A look at Tarot as very Ancient, and subject to concerted mis-representation

Anybody can say they are a channel, and put out whatever ideas they wish to make people believe, according to whatever agenda they want. I could say, I contacted the great library in the sky and discovered that it was imperative to lace our public drinking water with arsenic. But for me to proclaim that, and much worse, for others to believe me, would be irresponsible and dangerous.

Inspiration for great and new ideas can come from many mysterious sources, but that does not exempt them from the requirement of standing up to scrutiny in the light of day, with logic and hard cold facts. Until insights, that includes those of Einstein, can make this painful birth journey from night into day, they remain outlandish claims.

As far as I know, the first person to theorize a connection between tarot and the kabalah was Alphonse-Louis Constant (Eliphas Levi), in his two-volume work on high magic of 1854-55. This was more than four centuries after the first appearance of tarot in Italy.

There was an earlier work, an essay by the Comte de Mellet, appended to Court de Gebelin's famous "Monde Primitif" in 1781, which asserted a relationship between the tarot trumps and the Hebrew alphabet, but it did not go so far as to cite kabalistic lore as a source.

There are no Hebrew letters and no direct or indirect references to Kabalah in any tarot deck or tarot-related documents prior to this. Furthermore, there are no 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, or 14th century tarot cards. If there are, I would very much like to see them, or any evidence, direct or indirect, of their existence. The first stirrings of tarot have been fairly well isolated and shown to have occurred in nothern Italy during the first half of the fifteenth century. These have been discussed in great detail, on this board and elsewhere, by Huck, Ross Caldwell, and several others.

In addition, there is no such thing as intuitive history, any more than there is such a thing as intuitive surgery. If somebody tried to hook me up with a surgeon who announced that he uses an intuitive method, I'd run the other way. There always have been, it's true, people who attract attention by floating sensational theories which, if they're sensational enough, are swallowed whole by a gullible multitude, despite the absence of evidence. Such a theory was Ignatius Donnelly's farrago of fantasies about the lost continent of Atlantis, which he concocted in the late 19th century. It persists today, along with the tarot-kabalah connection, despite the fact that not a single identifiable Atlantean pot shard has ever been recovered, nor has a single pre-19th-century tarot card bearing a Hebrew letter.

pan said:

The more original tarot deck was most likely composed as i have less than clearly stated of
probably no less than 80 cards. The marseilles deck is a perfect example of christianization.

"the devil" that should be "pan" and the assorted
"pope" images including one card and the "death"
card image, the use of kings and queens instead of the use of the families, the list could go on and on.

Yet, there are four elemental suits even in the marseilles deck.
the pagan symbolism shines through even the deliberate christianization.

Click to expand...

Show me a 'pan' card and I'll believe this. Also, you may wish to look at some of the recent discoveries that state that the 'original' Tarot pack may actually have only been 70 cards:

The 5x14 Theory

Could it be that the cards have so much 'Christianization' because they were created by Christians not by Pagans? I think this is obvious, since we have no evidence of any such 'pagan decks'. It is true that many of the cards in the Tarot deck, such as the Devil, have Pagan 'counterparts' that are very similar, but I think this is due to the similarity in most religions instead of the Tarot deck being Pagan originally.

Christians were aware of the four elements: the four elements are not solely a Pagan thing. Why then should the existence of four elements in the suits be proof of Pagan ideas in the Tarot? (Personally I would say that these elements weren't actually given to the suits until after the Tarot deck's creation anyway.)

Pan, by all means have your intuitive insights into Tarot, but please do not try to say that they are historical proof, and please do not try to say that we are wrong for disagreeing with something that is not only quite implausible but also has no proof. I apologise for being a stickler for proof, but before I go believing any wild theories, I like to have something to base my belief on.

Kiama

There is one thing that strikes me.

People always talk about Tarot as if it began with the printing press and paper production.

I believe, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that Tarot existed BEFORE the cards came into being.

Tarot is more than just a deck of cardboard pieces of paper with ink.

Those who want written historical proof, well then they can stop at the 14th Century. No need to even argue about that. I mean, the Visconti guy probably just woke up one morning and said "Hey! I'm gonna get a nice deck of cards with pretty pictures designed for me. That should be a lot of fun!" That's one way of looking at it.

I don't know whether I agree with all the pan has said - here and especially in the Deck Creation forum - there's a lot to take in, and I need to print out his (I assume I am right in saying "he"?) stuff (reading long posts on the screen tends to tire my eyes).

The oldest "proper" Tarot deck (paper and ink) was probably designed by a heretical Christian movement (that is my belief - and I love that deck with all my heart, especially as it is heretical! ), but I know in my heart without a doubt that Tarot (the idea) predates this.

Proof I have none. Don't even bother to ask me for it.

what i notice is a lot of ad hominem attacks.
i notice a lot of people basicly saying
"without proof, you have nothing."
people saying "show me a deck prior to 1400"

what i don't notice is anybody scratching their heads and realizing maybe theres a good darn
few reasons why written history seems to start
AFTER THE BOOK BURNINGS IN ROME.


what i don't notice is anybody scratching their heads and realizing maybe theres a good darn
few reasons why written history seems to start
AFTER THE BOOK BURNINGS IN ROME.


what i don't notice is anybody scratching their heads and realizing maybe theres a good darn
few reasons why written history seems to start
AFTER THE BOOK BURNINGS IN ROME.

i hope you will sincerely start adressing
what i am saying instead of attacking me personally.
i hope you will sincerely start thinking about
the possibilities that you have been brainwashed
into believing are impossible.

because otherwise, your interest in tarot
is limited to what the roman catholic
MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN
WANTS YOU TO THINK.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN; THIS IS A POINT BY POINT ANALYSIS. PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION. THIS IS THE
WAY REAL ARGUMENT IS CONDUCTED BY ACTUAL INTELLECTUALS.
--------------

As far as I know, the first person to theorize a connection between tarot
and the kabalah was Alphonse-Louis Constant (Eliphas Levi), in his
two-volume work on high magic of 1854-55. This was more than four
centuries after the first appearance of tarot in Italy.
----------
As far as you know. you start with the presupposition and then move to prove your point.
As far as you know, every peice of "information"
you have ever been made aware of could have been
hand fed to you by people who don't have your
best interests at heart. Just because you don't
know a detail, or lack the information, does not
prove anything. You can't prove a total negative.
You can't say there was no tarot prior to 1400,
because you don't know. And the truth is, using
the information resources you have, you can't know. So your qualifier/ presumption is a great
admission. What about what you don't know?
And what about the Roman catholic misinformation
campaign and book burnings and genocides?
What about the facts we do seem to have in recorded history that leave more than enough
room for pause to wonder at what we may now
never know because that information was deliberately destroyed?
----------------

There was an earlier work, an essay by the Comte de Mellet, appended to
Court de Gebelin's famous "Monde Primitif" in 1781, which asserted a
relationship between the tarot trumps and the Hebrew alphabet, but it did
not go so far as to cite kabalistic lore as a source.
--------------
straw man. I am saying there is a correspondence.
as we get into the meanings of the cards and
the meanings of the letters, this becomes self
evident. I never claimed that there was a historical deck i could point to with hebrew letters on it.
----------
There are no Hebrew letters and no direct or indirect references to Kabalah
in any tarot deck or tarot-related documents prior to this.
----------
as far as you know. please keep your qualifiers in
place. Because for all that you do know, which
is based on the information created by the society
around you, you can't know for sure and with total certainty what you just stated. What about
the destruction of documents in rome? what about the vaults of documents still being kept secret in
rome? You see how this goes? you tell me what i allready know... and i tell you why it doesn't matter.
------------


Furthermore,
there are no 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, or 14th century tarot cards. If there
are, I would very much like to see them, or any evidence, direct or indirect,
of their existence. The first stirrings of tarot have been fairly well isolated
and shown to have occurred in nothern Italy during the first half of the
fifteenth century. These have been discussed in great detail, on this board
and elsewhere, by Huck, Ross Caldwell, and several others.
---------------
again, as far as you, or they know, using information which any objective observer might
have very good cause to find highly suspicious.
the proof is right in front of you and has been
all along. understand the underlying patterns of
the tarot and try to frame that in the context of
the culture of northern italy. sorry, it doesn't fit.
-----------
In addition, there is no such thing as intuitive history, any more than there is
such a thing as intuitive surgery. If somebody tried to hook me up with a
surgeon who announced that he uses an intuitive method, I'd run the other
way.
------------
great and good for you. I'm sure Christ manifesting neo bhuddhas will steer clear of doing
any minor miracles for you. Maybe if you learned
a bit about trance technologies you might change
your mind. Maybe if you knew that its possible to
access the reptillian brains sensory experience and thus become a walking mri scanner, and to upload the DNA through the mammalian complex and thus have a more accurate depiction of functional
biology than any mere "modern" doctor...maybe if
you knew a few details you might change your mind.
Maybe if you knew that "modern medicine" is oftimes a big con job....
--------


There always have been, it's true, people who attract attention by
floating sensational theories which, if they're sensational enough, are
swallowed whole by a gullible multitude, despite the absence of evidence.
------------
yes, and there are always status quo defenders
willing to float veiled insults at the first
sign of somebody breaking out of the box.
oh hi agent Smith, whats up?
------------
Such a theory was Ignatius Donnelly's farrago of fantasies about the lost
continent of Atlantis, which he concocted in the late 19th century.
---------
nevermind plato concocting it first.
--------
It
persists today, along with the tarot-kabalah connection, despite the fact
that not a single identifiable Atlantean pot shard has ever been recovered,
nor has a single pre-19th-century tarot card bearing a Hebrew letter.
----------
comparing this to atlantis is another veiled insult. my biggest question is, if you really do have the intellectual high ground, why do you have to resort to smear tactics?

blammo!

__________________

Descendants of Legendary Atlantis
by
Constantin Benetatos

Are Northern Europeans more pure descendants
of the Atlanteans than their Mediterranean counterparts?



K. PLATO'S ATLANTIS.

NOW LET US EXAMINE AND COMPARE A FEW FACTS AND TRY TO FIND OUT
PLATO'S VIEWS ABOUT THE INFORMATION HE SUPPLIED TO US.

HE TALKS ABOUT THE WAR BETWEEN THE ATHENIANS AGAINST THE
ATLANTEANS AND THEIR MUTUAL DESTRUCTION FROM EARTHQUAKES AND
FLOODS.

. IF THE ATLANTEANS HAD DWELT BEYOND THE PILLARS OF HERACLES THEY
WOULD NOT HAVE AN INGRESS THROUGH THE STRAIGHTS WITH THEIR FLEET
TO ENGAGE IN WAR WITH THE ATHENIANS DUE TO THE EXISTING
LAND-BRIDGE. OF COURSE, WE MAY NEVER KNOW THE REASON FOR THEIR
CONFLICT.

CRITIAS FURTHER EXPLAINS THAT THE SURVIVING GENERATIONS ON THE
MOUNTAINS REMAINED MOUNTAINOUS AND UNEDUCATED (OREION KAI
AGRAMMATON) . THE SURVIVORS HAD SOME OBSCURE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE NAMES OF THE LEADERS OF THE LAND, BUT THEY HAD HEARD
LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT THEIR DEEDS. THEY WERE HAPPY TO GIVE THE
NAMES OF THEIR ANCESTORS TO THEIR CHILDREN, BUT THEY WERE
UNAWARE OF THE VIRTUES AND LAWS OF THE PAST.

IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THE CONCERN OF THOSE WHO SURVIVED THE
WAR, FLOOD AND EARTHQUAKES BY REACHING HIGH GROUND, WAS
SURVIVAL. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE ONES MIGRATING TOWARDS
NORTHERN EUROPE. IT TOOK PROBABLY ONLY A FEW GENERATIONS FOR
SMALL GROUPS OF PEOPLE, SPREAD APART IN VAST EXPANSES OF LAND, TO
RETROGRESS TO NEOLITHIC CONDITIONS.

SOLON, ACCORDING TO CRITIAS, INDICATES THAT CONTEMPORARY TO THE
ATLANTEAN WOMEN, THEIR ATHENIAN COUNTERPARTS DID WHATEVER
THEIR NATURE AND ABILITY DICTATED. IN OTHER WORDS THEY HAD THE
SAME RIGHTS AS MEN, DOING WHATEVER THEY WERE ABLE AND WANTED
TO DO.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT FREE LADIES OF HOMERIC TIMES HAD MORE RIGHTS
AND FREEDOM THAN THE LADIES HAVE IN SOME OF THE DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES OF OUR TIMES.

CRITIAS INDICATES THAT THE ANCIENT ATHENIAN GUARDIANS NUMBERED
TWENTY THOUSAND.

IN ORDER TO SUPPORT TWENTY THOUSAND GUARDIANS WITH FOOD, (THAT
WAS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT), A POPULATION OF THREE TO FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND INHABITANTS IS NECESSARY. THE LAND AREA BEFORE THE
FLOOD WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SUPPORT SUCH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHO IN TURN SUPPLIED THE NECESSARY FOOD FOR THE GUARDIANS.

CRITIAS, AS HE DESCRIBES THE LAND, LAMENTS OF WHAT WAS THEN AND
WHAT IS NOW. "ONLY A FEW ISLANDS AND MOUNTAINS REMAIN LIKE THE
BONES OF A DECEASED AND DECAYED BODY". FURTHER HE POINTS TO THE
REMAINING RUINS OF THE TEMPLES DEDICATED TO WATER NYMPHS AND
OTHER DEITIES, TO PROVE THAT WATER ONCE WAS ABUNDANT. CRITIAS
ALSO EXPLAINS HOW THE HEAVY RAINS AND EARTHQUAKES CAUSED
LANDSLIDES BEFORE THE GREAT DESTRUCTION OF DEUCALION'S
CATACLYSM.

ONE CAN ONLY AGREE WITH CRITIAS' STATEMENTS ABOUT THE LAND-
SCAPE WHICH WAS ALTERED BY LAND SLIDES, EROSION, EARTHQUAKES AND
FINALLY FLOOD.

CRITIAS DESCRIBES ATLANTIS NEARLY IN THE SAME WORDS AS SOLON, HIS
ANCESTOR. CRITIAS ALSO INDICATES THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ATLANTIS.

AS IT WAS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ATLANTIS IS
STILL QUESTIONABLE. THEREFORE, WE SHOULD NOT COMPARE OUR
PRESENT DAY SURVEYING TECHNOLOGY TO THAT OF THE PAST AND JUDGE
UNJUSTLY.

CRITIAS NARRATES THE ROYAL ATLANTEAN FAMILY OF THE GOD POSEIDON
AND THE MORTAL WOMAN CLEITO.

IT MUST BE NOTED HERE THAT IN THE HELLENIC HISTORY AND MYTHOLOGY,
THERE ARE COUNTLESS INDICATIONS OF SUCH ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN GODS
AND MORTAL WOMEN, GODDESSES AND MORTAL MEN.

CRITIAS POINTS TO THE GREAT ATLANTEAN ACHIEVEMENTS IN
ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION.

IN A WAY, IT IS UNFAIR AND UNJUST TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE
INFLUENCED BY NEARSIGHTED SHORTCOMINGS AND BIAS, AND NOT BE IN A
POSITION TO RECOGNIZE, APPRECIATE AND GIVE CREDIT TO THE ANCIENTS
FOR THEIR GREAT SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS.

DEPENDING ON MATERIALS, MOST MANMADE OBJECTS DECAY AND VANISH WITH
THE PASSING OF TIME. ONLY THE ONES CARVED OUT OF STONE TEND TO LAST.
THE SPHINX AT GIZA IN EGYPT IS PROBABLY A REMNANT OF ATLANTEAN
INFLUENCE IN THAT REGION AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF ATLANTIS. IT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN BUILT BY ATLANTEANS WHO EVENTUALLY SETTLED THERE. THIS
MONUMENT MUST BE OVER TWELVE THOUSAND YEARS OLD. THE ATLANTEANS
WERE ABLE TO PRODUCE ORICHALCUM (OREICHALKOS). USING A COMPLICATED
PROCESS PROBABLY KNOWN BUT NOT EXERCISED DURING THE TIME OF PLATO
BUT DUPLICATED LATER BY THE ROMANS. CRITIAS SAYS "THE MARINAS WERE
FULLY EQUIPPED". THIS TELLS US THAT A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF GOODS FROM
THE ATLANTEAN DOMAIN WAS TAKING PLACE DAY AND NIGHT. CRITIAS ALSO
INDICATES THAT THE GUARD WAS PLACED ON THE SMALLEST WHEEL AND THE
ROYAL GUARD WAS HOUSED WITHIN THE ACROPOLIS. THE ATLANTEAN
ADMINISTRATION MUST HAVE BEEN WELL ORGANIZED AND THE ROYAL POWER
ABSOLUTE. ALTHOUGH THE KINGS HAD TO OBEY POSEIDON'S LAWS INSCRIBED ON
THE PILLAR WITHIN THE TEMPLE, EACH KING HAD ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OVER
HIS SUBJECTS. HE COULD PENALIZE OR EXECUTE ANYONE EXCEPT HIS OWN
RELATIVES. IN THIS CASE HE HAD TO HAVE THE MAJORITY'S APPROVAL. ONE
MIGHT CALL THIS ATLANTEAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AN OLIGARCHY.

AFTER OUR BRIEF EXAMINATION OF THE FEW FACTS DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY ONE
MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT PLATO DESCRIBES THE FACTS AND PRESENTS THEM TO
US FROM HIS OWN PLATONIAN PERSPECTIVE. UNFORTUNATELY, A ROSETA STONE
ABOUT ATLANTIS HAS NOT BEEN DISCOVERED YET.

SOLON, THE ATHENIAN LAWGIVER, WROTE DOWN EXACTLY WHAT THE EGYPTIAN
PRIESTS HAD TRANSLATED TO HIM, FROM THE SACRED RECORDS. SOLON, BEING
WHO HE WAS, HAD NO REASON TO INVENT STORIES EITHER.


Previous Page

Next Page

pan: I am reading your posts here with interest.

But there is one thing I don't understand. I'm really puzzled. Have I understood you correctly when you call the Tarot that we know it as something from the Roman Catholic Church? But the Roman Catholic church has always abhorred Tarot. If it was a Roman Catholic thing, why would there be a Papess??? And the Fool that can be practically superimposed on card XIII (known in modern decks as Death)? Where would that fit in? It's a pointer to re-incarnation, which the Church deliberately took out and removed from all their "holy" writings.

If it were a Roman Catholic thing, why wouldn't they use it in their teachings?

To me, the Tarot of Marseilles, for instance, is a very heretical thing, in spite of the Christian images. The Christian images were those that were those that spoke to the people more in those days than other things - but it doesn't make it a Catholic deck! (If it were...... I cannot see how I personally could be so attracted to it, as the Catholic Church gives me the heeby-jeebies.)

Anybody can say they are a channel, and put out whatever ideas they wish
to make people believe, according to whatever agenda they want. I could
say, I contacted the great library in the sky and discovered that it was
imperative to lace our public drinking water with arsenic. But for me to
proclaim that, and much worse, for others to believe me, would be
irresponsible and dangerous.
-------------
thats a straw man, an ad hominem, and a few other
logical fallacies to boot. Lets try saying it in
a logical and rational way.
without attacking me personally or making me out to be merely a nutcase.
without appeals to emotion, etc.

What you are saying is, "gee pan, how do we know that you are anything other than a nut job?"

The answer is, you look at the internal consistency of my argument. You spend the time and
energy to think through what i am actually trying
to say rather than just getting in a huff because
somebody has activated your status quo defending buttons. You ask reasonable and well thought out
questions and you deliver the information you have
without predjudice.

Once again i am forced to ask,
if you really do have the intellectual high ground, why the puke tactics?
-------------
Inspiration for great and new ideas can come from many mysterious sources,
but that does not exempt them from the requirement of standing up to
scrutiny in the light of day, with logic and hard cold facts. Until insights, that
includes those of Einstein, can make this painful birth journey from night into
day, they remain outlandish claims.
-----------
i like logic, apparently more than some people
around here. And i also like cold hard facts.
but sometimes, any good detective will tell you,
in order to solve the mystery you have to go beyond mere logic and mere facts.

I have presented and will continue to present
obvious facts which i think lead credence to my case.

i would sincerely appreciate it if we could elevate my ideas from the realm of "outlandish claims" to the level of "interesting theory."

I don't expect you to buy what i have to say.
I do expect you to give me the respect that i
tried to give this forum by bothering to face
what i allready knew would very probably end in a community lynching.

maybe you should give me a few points for courage
and a few more for standing my ground and a few
more for having well reasoned responses under fire.

Show me a 'pan' card and I'll believe this.
-------------
great. The De ev i = devil was a demonization
of the nature spirits of the Vedas. Satan was a demonization of the judaic Hsaten or tester.
All references to "the devil" are thus christian
inventions. Looking with lucidity at the progression of the matrix of the major arcana,
the card is about a dynamic uprising of the instinctive unconscious mind; a potentially dangerous psychological energy, but not one with
the connotations which the christian demonizations
ascribe. The personality and archetype of "pan"
is one of the oldest known to anthropology, dating back
to stone age "sympathetic magic" and manifesting in different forms in many different cultures. From Herne, to Cernunnos To Pan to Bhaccus, To Dionysius to Kokopeilli, the flute playing half animal (instinct) half human is not only a primal
archetype, its the genuine article in this case.
-----------------


Also, you may wish to look at some
of the recent discoveries that state that the 'original' Tarot pack may
actually have only been 70 cards:
----------
I am sue that the dark ages of tarot will fascinate many on this board. That period of time
after they tried to eliminate tarot and paganism,
as certain pagan symbols and images continued and
slowly re-established themselves. Fascinating stuff. I prefer to access the higher level information i now have.
----------

Could it be that the cards have so much 'Christianization' because they were
created by Christians not by Pagans? I think this is obvious, since we have
no evidence of any such 'pagan decks'. It is true that many of the cards in
------------
we have NO evidence? I think theres plenty of evidence. In the cards themselves, and if we really
bothered to look, in the pre-celt symbol systems.

Further, the conspicous absence of evidence may have another cause;
HAVE YOU STOPPED TO CONSIDER THE PAGAN GENOCIDES AND BOOK BURNINGS?
----------
the Tarot deck, such as the Devil, have Pagan 'counterparts' that are very
similar, but I think this is due to the similarity in most religions instead of the
Tarot deck being Pagan originally.
----------
oaky dokey. You are entitled to your opinion.
I disagree. I think its pretty obvious what
the real truth is and i think you are burying
your head in a delusion. I hope we can still both
eat bleu cheese.
-----------

Christians were aware of the four elements: the four elements are not solely
a Pagan thing.
------
try bringing four element theory up in any christian church and see how long it taks them to
kick you out the door.

Four element theory was and is a pagan concept.
it filtered into christianity as pagans were forced at pain of death to give up their native religions and become christians.
----------

Why then should the existence of four elements in the suits
be proof of Pagan ideas in the Tarot?
---------
by itself its no proof at all. Stylistically,
the exact symbols used, the other symbols used,
and the internally consistent patterns all scream
agrarian pre feudal society. Trying to shut your
ears won't get you very far but deeper into a convenient delusion.
-----------

(Personally I would say that these
elements weren't actually given to the suits until after the Tarot deck's
creation anyway.)
-----------
okay, you can say that.
--------
Pan, by all means have your intuitive insights into Tarot, but please do not
try to say that they are historical proof, and please do not try to say that
we are wrong for disagreeing with something that is not only quite
implausible but also has no proof. I apologise for being a stickler for proof,
but before I go believing any wild theories, I like to have something to base
my belief on.

Kiama
------------
i didn't ask you to believe. I asked you to consider. I asked you to think. I presented my ideas. You experienced a knee jerk reaction and now, the battle is on. But i think if any objective observer reads what i have written and
what has been said, they will conclude that you folks attacked me, not vice versa.

are my theories wild? do i lack locked-down proofs?
sure.

are my ideas implausable?
Not at all. They are completely within the realm of possibility and reason.
Its just not convenient for you to think so.

__________________
God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.