The Vinland map is in itself proof the Vikings came to America, and there are numerous Viking dwellings in eastern Canada.

And The show Vikings on History will show how Ragnar Lothbrok who was Baptized and was funded by the Pope himself to search for and was informed there was quite possibly land to the west of europe, And Ragnor wanted land to farm for his people more than anything else. Its more than just a show. Information was very secretive back then, it's a mere fraction of the way things are today. Information itself was controlled by the church back then, so they could tell whatever story they wanted. Anybody that said anything different was deemed an enemy. Just knowing how much they lied is reason to ask yourself what and why they were lying about.

O ya there is plenty of solid evidence that the vikings were in North America pre-columbus, just not alot of evidence they made it to Minnesota. Which of course makes sense because far more Vikings would have made there way to the coast of eastern Canada and North Eastern US than the midwest. It seems likely only a few expeditions came as far as minnesota, who knows perhaps even only 1. But there is enough of an oral history record of pre-columbus white men for me personally to fully believe in the Minnesota Vikings (coincidentally my favorite NFL team). Some of the late oral history accounts of white men gods could be vikings, at the time Vikings were by far the best europeon physical specimens, but they were animals. The muslim accounts of vikings are humorous, they admired them for their physical size while at the same time they were disgusted at their lack of bathing and clothes washing.

So you believe oral history but want actual archeological proof in the case of "America's Stonehenge"- makes sense. It sorta just proves the idea that you don't wanna believe information if it comes from someone you in your wisdom has decided to not likable because they disagree with the way you think. Its actually a very common way to think for certain people.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 18 2015 03:59pm

Not in the least. I have two very different burdens of proof, on is speculative on is concrete. If enough information is present i can tentatively believe something or think it may be true, this usually comes from clues like oral histories or physical evidence that cant be fully substantiated, which are proven to be less than accurate. Then there is a burden of proof for me to concretely believe something, which would be something like physical evidence in enough of a grouping to infer certain facts.

Example: If i was out in the woods and found a souix arrowhead i could postulate that souix indians once inhabited that very area, but i would have no proof that the item wasnt traded, stolen, or simply dropped during a migration. However if i went on to find additional Souix artifacts, areas with present cook fires spanning a large period of time, flint napping debris, and souix style housing remains it would be more of a concrete belief, although still up to question.

Holding on to a belief at all is silly unless you have incontrovertible evidence, especially when you can tentatively believe something and then change that belief at a later time. I "believe" bigfoot exists, but that belief is tentative without any physical evidence. To me a belief and knowledge arent nearly the same thing.

What do you think about the talpiot tomb and the Lost Gospel? Do you believe the Aztec pyramids were related to the Egyptian pyramids and other structures around the world because of Aliens or because there is history that the church has denied, kinda like they tried to deny that the earth was not the center of the universe or that they are closer to God than you, or that evolution is a myth? Or that the earth is only 6000 years old? That Constantine altered the new testament to what Rome wanted to promote? That their is no left wing media - that is just code for Christians to use for those that don't have the same tin foil bent as they do? Do you just use this standard of proof of things if it doesn't interfere with your Christian beliefs?

Im not educated enough on either subject to even form a tentative opinion.



I agree with the idea that pyramids are the only logical construction for ancient civilizations to achieve great heights. Any other shaped massive structure would crumple under its own weight, the pyramid offers the most efficient way to achieve great heights without the addition of large scale construction tools. I believe that multiple civilizations reached this idea, which is essentially just a geometric problem that needed to be solved to create large buildings, independently of each other in some cases and with direct links to each other in other cases. It seems fairly well established that even early Mesopotamian civilizations used raised earth mounds as a means to create structures, as they stretched across the earth this practice surely followed them and they upgraded to stone. However civilizations like the Maya and Egypt share very little in terms of specific architectural design.



The church has historically been anti science, now a chemist is the pope. I have never been anti science nor do i reject evolution in the slightest.



im also not a young earth creationist, as im not much of a creationist at all.



I believe the Bible has been altered on many occasions. Just the creation of the bible itself is an alteration because the chosen books were not divinely inspired but chosen by councils.



There is an even spread of both left and right winged media, with very little objective media.



My beliefs in god are not in conflict with scientific developments. I believe in science first, as it is observable and repeatable. My belief in god is not a knowledge, i have not died therefore i dont know if god exists or not.

Interested in what you think about the Talpiot tomb and the Lost Gospel ,both of which point out that Jesus was married and that he had 2 sons. Also what do you think of Simcha Jacobovici? This is a man i find very trustworthy and reasonable.



http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/movie_overview.html

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 19 2015 04:54pm

Ahh ya, ive read multiple theories about Jesus' marriage and family, nothing ive read convinces me its fully credible, but theres enough out there (coupled with the insane amount of time since Jesus was alive) for me to not fully subscribe to the idea that Jesus died single with no family. I will say i am especially skeptical of the idea that Jesus fathered sons who eventually went on to lead countries through their offspring. I dont think that Jesus would have passed on any magical traits for leadership to his offspring. But on the whole im quite open to the idea of Jesus having ancestors, he died at an old enough age that marriage would have been very possible. Sadly i dont think there will ever be a clear answer, likely do to early accounts of Jesus being changed to fit the narrative approved by early churches.

Marriage and children were expected of every Jewish son, in fact if he didn't do that, he would have been shun by the entire community. Magical traits being transferred to his sons, ruling countries, i don't believe that - just that fact that the Church lied about Mary Magdalene - his wife and that he had children and that he had an ossuary which proves he wasn't "resurrected".

You can't talk about and believe fantastical theories without any credible proof like Bigfoot and the Vikings going to Minnesota when actual proof lays before your eyes in black and white. Including all the evidence of human civilizations that existed 10k -15k years ago and that they knew and understood much that we in all are technical greatness still don't understand.

Well, theres plenty of credible proof of bigfoot, first off gigantopithicus is a real creature, that existed in the fossil record. We just only have specimens from a long ways back in the record, and in china.

But i dont believe in Bigfoot or Minn Vikings truthfully, not to the point where i would honestly argue their existence. I am however invested in them enough to argue specific pieces of evidence, and they interest me, but i wouldnt say i truly believe in them, not like for example i truly believe in the boiling point of water, they arent fact.

I also dont think it would be fair to categorize my faith as extremely strong, i am filled with doubt constantly, and constantly revisit my belief. Still the life and death of jesus, and any facts that may change about his life, wont shatter my faith, as it is more spiritually based than based on scripture.

Edit: what specific things do you think 10-15k years ago civilizations ago knew that we dont?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 20 2015 12:14pm