Existence of God (split from old thread)

[timtofly]

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

The original stories were made up and told in oral form. Spoken. The written versions - plural - came later. Since humans don't have perfect memories (okay, some have eidetic memories, but that's not what I'm talking about), there is no way in hell that the bible on my bookshelf is the same as the bible that was originally hand-written and copied (and copied and copied and copied) over 2000 years ago.

Are you going to say that absolutely every edition of the bible that has ever come along is identical to the first edition? Wow, I didn't know lolspeak and l33t-speek were around that long ago!.

I am saying that people make changes to suit the way they think, but that does not change the hundreds of other copies that also existed. So we have the claim that there were copy/edit errors? How do we know that with out the benefit of being able to use many copies to edit an edition in the same manner as 2500 years ago?

We have to come up with some elaborate meaning to suit our tastes that makes sense to us. What does being identical even mean? You keep putting the Bible into some oral version, when it is a known fact that when the first 5 books was given to Moses, that humans could store copies in written form. Was it 20th century English? That would be the concept of identical to me.

Next are we going to hear the excuse that Moses was not educated by the best of Egyptian scholars? At what point in made up history, do we know for a fact the Bible went from oral to written form? The Bible never mentions it, but then again, you would not have that excuse, because if it was in the Bible it would not be accepted as fact. So let's not even mention that in the Bible it was a direct order to write it out in many different forms. To keep it from error as is humanly possible. Perhaps the educated scholars were just making up the need to prevent error, because it was so full of errors that such a dire warning would be misleading from the reality of the matter. You do realize that is heading into conspiracy theory? It is also putting thoughts into the ancient editor's minds without any proof of the claim.

Another thing if we accept that there were ancient editors, would they not be smart enough to write, and what advantage or reason would they gain from changing the copies they did have? The whole point was that it was a collection of accounts from a people group, that has not been totally removed from reality, and there has been archeology proof that some of the Kings did actually exist. But if one denies that it was possible to even know what writing was at the time of the accounts, they would have to deny it from other people groups as well. Writing is not an extraordinary claim. We are just left with accepting the content of what was written.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am saying that people make changes to suit the way they think, but that does not change the hundreds of other copies that also existed. So we have the claim that there were copy/edit errors? How do we know that with out the benefit of being able to use many copies to edit an edition in the same manner as 2500 years ago?

Oh, for crying out loud!

I realize that you'd love to believe that the bible was literally true and it's 100% unchanged since the first copy left the scriptorium or scribe's stall in the market place a couple of thousand years ago (plus a few centuries here and there), but it isn't literally true (there's tons of evidence to show that it isn't), and human scribes are not as precise as printing presses. Even with printing presses, all it took was human error to have mistakes enter the printed books, and sometimes errors are detected and corrected quickly and sometimes they aren't.

I have actually been a scribe, similar to how they did it in medieval times (okay, I was able to buy my pens and ink and paper at the stationery store instead of having to make my own pens, ink, and paper). It's not easy to do calligraphy for hours a day, and takes concentration to hold the pen correctly, never mind the concentration necessary to make a perfect copy of the original you're working from. Even considering that the monks who did spend hours a day, every day doing this would have been well-practiced, even they wouldn't always have produced perfect copies 100% of the time.

We have to come up with some elaborate meaning to suit our tastes that makes sense to us. What does being identical even mean? You keep putting the Bible into some oral version, when it is a known fact that when the first 5 books was given to Moses, that humans could store copies in written form. Was it 20th century English? That would be the concept of identical to me.

Yes, first comes oral tradition, and written versions come later. Not many people were literate back then, and producing writing materials was a hell of a lot more complicated than just buying the stuff at the nearest stationery/office supplies store.

You seem reluctant to concede that there isn't any actual proof that Moses even existed. And how do you square the claim that the first five books were given to Moses with the claim that he wrote Exodus himself (apparently he was able to finish it after he died - neat trick...).

Literacy was around long before the period of time claimed to be when the events of the Moses story took place. Of course it wasn't 20th century English. Do you realize how many mistakes and changes can happen when a document is translated from one language to another? Some ideas can't even be adequately expressed in some languages. That's something I was told by one of my typing clients when I was typing papers for college and university students. This particular client's first language was Cree, she thought in Cree, and was frustrated with one of her papers because the ideas she wanted to convey worked fine in Cree, but not in English. English doesn't have the words to convey those ideas properly, so she had to do a workaround (given that her instructor didn't read Cree). The result was that she was dissatisfied because the English version of her paper was imprecise and not exactly what she really wanted to say. Situations like these can lead to misunderstandings.

Next are we going to hear the excuse that Moses was not educated by the best of Egyptian scholars? At what point in made up history, do we know for a fact the Bible went from oral to written form? The Bible never mentions it, but then again, you would not have that excuse, because if it was in the Bible it would not be accepted as fact. So let's not even mention that in the Bible it was a direct order to write it out in many different forms. To keep it from error as is humanly possible. Perhaps the educated scholars were just making up the need to prevent error, because it was so full of errors that such a dire warning would be misleading from the reality of the matter. You do realize that is heading into conspiracy theory? It is also putting thoughts into the ancients minds without any proof of the claim.

Oh, do stop putting words on my keyboard that I never typed, 'k?

IF Moses existed, IF he was raised as a prince of Egypt, then yes, it's reasonable to assume that he would have had the best tutors his adoptive mother could arrange.

I didn't say history was made up. I said the bible/oral tradition that led to it was made up.

Of course the bible isn't going to say in its preface, "Dear Readers, everything in this book is made up from oral tradition that has been passed down through the generations and some parts are probably substantially different than they were in their original form." That's not how you hook believers and people who will contribute money to the collection plate/basket.

I am hardly the one around here who is into conspiracy theories.

 

[Berzerker]

Evidence, please. You have some really creative notions about this, so I'm sure you'll understand my skepticism.

Or you could just bump your old thread. I'm sure it's still around somewhere.

I just provided the evidence, the Sumerian word for salt also means vapor. So Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt... or a pillar of vapor. Here's another example, the word for rib also means life force, or that which animates. Eve was the Mother of the living (Lady Life) and she was made from a rib. The biggest alterations to the Bible occurred long before it was compiled, Hebrew scholars were dealing with already ancient Sumerian stories.

I addressed that to timtofly, who has yet to reply.

and I addressed it to you, and you have yet to reply... I'd like to know how you turned

she was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock

into vapor became rock.... preceded or followed by insults of course.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just provided the evidence, the Sumerian word for salt also means vapor. So Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt... or a pillar of vapor. Here's another example, the word for rib also means life force, or that which animates. Eve was the Mother of the living (Lady Life) and she was made from a rib. The biggest alterations to the Bible occurred long before it was compiled, Hebrew scholars were dealing with already ancient Sumerian stories.

You're still claiming magic. I thought we got this done with in the other thread.

and I addressed it to you, and you have yet to reply... I'd like to know how you turned



into vapor became rock.... preceded or followed by insults of course.

Show me the evidence of Lot's wife's image on a rock.

I'm willing to believe that if a fog came up, she could have become disoriented and lost, or possibly had an accident and died. But you're claiming magic and nuclear explosions, which are obviously ridiculous.

And let's not get into your notions of cloning... you have to know that the technology for that didn't exist at that time (and don't come back with "how do you know?"). As I said, we already had this conversation. I've got no more patience with it now than I did then.

 

[onejayhawk]

The original stories were made up and told in oral form. Spoken. The written versions - plural - came later. Since humans don't have perfect memories (okay, some have eidetic memories, but that's not what I'm talking about), there is no way in hell that the bible on my bookshelf is the same as the bible that was originally hand-written and copied (and copied and copied and copied) over 2000 years ago.

Are you going to say that absolutely every edition of the bible that has ever come along is identical to the first edition? Wow, I didn't know lolspeak and l33t-speek were around that long ago!

Not a given.

We're talking about a book, not something I'd buy in a clothing store. Since the very first edition of the bible isn't something I'd be able to get my hands on without a time machine, your comment makes no sense. Why? I'm not only talking about copy errors. I'm talking about groups of people having a meeting, deciding what books to leave in and which to leave out. I'm talking about various editions that use different words and phrases that do have an effect on how people read and understand specific chapters and verses.

"Word of God", my <whatever>.

More like "Word of Politicians", deciding what they wanted the people to believe. Note that I use the word "politicians" to include high-ranking church authorities.

Nothing in any of this discourages, much less refutes a guiding intelligence. To the contrary, you make an inspiring story of it, then try to deny the impact.

Self-refuted, but stand on your judgment. Bold play.

J

 

[Berzerker]

You're still claiming magic. I thought we got this done with in the other thread.

I didn't mention magic, you did. And it doesn't take magic to vaporize someone...

Show me the evidence of Lot's wife's image on a rock.

"she was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock"

I already provided evidence she was vaporized, if I had it for her image I wouldn't have said it was possible. If you're vaporized and surrounded by rock, its possible your image will be transposed onto it. I dont know why you need evidence for that, seems obvious.

I'm willing to believe that if a fog came up, she could have become disoriented and lost, or possibly had an accident and died. But you're claiming magic and nuclear explosions, which are obviously ridiculous.

Where did I claim magic? I dont know what vaporized her, one theory says it was an air burst, another says a fireball, natural gas explosion or eruption, and yet another says a nuke or some weapon used by God. I dont think the story was just made up and added to the Bible, something happened to her.

And let's not get into your notions of cloning... you have to know that the technology for that didn't exist at that time (and don't come back with "how do you know?"). As I said, we already had this conversation. I've got no more patience with it now than I did then.

Where did I mention cloning and what does it have to do with Lot's wife?

Oh, do stop putting words on my keyboard that I never typed, 'k?

I know, you didn't address that to me...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not a given.

Oh, right. Materials to write on were so plentiful back then that people could waste them writing stories and they always got it right on the first try. The only modern authors I know of who claim that are Robert A. Heinlein and Kevin J. Anderson. And even Anderson (by his own claims) turns out perfect prose while talking into a recorder while hiking up and down mountains, blathering all the way. He blames any mistakes on his secretary.

Frankly, having read many Heinlein stories and having emailed with Anderson and read his "perfect prose," I don't believe either of them.

It's the usual way of any kind of stories in a society where most people aren't literate and/or writing materials aren't accessible to just anybody. People tell stories, sing songs, and later on someone will write them down. This is common to many cultures throughout history.

Nothing in any of this discourages, much less refutes a guiding intelligence. To the contrary, you make an inspiring story of it, then try to deny the impact.

Self-refuted, but stand on your judgment. Bold play.

I made something inspiring in that post? Cool. I have no idea what it was, so you'll have to specify. If it was really inspiring, how about clicking "Like"? I like "likes."

I didn't mention magic, you did. And it doesn't take magic to vaporize someone...

Oh, here we go. You described a process that couldn't have happened back then other than by magic. Let's see the evidence that Lot's wife was vaporized...

Still waiting...

Nope, sorry. No such evidence exists.

And here's a prime example of what I'm trying to get across to timtofly: Depending on the language and cultures involved in translating a document or writing something down from an oral tradition, there will be mistakes and misunderstandings. The traditional interpretation of Lot's wife is that she was literally turned into a pillar of salt. You insist she was vaporized by a process that couldn't have happened back then because "how do you know they didn't have nuclear weapons in Old Testament times?" or some such nonsense.

"she was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock"

I already provided evidence she was vaporized, if I had it for her image I wouldn't have said it was possible. If you're vaporized and surrounded by rock, its possible your image will be transposed onto it. I dont know why you need evidence for that, seems obvious.

You provided absolutely not one shred of evidence. Since not one archaeologist, anthropologist, or geologist ever noticed this image of Lot's wife on a nearby rock and there are no stories I know of that say this (you're the only one), I'm willing to bet that it never happened.

Oh, correction... there is one story that mentioned transposing images after a nuclear blast: "There Will Come Soft Rains" - a short story that's part of the Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury. Bradbury was not known for writing hard science fiction. At best they were space opera, and Bradbury himself considered his stories to be more fantasy than SF. Most of his stories are obsolete now as plausible SF, since the probes sent out into the solar system have shown that the events of Bradbury's stories (with the exception of Farenheit 451) could not happen.

Where did I claim magic? I dont know what vaporized her, one theory says it was an air burst, another says a fireball, natural gas explosion or eruption, and yet another says a nuke or some weapon used by God. I dont think the story was just made up and added to the Bible, something happened to her.

I've heard of the HYPOTHESIS (not theory) that a natural gas explosion was to blame for the destruction of the cities. Since that area of the world is very active geologically speaking, it's an explanation that makes sense, with people attributing it to divine displeasure afterward (since people in that time period didn't know what we know about volcanism and how gases behave). I have never read that this was the final verdict as to what happened.

Please stop with this nuke stuff. There's no evidence and the only "proof" you offer is some combination of "how do YOU know?", "maybe it was/did," or "I said it did, so that's evidence." It really isn't.

Where did I mention cloning and what does it have to do with Lot's wife?

You were talking about whatever woman it was who was made from a rib. That's cloning, and I presume you meant the story about Adam and Eve. You said, two posts ago:

Eve was the Mother of the living (Lady Life) and she was made from a rib.

Cloning, in other words. In short, something the people of that time didn't have either the knowledge or technology to do.

I know, you didn't address that to me...

Then why bother to mention it?

 

[Berzerker]

Oh, here we go. You described a process that couldn't have happened back then other than by magic. Let's see the evidence that Lot's wife was vaporized...

Still waiting...

Nope, sorry. No such evidence exists.

I didn't say I had evidence she was vaporized, I said the story of Lot's wife was evidence of an early alteration finding its way into the Bible.

And here's a prime example of what I'm trying to get across to timtofly: Depending on the language and cultures involved in translating a document or writing something down from an oral tradition, there will be mistakes and misunderstandings. The traditional interpretation of Lot's wife is that she was literally turned into a pillar of salt. You insist she was vaporized by a process that couldn't have happened back then because "how do you know they didn't have nuclear weapons in Old Testament times?" or some such nonsense.

Fire and brimstone fell from the sky... You dont need magic or a nuclear weapon for that. I dont insist on anything, I just pointed out people can be vaporized and that the Sumerian word for salt also means vapor.

You provided absolutely not one shred of evidence. Since not one archaeologist, anthropologist, or geologist ever noticed this image of Lot's wife on a nearby rock and there are no stories I know of that say this (you're the only one), I'm willing to bet that it never happened.

I never said the image existed, I said if she was vaporized its possible her image was transposed onto nearby rock.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/n...nting-imprints-of-people-killed-by-the-blast/

Please stop with this nuke stuff. There's no evidence and the only "proof" you offer is some combination of "how do YOU know?", "maybe it was/did," or "I said it did, so that's evidence." It really isn't.

If the Bible is right, it was a weapon. A weapon that could vaporize a human. Maybe it did happen, I dont know... and neither do you.

You were talking about whatever woman it was who was made from a rib. That's cloning, and I presume you meant the story about Adam and Eve. You said, two posts ago:
Cloning, in other words. In short, something the people of that time didn't have either the knowledge or technology to do.

You thinking cloning someone means taking their rib?

Then why bother to mention it?

It was appropriate... You're among the worst abusers and you yell the most when you get a taste of your own medicine.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I didn't say I had evidence she was vaporized, I said the story of Lot's wife was evidence of an early alteration finding its way into the Bible.

This is what you said:

some of the alterations happened long before the Bible was compiled

For example, Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt. The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor. She was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock.

That looks like a declarative sentence to me, and I'm still not seeing any evidence to back up your claims.

Fire and brimstone fell from the sky... You dont need magic or a nuclear weapon for that. I dont insist on anything, I just pointed out people can be vaporized and that the Sumerian word for salt also means vapor.

Where's the evidence for the fire and brimstone? I really don't care about the two meanings of the word for salt/vapor. You have zero evidence for either scenario.

If the Bible is right, it was a weapon. A weapon that could vaporize a human. Maybe it did happen, I dont know... and neither do you.

Something like that would have resulted in a story far different from merely turning a woman into a pillar of salt. There is no evidence of any such weapon being used in that region in that time.

You thinking cloning someone means taking their rib?

This may surprise you, but a rib is not a reproductive organ. So ribs can't be used for normal human reproduction. The science of cloning is still new, but assuming people had the technology to clone someone from any kind of cells, a rib would do.

What else would you call it if someone took a rib from one human and ZAP! created another human from that rib? Since you insist you're not suggesting magic, it must be cloning. Make up your mind which one, because it's certainly nothing normal.

It was appropriate... You're among the worst abusers and you yell the most when you get a taste of your own medicine.

Oh, dear. What am I "abusing" this time?

 

[Agent327]

I would say sophistry and nonsense, but nonsense is fun.

Try logic.

Were you not the person stating that there were no scholars before the invention of writing? Hence, writing was never invented because there was no scholar to do it.

And you just mentioned sophistry... FWIW, writing wasn't ' invented' by scholars, no. And it's entirely correct that you can't have scholars without writing. In particular the scholars you seem to refer to would have been Scripture scholars. I'm fairly certain the Scripture was written. That's not to say that before the Scripture was written down, there couldn't have been theological concepts. (God, for one.)

 

[Berzerker]

This is what you said:
That looks like a declarative sentence to me, and I'm still not seeing any evidence to back up your claims.

Here was the declarative statement:

some of the alterations happened long before the Bible was compiled

For example, Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt. The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor.

The part you bolded was a biblical reading using vapor in place of salt.

Where's the evidence for the fire and brimstone? I really don't care about the two meanings of the word for salt/vapor. You have zero evidence for either scenario.

I never said I had it... But we know people can be vaporized.

Something like that would have resulted in a story far different from merely turning a woman into a pillar of salt. There is no evidence of any such weapon being used in that region in that time.

The story is far different, fire and brimstone rained from the sky and destroyed several cities. But we dont know where the region is, so obviously we dont know where to find the evidence.

This may surprise you, but a rib is not a reproductive organ. So ribs can't be used for normal human reproduction. The science of cloning is still new, but assuming people had the technology to clone someone from any kind of cells, a rib would do.

What else would you call it if someone took a rib from one human and ZAP! created another human from that rib? Since you insist you're not suggesting magic, it must be cloning. Make up your mind which one, because it's certainly nothing normal.

I wouldn't call it cloning... The Bible says Adam was put to sleep and a rib was taken for Eve's flesh to form around. Is that how we do cloning? If any cells will do, you dont need a rib. I dont think a rib was used... As evidence of early alterations I offered the rib story, Eve was the lady of life and the lady of the rib. Its a play on words based on Sumerian mythology.

http://mythology.stackexchange.com/...and-eve-influenced-by-sumerian-ninti-and-enki

Oh, dear. What am I "abusing" this time?

Making arguments for other people, you're quite prolific at it

 

[timtofly]

Oh, for crying out loud!

I realize that you'd love to believe that the bible was literally true and it's 100% unchanged since the first copy left the scriptorium or scribe's stall in the market place a couple of thousand years ago (plus a few centuries here and there), but it isn't literally true (there's tons of evidence to show that it isn't), and human scribes are not as precise as printing presses. Even with printing presses, all it took was human error to have mistakes enter the printed books, and sometimes errors are detected and corrected quickly and sometimes they aren't.

I have actually been a scribe, similar to how they did it in medieval times (okay, I was able to buy my pens and ink and paper at the stationery store instead of having to make my own pens, ink, and paper). It's not easy to do calligraphy for hours a day, and takes concentration to hold the pen correctly, never mind the concentration necessary to make a perfect copy of the original you're working from. Even considering that the monks who did spend hours a day, every day doing this would have been well-practiced, even they wouldn't always have produced perfect copies 100% of the time.


Yes, first comes oral tradition, and written versions come later. Not many people were literate back then, and producing writing materials was a hell of a lot more complicated than just buying the stuff at the nearest stationery/office supplies store.

You seem reluctant to concede that there isn't any actual proof that Moses even existed. And how do you square the claim that the first five books were given to Moses with the claim that he wrote Exodus himself (apparently he was able to finish it after he died - neat trick...).

Literacy was around long before the period of time claimed to be when the events of the Moses story took place. Of course it wasn't 20th century English. Do you realize how many mistakes and changes can happen when a document is translated from one language to another? Some ideas can't even be adequately expressed in some languages. That's something I was told by one of my typing clients when I was typing papers for college and university students. This particular client's first language was Cree, she thought in Cree, and was frustrated with one of her papers because the ideas she wanted to convey worked fine in Cree, but not in English. English doesn't have the words to convey those ideas properly, so she had to do a workaround (given that her instructor didn't read Cree). The result was that she was dissatisfied because the English version of her paper was imprecise and not exactly what she really wanted to say. Situations like these can lead to misunderstandings.


Oh, do stop putting words on my keyboard that I never typed, 'k?

IF Moses existed, IF he was raised as a prince of Egypt, then yes, it's reasonable to assume that he would have had the best tutors his adoptive mother could arrange.

I didn't say history was made up. I said the bible/oral tradition that led to it was made up.

Of course the bible isn't going to say in its preface, "Dear Readers, everything in this book is made up from oral tradition that has been passed down through the generations and some parts are probably substantially different than they were in their original form." That's not how you hook believers and people who will contribute money to the collection plate/basket.

I am hardly the one around here who is into conspiracy theories.

For someone who hates people telling her what she is thinking, why am I accused of wanting to love an idea? Is It necessary to point out that the Bible has been subject to multiple copy errors? Personally, I am not too worried if things have changed, and as for being true, that is a made up argument by those who do not want it to be true. Otherwise it would not be a point to bring up. It would not matter if people claimed or believed it is true. The point is there is no reason to not think it is an acurate account of human experiences, as they were being experienced.

It is a way to avoid the point that writing things down when they happened is one of the distinctions found in how we got the Bible in the first place. You seem to accept the possibility that Moses could have written the first 5 books, as long as there is proof somewhere that he even existed. Is it convenient that he foretold that his body would never be found?

What is the point of blaming things on medieval copiest? Are you saying they could have messed up every literary item from past history? At some point you have to accept what we have is a decent account of history, or nothing we have is. If you pick and choose, you are creating a history that you think happened.

 

[Akka]

I didn't mention elements that allow life. Here's what I said, again:

So basically a convenient "magic" that is or is not present in parts we don't know and can't measure, but somehow need to exists because... you want it to exists ?

That's very convincing.

 

[Akka]

Not a given.

Yes it's a given, considering it blatantly contradict that the Earth (Gaia) was created by Chaos and Aether, which is obviously truer.
Or was it Ometeotl creating itself and the universe the truest ? I kind of have a hard time tracking all the "true story of how the world came to be" from all the different religions, where each people think their own myth is somehow the real one and all others are delusional, and never manage to realize the only difference is that they were raised in the one they believe in.

 

[Ryika]

What is the point of blaming things on medieval copiest? Are you saying they could have messed up every literary item from past history?

Yeah, that's pretty much how historical sources are handled.

 

[onejayhawk]

Oh, right. Materials to write on were so plentiful back then that people could waste them writing stories and they always got it right on the first try. The only modern authors I know of who claim that are Robert A. Heinlein and Kevin J. Anderson. And even Anderson (by his own claims) turns out perfect prose while talking into a recorder while hiking up and down mountains, blathering all the way. He blames any mistakes on his secretary.

I said it was not a given that the stories were made up, ie fiction. What are you talking about?

J

 

[Berzerker]

So basically a convenient "magic" that is or is not present in parts we don't know and can't measure, but somehow need to exists because... you want it to exists ?

That's very convincing.

Where did I say any of that? I offered 2 options for life - the inanimate gave rise to the animate...or... the animate was somehow present in one or more of the elements essential to life.

What I want or need is irrelevant

 

[Akka]

Where did I say any of that? I offered 2 options for life - the inanimate gave rise to the animate...or... the animate was somehow present in one or more of the elements essential to life.

What I want or need is irrelevant

The fact you need to bother trying to imagine some magic "animate" in what is perfectly explained by chemical reactions is the sign you want to see it there. You wouldn't bother otherwise.

 

[Berzerker]

The fact you need to bother trying to imagine some magic "animate" in what is perfectly explained by chemical reactions is the sign you want to see it there. You wouldn't bother otherwise.

I offered 2 options for the origin of life because those are the only options I can see. Either the inanimate gave rise to life, or life was present in one or more of the available elements (or was 'written' into the rule book). Now what chemical reaction perfectly explains life?

 

[onejayhawk]

Life is worth a thread of its own. Something undefined leaves. All that remains is rotting meat. What, why and how are unsolved mysteries. So far, the best anyone has come up with is that the breath of God has gone back to its source. See. We learned a lot in 5000 years.

J