EvD = Erich von Däniken

Mclane wrote:

Code:

 Ende 1968 wurde von Däniken festgenommen, angeklagt und am 13. Februar 1970 wegen Betrugs und Urkundenfälschung zu dreieinhalb Jahren Zuchthaus verurteilt, da er als Hotelier 8000 Franken Kurtaxe nicht bezahlt hatte. Er hatte zuvor bereits vier Vorstrafen. Über den langwierigen Prozess gegen den Bestsellerautor wurde auch in den Medien außerhalb der Schweiz berichtet; das Gerichtsverfahren, insbesondere die Vorgehensweise des psychiatrischen Gutachters Erich Weber, wurde dabei Gegenstand von Kritik.[12][13] Von Däniken konnte nach 18 Monaten unter Anrechnung der Untersuchungshaft und wegen guter Führung das Gefängnis verlassen.[14] 1982 soll laut eines Medienberichts von 2005 das Kantonsgericht Graubünden das Urteil aufgehoben haben.[15]

This is why you call him prisoner ? This is his crime ? Not paying 8000 Franken ??
1. he was in prison and „paid“ for his crime not to pay the 8000 Franken.
This says after he was in prison he is a free person because he was imprisoned for this and after it he is now a free person. No reason to discriminate him as criminal. He did not physical attack other people.
He did not kill anybody or rape people. It was about money.
„Kurtaxe“.  Not paying a fee that is mainly about tourism.

It's the sum of things. I read the book in my youth when I wasn't Christian and as a layman I saw the intellectual dishonesty about Ezekiel spreading doubt to the faith of millions, even then in my not repented mind I saw it as blasphemy.

Admin wrote:

Hey Brendan

I wonder if you are serious or just kidding me, no problem either way.

1. The man is a criminal, has been in jail several times.

2. In the thread I gave a link to one of his lies. The man is anti Bible, fiction for him. And yet what he has labelled as fiction he uses as evidence for aliens. How hypocritical do you want to have it?

3. There were good points of course, Easter Island, the Nazca Lines are still riddles.

Hey Ed,

You see? It is difficult to take your argument seriously when you cannot step down off your high horse for a moment.

Writing "Hi Brendan " as if to implicitly signal that my previous words are laughable...

And don't pretend this isn't what you are doing.

This is why I can never take mainstream Christians very seriously. You talk a good game about the scriptures and forgiveness and understanding and compassion and all this stuff, but cannot even talk about things outside of your strong window of bias without arrogant mocking and judgment.

Would you have agreed with the witch trials and public burnings your precious Christians used to carry out? After all, "blasphemy" (like saying the earth was round) was illegal.

The fact is, which can be observed by anybody, is that you are using character assassination to discredit the PERSON rather than their argument.

In a real debate with intelligent judges and audience, the historical legal transgressions of EVD would have zero sway on the argument. Only how you refute his central argument that the "Gods" were extraterrestrial.

I have noticed that both you and HGM do this. Is it a Dutch thing avoid real debate (and rigid adherence to the central premise) and instead escape from the debate by mocking/insulting/playing dumb instead?

Come on man. Let's pretend the Pope himself wrote "Chariots of the Gods?" - where is your refutation of the theories therein?

Is it really just "he is anti-Bible", "He is a liar" and something about your OWN interpretations of the scripture?

You'd never have a chance in a serious debate arguing like this. You are completely ignoring the central premise.

Which is:

"Why is your God more realistic than EVD's God?"

Let's compare:

Both narratives derive from ancient texts and are independent interpretations of them. This is an important note.

EVD's God

- Came "from the heavens" (i.e space. The heavens above us)
- Taught primitive humans sophisticated skills, and had advanced technology
- The "original sin" was breeding between humans and non-humans, which produced giants (who were wiped out in the flood)

Christian God

- Came from a "supernatural" place in the clouds called "heaven" where "everything is perfect".
- Performed "miracles", making the blind see and the lame walk (you mean they had medicine?)
- The "original sin" was eating the apple which a magic snake tempted them into eating.

It seems to me that EVDs theories, whether right or wrong, are based on literal translations of ancient texts.

While the Christian God theories rely heavily on "magic" and metaphor.

The time for arrogance on this is over.

Lastly, what do you mean by "how hypocritical do you want to have it?"

If you want to attack character, I can go deep on traditional Christianity.

Year and years of crucifying/persecuting witches (women who are merely spiritual outside of established doctrine), heretics (big thinkers like Galileo Galilei), and many others over many years.

Quote :

At the time of Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the orbit of all heavenly bodies, or Tycho Brahe's new system blending geocentrism with heliocentrism.[121][122] Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings on it combined religious and scientific objections.

Quote :

Galileo continued to receive visitors until his death on 8 January 1642, aged 77, following a fever and heart palpitations.[14][161] The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[162][163]

These plans were dropped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested,[162][163][164] because Galileo had been condemned by the Catholic Church for "vehement suspicion of heresy".

Turns out Galileo was correct and the church and "scientists" were wrong.

But he was a "liar and a criminal" you might say.  

And what about the epidemic of Christian church leaders being outed as child molesters?

How can we believe a word these people say?

You see Ed, it is very easy (and intellectually lazy) to attack the person, rather than the argument they're presenting.

Anyway, I've had enough of this topic here. If you put up a good argument (to strongly show that his theories are wrong), I'll respond, otherwise, I'm outty.

Brendan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Hey Brendan

I wonder if you are serious or just kidding me, no problem either way.

1. The man is a criminal, has been in jail several times.

2. In the thread I gave a link to one of his lies. The man is anti Bible, fiction for him. And yet what he has labelled as fiction he uses as evidence for aliens. How hypocritical do you want to have it?

3. There were good points of course, Easter Island, the Nazca Lines are still riddles.

Hey Ed,

You see? It is difficult to take your argument seriously when you cannot step down off your high horse for a moment.

Writing "Hi Brendan " as if to implicitly signal that my previous words are laughable...

And don't pretend this isn't what you are doing.

Oh groan...

Quote :

This is why I can never take mainstream Christians very seriously. You talk a good game about the scriptures and forgiveness and understanding and compassion and all this stuff, but cannot even talk about things outside of your strong window of bias without arrogant mocking and judgment.

Would you have agreed with the witch trials and public burnings your precious Christians used to carry out? After all, "blasphemy" (like saying the earth was round) was illegal.

The fact is, which can be observed by anybody, is that you are using character assassination to discredit the PERSON rather than their argument.

In a real debate with intelligent judges and audience, the historical legal transgressions of EVD would have zero sway on the argument. Only how you refute his central argument that the "Gods" were extraterrestrial.

I have noticed that both you and HGM do this. Is it a Dutch thing avoid real debate (and rigid adherence to the central premise) and instead escape from the debate by mocking/insulting/playing dumb instead?

Come on man. Let's pretend the Pope himself wrote "Chariots of the Gods?" - where is your refutation of the theories therein?

Is it really just "he is anti-Bible", "He is a liar" and something about your OWN interpretations of the scripture?

You'd never have a chance in a serious debate arguing like this. You are completely ignoring the central premise.

Which is:

"Why is your God more realistic than EVD's God?"

Let's compare:

Both narratives derive from ancient texts and are independent interpretations of them. This is an important note.

EVD's God

- Came "from the heavens" (i.e space. The heavens above us)
- Taught primitive humans sophisticated skills, and had advanced technology
- The "original sin" was breeding between humans and non-humans, which produced giants (who were wiped out in the flood)

Christian God

- Came from a "supernatural" place in the clouds called "heaven" where "everything is perfect".
- Performed "miracles", making the blind see and the lame walk (you mean they had medicine?)
- The "original sin" was eating the apple which a magic snake tempted them into eating.

It seems to me that EVDs theories, whether right or wrong, are based on literal translations of ancient texts.

While the Christian God theories rely heavily on "magic" and metaphor.

The time for arrogance on this is over.

Lastly, what do you mean by "how hypocritical do you want to have it?"

If you want to attack character, I can go deep on traditional Christianity.

Year and years of crucifying/persecuting witches (women who are merely spiritual outside of established doctrine), heretics (big thinkers like Galileo Galilei), and many others over many years.

Quote :

At the time of Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the orbit of all heavenly bodies, or Tycho Brahe's new system blending geocentrism with heliocentrism.[121][122] Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings on it combined religious and scientific objections.

Quote :

Galileo continued to receive visitors until his death on 8 January 1642, aged 77, following a fever and heart palpitations.[14][161] The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[162][163]

These plans were dropped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested,[162][163][164] because Galileo had been condemned by the Catholic Church for "vehement suspicion of heresy".

Turns out Galileo was correct and the church and "scientists" were wrong.

But he was a "liar and a criminal" you might say.  

And what about the epidemic of Christian church leaders being outed as child molesters?

How can we believe a word these people say?

You see Ed, it is very easy (and intellectually lazy) to attack the person, rather than the argument they're presenting.

Anyway, I've had enough of this topic here. If you put up a good argument (to strongly show that his theories are wrong), I'll respond, otherwise, I'm outty.

Mclane wrote:

Do you know the meaning of these pointed heads?

Admin wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Hey Brendan

I wonder if you are serious or just kidding me, no problem either way.

1. The man is a criminal, has been in jail several times.

2. In the thread I gave a link to one of his lies. The man is anti Bible, fiction for him. And yet what he has labelled as fiction he uses as evidence for aliens. How hypocritical do you want to have it?

3. There were good points of course, Easter Island, the Nazca Lines are still riddles.

Hey Ed,

You see? It is difficult to take your argument seriously when you cannot step down off your high horse for a moment.

Writing "Hi Brendan " as if to implicitly signal that my previous words are laughable...

And don't pretend this isn't what you are doing.

Oh groan...

Quote :

This is why I can never take mainstream Christians very seriously. You talk a good game about the scriptures and forgiveness and understanding and compassion and all this stuff, but cannot even talk about things outside of your strong window of bias without arrogant mocking and judgment.

Would you have agreed with the witch trials and public burnings your precious Christians used to carry out? After all, "blasphemy" (like saying the earth was round) was illegal.

The fact is, which can be observed by anybody, is that you are using character assassination to discredit the PERSON rather than their argument.

In a real debate with intelligent judges and audience, the historical legal transgressions of EVD would have zero sway on the argument. Only how you refute his central argument that the "Gods" were extraterrestrial.

I have noticed that both you and HGM do this. Is it a Dutch thing avoid real debate (and rigid adherence to the central premise) and instead escape from the debate by mocking/insulting/playing dumb instead?

Come on man. Let's pretend the Pope himself wrote "Chariots of the Gods?" - where is your refutation of the theories therein?

Is it really just "he is anti-Bible", "He is a liar" and something about your OWN interpretations of the scripture?

You'd never have a chance in a serious debate arguing like this. You are completely ignoring the central premise.

Which is:

"Why is your God more realistic than EVD's God?"

Let's compare:

Both narratives derive from ancient texts and are independent interpretations of them. This is an important note.

EVD's God

- Came "from the heavens" (i.e space. The heavens above us)
- Taught primitive humans sophisticated skills, and had advanced technology
- The "original sin" was breeding between humans and non-humans, which produced giants (who were wiped out in the flood)

Christian God

- Came from a "supernatural" place in the clouds called "heaven" where "everything is perfect".
- Performed "miracles", making the blind see and the lame walk (you mean they had medicine?)
- The "original sin" was eating the apple which a magic snake tempted them into eating.

It seems to me that EVDs theories, whether right or wrong, are based on literal translations of ancient texts.

While the Christian God theories rely heavily on "magic" and metaphor.

The time for arrogance on this is over.

Lastly, what do you mean by "how hypocritical do you want to have it?"

If you want to attack character, I can go deep on traditional Christianity.

Year and years of crucifying/persecuting witches (women who are merely spiritual outside of established doctrine), heretics (big thinkers like Galileo Galilei), and many others over many years.

Quote :

At the time of Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the orbit of all heavenly bodies, or Tycho Brahe's new system blending geocentrism with heliocentrism.[121][122] Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings on it combined religious and scientific objections.

Quote :

Galileo continued to receive visitors until his death on 8 January 1642, aged 77, following a fever and heart palpitations.[14][161] The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[162][163]

These plans were dropped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested,[162][163][164] because Galileo had been condemned by the Catholic Church for "vehement suspicion of heresy".

Turns out Galileo was correct and the church and "scientists" were wrong.

But he was a "liar and a criminal" you might say.  

And what about the epidemic of Christian church leaders being outed as child molesters?

How can we believe a word these people say?

You see Ed, it is very easy (and intellectually lazy) to attack the person, rather than the argument they're presenting.

Anyway, I've had enough of this topic here. If you put up a good argument (to strongly show that his theories are wrong), I'll respond, otherwise, I'm outty.

As I thought.

Caught out on the personals and nothing else strong enough to prop up the Christian God vs Aliens argument.

Remember, I'm on the fence on this one. If I was a huge EVD fan I would argue more for his side.

But all I really want to see is your personal theory. Seems there is none besides strict interpretation of the Bible stories.

And If so, you are not in a position to mock EVD.

Just respect his opinions and love him for his being "lost" (in your view).

This is real Christianity. Groan all you like, mate.

Mclane wrote:

Artificial cranial deformation

That article is a bit long, so I asked bard to summarise the history of head binding and deformation:

Bard wrote:

The practice of head binding and deformation is a long and varied one, with evidence of its existence dating back to as early as 4000 BCE. The practice has been found in cultures all over the world, from Africa to Asia to the Americas.

There are many different reasons why people have bound or deformed their heads. Some cultures believed that it was a way to improve physical and mental health, while others saw it as a way to indicate social status or religious beliefs. In some cases, head binding was also used as a form of punishment or torture.

The methods of head binding and deformation varied depending on the culture. In some cases, the head was simply wrapped tightly with cloth or other materials. In other cases, the skull was deliberately shaped by applying pressure to it with boards or other objects.

The practice of head binding and deformation declined in popularity in the 20th century, but it still exists in some parts of the world today. In some cases, it is done for traditional or cultural reasons. In other cases, it is done for cosmetic reasons.

The practice of head binding and deformation is a complex one with a long and varied history. It is a practice that has been shaped by cultural beliefs, social status, and individual preferences.

Bard is very stupid. He deleted the following sentence:
Artificial cranial deformation—or the practice of intentionally changing the shape of a person's skull—has been practiced by Neanderthals of 40,000 years ago until very recently, maybe even still today.

40.000 years ago.

Brendan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Hey Brendan

I wonder if you are serious or just kidding me, no problem either way.

1. The man is a criminal, has been in jail several times.

2. In the thread I gave a link to one of his lies. The man is anti Bible, fiction for him. And yet what he has labelled as fiction he uses as evidence for aliens. How hypocritical do you want to have it?

3. There were good points of course, Easter Island, the Nazca Lines are still riddles.

Hey Ed,

You see? It is difficult to take your argument seriously when you cannot step down off your high horse for a moment.

Writing "Hi Brendan " as if to implicitly signal that my previous words are laughable...

And don't pretend this isn't what you are doing.

Oh groan...

Quote :

This is why I can never take mainstream Christians very seriously. You talk a good game about the scriptures and forgiveness and understanding and compassion and all this stuff, but cannot even talk about things outside of your strong window of bias without arrogant mocking and judgment.

Would you have agreed with the witch trials and public burnings your precious Christians used to carry out? After all, "blasphemy" (like saying the earth was round) was illegal.

The fact is, which can be observed by anybody, is that you are using character assassination to discredit the PERSON rather than their argument.

In a real debate with intelligent judges and audience, the historical legal transgressions of EVD would have zero sway on the argument. Only how you refute his central argument that the "Gods" were extraterrestrial.

I have noticed that both you and HGM do this. Is it a Dutch thing avoid real debate (and rigid adherence to the central premise) and instead escape from the debate by mocking/insulting/playing dumb instead?

Come on man. Let's pretend the Pope himself wrote "Chariots of the Gods?" - where is your refutation of the theories therein?

Is it really just "he is anti-Bible", "He is a liar" and something about your OWN interpretations of the scripture?

You'd never have a chance in a serious debate arguing like this. You are completely ignoring the central premise.

Which is:

"Why is your God more realistic than EVD's God?"

Let's compare:

Both narratives derive from ancient texts and are independent interpretations of them. This is an important note.

EVD's God

- Came "from the heavens" (i.e space. The heavens above us)
- Taught primitive humans sophisticated skills, and had advanced technology
- The "original sin" was breeding between humans and non-humans, which produced giants (who were wiped out in the flood)

Christian God

- Came from a "supernatural" place in the clouds called "heaven" where "everything is perfect".
- Performed "miracles", making the blind see and the lame walk (you mean they had medicine?)
- The "original sin" was eating the apple which a magic snake tempted them into eating.

It seems to me that EVDs theories, whether right or wrong, are based on literal translations of ancient texts.

While the Christian God theories rely heavily on "magic" and metaphor.

The time for arrogance on this is over.

Lastly, what do you mean by "how hypocritical do you want to have it?"

If you want to attack character, I can go deep on traditional Christianity.

Year and years of crucifying/persecuting witches (women who are merely spiritual outside of established doctrine), heretics (big thinkers like Galileo Galilei), and many others over many years.

Quote :

At the time of Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the orbit of all heavenly bodies, or Tycho Brahe's new system blending geocentrism with heliocentrism.[121][122] Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings on it combined religious and scientific objections.

Quote :

Galileo continued to receive visitors until his death on 8 January 1642, aged 77, following a fever and heart palpitations.[14][161] The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[162][163]

These plans were dropped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested,[162][163][164] because Galileo had been condemned by the Catholic Church for "vehement suspicion of heresy".

Turns out Galileo was correct and the church and "scientists" were wrong.

But he was a "liar and a criminal" you might say.  

And what about the epidemic of Christian church leaders being outed as child molesters?

How can we believe a word these people say?

You see Ed, it is very easy (and intellectually lazy) to attack the person, rather than the argument they're presenting.

Anyway, I've had enough of this topic here. If you put up a good argument (to strongly show that his theories are wrong), I'll respond, otherwise, I'm outty.

As I thought.

Caught out on the personals and nothing else strong enough to prop up the Christian God vs Aliens argument.

Remember, I'm on the fence on this one. If I was a huge EVD fan I would argue more for his side.

But all I really want to see is your personal theory. Seems there is none besides strict interpretation of the Bible stories.

And If so, you are not in a position to mock EVD.

Just respect his opinions and love him for his being "lost" (in your view).

This is real Christianity. Groan all you like, mate.

You are only hurting yourself.

Peace.

Mclane wrote:

Artificial cranial deformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

More reliable?

Admin wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Hey Brendan

I wonder if you are serious or just kidding me, no problem either way.

1. The man is a criminal, has been in jail several times.

2. In the thread I gave a link to one of his lies. The man is anti Bible, fiction for him. And yet what he has labelled as fiction he uses as evidence for aliens. How hypocritical do you want to have it?

3. There were good points of course, Easter Island, the Nazca Lines are still riddles.

Hey Ed,

You see? It is difficult to take your argument seriously when you cannot step down off your high horse for a moment.

Writing "Hi Brendan " as if to implicitly signal that my previous words are laughable...

And don't pretend this isn't what you are doing.

Oh groan...

Quote :

This is why I can never take mainstream Christians very seriously. You talk a good game about the scriptures and forgiveness and understanding and compassion and all this stuff, but cannot even talk about things outside of your strong window of bias without arrogant mocking and judgment.

Would you have agreed with the witch trials and public burnings your precious Christians used to carry out? After all, "blasphemy" (like saying the earth was round) was illegal.

The fact is, which can be observed by anybody, is that you are using character assassination to discredit the PERSON rather than their argument.

In a real debate with intelligent judges and audience, the historical legal transgressions of EVD would have zero sway on the argument. Only how you refute his central argument that the "Gods" were extraterrestrial.

I have noticed that both you and HGM do this. Is it a Dutch thing avoid real debate (and rigid adherence to the central premise) and instead escape from the debate by mocking/insulting/playing dumb instead?

Come on man. Let's pretend the Pope himself wrote "Chariots of the Gods?" - where is your refutation of the theories therein?

Is it really just "he is anti-Bible", "He is a liar" and something about your OWN interpretations of the scripture?

You'd never have a chance in a serious debate arguing like this. You are completely ignoring the central premise.

Which is:

"Why is your God more realistic than EVD's God?"

Let's compare:

Both narratives derive from ancient texts and are independent interpretations of them. This is an important note.

EVD's God

- Came "from the heavens" (i.e space. The heavens above us)
- Taught primitive humans sophisticated skills, and had advanced technology
- The "original sin" was breeding between humans and non-humans, which produced giants (who were wiped out in the flood)

Christian God

- Came from a "supernatural" place in the clouds called "heaven" where "everything is perfect".
- Performed "miracles", making the blind see and the lame walk (you mean they had medicine?)
- The "original sin" was eating the apple which a magic snake tempted them into eating.

It seems to me that EVDs theories, whether right or wrong, are based on literal translations of ancient texts.

While the Christian God theories rely heavily on "magic" and metaphor.

The time for arrogance on this is over.

Lastly, what do you mean by "how hypocritical do you want to have it?"

If you want to attack character, I can go deep on traditional Christianity.

Year and years of crucifying/persecuting witches (women who are merely spiritual outside of established doctrine), heretics (big thinkers like Galileo Galilei), and many others over many years.

Quote :

At the time of Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the orbit of all heavenly bodies, or Tycho Brahe's new system blending geocentrism with heliocentrism.[121][122] Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings on it combined religious and scientific objections.

Quote :

Galileo continued to receive visitors until his death on 8 January 1642, aged 77, following a fever and heart palpitations.[14][161] The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.[162][163]

These plans were dropped, however, after Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, protested,[162][163][164] because Galileo had been condemned by the Catholic Church for "vehement suspicion of heresy".

Turns out Galileo was correct and the church and "scientists" were wrong.

But he was a "liar and a criminal" you might say.  

And what about the epidemic of Christian church leaders being outed as child molesters?

How can we believe a word these people say?

You see Ed, it is very easy (and intellectually lazy) to attack the person, rather than the argument they're presenting.

Anyway, I've had enough of this topic here. If you put up a good argument (to strongly show that his theories are wrong), I'll respond, otherwise, I'm outty.

As I thought.

Caught out on the personals and nothing else strong enough to prop up the Christian God vs Aliens argument.

Remember, I'm on the fence on this one. If I was a huge EVD fan I would argue more for his side.

But all I really want to see is your personal theory. Seems there is none besides strict interpretation of the Bible stories.

And If so, you are not in a position to mock EVD.

Just respect his opinions and love him for his being "lost" (in your view).

This is real Christianity. Groan all you like, mate.

You are only hurting yourself.

Peace.

Delusion.

You are the one avoiding debate, despite having the strongest opinions.

I'm merely asking you questions.

Anyway, it's clear we are going to get nowhere with this topic.

Looking forward to the next engines from you guys.

What hasn't been said yet....

1. You are the one that is upset, not me.

2. You started to get personal, not me.

3. When people get personal on me I don't return the favor, the fun of answering is gone.

4. I saw "Hey Ed" as something funny and returned the fun with "Hey Brendan" with a smiley, no bad intentions at all.

Admin wrote:

What hasn't been said yet....

1. You are the one that is upset, not me.

2. You started to get personal, not me.

3. When people get personal on me I don't return the favor, the fun of answering is gone.

4. I saw "Hey Ed" as something funny and returned the fun with "Hey Brendan" with a smiley, no bad intentions at all.

1. Not upset. More perplexed that you were avoiding any form of debate, even to defend your own religious faith.

2. Calling EVD a "liar" "thief" and "criminal" from the outset in order to discredit him, this was you, not me. I stuck to the argument at hand, not the background of the people making the argument.

3. Appealing to emotion. You avoided an objective debate first by mocking the premise itself. Would have been fine if you'd approached it more respectfully (i.e "Read his books as a kid, and as a Christian, I completely disagree with his theories" would be a respectful beginning of any rebuttal. Not "he's a liar and a criminal. It's bollocks".

4. Fair enough. But when you put a smiley RIGHT before "I'm not sure if you're joking here or serious", it implies a relation (smiling/joking) between the two sentences. Easy for someone to think as I did. Most would.

You still don't understand, there is a difference discussing the character of a prominent public figure, in this case EvD claiming to have sold 65 million copies of his books and insulting a forum member, the latter you did and is forbidden.

I call EvD a cheater like I call Putin a liar, my opinion.

And you still haven't understood my point 3, the moment you (or anyone) else gets personal on me the discussion is over. Keep it in mind for the next time.

So EvD did not pay his 8000 Franken and was in prison for that. I guess with the many sales of his books he later had no problems paying things.

Mclane wrote:

So EvD did not pay his 8000 Franken and was in prison for that. I guess with the many sales of his books he later had no problems paying things.

Did you read the wiki ?

It's not only that.

BTW, did he used more Bible fragments for his alien theory?

Admin wrote:

Mclane wrote:

So EvD did not pay his 8000 Franken and was in prison for that. I guess with the many sales of his books he later had no problems paying things.

Did you read the wiki ?

It's not only that.

BTW, did he used more Bible fragments for his alien theory?

Yes i read wiki. It says the reason he was in prison was this 8000 franken. He came in prison and after 1.5 years he left prison.
Before this he had 4 incidents, but they were not so big he had to be imprisoned.

This is the prison case. He was not capable to pay 8000 franken kurtaxe.

IMO 1.5 years for 8000 franken is little high, but those were the laws in Switzerland in that time. The punishment was higher but his time in prison before the court case was substracted and also his behaviour in prison was so good that the punishment was reduced over all.

Mclane wrote:

Admin wrote:

Mclane wrote:

So EvD did not pay his 8000 Franken and was in prison for that. I guess with the many sales of his books he later had no problems paying things.

Did you read the wiki ?

It's not only that.

BTW, did he used more Bible fragments for his alien theory?

Yes i read wiki. It says the reason he was in prison was this 8000 franken. He came in prison and after 1.5 years he left prison.
Before this he had 4 incidents, but they were not so big he had to be imprisoned.

This is the prison case. He was not capable to pay 8000 franken kurtaxe.

IMO 1.5 years for 8000 franken is little high, but those were the laws in Switzerland in that time. The punishment was higher but his time in prison before the court case was substracted and also his behaviour in prison was so good that the punishment was reduced over all.

Found the answer myself, he did, notable about the book of Enoch I already hinted previously.

https://www.amazon.com/Enoch-Return-Erich-Daniken-Library/dp/1637480016

If you consider the Bible stories as myth and fiction it's like saying that aliens exist because of the Marvel movies. You take the ancient texts at as is and don't change the meaning what it says.

So from a Christian perspective I am open to accept what EvD calls aliens I call it angelic visitations, after all the Bible is full of it.

Before the younger dryas in turkey:

16000 year old cemetery!!

https://www.franckgoddio.org/projects/sunken-civilizations/heracleion/

Thonis-Heracleion: From Legend to Reality
Thonis-Heracleion (the Egyptian and Greek names of the city) is a city lost between legend and reality. Before the foundation of Alexandria in 331 BC, the city knew glorious times as the obligatory port of entry to Egypt for all ships coming from the Greek world. It had also a religious importance because of the temple of Amun, which played an important role in rites associated with dynasty continuity. The city was founded probably around the 8th century BC, underwent diverse natural catastrophes, and finally sunk entirely into the depths of the Mediterranean in the 8th century AD.

The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC) tells us of a great temple that was built where the famous hero Herakles first set foot on to Egypt. He also reports of Helen’s visit to Heracleion with her lover Paris before the Trojan War. More than four centuries after Herodotus’ visit to Egypt, the geographer Strabo observed that the city of Heracleion, which possessed the temple of Herakles, is located straight to the east of Canopus at the mouth of the Canopic branch of the River Nile.

The Stele of Thonis-Heracleion being lifted out of the Nile delta !!
Wow, that is really magnificent.

The older civilisations were capable to build big. Megalithic monuments. The later civilisations put small bricks on the gigantic megaliths. This is in egypt and all other monuments.

On the left: old stones.
On the right: new = later stone work.

The newer the work, the more primitive it is.

Later civilisations lost knowledge .

Why ?!

Mclane wrote:

https://curiosmos.com/5100-years-ago-an-ancient-sumerian-astronomer-drew-a-star-map-detailing-massive-cosmic-impact/?fbclid=IwAR2K7TD4o4Xt0jwvMzpGbE0nqNVginRvxX1myNHDxOlqmKXBGcDdDiVtyeo_aem_AfqlBX-mpTMbGxB1tONGKm_jx-zpQOm8cptewHKj97qmREikaKzOjh15SLT6zr2CoCU

Compare the picture and text with the British museum.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_K-8538

I trust the info of the British Museum.