why did GOD stop sending messengers?!!

[SnakeLord]

the author is supposed to be Moses himself but no one will ever know that for certain

Such statement is of no value when under the agreement that the story of Moses is fictional.

When religious folks are who maintained most of the biased accounts, then i believe it neccessary to question every live within.

Apologies, I don't understand what you're trying to say with relevance to what i have asked you. If the account is fictional, the characters name and reason he was given that name is a decision of the author of that fictional account. If the account is factual then the reason he has that name is mentioned.

Since the bible shares a pharoah and Ramesis so happens to have the best records over and above the biblical accounts that can be referenced to the same plagues then it seems that addressing reality towards ramesis being the pharoah of moses is far greater than referencing a story of a birth 'gathered from the water'

Now you've moved on to a completely different issue. My issue wasn't with which pharoah was around during certain plagues but that 'Moses' comes from the Egyptian, 'to draw out of water', instead of 'son of'.

it seems best to follow evidence of accounts over religious beliefs, every time!

I agree. As we're handing out free advice, I would submit that it's always best to try and remember what it is we're talking about, (in this instance the origin of this characters name and the origin of this characters story). Nobody here, to my knowledge, is contesting that rameses wasn't the pharoah of the oppression.

 

[Oli]

oooops~
it seems you are not well read on Oli and how most every thread he gets into, he is not addressing the threads.

On the contrary - I try to address the threads but your abuse of language more often than not makes the point (should there actually be one) incomprehensible.
And more delicious in that during our first ever exchanges YOU were the one to comment upon my use and comprehension of English.
Somewhat hypocritical of you in retrospect.

attacking me for using 'quid pro quo' as if he is authority when in reality, he not only did not offer a reference but simply attacked me with pure selfishness

A reference?
I quoted your post.
It was an attack on the pretentiousness of your post.
And to make it worse, a failed pretentiousness.

that is what i say; he made a stupid comment just to insult me and offered no explanation;

Not to insult: I just found it highly amusing that someone would misuse the phrase "quid pro quo" in such a random manner.

ad hominen is where folks go when comprehension fails their ability to articulate

And the fact that you see it as an ad hom speaks volumes for your comprehension.

 

[Saquist]

oooops~

it seems you are not well read on Oli and how most every thread he gets into, he is not addressing the threads.

do a history and read; i am not making it up, just reflecting exactly what he did in the comment to me.

that is what he just did to me.

attacking me for using 'quid pro quo' as if he is authority when in reality, he not only did not offer a reference but simply attacked me with pure selfishness

saquist; your insult is not fair, not of quality as well completely irresponsible.



that is what i say; he made a stupid comment just to insult me and offered no explanation; (kind of the same thing you just did with your post here; took a path, leaned in error and still not addressing the thread or the comments/questions applied to you)

ad hominen is where folks go when comprehension fails their ability to articulate

Okay if you think that's true then it's fair.
But consider that I have had a difficult time understanding you aswell. Sometimes (maybe alittle more often) your sentence structure is lacking certain articles.

I know I do this too especially when typing quickly, so it doesn't lend to be understood well. Oli isn't very polite so maybe this is what he meant and his hostility trasnformed his argument into an attack...

 

[Bishadi]

Such statement is of no value when under the agreement that the story of Moses is fictional.

what agreement?

i was simply taking material information from OT and archeological evidence of ramesis and egyptian literature and comparing the notes. It seems if we have enough unbiased material to weigh the differences, each can see for themselves and measure what is true and what is not.

Apologies, I don't understand what you're trying to say with relevance to what i have asked you. If the account is fictional, the characters name and reason he was given that name is a decision of the author of that fictional account. If the account is factual then the reason he has that name is mentioned.

but often fiction is based on a story of fact (albeit stretched (ie... david fighting a giant)

Now you've moved on to a completely different issue. My issue wasn't with which pharoah was around during certain plagues but that 'Moses' comes from the Egyptian, 'to draw out of water', instead of 'son of'.

and that is where i contested you;

since pharoah ramesis, and moses.... are so close, combined with the stories of what happened (plagues).... then i am 2 up on you. The kid was named by an egyptian, so the words would be in egyptian and since the same plagues occurred biblically as in the account of egyptian history (archeologically recorded), then it appears just with these items alone, the likelyhood leans towards ramesis being moses 'pharoah' (God, grandpappy, teacher, etc...) is pretty good at this point.

my comment was i will question the religious interpretation over any other evidence provided. As man controls the religions and history often reveals more truth than beliefs (legends). (i prefer tangibles)

I agree. As we're handing out free advice, I would submit that it's always best to try and remember what it is we're talking about, (in this instance the origin of this characters name and the origin of this characters story). Nobody here, to my knowledge, is contesting that rameses wasn't the pharoah of the oppression.

as well, i am further inclined to observe the egyptian writtings on the subject of moses namesake, by comparing egyptian language over hebrew or religions connotations.

ie..... do you know how many immaculate births their have been in record; does that mean jesus goes back to all of them? NO! It means someone borrowed the idea and incorporated it into 'their story'.

I see it that with even being 'gathered from the water'...... especially when it was supposed to be pharoah who ordered the death of the male babies in the first place. You would think the pharoah would have killed the child on sight had his daughter not been pregnant before showing up with the kid in the first place.

 

[Bishadi]

Okay if you think that's true then it's fair.
But consider that I have had a difficult time understanding you aswell. Sometimes (maybe alittle more often) your sentence structure is lacking certain articles.

I know I do this too especially when typing quickly, so it doesn't lend to be understood well. Oli isn't very polite so maybe this is what he meant and his hostility trasnformed his argument into an attack...

i offer Peace in our association Saquist but loli is a rude person and i have stated as such since showing up here. (his bias is to use his education to assault others; he contributes nothing of good to exist, by choice)

meaning if i am failing in wording, then add, not discredit. If any teacher called any kid an idiot for writing something that was hard to understand without at least trying to assist (giving alternatives and quality advice)....

i would punch him/her in the nose!

there are good folks then there are the selfish; the selfish are what continues the BS within the communications of mankind

all arguments are cause by a loli pop mind

 

[Oli]

If any teacher called any kid an idiot for writing something that was hard to understand without at least trying to assist (giving alternatives and quality advice)....

Considering that in the majority of our encounters YOU were the one purporting to be the teacher and consistently refused to even attempt to re-phrase your "point" in order to get it across...

i would punch him/her in the nose!

doesn't that smack somewhat of hypocrisy?

 

[Bishadi]

Considering that in the majority of our encounters YOU were the one purporting to be the teacher and consistently refused to even attempt to re-phrase your "point" in order to get it across...

i teach what life is, not that loliland is what governs teaching

this thread is on God and messengers, not bishadi and loli

doesn't that smack somewhat of hypocrisy?

that is what awareness in knowledge and equality allows; the ability to judge.

meaning; in this case, a teacher using their authority to harm another without the compassion of care, is wrong. (abusing a mind without compassion)

such is you abusing others because you feel no one can attest or claim foul; and you think it is a 'right'; is beyond rude

i find your posts are rude because you care nothing of the dialogue; you care only to have fun with any flaw you can find.

it is like a kid sitting on an ant hill with a magnifying glass burning ants for fun; you care not to watch what they are doing but to harm what ever leg you can, any chance you can.

are you getting the message?

 

[Oli]

i teach what life is, not that loliland is what governs teaching

But you can't be bothered, or are incapable of,

at least trying to assist (giving alternatives and quality advice)....

meaning; in this case, a teacher using their authority to harm another without the compassion of care, is wrong. (abusing a mind without compassion)
such is you abusing others because you feel no one can attest or claim foul; and you think it is a 'right'; is beyond rude

And you keep missing the point.
Rude?
No, simply tired to death of someone who makes statements and refuses to actually back them up by any means other than simply re-stating the original remark.

you care only to have fun with any flaw you can find.

That flaw usually being the original premise, which you consistently refuse to back up.

are you getting the message?

Certainly: the message being that you cannot actually support your arguments other by tediously restating the same thing time and time again.

 

[Bishadi]

But you can't be bothered, or are incapable of,


And you keep missing the point.

no you are; the thread is not about loli or me

Rude?
No, simply tired to death of someone who makes statements and refuses to actually back them up by any means other than simply re-stating the original remark.

again, you are trying to reverse it

you make claims and do not offer basis to substantiate them (as anyone can see you trolling and point it out all over the forum) eg... post 243 and 246, you post a comment with zero evidence. (a troll)

That flaw usually being the original premise, which you consistently refuse to back up.

i do but you will not address the reponses; ever!

Certainly: the message being that you cannot actually support your arguments other by tediously restating the same thing time and time again.

again, you do not hold the comment in context; the comment was

are you getting the message?

what was it?

 

[Saquist]

doesn't that smack somewhat of hypocrisy?

No, only agressive or indignant.
You know how you are Oli.
He DOES have a reason to be perturbed by you but that's because he doesn't understand you or hasn't become acclamated to your personality.

i offer Peace in our association Saquist but loli is a rude person and i have stated as such since showing up here. (his bias is to use his education to assault others; he contributes nothing of good to exist, by choice)

meaning if i am failing in wording, then add, not discredit. If any teacher called any kid an idiot for writing something that was hard to understand without at least trying to assist (giving alternatives and quality advice)....

I know he and others are accustomed to saying some very stupid things as well as throwing their wait around. But I got used to it and now it's like dealing with family...you just ignore half the things they say and narrow in on their point.

 

[SnakeLord]

i was simply taking material information from OT and archeological evidence of ramesis and egyptian literature and comparing the notes. It seems if we have enough unbiased material to weigh the differences, each can see for themselves and measure what is true and what is not.

You've completely lost me now. Are we even talking about the origin of this characters name any more?

but often fiction is based on a story of fact

Most certainly. I don't see where this is relevant.

since pharoah ramesis, and moses.... are so close, combined with the stories of what happened (plagues).... then i am 2 up on you.

Since the name Rameses and Moses are similar, the origin of the name is the same? Peculiar.

While yes, they are similar, 'mes/u' means child/son of whereas 'mo' means water and 'uses' means to draw out. Furthermore, even if you claimed that like Rameses, Moses was 'son of', it's missing the equivalent of 'Ra'. If you call someone 'son of', surely there'd be something else in order to complete the statement, (e.g son of ra)?

The kid was named by an egyptian, so the words would be in egyptian

Correct. Mo being an Egyptian word means 'water' and 'Uses' also being an Egyptian word means to draw out.. hence, it wouldn't be strange to think that a child that was drawn out of water would be called Moses by an Egyptian... would it? What would be strange is to name the child 'son of' without adding who it is he is a son of. What would be even more strange is to think that this daughter of the Pharoah would not name the child Moses because - purely out of coincidence, he happened to be drawn out of the water but stating that it was because he was drawn out of the water nonetheless.

and since the same plagues occurred biblically as in the account of egyptian history (archeologically recorded)

It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out to you that the occurrence of some plagues isn't relevant to why someone was given a certain name. If you feel it has some relevance then feel free just to provide the source for this archaeological data and, once I have perused it, then go about telling me what it has to do with the reason Moses was called Moses.

then it appears just with these items alone, the likelyhood leans towards ramesis being moses 'pharoah'

Nobody is saying otherwise. Rameses would have been Moses' 'brother'.

 

[Sputnik]

OK- back on topic !!

Why did God stop sending messengers ??

The atheist answer : " God never existed, so there never were any messengers from God "

The muslim answer : " there will be no prophets from God after Muhammed , so bevare of false prophets "

The psychiatric answer : " all messengers from God through time , were mentally disturbed people, who thought they were messengers from God - they still come , but today they are admitted at a psychiatric ward and get medicine , and then their delusions disappear "

The catholic answer : " what do you mean ? messengers from God come all the time , we worship them and make them saints "

The agnostic answer : " I am willing to believe , that you are a messenger from God , but only if you bring a signed letter from God proving it "

The TV-preacher : " I am a messenger from God , give me your money "

God : " who me ? no, I never send any messengers , I only exist inside your head and in the holy books "

If you can´t use any of the above answers , then please add your own ......

 

[Saquist]

The psychiatric answer : " all messengers from God through time , were mentally disturbed people, who thought they were messengers from God - they still come , but today they are admitted at a psychiatric ward and get medicine , and then their delusions disappear "

Well we know the psychiatric answer can't be true.
The prophets always agree with each other over at least 730 years. You can't expect that kind of consistency every time from numerous unstable individuals. You can say some of them may have been mental but not all but then how do you determine who?

 

[Oli]

Well we know the psychiatric answer can't be true.
The prophets always agree with each other over at least 730 years. You can't expect that kind of consistency every time from numerous unstable individuals. You can say some of them may have been mental but not all but then how do you determine who?

Or maybe it's just the psychiatric cases (out of all those that occur) that don't fit the agreed-upon pattern are dismissed as mere psychiatric cases.
It's a self-reinforcing system.
Ignore as cranks any who don't agree and only claim those who do as more verification.

 

[Bishadi]

You've completely lost me now. Are we even talking about the origin of this characters name any more?

Yes... i was just sharing how i came to a conclusion 'comparing' information.

Since the name Rameses and Moses are similar, the origin of the name is the same? Peculiar.

While yes, they are similar, 'mes/u' means child/son of whereas 'mo' means water and 'uses' means to draw out. Furthermore, even if you claimed that like Rameses, Moses was 'son of', it's missing the equivalent of 'Ra'. If you call someone 'son of', surely there'd be something else in order to complete the statement, (e.g son of ra)?

but no one could know who pop was; he came from the water (per the story)

kind of ironic that you didn't see that

It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out to you that the occurrence of some plagues isn't relevant to why someone was given a certain name.

That makes sense, and in both cases we have a good argument.

the relevance is the historical account has merit that coincides to the biblical account

the name makes sense either way and unless we dig to the actual old language as i did a long time ago, then i cannot say much more in this context

the time period is where you left in the tangent associating moses to another pharaoh in another period based on a water story (i thought it was you; putting his name to a story well before he was per se born; i could be wrong)

Nobody is saying otherwise. Rameses would have been Moses' 'brother'.

I thought pharoahs were considered gods and perhaps why Moses left the house professing an utter god and doing all the fun stuff with frogs and ocean splitting and the often repeated african cain-to-snake trick (i saw it on james bond, too)

 

[Bishadi]

OK- back on topic !!

Why did God stop sending messengers ??

The atheist answer : " God never existed, so there never were any messengers from God "

The muslim answer : " there will be no prophets from God after Muhammed , so bevare of false prophets "

The psychiatric answer : " all messengers from God through time , were mentally disturbed people, who thought they were messengers from God - they still come , but today they are admitted at a psychiatric ward and get medicine , and then their delusions disappear "

The catholic answer : " what do you mean ? messengers from God come all the time , we worship them and make them saints "

The agnostic answer : " I am willing to believe , that you are a messenger from God , but only if you bring a signed letter from God proving it "

The TV-preacher : " I am a messenger from God , give me your money "

God : " who me ? no, I never send any messengers , I only exist inside your head and in the holy books "

If you can´t use any of the above answers , then please add your own ......

You forgot to ask me.......... "the quack answer".._ all life is entangled!

In per se visions; they see what occurred from anothers eyes, don't matter which time (Bell Labs; Entanglement).

But 'messengers' are like your teacher, they learned from before and taught you.

The big difference is the depth of the information. ie... darwin, jesus, confucius, socrates...etc....

The uuuuter difference, is them 'contributers' gave of their time, energy and care; by choice! (why they the 'greats')

No one instructed these people; they learned and built bridges. They did it by choice!

Nothing magical about it, but deja vu is real. Energy entangles mass and life is based on the same energy since the beginning of time (if there ever was a break, that line would be extinct)


And if you really want to see something weird, notice many of religion do things based on what someone saw thousands of years ago and they are actually building the future off of what was believed in the past. (see israel, as what was written is actually happening)




That's knowledge from the "quack attack!"

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes... i was just sharing how i came to a conclusion 'comparing' information.

Strange. You come to the conclusion that Moses means 'son of' from "[the] OT", (which says something completely different), and archaeological evidence of Rameses, (who is an entirely different person)?

but no one could know who pop was; he came from the water (per the story)

kind of ironic that you didn't see that

Logically, something would go with the name. The name of the adoptive parents for instance or in the case of Rameses - the god that's worshipped. If, for some peculiar reason, you just want his name to be 'son of', it would be Mesu. Giving him the name Moses - which would merely serve to confuse everyone into thinking he was drawn out of the water, isn't particularly logical.

the time period is where you left in the tangent associating moses to another pharaoh in another period based on a water story

Incorrect. Not once did I associate Moses with any other Pharoahs. If you're speaking about my statement that the story of Moses is most likely based upon the story of Sargon, then yes - I did mention it on my very first post to you. Your later mention of 'time period' isn't really relevant, (the biblical plague was not in LOS), and I can explain why if needs be.

 

[Bishadi]

Strange. You come to the conclusion that Moses means 'son of' from "[the] OT", (which says something completely different), and archaeological evidence of Rameses, (who is an entirely different person)?

ramesis was the pharoah of egypt during the period of moses

Logically, something would go with the name.

who knows they could have done it to make fun of the brat kid with the funny skin color (we don't know)

but i do know in egypt during that period they 'clipped" (so i would bet that is where that 'law' came from)

The name of the adoptive parents for instance or in the case of Rameses - the god that's worshipped.

ramesis was grand pappy (story said pharoahs daughter)

If, for some peculiar reason, you just want his name to be 'son of', it would be Mesu. Giving him the name Moses - which would merely serve to confuse everyone into thinking he was drawn out of the water, isn't particularly logical.

perhaps go to the symbols before trying to go here any further on logic and reasoning of 'why'

we CAN"T know what they were thinking

Incorrect. Not once did I associate Moses with any other Pharoahs. If you're speaking about my statement that the story of Moses is most likely based upon the story of Sargon, then yes - I did mention it on my very first post to you. Your later mention of 'time period' isn't really relevant, (the biblical plague was not in LOS), and I can explain why if needs be.

no need to explain but i remembered the reference you made to the old story

 

[Saquist]

Or maybe it's just the psychiatric cases (out of all those that occur) that don't fit the agreed-upon pattern are dismissed as mere psychiatric cases.
It's a self-reinforcing system.
Ignore as cranks any who don't agree and only claim those who do as more verification.

Just as unverifiable.

 

[Bishadi]

i wrote that fast here is expansion

You forgot to ask me.......... "the quack answer".._ all life is entangled!

In per se visions; they see what occurred from anothers eyes, don't matter which time (Bell Labs; Entanglement).

to see something often there are no words to describe what was seen.

ie.....IF a 'doomsday mare' was seen in a vision that spits fire that rains upon the earth. A black dragon from the seas depths.....? These are from old ancient prophecies of the east; i call them nuclear subs (if they were true visions)

But 'messengers' are like your teacher, they learned from before and taught you.

anything learned from another not actually experienced could qualify as coming from a messenger

The big difference is the depth of the information. ie... darwin, jesus, confucius, socrates...etc....

The uuuuter difference, is them 'contributers' gave of their time, energy and care; by choice! (why they the 'greats')

No one instructed these people; they learned and built bridges. They did it by choice!

does that all make sense?

Newton and even Einstein were contributers by choice, same as Muhammad, Moses, Ghandi, or the dali lama and all the krishnas/buddhas.....

they were men who gave of there time knowledge that was good and why it lives to this day.

now perhaps others messed with it but the original contributer will be fine as we will all forget the bad (one day) ............ (rule of life, the evolved will live the other will go extinct)

Nothing magical about it, but deja vu is real. Energy entangles mass and life is based on the same energy since the beginning of time (if there ever was a break, that line would be extinct)

look up the phenomena surrounding twins and then debate me on this

but i know, every conscious human being has experienced deja vu at one time in there life, and that is an example of experiencing what had not happened yet (this is cause by a natural phenomenon called entanglement)

And if you really want to see something weird, notice many of religion do things based on what someone saw thousands of years ago and they are actually building the future off of what was believed in the past. (see israel, as what was written is actually happening)

i hate this part but sorry to say, across the globe; what they wrote is happening just not as some of the words or verbatim suggests




"quack attack!"