Assyria, and their revivals. The Greek variation of the flood story is entirely lifted from the Near East, along with a few other myths that are given literary value but weren't actually important in the religion-as-practiced.

Of course, they didn't have phones and telegraphs back then, and based on different geographies, the impact of the Flood would be different.

So it's only normal the chronicles don't relate the same thing. They are from different geographical points of view.

What I'm saying is, just like a Dinossaur footprint or Fossil is a Hint which one can choose to ignore, so is the Universalism in talking about a Flood a Hint that you can choose to ignore.

[basics]

conon394,

As I said before what was called mountains then were high hills as can be seen from today's Jerusalem which the area surrounding it is termed a mount. It meant that the Ark had a clearance of some 15 cubits or twenty feet or around that so as not to get grounded. The great mountain ranges that sprung up dwarfed Ararat on which the Ark eventually landed but they were hundreds and thousands of miles away. Well, the Ark survived because God wanted it to survive so your theory cannot be correct else none of us would be here arguing over it.

[conon394]

As I said before what was called mountains then were high hills

Based on what evidence? Again you are always unwilling to actually pin down just what you evidence is.

s can be seen from today's Jerusalem which the area surrounding it is termed a mount

And this is proof how? So you are saying I've been missing in the Bible the passage that said the highest mountains were covered even the might hills around Jerusalem...

Well, the Ark survived because God wanted it to survive so your theory cannot be correct else none of us would be here arguing over it.

Well all you really needed to say. I have no argument with that - in fact the point is beyond argument. Only really the odd tenancy you and others have to drag in pseudo-science and post it. I rather feel that needs to be challenged.

[Winston Smith]

conon394,

As I said before what was called mountains then were high hills as can be seen from today's Jerusalem which the area surrounding it is termed a mount. It meant that the Ark had a clearance of some 15 cubits or twenty feet or around that so as not to get grounded. The great mountain ranges that sprung up dwarfed Ararat on which the Ark eventually landed but they were hundreds and thousands of miles away. Well, the Ark survived because God wanted it to survive so your theory cannot be correct else none of us would be here arguing over it.

But you're not hear to argue or debate, are you? You're here to preach, to prolyetise, to put forward your views to the exclusion of all others.

And you're last argument is so logically bad as to be downright ludicrous.

[basics]

But you're not hear to argue or debate, are you? You're here to preach, to prolyetise, to put forward your views to the exclusion of all others.

And you're last argument is so logically bad as to be downright ludicrous.

Winston Smith,

Look at the question and see that it is about life after death. If what I am saying sounds like preaching that can only be because of what I have experienced concerning life and death as well as the part that God has played in my life. I cannot deny that because then I wouldn't be expressing what I know as against what the proposer put forward.