"Do you have evidence?"
The law is abundantly clear on this. People have been jailed for exposing themselves to others.
Right, why? I think is the question. Why are there such stringent laws? Why do humans get so up in arms over a little nudity? Each Sunday I watch the Walking Dead. Some of the goriest violence ever put in a movie or show can be seen each week on your television. A woman's stomach can be pulled apart, clawed by bare hands, her entrails pulled out, as she's eaten alive. And nobody has a problem showing that very realistically depicted on television. But her shirt better not flutter up and expose a nipple or everyone will lose their shit.
Why do people have such a strong reaction to nudity? What's wrong with it? We're all born nude. Yet, unlike the animal world, humans alone are ashamed. To the point that some cultures completely cover their women head to toe. Every other creature on the Earth is perfectly happy living every day of their life just as they came into this world.
Ego is the difference. Ego is what makes us feel as though we're separate from what's natural. Even our own bodies. Makes it seem as though it's something to be ashamed of.Yes, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, inappropriately.....but why do you ignore what I have explained?
I have seen man and woman, walking along a sandy sea shore, holding hands, chatting, laughing, obviously loving each other and enjoying fresh air and sunshine bathing their bodies. Each person was grossly fat and naked. Some might say ugly. It was a nudists' beach, legal - totally. Everything about it was beautiful.
Now, Oztinato, please tell us why you or your god would read any objection into that situation.
I saw only innocence. A child would also, unless corrupted by the guilt-ridden mind of an adult.Do you have Evidence (of an afterlife)? Raymond A. Moody, Jr. M.D. wrote books about Near Death Experiences (NDEs). So did Atwater. Some out of body experiences were verified by hospital staff. Would a verified NDE demonstrate a spirit or energy body? Also see website IANDS.
What does it matter: the Seinfeld philosophy of it's about nothing. The real existential questions have propelled all human culture that's all. There would be no Internet to even discuss these matters. What does it matter is the driving force.
Von Noggin
Careful of being baited by certain unnamed individuals. They're not worth it.
In my experience even sound scientific arguments don't work. When people don't learn from new information it is labelled as bigotry (by the dictionary meaning).
Two certain individuals always appear together to bait alternatively. Perhaps a gay couple?I can assure you that's not what's going on here.
Thank you Headly, handshake on that point.
Oz, I would be most interested to learn about "sound scientific arguments." Please teach me and next time you are going to utter one, give fair warning. I will watch out for it. I don't have a gay partner or a conspiracy with any Hubber. My thoughts and principles can stand on their own without any need for supporters. I am sure anyone who happens, occasionally, to agree with my thoughts also has their own independence.
Headly, I likewise have been confused by some of the things you have said recently. On the one hand you say you are not a church-goer or a member of any particular church. Fair enough. Yet you have a strong faith in God. Ok. I make the presumption that all of your understanding of the bible, history, science, and the world in general, is influenced by your firm belief that God exists.
I also get the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that your judgment of anyone who is a-theist is coloured by the belief you have in God. I got this impression from your recent post,,, let me try to cut and paste it here, as it was difficult to do earlier on my smart phone. Can't do it even on this IPad, so:
You mentioned "...the love, the passion, the inspiration, the human spirit, the soul....as if these attributes are only present in someone who believes in a divine creator/God such as you do. Is my reading of that correct? If it is correct, then I propose you have made a judgment. Repeatedly you have given me to understand that having an a-theist point of view leaves me with an empty life, devoid of love, passion (and compassion), lacking human spirit, etc. And you feel I need to adopt some of your belief(s) in order to lift my life out of the negative hole in which I find myself. (My paraphrasing, here.).
Well, for a start, you could not be further from the truth. My life is full of rich history, 75 years of it. I have been Christian for some of the time. I have looked into Siddha Yoga, Vipassana, obtaining lots of new information and awareness in the process. My professional and business activities have been great experiences, with the normal mix of success and failure, all good learning experiences. I have a kindly disposition towards those who are less fortunate, but could try harder. So, you see, the absence of a "God" character in my life does not cause any problems at all for me. However, I do see some beautiful souls around who do have God in their lives and that suits them and people around them. It's a diverse world, and would be dreary if that were not the case.
All I ask of you, Headly, is that you simply allow myself and others to follow their lives without the need for a God such as you hold dear. In the same way that I can live quite happily with you holding onto your beliefs. But please don't take the presumption the I need any of your beliefs, either in the here and now, or after my demise.
Now, I have seen other Hubbers discussing matters with you and getting quite irate and wondered why. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt because, although we disagree on basics, I have always offered you patience and benefit of the doubt. But if this little charad does not clear up, I will begin to see where others were coming from. So, can we get back onto a tolerant level of discussion, do you think?Of course we can get back to a tolerant level of discussion. It just seems to be a trend here lately, from places I wouldn't expect (like you, for instance), that I'm being accused of having these ulterior motivations. Whether it be judging people, or my faith driving me to do this or that, trying to convert people. Whatever it may be the accusations have worn me a bit thin, I'm afraid. I have no ulterior motive. I'm just discussing what's offered up in these forums. If you publish it I consider it fair game and share my thoughts if reading your posts moves me to do so.
You - "You mentioned "...the love, the passion, the inspiration, the human spirit, the soul....as if these attributes are only present in someone who believes in a divine creator/God such as you do. Is my reading of that correct?"
Not at all. I'm saying these attributes exist in all humans. My point is that these attributes do indeed exist, yet the explanation you subscribe to doesn't account for them. I'm saying that our having been created by a deliberate creator and our having spiritual selves as part of our make-up, accounts for the existence of these things. A purely material explanation does not.
You - Repeatedly you have given me to understand that having an a-theist point of view leaves me with an empty life, devoid of love, passion (and compassion), lacking human spirit, etc. And you feel I need to adopt some of your belief(s) in order to lift my life out of the negative hole in which I find myself. (My paraphrasing, here.)."
No. My point is that the atheist explanation of existence doesn't account for these human characteristics. These are characteristics that all humans have. That's why your more spiritual sounding statements really baffle me at times. You seem like a very thoughtful person, so it confuses me how you make all these things connect in your mind. For instance how you reconcile this recognition in yourself to appreciate being present in every moment and such with the cold materialistic explanation of reality.Ok thanks for those explanations. I will try to give each point a lot of thought during this weekend and get back to you.
Did you provide any positive evidence that "God does not exist". Maybe I missed it. Kindly repeat it for us. Please
They say that negatives also can be proved. Right? Please
RegardsIt's Saturday evening, after a beautifully sunny early spring day here in Tasmania, so I feel a little more energetic and able to give some thought to our recent discussions, Headly. It might not be easy but I will give it a go:
A quote from one of your posts a few hours ago:
“.....this concept of a full material world that just forms itself. “ I cannot accept this as being assessment of atheist thinking. Is this not a very limited understanding of the science, it's my understanding that our material world formed out of the infinite. Although such a concept is almost inconceivable,I can work around this in my mind and arrive at a feeling of, "OK, that's reasonable, I can go along with that theory..." yet there is no way I could clearly explain it to you. For me, it's not an incredible understanding, quite reasonable in fact. I mean, it's not like a bundle of interstellar material suddenly "decided" to become a star. Instead, I see there being various differences of energy level occurring, leaving room for movement of energy, transfer of energy. This is just the way my mind finds a way to view things. Not beholden on anyone else to agree with it.
2.
"All your life experience should make it even more apparent to you what I'm trying to help you understand about how your viewpoint just doesn't work. It's the equivalent of claiming robots made humans. Robots made by other robots made humans. Where the only point in the process where the human element was introduced was when the humans were made. Yet there's no way those robots could possibly create that dynamic." Does this not come from your own pattern of perception, requiring some person or entity to have created our world? Is this not just a human concept, used when the mental gymnastics get too difficult to handle?
3.
“Not at all. I'm saying these attributes exist in all humans. My point is that these attributes do indeed exist, yet the explanation you subscribe to doesn't account for them. “ My materialistic way of looking at things does not negate the potential for human attributes and sensitivities. Are you suggesting that a God aspect is the only way to appreciate them? (Maybe you have answered this one already, I'm not sure.)
Admittedly, my annoyance comes when it is presumed my rational way of thinking is at fault, and I am deemed in need of change in my life, in order to enjoy it more to the full. You, anyone, are entitled to ask me questions and suggest whatever you wish. But having asked the question(s), allow the answers to stand on their own merit and not require a change to take place. That is up to the beholder. And I do realise that sometimes I am guilty of this also....not being patient enough to let others take their time and options.
I hope this gives you food for thought also. This letter had to be finalised early on Sunday morning, I was too tired and my solar battery was running low.I don't feel comfortable addressing your statements, so I'm just going to address your questions.
You - "Does this not come from your own pattern of perception, requiring some person or entity to have created our world? Is this not just a human concept, used when the mental gymnastics get too difficult to handle?"
This isn't a pattern in my own perception. It's a matter of looking to the natural world and recognizing the human mind as being the one thing in existence to come anywhere close to what would be required to make this universe exist as it does. The brain/mind, like everything else, is also a natural product of this natural world.
An example. DNA. Complex biological systems were realized through the formation of a system that allows for the retention and passing on of information. The only other example we've seen of this is the human mind which developed written languages to accomplish much the same thing. Again, it's not a need in me. There's this assumption that you and others make, like your statement here about when the "mental gymnastics get too difficult", that basically says belief in a God is just a weakness of a weak mind that can't do any better. It's not a need in me that reaches this conclusion. It's following logic.
You - "My materialistic way of looking at things does not negate the potential for human attributes and sensitivities. Are you suggesting that a God aspect is the only way to appreciate them? (Maybe you have answered this one already, I'm not sure.)"
No, what I'm saying is that a god aspect is the only way these attributes can exist as they do. Trying to rationalize how the things that make us most human were realized in a causal environment requires a ridiculous amount of "mental gymnastics".Ok, a couple other aspects in you and I differ but probably not very much:
First, accepting the possibility that the complexity and beauty of this world came about as the result of a "mind" which could conceive, design, grow and activate everything is not far-fetched in my eyes. I feel it's a very reasonable proposition, yet we will never know for sure. I marvel at the consistent characteristics of our human bodies, along with every other living thing. The sense of awe for me is adequate reward.
However, I do not in any way equate such a supposed entity with a God that sits in judgement. That is human desire to control. There is no such God standing over you or me.
Next, DNA. The knowledge scientists have today, about genetics and the origins of organic molecules, has come about through rigorous study and research. In 50 or so years knowledge has expanded enormously. It's not beyond possibility they will make deeper and deeper in-roads and ultimately be able to clearly explain it all.
If there is a God such as you believe in, he/she/it is patient and has all the time in the world while we sort out the misunderstandings.Yes, that's the whole point. For us to live together and sort out the misunderstandings and learn to live harmoniously. What I don't get, with all that humanity has shown itself capable of, why you find it so out of bounds for this God to take an interest in how we choose to behave. Clearly not everyone is deserving of the same outcome. If there's no difference between an innocent life of doing good and treating each other with respect and the other side of that spectrum, then yeah, that's a problem I would think the creator of the universe would take an interest in.
As for DNA, it doesn't matter what future insights will bring. The point is it's information. Coded information. That's used as information. That's used in the construction of complex biological systems, capable of duplicating such complexity over and over. That much we know for certain already."...why you find it so out of bounds for this God to take an interest in how we choose to behave. "
Because, for me, that is inconceivable. Period. I choose to dismiss it totally. Any judgment along those lines of a "God" looking over me and my life is a concoction of humans, often done in the name of their fictious God..... And twisted to promote human interests.
I see the teachings of Roman Catholicism and evangelical churches equally participating in this control game.Inconceivable? Okay, let's say you're responsible for a room full of kids. You setup the environment for them. Make sure they have everything they need. But one of the kids keeps running around and hurting the others. Scratching them, hitting them, bullying them. Would it be inconceivable for you to take an interest in the behavior of those kids?
I'd fill the room with a few trees, one of which I'd forbid them to eat under punishment of death or worse, and throw a couple talking snakes in too for good measure. Sound like a reasonable father figure/care provider?
I think you're missing the point. God bent over backwards and went through a lot of trouble to gift us with individuality. Free will. Our own thoughts and our own minds. That's a big deal. But if there were no rule, no forbidden tree, then having free will in that situation means nothing. The situation He set up with the trees and the snake were all in the interest of free will. Adam/Eve's action actually severed their connection to God. It was a necessary step, like a momma bird pushing her baby birds from the nest. It may seem cruel to you, but it's necessary.
Seems like snakes have free will too. Or was it just doing what god wanted? That would make it worse..
I'm not missing anything. You are the one missing the obvious. Your god is not love and light. It's an abusive egomaniac, and you stick up for it, where as were I to do what he supposedly did most people would call children's protective services.
Any god that needs to concoct such silly sadistic and stupid devices to get things done ain't much of a god.I disagree. It was important that this be their choice. He just setup the situation. They made the call. And no, I don't think the snake had free will. Just as Satan in the book of Job had to have God's permission to jack with Job. He didn't have free will either. Just like in Job with Satan, the serpent was serving a purpose. Sparking their individual thought. Encouraging them to question and think for themselves.
An "abusive egomaniac" wouldn't have gone through such trouble to give us the ability to reject Him.
Did God push us out of the nest? I don't think so. We jumped out for the fun of flying. Are we having fun yet?
Luckily, we can jump back in when we're ready. Will we ever be ready? I guess the saints of all religions were.Oh I think He gave us a little nudge, but I do agree we ultimately jumped ourselves.
You are using an analogy that rings true in our finite experience, which we can all relate to, then transferring that to your theoretical, infinite God-figure. You are trying to convince myself and other readers that your God is real, that "He" is looking in on our world and commanding our activities like he is some supernatural father figure.
This again is the stuff of religion. Controlling minds for the ulterior motives of a few. It does not wash with me, Headly. Now, are you going to get more and more angry with me for disagreeing with your theory? So sorry, I can't help that.Of course not. Disagreeing with me doesn't make me angry. Accusing me of having ulterior motives, however..
Yes, I agree with you that there are those who have used this concept of a judgemental God for their own advances. That too is free will. Power is all about control, and in a world dominated by free will, power and control over people is a very valuable thing.
I'm simply using an analogy to put it in perspective. Just as we've learned through science, behavior is everything. How elements behave in a given situation is what makes this delicate balance of a reality what it is. And here we are, we humans, who determine our own behavior unlike anything else in the known universe. Everything else is playing along to 'mother nature's' script. But us humans, our actions and decisions are made willfully and deliberately by us. So I don't find it all that odd that the creator of this universe would find our behavior to be of utmost interest.
And the fact that humanity has proven itself capable of some truly detestable acts, having a God who will deal with these choices and behaviors I find gratifying. It takes a lot of work to gain wisdom and perspective. To treat people with understanding and compassion.
All there is is information. This existence is all about information. That's all humans and all other life forms do: acquire, store, process and pass on information with everything they do. That doesn't necessarily require a god. And since you can't show that one exists or is even possible, why should anyone take the idea any more seriously than divine invisible pink squirrels?
Squirrels store their nuts! Pretty good use of information. Dam it! Where did I leave 'em?
And remember, if you don't worship them, they will have your nuts. lol...
Because the idea that a god exists is simply the most likely answer. Especially given the processing/storing/passing on of information. When the want is for life to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the Earth", well a system that records, processes, stores, and passes on information is a very much necessary thing to help realize that. To make survival of life more successful.
That's very similar to something we invented to accomplish very much the same thing. No reason to think there are invisible pink squirrels, but there's reason to think there's an intelligent entity. And some of the characteristics that suggest that are very similar to things the human mind have done. Not squirrels. Humans.Only in your mind. In mine a god certainly isn't the most likely answer exactly because there is no evidence it exists in reality..
Again, as I have said, there IS evidence for people who are not afraid to actually look at it and consider it. I've written a detailed spotlight hub that includes LOTS of links for further study if it seems impossible to figure out where to start... The science surrounding the question of the existence of God is becoming extensive.
One splash: the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus (and many other previous 'holy men') preached - is an extended perception of 'Source Consciousness' or Universal Consciousness that we are all an integral part of. This internal consciousness is now measurable; and exists within each and every person as our battery or lifeforce. No one so much as BREATHES without it; and it is as eternal as God is.
The collective consciousness of humankind HAS been expanding throughout our history; and continues to slowly, painstakingly expand through us 'in the now' - and into generations still beyond. For instance, over the past 1000 years, we have seen considerable improvements despite the fact that our world is not even close to being perfect. It never will be. That is not the purpose of it. We already have a 'heaven' - attempting to create a physical playground is just all in good fun (and expansion, as I've said).
Let's take England 1000 years ago:
Life was simple. People wore simple, sack-like tunics with leggings. Despite the lack of sharp chemical dyes in the year 1000, natural vegetable colourings could produce a range of strong and cheerful hues, with bright reds, greens, and yellows. It was a world without buttons, which had yet to be invented. Clothes were still fastened with clasps and thongs.
Life was short. A boy of twelve was considered old enough to swear an oath of allegiance to the king, while girls got married in their early teens, often to men who were significantly older than they were. Most adults died in their forties, and fifty-year-olds were considered venerable indeed. No one "went out to work," but the evidence of arthritis in the bones excavated from Anglo-Saxon graves indicates that most people endured a lifetime of hard manual labour and the Julius Work Calendar shows the different forms which that labour could take. Across the bottom of January's calendar page moves the ploughman, slicing open England's damp and often clay-ridden crust with the heavy iron blade that had been the making of the country's farming landscape.
It looks so slow and primitive to us, the heavy plough dragged by the oxen train. But compared to farming technologies in many other parts of the world at that time, the wheeled and iron-bladed plough of northwestern Europe was supercharged, enabling just two men to tear up a whole acre of soil with the help of the beasts which not only provided the "horsepower," but enriched the fields with their manure.
The wheeled plough was the foundation of life for English people living in the year 1000. It opened the soil to air and water, enabling soluble minerals to reach deep levels, while rooting out weeds and tossing them aside to wither in the open air. It was not a new invention. In the middle of the first century a.d., the Roman historian Pliny the Elder described some such device in use to the north of the Alps, and the evidence suggests that this powerful and handy machine was the crucial element in cultivating the land cleared from Europe's northwestern forests. It was the reason why, by the turn of the millennium, England was able to support a population of at least a million souls.
That's just agriculture... Where are we now?
JCL
what on earth do you mean? I can't imagine how on earth you came up with that. Just because someone has a moustache doesn't mean a thing!
I've been offering scientific evidences for years. Godel's perfect and proven math theorem for one. Of course when it comes to anything to do with God then Godel is seen as just an imbecile. His math is cutting edge and was recently used to conduct the first time travel experiment! Hawking defends Godel incompleteness theorem in a free online essay. Einstein himself only associated personally with Godel in the last year's of his life etc.
Of course when it comes to Godel's God theorem then ordinary garden variety hubbers are the real geniuses and Godel is suddenly an idiot again. Weird.Ok, Oz. Let me ask you a few questions, in a very disciplined scientific manner.
1. Do you understand Godel's "perfect maths theorem?"
2. Has that theorem been tested conclusively by various peers of Godel and others?
3. Has the theorem been proven to be correct by numerous repeat experiments?
4. Has anyone searched extensively for errors in the theorem itself or in results obtained?
Not being a trained scientist myself, I don't know if this list is valid or complete. But to me, it seems a reasonable set of questions to ask.
Having just searched the Web for information, I must say it's way, way beyond my comprehension. Hopefully you will be explain to us all exactly what the theorem is for and what it does for humanity (let alone for the glory of God.
Have fun.
Atheists do not believe that God exist, so why would they believe in the teachings of a man named Jesus who claimed he was the Son of God?
I see you have a brand new strawman. I never said atheists believe in the teachings of Jesus. In other words, I said that an atheist who has studied the Bible knows how the story goes, whether they subscribe to the story or not. To further explain: I don't believe in Don Quixote, but according to the story he was attacking windmills, not high rise hotels. If you are having trouble understanding this, then I fear all of the "evidence" in the world will still leave you groping in the dark.Why would an atheist study the bible, when God's name is written all over it... in other words why study a book about a God you do not believe in? You can read it sure.... but study it? in I suppose, great detail? Now why would someone study a book in great detail when by just reading the first sentence of Genesis it makes him throw the book away, in disgust, into the dustbin of history.
It has been said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But there are many here among us who continue to test that theory. Furthermore, a man studies in order to learn; not necessarily to believe. If all that you study concerning metaphysics is only that which you "believe", then it would explain your lack of understanding, and your confusion. A disbelief in a particular philosophy or religion is no excuse for ignorance. Your disdain for Christianity is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the original point that I was making about liars and hypocrites.
I think A Villa is a Christian, he's just playing a sort of devils advocate. But lol@ testing the theory. You say some funny things Mr Wrenchbiscuit.
Disdain for Christianity?... now that is a statement as securely abhorrent to me as anything else said or written on this forum.
Pardon me sounding so naïve, but what part is this rather buxom lady playing in this thread of seriousness?
wrenchBiscuit Explains the Fat lady and the Running Man
First of all, this woman represents the image of God. And this particular image is very important because it reveals the secret of unraveling the mysteries of the universe. The average person who seeks a deeper understanding of the universe is often defeated before they even start to run the race. Why? Because when we literally think of a man running a race, we do not envision a man wearing a three piece suit and dress shoes running around an athletic track. Instead, we imagine a man wearing very little clothing; usually a sleeveless top with shorts, and athletic shoes. And this needs no further explanation.
When we are contemplating our mortality, or the mysteries of the universe, we are in many ways like the running man. We can go farther and faster if we are not encumbered with dress shoes and a three piece suit. In this case, formal attire is a metaphor that illustrates cumbersome preconceived notions, and an individual's personal history. We cannot hope to achieve any deeper understanding of the universe while we carry such a burden. Our preconceived notions and personal history only serve to hinder creative thought and critical thinking by placing unnecessary bias, or obstacles in our path.
The image represents these obstacles that I am referring to. How so? Here so:
I am sure that many will be distracted by the image, and thus it will color their opinion of the commentary beneath it, as well as the respondent. Many who feel it is inappropriate for the discussion will completely ignore my commentary, especially if it consists of more than twenty words, and they will move on to the next. Some who are white racists (which account for many here on Hubpages) will only see the object of their scorn, and so they too will be reluctant to consider my commentary. And those here who do not, and who most likely have never had an active, or at least exciting sex life, will view the image of a voluptuous half naked woman to be vulgar. Yes, jealousy and sexual frustration are a terrible combination. In the past I have even been accused of being a misogynist simply for posting such images.
And so, here I have illustrated with one image why many will go to their grave just as ignorant as the day they were born, but not nearly as cute. They are not willing, or perhaps even capable of erasing their personal history, or letting go of their preconceived notions, or belief systems even for one moment. Their minds have been locked up and distracted by images, symbols , language, political systems, religious systems, personal identity and personal history.
But if the truth was where we expected it to be, then so many would not still be searching for the truth. The fat lady not only sings, but she is also pointing us in the right direction long before the dance is over.Thank you! Food for thought there.
Personally, I've never had much of sex life in general, much less "active," and certainly never witha female. Thus I was drawn mostly to the somewhat contemptuous, "up-yours" look on the lady's face. Any economist might be drawn to signs of inflation.
But I can see how my attraction/distraction is strongly influence by personal history and experience....and it therefore serves to open doors to further discovery.You - "And so, here I have illustrated with one image why many will go to their grave just as ignorant as the day they were born, but not nearly as cute. They are not willing, or perhaps even capable of erasing their personal history, or letting go of their preconceived notions, or belief systems even for one moment."
Are you at least aware as you make this statement how much this statement applies to you? You are clearly convinced that you've got it all figured out and show no signs of being open to learning anything new.
Like in the paragraph before, which is an entire paragraph of "preconceived notions" when you explain all the ways certain people will respond to this image. You've got everyone all figured out already, despite how accurate those assessments actually are. Before anyone even begins speaking you've got them painted into this box where they're, of course, not as evolved as you. Where they're simple minded stereotypes. So what could you possibly learn from engaging in discussions with these poor people? Why lower yourself and your high minded ideas to such depths?
Do you actually consider yourself different than the people you describe?
I do have to say I like this pic though. It is pretty spelled out for my simple mind, so that's probably why, but I do like it.
I am perhaps the most kind-hearted and open-minded person you will never meet.
There is no paragraph of preconceived notions. And one does not need to possess psychic abilities in order to arrive at the proper conclusions. People who have spent their life studying various disciplines can make accurate projections based on their experience. This is nothing new or remarkable. Of course, such assessments are never expected to be 100%, but they don't have to be when we are simply looking to assess a general trend, attitude, or philosophy. I have read many forum posts, participated in many forums, and have also read many Hubs. My assessment is based on what I have read, along with my life experience with such matters.
And what did I find out? I discovered that many people who contribute here are sexually frustrated and have a perverted sense of sexuality. I also know that a majority of white respondents on Hubpages are racist. And this is based not only on their commentary, but also on what they conspicuously fail to acknowledge. I also know, based on commentary, that there are many anal retentive folks on this site who are more concerned with Hubpages protocol and what is "on topic", than useful, interesting, or creative commentary.
And so, as I have revealed, I did not come to Hubpages with any preconceived notions. My understanding is simply based on what has been presented here. Finally, I will briefly address your strawman. It is clear that you have a need to cast me in the most unfavorable light. You commented:
"Before anyone even begins speaking you've got them painted into this box where they're, of course, not as evolved as you. Where they're simple minded stereotypes. So what could you possibly learn from engaging in discussions with these poor people? Why lower yourself and your high minded ideas to such depths?"
I cannot account for your fiction, nor will I spend any more of my precious time defending myself against what amounts to nothing more than your feeble attempt to paint me as the villain. Suffice it to say that there are often many reasons or motives that explain human behavior. One reason that I am sure you have overlooked is energy transference. When a man feeds upon a fish or an edible plant, he does not commonly contemplate whether or not the animal or the plant is above or beneath his station. The man simply feeds himself and satisfies his hunger. Everyone has to eat.I found your conclusions to be decidedly cynical, not enlightened. Like your statement about the majority of white people on this site being racist. I have news for you, everyone is racist in much the same way. It's not a character flaw. It's a simple matter of how the brain operates. The brain compares the self to others and notes differences. Those most similar to us we tend to trust more and align with. This is a simple issue of behaving favorably towards those we share the most in common with genetically. Plants and animals do the same thing. Others who are very different from us are often mysteries to us until we're given the opportunity to be around them and experience them ourselves and begin to recognize commonality that might not be so apparent.
Me personally, I'm tired of seeing that pic in this thread. What I see is a sad woman trying to conform to an impossible vision of what she thinks she's supposed to be. Someone seeking attention in a very ill-advised fashion. Trying to sexualize herself and put herself out on display to be noticed.
But yes, these are preconceived notions. Without actually getting any input from the people you've already determined how they'll probably respond. That's exactly what a preconceived notion is. And I'm not trying to paint you as a villain. Just as you reach conclusions based on prior discussions, so do I. And you often speak of yourself as being more evolved and further along in development than the common person. Do you disagree? I'm not judging. I know I often come off as arrogant and egotistical.
As for your energy transference example, I don't think that's accurate. We view all plant and animal life that we use for food to be below our station. For instance, we could live on eating each other, but we don't do that because we are equal in station. It's not so clear who is better or higher, who should be the eater and who the food. But a cow, we always win. A chicken, same thing. Vegetables, definitely.
First of all, I find that what many consider to be modesty is nothing but false modesty. The selfish, narcissistic character of the average American can be seen in the high divorce rate, the prevalence of plastic surgery, and the trans-humanism that permeates all aspects of modern society. I have no need for false modesty and pretense, as I am not running for office, trying to make Facebook Friends, or trying to influence people. At least not at the moment. Yes, I am more human than human, and I am proud of my perfect design. There are also many here that suffer from an inferiority complex, but I am not numbered among them. If they don't love themselves then that is their problem, and they should go talk to the boss.
As far as the woman in the previous pic is concerned: There is nothing sad about her at all, nor the one depicted here. I have always found full figured women to be sexier than the anorexic skin and bones variety that have been held up to the world as "beautiful". I would rather be mounted on someone's wall than atop a bag 'o bones. "Big Love" is in my friend. A woman is the crown of creation, and a full figured sexy woman is as close to God as a man can get in this world. I have learned much about the mysteries of life, not only by erasing my personal history, but also through sexual intercourse, as it is far more than a means of procreation or superficial pleasure.
Finally, because of your rush to judgment, you missed the most important and revealing aspect of my last comment, which explains the "Why" you previously inquired about.Do you feel judged? Why else publish your thoughts here in this public forum than to garner a response? I respond with what I think and I'm rushing to judge you? Which part do you find judgemental? My comment that your comments are cynical? Well, that's what they sound like.
Personally, now that I've reached the age that my sex drive has substantially dropped off, I'm relieved. It's like developing an immunity against a super power. Sexual conquests are such a waste of energy and are all about personal fulfillment.
And I'm glad this lady fits your particular bill, but yes, there's plenty sad about that woman. Anyone publishing their barely clad attributes in such a public way, no matter her size, is exemplifying a level of neediness that is not consistent with contentment.And yet her "barely clad attributes" are totally natural parts of her body. Some might find her erotic, others like myself and those who happen to be beyond their prime, will not feel so amorous. If one's Divine Creator made it, why hide it?
But what is it that makes so many individuals uncomfortable with seeing a partly-clad body? Could it be just unfamiliarity? When one sees such physique on a regular basis, it can cease to offend.
I suspect watching a lot of porn might dull a person's interest.
Is there a pseudo-religious bias in play here?It's not how much she's wearing, or not wearing, that makes me uncomfortable. It's the intent behind the picture. Behind the outfit. It's the desperation. The plead for attention. I find it sad that she can't find happiness and contentment within herself and her own life.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that we as a people are so hung up on nudity, but that's something that's been around since the human ego first came about. It's in every culture to some degree. It has nothing to do with religion. Like in the Adam/Eve story. God made them nude. Had no issue with them being nude. It was only after they became so acutely self-aware that they became self-conscious about it. God didn't command that they get dressed. It was them that wanted to cover themselves.
Headly Commented previously:
"..;Like in the paragraph before, which is an entire paragraph of "preconceived notions" when you explain all the ways certain people will respond to this image. You've got everyone all figured out already, despite how accurate those assessments actually are..."
Now Headly comments:
"...It's not how much she's wearing, or not wearing, that makes me uncomfortable. It's the intent behind the picture. Behind the outfit. It's the desperation. The plead for attention. I find it sad that she can't find happiness and contentment within herself and her own life..."
You can't have it both ways. You have accused me of having preconceived notions, but now here you go telling us why women pose nude or half naked. According to you, they are pathetic and needy individuals who are seeking attention,acceptance, or affirmation. At least I have proof that my assessment of Hubpage contributors is based on tangible evidence; that evidence being their very own words. But what evidence do you have to back up your spurious claim? Apparently you never stopped to consider that a woman, or a man, may simply be proud of their body and enjoy sharing it with the world.
Furthermore you speak of sex as if it were a burden to you, or a necessary evil. I have always considered sex to be a blessing. I have often commented how sexuality has been perverted by the Americans. Their twisted views of sin and morality have done nothing but to help perpetuate pornography, and to promote sexual violence against women. Many of these perverts would have a heart attack if they saw a well endowed man like myself on the beach getting busy with a sexy woman. Many would want to have him arrested. However, the same perverts gladly give their tax dollars to support the killing of innocent men, women, and children in Palestine, Syria, and other parts of the world. And of course, they support and pay the salaries of the police who oppress and kill citizens here in the United States. Yes, this is a most perverse generation. What is good they have deemed sinful. And what is evil has become a matter of national pride! It is no wonder many don't believe in God. Soon their evil, and their corruption, will even blacken the sun."Their twisted views of sin and morality have done nothing but to help perpetuate pornography, and to promote sexual violence against women."
~ and children, don't forget.Most soldiers enlist to fight for the freedom of the country and to protect it. If they find out there are ulterior motives why would they enlist? They should not be used for conquest. They should sue the government if they find they were not used for the GOOD of the Country, but rather for the sheer
$ $ $ $ G A I N of the country.
And we don't have to dismantle the system with anarchy, wB, but it does need a good REALLY HARD reboot,
! )
Ugh, I don't even know where to start with you. First off, this selfie-taking world we live in now is all about attention. You can call it pride if you want, which you obviously count as a good quality. But nothing says I have my head up my own ass like a selfie. A world of people and places around you and you're snapping pictures of you. Heavens. But like the bible says, people in the end will be in love with themselves. And I think we're seeing that realized.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 - 'This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.'
I mean, did they call it on that one or did they call it?
There are many things this pic makes me feel. A cocktail of emotions. And none of it has to do with the woman's size or how much is exposed. I feel the same if it's a thin traditionally "attractive" woman. I see a world of people pushing each other over, clamoring for their place in the view of the camera lense. Sadness is the most prevalent of emotion I feel. I have contentment in my life, just with my wife and I. We could live everyday the rest of our lives, just the two of us together at home, with no one else, and be content. We have no desire to put images of ourselves online to be noticed. Yes, I find it pathetic and needy.
But there's a big difference between what I'm speaking about in my thoughts of the woman in the picture and your cynical take on how people will respond to it. Some of each of those responses must be in you as well. They're a part of you and your reaction and you're just projecting it onto nameless/faceless others. "Them". The bad guys. The ones not as evolved as you. Not as wise. It's all within you. Strands of your own personality that you're trying to disassociate from. Find someone else to put it on. A devil to point to and say, "There, there's the bad guy".
Yes, I have found sex to be both a blessing and a curse in life. It's a good thing to have to share with your life partner to express your love and to feel theirs. But it's also at the root of some of my greatest regrets. A lot of energy in my early life was spent in trying to obtain it because in my mind if a woman were willing to do that then she was being more than polite. It was a confirmation that I wasn't the disgusting, unlovable kid I thought I was. It was all about validation. It was self-serving and ultimately destructive.
And you should be thankful for the men and women who police this civilization we live in. Like the Rolling Stones said, "Rape, murder, it's just a shot away." With no standing police force things would quickly go south. The order which we enjoy now is provided by that police force. To protect themselves, people don't cross those lines nearly as often as they would have because there are police that will enforce the law and consequently ruin their lives. So, self interest and self love is in this case turned back in on itself to maintain order.
Yes, this is a perverse generation, but there's nothing new under the sun. The difference in this age is that it's all far more publically known. All the same perversions have always existed, they were just hidden from site. Behind closed doors. But now there are cameras everywhere.
Inconceivable perhaps... But it sounds like you might even be one of those "hung up on nudity." Why?
No, I'm not. I'm curious, what did I say that gives you the impression I'm hung up on nudity? It might make me realize something about myself that I didn't know, and I'm always for that.
That man, if he ever existed as described, did not claim himself to be "The Son Of God." It's a story concocted by men for political, control purposes. If a man or woman was so spiritually aware, enlightened, they could/would not set their ego up on high in order to get worshipped.
What that man, whatever his real name, could have said and ment, as it's so obviously written, would have been, "I am." The way, the truth, the life can be arrived at via Me; the personal journey that can take any one of us into the realm of honesty and the enlightenment of truely understanding.
Without that personal quest, there will always be the preference to pass the onus of responsibility onto some one else.
Those in power know this.
You can take a horse to water, you cannot make it drink.
That bible's full of fodder, we're not supposed to think.
There is no god up in the sky,
Only lie upon lie upon lie.Right. That Jesus is god was decided by Constantine. He and his predecessor had a motto: One Emperor, one god. That was a massive departure from Roman tradition which welcomed all gods, the more the better
That god was to be Sol ivitigus, the invincible sun. But because Constantine's mother became christian, and because he promised that if he won a particular battle that finally made him sole ruler of Rome that he would convert, He did win, made Christianity a state religion and gave Christians back their land, taken in the last crack down.
Then he got all the various diverse leaders of the church together. There they made Jesus part of a trinity, which was Roman tradition. Egyptians always matched 2 gods together, the Romans 3. But because Christians believed in a single god it became father son and holy spirit.
The Arian church of Egypt refused to accept that Jesus was god, and was excommunicated and wiped out by Roman troops in the first Christian against Christian war.Slaughter, actually.
Constantine continued to worship Sol as well and in a well documented speech, set Sunday aside to worship Sol and the Jewish/Christian god together. This to indicate a relationship between the two. And then Jesus birthday was decided on, the 25th of Dec, to coincide with the Roman armies god's birth from a rock (Mithra)
He didn't get baptized or take communion until he was on his death bed, just in case. He was heard saying, about Christianity: I think I did the right thing.
Christians have no way of knowing what Christianity was before Rome forced all factions together in one "universal" church, outlawed most of their over 400 books and scriptures, and left them with their current Paulian Romanized version, which all denominations and cults and sects swear by.
So we should ignore the ideas of Buddha or Gandhi or a half dozen other people who had positive ideas for mankind just because they aren't atheists? What are atheists supposed to admire in others or the words of others?
If Jesus said positive things I can appreciate those, and ignore the fact that he believed in the Jewish god. The man, the ideas concerning humanity and the religion are all different things.Well good for you---- that despite being a non-believer, you would still consider as positive the words of a man who said he is the Son of the God you absolutely do not believe exist. Other atheists I have come across HubPages are convinced that Jesus was crazily delusional for having made that claim.
...the words of a man who said he is the Son of the God . Did he?! Certain human minds choose to believe he said that. Even if he said that, what did he mean by it?
It is my bet that humans have carefully and deliberately fostered the traditional beliefs in order to achieve better control of minds.
You have free choice, Dr.John 3:33-38 - When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) of Joseph, who was son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melki, son of Jannai, son of Joseph....son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.
Anyone who's lineage back then could be traced back to Abraham/Noah/Adam was called a "son of God". And as John 3 illustrates, Jesus is a direct descendant of that line. So it wasn't such a bad thing for Jesus, or anyone else, to say he was the son of God. So was his father, and the father before him.Ok, that's good to know. At least it lets A man off the hook having to prove he's something extra-terrestrial.
Technically it was Adam who was the ET. But they were all part ET by blood.
Well, considering he was made of terrestrial material, I guess technically he wasn't an ET either. But he was made outside of the normal evolutionary chain.
You should have said: "better control of brains", since, as I have read in your long discussion with Headley, you firmly believe that the mind is the sole purview of the brain.
From my own perspective, the veracity of the Nazarene's claim that He is the Son of God, should not be questioned because he is the only one who suffered a gruesome death, because of that claim. The birth of some other folks ie Alexander the Great before him , may have been mythologized with faintly similar narrative as Jesus's birth , but the fact is Jesus was the only one who actively said and acted as such."....you firmly believe that the mind is the sole purview of the brain...."
You have interpreted something I have said so that it can support your arguments? I have no firm believe such as you describe. If you think I said the opposite please point me to where. It's highly probable that our bodily control mechanisms, together with our advanced human memory, are in some way integrated with other aspects of physics which are as yet unknown.
In my opinion it's a waste of time arguing the toss. Let scientific inquiry continue. Let's continue to marvel at and enjoy the world while trying to live with full awareness of what we are blessed with. It's all before us and only needs an exercise in total consciousness, such as Vipassana meditation, to get us going.Sorry, I must have mistook you for someone else ... maybe Slarty.
About the brain.... the human brain specifically. There are no other material objects on earth that could even come close to its integrative complexity, that then makes it the driving force of all the other organ systems in the human body. Its reach goes far and long into the most basic matrix of matter, the cells that compose the other organ systems ( ie cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculo-skeletal, endocrine, urinary etc. etc...) aside from its own. So if we assume that abiogenesis, as an empirical postulate, has validity and veracity, how did simple conglomeration of amino acids in that primordial soup, devoid of purpose and intent, become the most intuitive, instinctive, sentient specie that developed a brain so complex materialists now refer to as the source of our minds--- minds that are responsible for our total awareness and full consciousness. In other words how, and most importantly why, did inchoate chemistry lead to consummate biology?How did a god come into being? How did it's "universe" come about? How did a god make life OR brains? Where is that god and why is it undetectable? All living things die; why didn't the god die billions of years ago? What does that god use for "food", where is it, and can we use it as well? What are the smallest details of these questions?
Interesting how the other half of the questions, far more difficult to answer or conceive of an answer to, are set aside if favor of "I don't know so goddunnit".When you meet God, hopefully.... in the after life you could ask him all the silly questions you just posted. Hopefully He would be predisposed to answer them.
No, no. The real question is why you (and other believers) quietly shove these questions in the corner when you can't answer the ones you listed. Not what your god might say if I meet him. How you can decide that ignorance of answers means you should come with with an "answer" that asks even tougher ones - ones that can never be answered and we should thus pretend they aren't there.
Nope. The real question is how anyone who considers himself a member of the specie Homo Sapiens, be not convinced that his creation was done purposely and intentionally, when as a specie, humans are the most intentional and purposeful of them all.
If we just leave the question of how life's existence happened, to the other specie that now populate mother earth, would they be having the same conversation that we are having now? The dogs could bark and the cats meow, and the lions roar, and the birds chirp etc... etc... etc till kingdom come, and they would not be in any way manner or form be predisposed to do it.It's actually quite easy to do. Just forget that homo sapiens is somehow special, that it was an end result desired. We aren't, and with that recognition goes any necessity for a god.
On the one hand you insist that humans will be at some point in their history will have, most if not all the answers about life's existence in a universe that somehow did not need a "God" for its creation. On the other hand you also insist that there is nothing special about humans. So tell me---which one do you truly believe. And please no hedging this time.
As far as I am concerned any specie who has the temerity and perspicacity to ask questions and search for answers, is plenty special indeed. If you don't think so, then I will have to put you on the side of nihilists.... no hedging there. Oh but I forgot---I have already put you in that column a long time ago.But I've never insisted that humanity will know everything. IMO, humanity will cease to exist before they learn even a tenth of the knowledge available in this universe. It is also my opinion, based on nothing but the size of the universe, that if humanity survives long enough we will find creatures so far ahead of us we might as well call them gods.
Having a single attribute superior to other animals (in terms of survival of the species) does not make us special - there are other species that have been around far longer and will exist when we're gone.
That's all right, that I'm a nihilist. Untrue (I certainly do not reject all moral principles), but OK for I find you to be a massive egotist with your demands that the universe was created just for you to exist, that you are superior to every other life form that might exist in the quadrillions of planets available without having seen a single life form that did not evolve on earth or any planets outside our solar system. It seems absolutely incredible that anyone could possibly hold that belief, but there it is.I stated "any specie" and that means any specie not only on earth but anywhere else in the universe, if in fact there are ET's looming out there, but not quite reachable vis-a-vis us and them.
It's not egotism that drives me to think that humans here on earth are special. And if you can ask the other specie here on earth whether we are special, I'm sure they will agree a hundred percent.
Having the temerity and perspicacity to ask questions and search for answers must imply and therefore must include the intentionality to prevent the specie to go extinct. Now we humans are the only specie on earth who could do something that could indeed lead to our own extinction. If you think supreme egotism is a factor in that scenario, you are absolutely right.
I object. Your inclusion of "other believers" prompted this response. I haven't shoved these questions in the corner. I'm pretty sure I've covered this with you before, but perhaps a refresher is in order. So, shall we ...
How did a god come into being?
God, being the creator of the universe, exists apart from the universe. Therefore He exists apart from the dimension of time as we experience it. This universe is finite. It has a beginning and will have an eventual end. Everything here begins and ends. That's not necessarily true outside, or apart from, this universe.
How did it's "universe" come about?
Same answer as above
How did a god make life OR brains?
Like everything else, He willed it, it became
Where is that god and why is it undetectable?
Because we can only observe and detect with senses formed in this environment. Evolved to work in this environment. God exists apart from the material world. We can only detect what is material.
All living things die; why didn't the god die billions of years ago?
Again, time as we perceive it only exists in this universe. And biological life is the form of life we know in this universe, but none of that necessarily applies beyond this universe.
What does that god use for "food", where is it, and can we use it as well?
Again, that's a biological need.So now you have not only made up a god to answer the unknown, you have also made up answers to answer the questions that god raises. Where will it end?
You pretend that you know, for instance, that god exists apart from the universe...but don't know there IS anywhere else, so must make up the answer that there is. You don't have a clue how he made us, so make up an answer that He "willed" it...without having a clue how it was accomplished, with what tools or raw materials. You don't know why we can't detect the god...so make up the answer that we can only detect what is material (like light photons) without having a clue if that is true or not.
Everything is made up answers without any basis to support it, and the list just grows and grows. If we don't know, why just make something up and declare it to be true.
Doesn't work for me.I did not make up God and I did not make up these answers. When I speak of God I speak in the context of the God described in the ancient texts. And when I answer these questions I do so in the context of the God described and what we know about the physical universe. Allow me to show you ...
"You pretend that you know, for instance, that god exists apart from the universe..."
Nope, that's how He's described. The creator of the universe cannot be part of the universe. Makes sense, doesn't it?
"but don't know there IS anywhere else, so must make up the answer that there is."
Clearly there is. As far back as we can role the clock there's already something there. Right at the beginning. Before this universe expanded into what it is, before time and space came into being, there was something. There was a singularity. We can only assume that came from somewhere/somewhen/somewhat.
"You don't have a clue how he made us, so make up an answer that He "willed" it...without having a clue how it was accomplished, with what tools or raw materials."
I do. He willed it. That's what it described. And beyond that, I observe it. There are unseen forces that make matter/energy do what they do. We can only determine they're there by watching how matter/energy behaves in response. Life continues to be compelled by a will to live, to be, to exist.
That's His "tools". As for raw materials, well, that's matter/energy.
"You don't know why we can't detect the god...so make up the answer that we can only detect what is material (like light photons) without having a clue if that is true or not."
Why do you say that answer is made up? You know what I'm saying is true. And I know you know. You know and understand science. How things are determined scientifically. So you should understand exactly what I'm saying.
"Everything is made up answers without any basis to support it, and the list just grows and grows. If we don't know, why just make something up and declare it to be true."
I didn't make any of this up. There's an ancient text that claims that at that time, in that place, this God interacted with them. Explained these things to them. They wrote them down. Put in the context of the material world as we know it now, this concept of a God actually fits rather well. My answers are simply that God as described in the context of modern knowledge.
That's not made up. And those texts have proven to me to be historically accurate. What they say happened, as far as what can be determined through physical evidence, does appear to have actually happened like they describe.
Given all of that, combined with the fact that I simply cannot make sense of the alternative explanation... Where will it end? As far as I'm concerned it's over. I guess it'll end for you when you finally come to your senses.How can you determine anything scientifically if it does not involve the scientific principles of hypothesis, observation, experiment, report on findings, peer group review, repeat experiments by independent researchers, repeat findings and proven conclusive results.
If your beliefs are focused on infinite concepts beyond physical proof, then they are also beyond scientific research and remain in the realms of supposition.
Yes, this argument goes round and round, never reaches a conclusion, much to your annoyance, because your position of belief is immovable.
What new ground is there that we have not covered?The modern knowledge that I ground these answers in is what was determined through scientific means.
I know no conclusion can be reached, and that does not annoy me. It's a faith-based concept, which would be totally undermined by an empirical conclusion. The lack of an empirical conclusion continues to be consistent with the answer. It's an expected result.
There's no new ground that even needs to be covered. What we've covered is enough. Beyond that is just the unwillingness to acknowledge. I can't do anything about that, but I can correct when the excuses given instead of that are bad and don't hold water.
You commented days ago: "There is no moral authority". And let us not forget your nihilistic rant about "survival of the fittest". Nevertheless, you now allude to ancient texts and continue to posture yourself as "defender of the word". Good grief!What I'm talking about should be apparent. We as a people, as a society, determine for ourselves our own morality. What behaviors and actions we will and will not tolerate. There is no authority beyond the authority we humans establish ourselves that governs our behavior. Behavior is still up to each one of us. We determine for ourselves what we will and won't do, no matter how moral or immoral. God doesn't step in and stop you if you're about to murder someone. That's your choice, and you're free to make it.
As for survival of the fittest, that is what has determined who is still represented in today's population. Many who were not 'fittest' are no longer around. Or they're left feeding on the scraps that the 'fittest' allow them to have. Like the American Indians. Once a proud people, but they were beaten and overpowered by a more aggressive and technologically superior people. Europeans came in and took their land for themselves. Now they're allowed their small pieces of land and the commodities provided for them.
I'm defending the word because it's true. And what I'm speaking about here partly comes from what it says. In God's eyes we've all sinned. Any action outside of God's will severs us from God. Makes us 'unnatural'. Morality doesn't enter into it. It's whether or not we've behaved according to His will or our own. But it's impossible to know God's will and to always behave within those boundaries.Headly, my observations about this latest post might throw some light upon your ways of thinking.
The early paragraphs are reasonable, logical, understandable, to my way of thinking; seemingly from your own rational mind. Yet then you move into what I might term your "God" mode (with a capital G), as if this has come from an indoctrinated background.
Could this be so? It strikes me as maybe Catholic, or JW, or Plymouth Brethren....they all have a history of planting invasive weeds into fertile minds.I don't know what you mean about my "God" mode. Are you talking about the last paragraph and the references to God, all with a capital G? I don't deny early indoctrination. I grew up Baptist, but I think it more had to do with the church being a convenient baby sitter than anything else. I capitalize God because I'm using it as a title and I'm just a stickler for that kind of thing.
But I can say with certainty that very little of what I'm speaking about comes from what I learned in my early life at church. Most of my views and ways of thinking nowadays would not be welcome in my childhood church. These are conclusions I've reached on my own, with no help from anyone else.
....overpowered by a more aggressive and technologically superior people.... Might more truthfully read: "...more aggressive, technologically superior but hypocritical and dishonest people's...."
We have a very similar history here in Australia. A lot of people here thought they were God's-Gift-To-The-World.
We humans are a highly evolved ape that has a mixture of methods and characteristics aimed at survival of the species. You might think we are uniquely clever. We are simply creatures that have adapted to numerous diverse habitats. All other species of living organisms have evolved to survive in their habitats - which we are working over-time to destroy. What intelligence!
Gawd help us - and the planet!Yes! That's exactly what I've been trying to point out for months. The impact of the introduction of free will that happened in the story of Genesis can be seen right here. The two groups of humans in each conflict, between the American Indians and the Europeans in America, and between the Aborigines and the Europeans in Australia, both are the same. Both are homo sapien. Both are highly evolved apes. Both are the same species. Yet the Europeans were much more aggressive, much more advanced technologically, and yes, as you said, much more dishonest and hypocritical.
Just as the Roman poet Ovid observed ...
"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."
As you said, homo sapiens evolved a mixture of methods and characteristics aimed and survival. Yet in just the few thousand years they were separated, European humans, as well as all the human cultures from Mesopotamia and around the Mediterranean Sea, changed significantly. So much so that when they came back in contact all those years later they were again like two different species. One group didn't hold a concept of personal possessions and didn't have a need to invent beyond the most simple of tools, the other group built civilizations and armies and fleets of ships and spend centuries taking over all the land on the planet, wiping out all the indigenous population.Your Eurocentric version of history is not surprising. There were large cities and technological civilizations here in Cemanahuac when the Europeans were still living in caves. The European had a greater propensity for evil, but they were hardly more technologically advanced. If you took the time to educate yourself you would know this.
Ask anyone on this forum if they think I've taken the time to educate myself. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Meanwhile, you can educate yourself and correct your inaccurate information. Here's a couple of suggestions for reading material to get you started.....
- 'Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo
- 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor
But to give you an idea of just how far off you are, here's this ...
"The mysterious Olmec civilization prospered in Pre-Classical (Formative) Mesoamerica from c. 1200 BCE to c. 400 BCE and is generally considered the forerunner of all subsequent Mesoamerican cultures such as the Maya and Aztecs." - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct … GebqCVd-5Q
So yeah, the Olmec culture, parent culture to who you're talking about, prospered between 1200-400BC. While the cultures I'm talking about began closer to 4000BC.
But, it seems in the short time I've have discussions with you, you making an arrogant statement insulting the education level of the person you're speaking to in the very same breath where you also make a blatantly false statement that reveals just how ignorant you really are, that's kind of your MO.The point at when certain civilizations "began" is pure speculation. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with my argument. This is simply a strawman you are presenting to prop up another ridiculous argument. My comment was not about when any civilization "began", but directed at your comment that the Europeans were more technologically advanced. Of course, the historical record reveals that you are attempting to rewrite history. Sorry, you can fool ignorant people with your fiction, but I know better.
Well, well, look who's backpedaling now. You're not going to dig yourself out of this one. You made a very specific statement. You said...
"There were large cities and technological civilizations here in Cemanahuac when the Europeans were still living in caves."
That statement right there is demonstrably wrong. Very wrong. By the time the Olmec culture began, 1200BC, the parent culture of the people you're speaking of, who obviously came even later, there were cultures around the Mediterranean Sea (Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Indus Valley culture, etc) who had already established societies with laws and had already invented writing and astronomy and who were already sustaining largely populated cities by developing year-round rotational crops and irrigation techniques they had invented. All of that a good 2000 years before the Olmec culture even began. Clearly they were well beyond the cave-dwelling period.
So, it would seem, you do not know better, and have some reading to do before you go making any more comments on the topic. You're not fooling anybody.
Your feeble insults won't buy you a ticket to heaven. I find it quite humorous that you even dare to offer insight concerning the metaphysical when you have yet to get a firm grasp on the historical record; something that is far more tangible. You are adept at using semantics, distortions, and strawmen to present your arguments. However, there are many thieves and scoundrels who are adept at stealing their way through life, but their success has yet to earn my respect.
Including the Egyptians in your argument is quite special. Apparently you are not aware that Egypt is not located in Europa, but in Africa! As I have commented, the beginning of a culture or civilization has no relevance to my argument that Europeans were still living in caves when there were technologically advanced civilizations here in Cemanahuac. And so, your comments about Europeans having superior technology prior to, and at the point of contact, is based on a popular racist lie.Oh my God Dude. You know, I don't mind arrogance, when you can back it up. And I don't mind ignorance. But what I do have a problem with is one person that's both. And that's you. This is not an insult. It's an observation of what you've shown me. Ignorance and arrogance. It's a terrible combination. And what's worse is the arrogance tends to keep you ignorant because you don't think you have anything to learn or improving of yourself to do.
But you're right, the historical record is tangible. So why don't you provide something that shows that you're right. I know you're not, so good luck finding it.
And now for the geography lesson. At this point I'd be demanding my money back on that college education you claim to have. You clearly got ripped off.
If you'll notice in my previous post, the one that mentions the Egyptians, I said cultures around the Mediterranean Sea. The one culture I listed that isn't technically by that sea is the Indus Valley culture, which is further to the East. But Egypt, yes located in north Africa, is right along the south bank of the Mediterranean Sea.
And I can't with your "popular racist lie" nonsense. Though you do seem to be just the type to be duped by such nonsense. Can't say I'm surprised. And no, my comments about Europeans having superior technology is also in the historical record. Maybe look that up while you're at it. Unlike you, I don't just talk out of my ass. I can back up every single thing I've said. If you'll notice, after I post this, not a single person in this thread will argue that point. Because they know.
And you can keep your respect. I have no interest in it.
I am not surprised you claim to be a Christian.Your words simply mirror your inner-self. I have neither the time nor the motivation to provide you with a history lesson. My name isn't "Step "n" Fetch It", nor is my name "Dude". In fact, I have never met anyone named "Dude", not even at a Dude Ranch. If you want knowledge then go get it yourself, as it is freely available. But that is not what you want. What you want is to casually insert your fictional white supremacist narrative whenever you get the notion. And you are free to do so, just as I am free to call you out for attempting to promote a gross fiction. Please, carry on with your American dream. Trust and believe, I will be watching.What do YOU think of John Locke, wB?
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1386 … ost2850501
John Locke was a genius who had interesting political and philosophical ideas. On the political front Locke believed in a democracy that existed only to protect its people and to allow them to have liberty and property. Locke believed that the moment a government tampered with a person's individual rights, the people should rise up in revolution. He believed that natural rights were intrinsic and belonged to everyone, and that it was these natural rights that could help to balance a government and keep powerful leaders in check.
Unfortunately, with the 20/20 hindsight of 250 years, it has been proven that Locke's idealist notions don't work in the real world. His first mistake was believing that freedom could exist within the context of a government. It cannot. The very purpose of government is oppression and control. It is absurd that a human being who is born free would think that his or her freedom cannot be realized without a government. Governments are only necessary for tyrants and criminals to have the freedom to oppress, control, and exploit the masses. Without government, these miscreants would have no power. The politicians, the military industrial complex, and the special interest groups are the ones who need government.
On the philosophical side of Locke, I totally disagree with his notion that when we are born the mind is a blank slate, and our personality and character only develop through time and experience. Perhaps that was the state he was born in, but I came into this world with my personality fully developed. In spite of what I have "learned" this time around, my personality is essentially the same as the day I was born.
Yeah, white supremacist narrative. Right. I showed you, with references, that you're wrong. Doesn't matter. You still claim I'm the one that's wrong, you're right, I need to educate myself. Typical. And typical, rather than supplying anything to back up what you're saying as being right, you opt out. Why? Because it's not your place to educate me. Laughable. The actual answer is that you won't be able to find anything that supports what you're saying because you're wrong. But you've got the right idea, as long as you don't look for yourself then you can just keep on deluding yourself. Best to keep yourself in the dark. Stay in the shallow end. Where it's safe.
Which is fine with me. But if you choose to tell me I need to educate myself, or that I'm wrong, I'm going to correct you. Every time. So, if being wrong is a troubling prospect for you, then I suggest you steer clear. Because it's going to happen a lot.
Some random thoughts -
We are not truly evolved for many environments. Instead, we change the environment and clothing to match what we need. Many other animals do this as well - beavers radically change the stream environment the find, birds build nests, the decorator crab finds junk to stick to it's shell as camouflage.
Nearly every species will, if left alone, over populate the point that disease and starvation reduce their numbers. We see this particularly in deer and elk herds in the US, where hunting is necessary to prevent death from those causes. Animals will also overpopulate to the point that other species are killed off (as as man does). Example is the elk and, to a lesser extent, the bison herds in Yellowstone. When the predators disappeared over grazing occurred to the point that the vegetative environment changed radically, streams and rivers polluted and killed the salmon that once spawned there.
Man is not alone in his inability or unwillingness to control his population, and eventually nature will do it FOR him just as it does for all other animals. Our ballyhooed intelligence isn't going to change that unless we get off the planet and then the scenario will repeat in the rest of the solar system.It should be acknowledged that there's a major difference between other animals who change their environment the same way generation after generation, and humans who change their environment to serve wants and needs of the individual. Beavers, for example, all beavers build dams. And they always have. Birds build nests. Always have. But humans, our practices are much more than that. We're actively thinking of ways to alter things for our own personal/individual wants/needs.
Yes, other species will overpopulate. They're driven to "be fruitful and multiply". They don't do this to actively maintain a population. They're driven by instinctual needs. This is not the same thing."Yes, other species will overpopulate. They're driven to "be fruitful and multiply". They don't do this to actively maintain a population. They're driven by instinctual needs. This is not the same thing."
Humans are just like every other animal, with "instinctual needs". Humans don't try to "actively maintain a population".True, we're driven by the same thing because we were given the same command.
Yes, God told every living thing to have sex.
Sexual desire "tells" you to have sex. I have never heard God tell me to have sex.
Your physical body, along with the rest of the physical world, continues to operate according to His will. God told your ancient ancestors to be fruitful and mulitply, and so they (we) have.
You are just making up stories to fit your beliefs.
Ah, the accusations. My favorite. Stupid simple minded believer, deluding himself by making things up to make himself feel better. Poor little guy.
Nope, didn't make it up. Turn to your bible. Page 1. It's right there.
Genesis 1:28 - God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Which is exactly what homo sapiens did. They (we) were fruitful and multiplied, they (we) filled the Earth, and they (we) established our dominance in the animal kingdom.
I don't just make things up. But thanks for thinking so little of me.And it didn't occur to you that your book was written after the fact?
We are driven by instinctive forces and genetic factors to varying degrees. To deny this fact is deceptive. Granted, the instincts are in many cases hidden or clouded beneath our sophisticated mentalities. Yet the instincts do drive us to a large degree. It is only the mentality that desires to presume our superiority (a trait aimed at enhancing chances of survival), when it uses greed and selfishness over the common good, which leads to our demise as a species.
I suggest you do some mental exercises: consider some other life forms. Take for example, ants. Through scientific study, perhaps using clever technology (itself gained through scientific application), we can observe and seek to appreciate their intelligence and skills which aid their survival.
Or tiny birds: how their bodies, anatomies, physiologies and instincts allow them to fly at enormous speed through forests without hitting a single twig.
In all cases, the organism adapts over time to allow its survival. Our organism, the human species, is no different. Any organism which does not or cannot change with, adapt to, the changing conditions, will not survive. It will die, perish, ultimately become extinct.
Our human drive to establish superiority through deceptive thinking habits will also lead to our demise as a species. Our human mind can make us or break us.Yes, we too are products of evolution, branching from the same tree as mammals and all other forms of life, so there will certainly be commonality there. Ants are fascinating creatures. They communicate through pheromones. They secrete pheromones that other members of the mound can smell. They work as an organized system in this way.
Yes, organisms, including humans, adapted over time. That's why we're so well suited for this environment. Our senses evolved to serve us in this environment. They process physical information. Physical rays of light, physical sound waves, physical particles in the air.
But humanities deceptive practices are actually a late-comer. Humans lived very harmoniously for many generations. Even with other tribes, there's evidence of quite a bit of trade happening along trade routes. With little to no violence. They were very live and let live.
As the quote from Ovid I included earlier should make apparent, "all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession", these were changes in behavior. He explains how it used to be and how it is at the time he's making his observation. In fact it would seem the change was so sudden that one man, during the course of his one lifetime, could notice this change to comment on it.
And those books I've referred you all to say the same thing. Changes in evidence show changes in behavior that's consistent with this idea. Specifically the change towards prizing possessions. But what you call "deceptive thinking habits", these did not come about in the same way that over evolutionary behaviors did. They were introduced and passed on through procreation, so it was the same way in that regard. But they were characteristics introduced by the emergence of the modern human ego.
" They don't do this to actively maintain a population. They're driven by instinctual needs. This is not the same thing."
If you think humans procreate in order to maintain their population you are very sadly mistaken - they do it for the same reason every other animal does. So explain again how it is not the same thing?The difference is we thoughtfully consider. Whether or not to have kids, who to mate with. We have a better understanding. Of course most people are conceived through not so thoughtful means, but we as a species consider way more when it comes to procreating. We'll either have more to help do the work on the land or less because we can't afford it. That's the difference.
Animals for the most part, seasonally, just follow their instincts."...we thoughtfully consider"
LOL You've got to be kidding! That we carefully consider is why there are so many kids without fathers. Why so many marriages end over cheating by one spouse or the other. Why large families are so often poor and can't support their children. Why the bar scene is full of one night stands. Why the "oldest profession" still thrives. Because we "thoughtfully consider".
Sorry, Headly, but that statement just doesn't match with reality at all. All too many of us will procreate any time we can find a partner that attracts us, just as other animals do. Nor does the fact that the female of the species is open to sex year around change anything except to make it easier.Yeah, I know. That's why I said, "Of course most people are conceived through not so thoughtful means". When you consider the Earth's population is currently over 7 billion, and you consider that 99% of those currently alive are under 100 years old, that is certainly not the product of 7 billion couples thoughtfully conceiving that child. That's a testament to just how strong the human sex drive is. It's not to be trifled with. It's a serious thing.
But we as humans do consider things way more than the common animal. The fact that we know and understand how conception and pregnancy happens, being a human myself, I know how heavy it looms over our daily lives. It's the rational side that fights our purely instinctual cravings. Obviously, given all the things you listed, that rational side is often overridden.
In fact, this is a good indicator of how our free will enhanced ego makes us so much like animals in the animal kingdom. Before free will we behaved just like them. We had more capable brains, but our wills didn't want for anything more than animals want. We lived in harmony with nature. We migrated and followed the seasonal changes for food.
Eating is another example. Being overweight and weightloss is a big market because of free will. We don't eat by instinct alone. Our free willed ego decides when and what to eat. Our body let's us know when it's hungry, but that's not the only time we eat. There are many, myself included, who eat more than necessary. We're often overweight unlike animals. They eat to live. We eat to whatever. Because it's good and we want it. Because it comforts us. Because we're bored.
All the overweight humans is another indicator of how are will works differently than the animals of the natural world.There is but one problem with all this: the idea that free will came about suddenly, when we crossbred with gods. That you try to define free will as the ability to do bad things doesn't fly: on the contrary we see free will in many animals as well. Far more likely then that free will developed with an increasing ability to think and come with different choices.
But we don't see free will in animals. We see a distinct change in humanity that began in a specific time and place and spread from there. And that change only happened in homo sapiens, no other species.
Basically, what separates us from the animal world is our enhanced ego is in control. Rather than behaving according to instinct and programmed genetic behavior, we're in control. We willfully decide when/what to eat, how much, when to have sex, who with, how often. And it's those decisions left up to us that humanity has proven to be most mistake prone. All the problems we create for ourselves are made of willful behavior because we kind of have to make it up as we go. We make up what's moral, what's right/wrong, all of that.
Not only has your ego blinded you to historical facts, but you have also decided that animals operate strictly on instincts, and have no will of their own. Why don't you just go ahead and admit that you are God?I've got volumes of historical texts and professional historians who say that history went one way, and you on the other side claiming another way. With nothing to back it up beyond just your word, which directly conflicts with what the texts and experts say. You've proven yourself an unreliable source of accurate information.
I've decided the nature of animals through observation. Yes, animals have a will. Just not free will.
You commented that animals have a "will" but not a "free will". Wow! This is quite remarkable. "Free Will" feels good rolling off the tongue, but it is actually redundant. You should spend a little more time at Mr. Websters. Any creature that does not exercise "free will" would have no will at all. And any "will" can be understood as "free will". I will slow it down for you:
A slave during the antebellum( you know, the Africans who were kidnapped,raped, tortured, and forced to work for lazy white people who claimed to be Christians.) was obviously not free. However, if a slave decided to escape, he was exercising the same "will" that a white man of the same era would have demonstrated in deciding whether to go to the horse races or a whorehouse on a Saturday afternoon. In both cases we can understand that both men were exercising their "free will". Some people can run faster, jump higher, and think at a deeper level on a higher plane than the average Joe. I am one of those people. Be thankful I am here.Oh, but come on, get real! Those white people who claimed to be Christian were doing what they did because they were promised forgiveness. Do you suppose they are all looking down on us atheist of the modern times, laughing at us for not enjoying the fun of free will?
Or did they not read the small print and therefore ended down in Hell?Wow Jonny, that's an incredibly cynical way to see believers. I honestly don't think they saw it as a bad thing. In their culture it was a normal thing that had been around for generations. They all came from long lines of slave owners. It was how business was done. These people were not seen as humans. They were primitive, like animals in the woods. Animals that could be trained.
Besides, the slave trade was not specific to Christians. The Egyptians had slaves. The Greeks had slaves. The Romans. The Sumerians. The Hittites. Slavery was a way of life since the dawn of civilization. There was no economy. There was no structure where these people could find gainful employment. Slavery got you and your family room and board. Food. Protection.
And the people that purchased their slaves in Africa and brought them to America, they didn't rip children from their mothers. They bought them. From their own people. It was an industry. And it wasn't just perpetrated by white Christians.
It is not surprising that the one who claims to know so much about Christianity and "God" has such a cavalier attitude toward slavery. Some of the most despicable tyrants that ever pinched a loaf were devout followers of somebody's twisted idea of God.
Your commentary suggests that in the past slavery was an accepted practice. But on the contrary, if this were true then why was Moses in such a hurry to get away from Egypt and to the promised land? Slavery has never been acceptable to the civilized man of moral character; not in any age! It is quite ironic that the average Christian hates Jesus.Yes, Christianity has been prevalent throughout nearly every age of human history, so it's no surprise that some of the worst tyrants were Christians. Some of the most selfless and noble people were also Christians. Christianity has nothing to do with it. That's like saying some of the worst tyrants were brunettes.
God sent Moses to free the Israelites from the clutches of Egypt. If you're familiar with the story then you'll know that there was no issue with the Israelites being enslaved by the Egyptians for many generations until God "heard their cries". That's when He sent Moses. Up to that point they had been enslaved somewhere between 215 and 430 years according to some estimates.
Biscuit, get over yourself. You're not nearly as impressive as you seem to think you are. So far I see someone who talks out his ass with no concern about whether or not what he's spewing is accurate. And I find that hugely irresponsible. With great power comes great responsibility. You have a good mind and it's your responsibility to wield it responsibly.
Yes, those slaves, their will was being overridden by fear and by intimidation. At any moment they had the choice to choose to do what they willed and run. They have free will the whole time. They just willfully chose to not upset the proverbial apple cart and not get themselves in trouble with the slavers. Fear and intimidation are just a couple of a long list of things employed by people to control the wills of others. Besides, the evil whites didn't invent slavery. That's another characteristic that's been consistent in every human culture since Sumer.
But animals, they don't have free will. They continue to operate, generation after generation, exactly the same as their ancestors. There's no individual sense of self, no individual identity that needs to be recognized. That needs respect for being so smart and so superior physically.
I am thankful you're here. You inspire these thoughts I share. I feel compelled to say something.Free will to try and avoid being strung up naked and various other pathways to death!
Very free choice and free will.
Ps. and yes, I am a cynic.Right, exactly. If it wasn't for them having the choice there'd be no need to make the threats.
Not that I don't have a cynical strand here and there, but I don't think that's a very healthy mindset to keep as far as believers go. You're basically dismissing a vast majority of the world's population. That they're human is what their downfall is, ultimately, not that they're Christians. We all share this in common. No one's any better than anyone else.
Ever watch dogs or wolves around a bitch in heat? Only the alpha gets to mate and for the most part he's the only one that tries. The rest want it but know better - they make a conscious choice not to. Ever watch a cat given new food? It very often refuses to even try it - it makes a conscious choice not to.
We're no different at all, except that the bigger brains can come up with more choices. Most animals will overeat and get fat if given the opportunity...just as the human animal does. No difference. They even make their own "morals" in many cases, and before you insist it's all instinct I'll go ahead and ask for proof of that.The proof is that the choices they make and the morals they "make" are exactly the same as every other of their species before them. They don't have ages where they progressed and evolved further and further like humanity. They stay the same.
As for the dog in heat scenario, this is no different than any other "choice" between fight or flight. All animals will weigh the risk, the price they'd have to pay, if they were to choose to pursue their want.
Animals, like humans, are creatures of habit. Eating one kind of food has proven safe. A change in routine has to be considered. Is it as safe as the other choice? Will the outcome be favorable? It's as simple as that."They don't have ages where they progressed and evolved further and further like humanity. "
You're saying animals don't evolve - that humans are the ones doing that? I'd have to disagree, and vehemently at that. It would be interesting to know just how YOU know that apes were using tools a 100K years ago, or the mating practices of wolves then.Just look at the span of time documented by humanity. Animals have not changed. None of them. The same things observed generations ago still stand. Humanity, however, has changed significantly in that time.
Don't have to prove it. Just look. Just look at how humanity has changed over the past 1000 years. Animals over that same period of time animals haven't changed at all. No need to prove it. It's apparent to everyone.
How has the human form or humanity changed in the past 1000 years? Our bodies have the same form, with slight variations in size as a result of better or worse nutrition. Our personal habits of hygiene change according to cultural differences. Our methods for killing each other have not changed much, nor the reasons for wanting to kill. Superstitious beliefs abound, just like they did 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago, despite a huge increase of scientific knowledge and understanding. Yet many other species have changed because we humans have manipulated their genes.
No God has done this except the God of egotism .... A very human trait!Yeah, the form of humanity hasn't changed much at all. Physically. Psychologically, however, we've changed a lot. Our ways of killing haven't changed much, but our reasons for wanting to kill have. In fact, killing in general has seen a dramatic uptick in the past few thousand years.
Yes, egotism, a very human trait. Not a very animal trait. Or a very primate trait. Just a human trait.
"Superstitious beliefs abound, just like they did 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago, despite a huge increase of scientific knowledge and understanding."
Yeah. That should tell you something.
That the human brain/mind/perspective has evolved in 1000 years is obvious to humans. How would you know how the mind of animals have changed or not? It's hardly our experience. And they are seen by us as just animals, sub human, and only for food or entertainment. We wouldn't notice any change unless they started writing us letters. It's not like there have been in-depth studies done on the question, or any way to compare from one time period to another.
Do you think the brain of humans has changed over 20,000 years? Perhaps a little. But that's not why we are what we are today. I bet I could clone a prehistoric human and it would do fine in school and in life as a modern human. Why? Because our mental evolution is due to our acquiring of mass amounts of experience and information over the millennia, and our ability through language to pass it all on to future generations. This, perhaps in part because we have several types of brain in one, and one more type than any other species except primates, but a little more developed..
Also it's because of opposable thumbs like other primates, and vocal cords capable of speech, like parrots. The way we process, use, and pass on information is what gives us the edge, from our perspective..
Dolphins are pretty smart and capable of complex communication. So why don't they build tools, houses, cell phones cars etc? What in the world would they do with them if they physically could? They don't need this stuff. We think we do, so we build it.
Lots of interest in dolphins these days. Were they always that smart? How can we compare? Start cloning 20,000 year old dolphins perhaps? would that tell the story? Or is their evolution like ours: an accumulation of knowledge relevant to what they are and what they need?We would know how the mind of animals have changed by significant changes in behavior. And yes, we'd notice. There have been people throughout human history who have made it their lot in life to observe and record animal behavior. There are experts and specialists to account for nearly each kind of species.
I think the human mind changed significantly roughly 4000 BC, starting in Mesopotamia, and quickly spreading throughout the human world from that point forward.
And we already know that if you were to clone a prehistoric human that they most likely would not do well. It was tried with both American Indians and with Aborigines. Not cloning, but they tried to introduce them to a more modern style of life. But in both cases the whole concept of personal possessions was so alien to them they were unable to fall into the proverbial fold. Personal possession is something that comes along with a more pronounced ego, which only came about roughly 6000 years ago.American and Australian people adapted to the conditions, environment in which they lived....just like all of us humans do/did. We are one species, with slight differences of skin colour, body shape, culture.
Cultural and environmental differences are the main factors which separate us. Early years of life influence out characteristics also. Yet we are all interlinked. It is only ignorance which causes prejudice.Yes, we are one species. With what should only be small, insignificant differences. Yet if we look at what all happened it would seem we're talking about two different species, as the second group proved to be much more aggressive and forceful and much more advanced technologically. Yet they are all indeed the same species. Almost identical genetically.
But there is a difference, a significant one, that explains those things.
I can't believe you peeps are still rambling on in this question - the same few of you over and over again. Its kind of funny.
As I've said, you're all wrong: there is a 'god' and he/she doesn't require a single thing from us - not a belief nor ONE request or requirement - and YEAH, science has proven this 'Universal Consciousness'. Religions are human concepts that have much more to do with the expansion of our souls than they do with 'truth' - as is the case about every single thing anyone believes to be 'true' or 'false'.
God is energy and could give a flying fig less what anyone believes. Human languages, thoughts & actions are not something God relates to. If he/she does any kind of interacting with us on this physical plane of existence; it would only be able to 'read' someone's heart and lifestory of emotions. Earth is a physical existence created to expand the consciousness of 'God's Children' - nothing more.
No hell... nope, relax and 'do your thing'. If there is anything that 'god' wants from us - it would be that. We are eternal mini-universes, models of the main universe - proven over and over again.
Stop believing what you think.
Lol... String theory is dead. Along with it the false notion that it proved anything, never mind a cosmic consciousness. Not even saying there isn't one. Just that science has no where near proven it. Sorry.
All of your argument, Headly, is based upon your beliefs and your assumptions that we human species are superior to all other life forms. You have not offered any substantial proof of this.
For goodness sake, please climb out of that rut which has stopped your mind from expanding away from the God factor. It's a dangerous rut to be in.
We humans are nothing more, nor less, than an animal species. We exhibit instinctive behavior. So do other species, conducive to their needs for survival. We display a sense of humour. So do other animal species, conducive to their needs for enjoyment and fun. We display choices, every minute of the day. ALL other species of living things, animal/vegetable, also display choices.
The sooner you open your mind to a sense of one-ness with all life, instead of being some self-promoted overlord, the sooner this world might be healing itself of humanity.We're on top of the food chain for a reason. You don't have to look very long or hard to see we have an obvious advantage over all animal life. You can keep trying to reduce the human condition to just being more complex forms of animal behavior, but that simply doesn't fit reality.
The only one in a rut here is the one who refuses to recognize that there is an enormous chasm between us and the animal world.
All of your argument, jonny, is based upon your beliefs and your assumptions that we human species are nothing more than more complex animals. And you have the same lack of substantial proof.It fits reality perfectly. It's your supernatural god that just doesn't fit.
Without that component, the rest doesn't stand on it's own. It's an empty wire shell covered in paper mache that's made to resemble reality, but doesn't account for any of the elements that actually animate reality. There has to be a will, a driving force, a vitality, to move things forward and keep things happening.
There's an empty slot where that supernatural god fits right in. Snaps right into place. Without it it's like a toy car that has all the components, but no batteries.An empty slot a one size fits all imaginary god fits in. Imagine that. lol...That's not fitting a slot with fact, it's like filling a hungry man's stomach with water. Why not try to find out what's really going on instead of filling slots with speculative mumbo jumbo just because you can't wait for real answers? Just gotta cheat death eh? Sorry friend: no one gets out off here alive.
I know you like to dismiss it as purely speculative, but it isn't. This is not a god I just made up. This is a god modeled around a very specifically described god from an ancient text that I vetted for historical accuracy. Everything that texts claimed to have happened that can be vetted with physical evidence has been. So I'm testing the concept of a god they described against modern knowledge, and the gap that's left to be filled is not at all one size fits all. It's a very specific shape and size. And that concept of god put forth by that ancient text fits it incredibly well.
Right, you didn't make it up. Primitives did and you believe them.
Primitives, huh? Yeah. These "primitives" invented writing, civilization, they through their inventions completely changed how humanity had lived on this planet for the first and only time in thousands of generations.
The stories written by those "primitives" were recorded accounts of a time when this god interacted with them. And the physical impact that this god left can be seen in the evidence. Everything they say happened can be accounted for. Pinpointed in Mesopotamian history. The story it sets up can be seen playing out throughout human history right up to today.
You can dismiss them as primitive if you want, but they clearly weren't as simple minded as you want to make them out to be."<primitives> completely changed how humanity had lived on this planet for the first and only time in thousands of generations. "
Come, come. You don't think the discovery of fire changed how people lived? The introduction of animal protein (greatly enlarging our brains) into their diet? The invention of tools such as spears or spear points? Artificial housing? Clothing?
None of these changed how we lived, and none were necessary for the advent of cities? You are once more ignoring history in favor of the god theory.Not at all. There were no significant changes to the way people lived until it was done in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Greece, Rome, etc. We're still to this day in the wake of the waves they started. The modern human world began there and continues on today. Rather than there just being a significant invention or two, there were literally dozens. It was not the inventions that brought on the change. It was the change in the human psyche that resulted in all the inventions as well as the dramatic changes in behavior and lifestyle.
Obviously I disagree. You've picked one big thing (cities) and declared that there were no other major changes throughout pre-history, and you've done it in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Ah, the illusion to this evidence that you insist was absolutely compelling, yet I still have the gall to state what I'm stating. What's this indisputable evidence you speak of that I just insist on dismissing?
Besides, it's not that I picked cities, it's just that the same people who invented all these things happened to be the ones who also invented cities. Beyond inventing cities and civilization in general, they also invented writing, the wheel, chariots, the plow, sail boats, time, astronomy/astrology, maps, mathematics, agriculture and irrigation, among many others.
http://www.ancienthistorylists.com/meso … sopotamia/Do you see "Lucy" living as the cavemen did? If not there was a definite change. Do you see vegetarians living as the hunters with their spears did? If not there was a definite change. Do you see the lifestyle before fire being the same as after fire? If not there was definite change. Do you see people without any clothing living the same (and in the same areas) as people did after they began wearing clothing? If not there was a definite change.
Yes, cities gave rise to all those other things, along with space travel, atomic power, microwaves and many other things. But to put it to gods instead of cities is irrational: we know cities existed but there is zero evidence for any gods.
Perhaps the "gods" were another race or species of humanity and interbreeding changed both, just as happened with Neanderthal? If so, all we have to do is find that other species...Like I said, that same text that claims to have interacted with this god it describes has proven true where it speaks of those events and that specific timeline. Not only did all the humans who existed at that time write stories that claimed there were actual male/female gods living among them in their ancient history, but both the significant leaps forward in inventions really happened as well as the significant change in human behavior that should be there if these stories are true.
You're right, none of that proves the existence of a god, but all of that adds credence to the stories that claim this god exists."Not only did all the humans who existed at that time write stories that claimed there were actual male/female gods living among them in their ancient history,"
Don't be silly: Amerindians didn't write at all, and neither did the residents of Australia. Nor did all other cultures report gods "living among them" - in truth, very few did although the gods existed.
No, that a small (and unimportant) bit of the writings are at least close to the truth doesn't say anything at all about the rest of it. Particularly those sections about gods that interbred but left nothing but their genes: no bones, no artifacts, no writings of their own. Nothing but genes the natives claimed came from gods.
Perhaps their concept of a god was another race or species? Perhaps a little more knowledgeable that they were but nothing at all that would coincide with current concepts of what a god is?You're right. I misspoke. That should have said all the humans who existed at that time in that region of the world. Writing didn't exist anywhere else, and the story says they were only created in this specific area of the world, so they wouldn't have written about it. But yes, all the cultures that existed in and around Mesopotamia, as well as all the cultures that sprung up around the Mediterranean Sea. You've got Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, the Greeks, the Romans, the Hittites, etc. All the cities who also had significant advances in inventions and way of life.
I don't know that they didn't leave anything. I mean, I have a theory about that. In the city of Hebron where Genesis says the descendants of the Nephilim lived, and who were described as very large in comparison to the Israelites, in that archaeological site they found a burial site with a bed in it that was the length/width as described in the OT. The description in the OT says that this particular giants burial site had long been a place the public could come see. So my guess is that whenever one of these gods died, their remains were probably very much prized. There may be remains that we don't know how to tell apart yet, mainly because nobody knew to look. Or it may be that there are very few remains due to grave robbers.
But then you've got stories like what the Sumerians said about how one of these gods showed up and gave them the tenants of civilization. These laws they called 'mes'. Simply following these rules formed the first resemblance of civilization. This shows a level of wisdom that's hard to explain in any other way.Unless the bed was made of materials or used construction techniques that the people didn't have there is no reason to think a god made it. Is either true?
No, ancient stories told generations after the fact don't have much to indicate truth, and even less with it concerns supernatural apparitions. History generally does NOT tell a true tale, after all. Archaeology tells a much better one, but you've said there is zero such tales of the gods. Unless, of course, one decides that only gods could have done what those tales have to say, and that is exceedingly difficult to prove. One might even say impossible as it has never been done successfully.I really wish you'd more carefully read what I say. Half the time you make claims about me ignoring evidence or whatever I think you're actually reading into my comments something I'm not actually saying. Like here. I never said anything about this being the burial site of a god. Og was a giant. I was just giving an example for my theory about what happens to the remains of these beings and why there might not be any remains. The only thing significant about the bed was its size. The size suggests the body it was made for was like 13 feet tall....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Og
And like I've told you numerous times, the story told in Genesis is told against a very specific timeline and series of events. And those events can be shown to have actually happened in the archaeological evidence. And those events line up with that timeline as well as where the story says they happened. Then there's further evidence that supports the story, like numerous texts that speak of male/female gods living among them, and there's the significant behavior change in humanity that starts right where/when those stories take place. A lot of corresponding evidence that all intersects across the same region of the world during the same frame of time. All of this together strongly supports the story told in Genesis actually happening as described."Like here. I never said anything about this being the burial site of a god."
??? Neither did I. Just that artifacts from local, common materials were not from gods. And you DID respond about a bed when artifacts from gods were mentioned. I might make mention of beds from the 1700's - neither you nor I could sleep in them as they were too small. I've also seen chairs made that would have fit your 13' man quite well - I could have put myself, my wife and 2 kids in them.
"And those events can be shown to have actually happened in the archaeological evidence."
Yes, I know. Particularly if time lines are changed. But of course many things (maybe "birds flew") are absolutely going to happen. Doesn't take a god for that, or to destroy Sodom with brimstone. Or even for people to migrate, for that matter.
"Then there's further evidence that supports the story, like numerous texts that speak of male/female gods living among them"
Wait. A story of gods living there supports a story of gods living there? Say that again? Or are you saying that stories of gnomes (there are millions) support stories of gnomes?I only mentioned the bed because of the man's size the writers of the bible felt it relevant to speak about. And later, when the actual burial site was found, the remains of King Og were not.
Are you suggesting I changed timelines? Are you suggesting that I have knowingly been dishonest or deceitful? You keep saying this and that doesn't prove there's a god like that's the claim I was making. It isn't. My only claim is that the evidence lines up with what Genesis claims happened.
The mythological stories support the claims of the bible. The hypothesis that says these long living creatures actually existed at the same time as human populations in the region. So something you might expect to see if there's any truth to the Genesis story is other people who lived in that age/region speaking about beings like this living among them. That's how those stories support the claim. The mythological stories of the various cultures in that time/place are an expected result.
Stories about a supposed, assumed god. Probably not a real god. And yes, primitives like thousands who came up with thousands of other gods they created. Hardly a good source for reality.
That's the question. Did they just imagine all these fantastical stories? Did they really imagine these gods, make them up, then actually incorporate them into their actual history? I mean, they clearly weren't "primitives". They were the first generations to raise themselves up out of the state of primitive.
Plus, you've got at least half a dozen different cultures, all formed independently, all with their own very unique language and culture, and they all told very similar stories. Unlike any other culture throughout all of human history. It was just those few, in that specific place of the world, during that specific time.
Don't be so quick to dismiss something because it sounds crazy to you. There's a lot of things sthat sound crazy that we've found out to be true. Things we've discovered about matter at the subatomic level are straight up crazy. Did you know quarks always exist in pairs? If you try to separate and isolate a quark, the energy you exacted to separate them will immediately be converted into two quarks to pair up with the two you just separated. That's crazy. But it's true.Quarks are observed to occur only in combinations of two (mesons)or three (baryons).The most familiar baryons are protons and neutrons,
Now, all particles are born in pairs, a particle and an anti particle. If they contact each other they cancel out, rather violently. Like in math where opposites cancel, and for the same reason.
But not always quarks. That's what's strange. Isn't it? yes and no.
Now, when you separate quarks, as the force that binds them decreases the quantum force on the fabric of space increases producing the extra quarks, and you come away with two mesons instead of half of one.
Quarks are elementary particles made from energy. The fabric of space is all potential energy.
Unlike baryons that have 3 quarks, Mesons are a quark/anti quark pair. They don't form the atom directly but pions which are a form of meson are part of the strong force between protons and neutrons. Mesons are unstable.
Contrary to popular belief, Particles and antiparticles only annihilate if they are in the same quantum state. If they are in similar but not the same state, like one spins down and the other one spins up they can bond.
Now if you take a bonded pair of particles other than Quarks and send them off in separate directions at light speed, then change the state or spin of one, the other changes spin. That's really strange. Hence why Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. It's properly called quantum entanglement. But no light speed barrier has been broken.
Why? As Bell said about this fact: Everything is intimately connected.
How? By the fabric of space. The potential energy around and in everything, including us and so called empty space, which is anything but empty, teaming with quantum activity, including quantum fluctuation, where particle pairs are created and usually, but not always destroy each other, coming forth from apparently nothing, but far from nothing: the potential energy of the fabric of space.
Not something any bible mentions, or any primitive mind could even guess at.
If the bible explained itself the way you interpret it, I’d probably be impressed. But it doesn’t. It’s perfectly obvious it comes from primitive superstitious minds. I’m not saying they were stupid; just primitive compared to our understanding . That’s to be expected. You can’t run before you can crawl. People living 5000 years before them were primitive in comparison to them. And so it goes.Thank you so much for this explanation - way beyond my comprehension but great exploration into matter and physics.
You are most welcome. To me,the findings of science are the same as divine revelation to a theist.
Yes, of course. God didn't write the bible. It was written by people who lived over 3000 years ago. They weren't granted any sort of understanding beyond their time. Even in the case of creation, they just repeat what they were told. They don't understand the sun to be a ball of fire, or that the Earth is floating in space. They just describe what was described to them. And it was described to them in a way that they can understand.
But the bible's intention isn't to explain the natural world to humanity. That's really not important or even relevant to what it's speaking about.
But just in the creation account the bible explains things they couldn't possibly know. It's simple in how it's described, it doesn't reveal any kind of profound depth of understanding. It simply explains each element that a person of that age would be familiar with. It establishes a point of view, from the surface, then begins to describe what came when from that point of view. And what it describes is actually what you would see from that point of view if you were able to observe it happen.
If you allow for that primitive level of understanding, and read it in that context where they're basically repeating something they don't totally comprehend, then I think you'll realize it actually does get a lot right. A lot.But a god could have simply made them understand and write it all down in a way that would have become more and more comprehensive as time went on, and became more and more enlightening and relevant. But that's not the case. And why tell them anything if they couldn't understand anyway? Not to help future generations. Why not tell us now?
Why not tell them they live on a planet? A ball in space. They couldn't come up with that on their own, but why wouldn't they understand that? And there are so many more examples.
It just makes no sense.But it does make sense in the context of the story being told. There would have been no point in humans understanding the particulars of the planet. What was relevant to the story is that this God's will is what made the natural world. That everything in the natural world adhered to God's will. He controls it all. This is relevant because in the very next section that's what accentuates the fact that Adam/Eve behave contrary to His will. That's what's significant. That's the crux of the story being told. The main point. The entirety of the creation account helps drive home the significance of what makes Adam/Eve and all off-spring afterwards different than everything else.
It has become more and more comprehensive as we figure out what happened. For example, we didn't know until the 70's about plate tectonics and how the continents basically came bubbling up from the sea. We also didn't know the oceans formed first. These are two things that as we figured them out began to much more resemble what was described all those years ago. Or the evolution of animals. It basically explains that sauropsids (birds/fish) came first, then synapsids (mammals), then humans. It was a progression. We didn't read it or comprehend it like that, but now that we can see how it happened, it all lines up.
The point of what's described in the bible isn't to validate or prove itself.If not there is no point to it at all.
It is about a god creating the world. Fish didn't come first,.The first organisms on earth around 3.5 billion years ago were early prokaryotes: anaerobically-respiring bacteria-like organisms, forming around super-heated vents at the bottom of the sea. so they were neither plant nor animal. Prokaryote's are what known as bacteria and archaea. While they are single cells, they can form into multi celled structures like slime, acting as a single unit. Some do photosynthesize.
Then came blue-green algae: Cyanobacteria. Not algae at all as it is not a plant. Its a prokaryote. It's a bacterial structure that photosynthesize, and expels oxygen. It's what gave the world an oxygen atmosphere.
Single-celled Eukaryote's evolved 2 billion years ago. They showed signs of being both plant and animal, able to move and hunt, but also able to photosynthesize. And they created both plants and animals as time went on.
By 1 billion years ago multi cellular plants and animals were formed. Both at the same time by the evolution of Eukaryote.
Birds didn't arrive until the Mesozoic era, 250 to 70 million years ago. They originate from theropods. Obviously well after animals were roaming the earth, unlike the bible says. It has them created in the oceans, and land creatures created on land, not deriving from the oceans.
From the evidence it is not clear that the earth was ever covered completely by water. Many think it was covering 78 percent of earth at peak. The continents raise land and lower land elsewhere all the time. The likelihood is it was never all covered at the same time. In the beginning it was a molten mass, too hot for water to form.
Hence, the bible fails again.
What you see in it I don't know.Again, he's describing things these humans would be familiar with. They're not familiar with prokaryotes or cyanobacteria. Multicellular plants, however, it did cover that one. Day 3, before the syropsids and synapsids.
Yes birds came after land animals, but they came from, like you said, theropods. As the wave of synapsid life began, the wave of sauropsids continued on. The mention of birds along with fish is significant in that it makes it clear it's not just limited to sea life. They're all part of the same branch. The sauropsids. It's a progression.
"Hence, the bible fails again. "
Not at all. For one thing it never says the entirety of the planet was covered. It just says there were seas. A surface of "the deep" that it says God spirit was over. But the land we humans recognize as land, that wasn't there yet. The outer crust of the Earth and the continents are not the same thing.
"In the beginning it was a molten mass, too hot for water to form. "
Right, and initially it describes the Earth as "formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep", which accurately describes the state of the Earth during the Archaen Eon. While the Earth's surface cooled, all the water vapor that would eventually make up the oceans once it cooled was trapped in the atmosphere, along with all the gasses out-gassed during accretion of the planet. So, like it says, the ocean was shrouded in darkness. So, not only does it accurately describe the state of the Earth in a period long before humans existed, it also describes it in this state chronologically correct, coming before all the other things it lists afterwards.
Hence, the bible's right again.The progression isn't there. That's the point. The bible fails on every level..A real god could no doubt have done better.
Yes, it is. The progression is all right there. Chronologically accurate.
Day 1: Verses 1 through 5 - Hadean Eon - Age when oceans formed and atmosphere became translucent
Day 2: Verses 6 through 8 - Archaen Eon - Age when water cycle and oxygenated atmosphere were established
Day 3: Verses 9 through 13 - Proterozoic Eon - Age when continents formed; Paleozoic Era - Plantlife on land
Day 4: Verses 14 through 19 - Paleozoic Era - Age when continents moved from beneath planet to between poles and atmosphere became transparent
Day 5: Verses 20 through 23 - Mesozoic Era - Age when life from the sea thrived ultimately leading to birds
Day 6: Verses 24 through 31 - Cenozoic Era - Age when modern mammals and humans developed
Interesting that you mention Cyanobacteria. It's the essential factor in Azolla's biology and historical connections. http://theazollafoundation.org/azolla/t … a-event-2/
A favourite subject of research for me and it was able to extensively influence our world's climate millions of years ago.Genesis 1:6-7 - And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Yep, and it too is accounted for, both in accurate description and chronologically correct. What we humans now know to be the atmosphere (or the dome of the sky) did indeed come from "the midst of the waters" and does indeed divide the waters below (the sea) from the waters above (the clouds). The oxygenated atmosphere, which did actually form just before dry land. And which, by the way, required light and waters, both of which are ingredients also accounted for chronologically correct.You can't be serious. Anyone reading what you posted can see what is meant. They can also see it doesn't mean what you claim it means.
Really? So when we look at the actual formation of the Earth, in that period between when light first broke through the dense atmosphere to reach the surface and the formation of the continents, and we see that it's in this period that the oxygenated atmosphere and the Earth's water cycle developed, that doesn't make it obvious? When the text actually describes a "firmament" (dome of the sky) and describes it as something that came from "the midst of the waters" and describes it as separating the water above from the water below, that means nothing? I'm just injecting my own meaning?
I'm sorry, but it's pretty direct. No, it doesn't call it an oxygenated atmosphere, but given it's description when compared to actual reality, it's hard to deny. You can continue to try, but just right here I pointed out 3 specific descriptions of this "firmament", and all 3 fit. AND, all 3 fit while this piece of creation fits chronologically with when the actual oxygenated atmosphere formed. So 3 accurate descriptions, falling right in line chronologically, and you say you can't see it? Hmm. I don't see how you can deny it.Right. No there is no comparison. He parted the ocean of heaven. Created a space between. An ocean above and one below. not water vapor or any other fantasy. Then he made an island appear and float on the sea.
Sorry, not the way it happened. No ocean above us. No, not even in vapor.The way I see it, if there was a creator that made this finite creation, then that creator and its creation began in the infinite zone of quantum choice; that creation of differences and hence energy flows which seeped, crept, into every space of vacant potential. Rather like oil seeping into the spaces of a sponge.
An imperfect analogy for sure, but the best way to describe the way my mind sees it. But certainly not like a wisened old man in the sky."But certainly not like a wisened old man in the sky."
Why not? Everything we are just came about right out of nature. Our personalities, our intelligence, our creativity. Why are these things just too ridiculous to think are a part of it? It has to be mindless? Just oil falling into crevices? And out of that potential that this energy just "fell" into, that mindless seeping led to intelligence and reason and a sense of humor and personality and dreams and aspirations and passion? The human condition just does not come about through mindless chance. You don't get beings who care out of something totally void of care. It doesn't work that way. That's like a robot building a human. It just doesn't work.
Wisdom. There's wisdom to be had in this place. In this life. Valuable wisdom, that without conscious old men and women, would go totally unnoticed by the natural world. Would never be considered. Pondered. That's why I just get so confused by your viewpoint. You read in these spiritual types of thoughts and revelations, yet from what? From seeping oil? I just don't get it.
What is so crazy about a God? About life having purpose and meaning? About us not being the only "smart" things around? And this whole idea of the human condition just coming about mechanistically, it's just absurd. Absurd.Yes, the absurdity of it all.
JCL opined that IF there was a Creator... that creator and its creation began in the infinite zone of quantum choice. If I remember right , in the quantum world a multiplicity of events or choices do occur, but which one of those events or choices do occur depends upon the presence of an observer who interprets what is occurring. Thus a multiplicity of observers could interpret a single event differently from each other. Thus the conundrum of Schroodinger's cat that might be dead and alive at the same time.
The relativity world of Einstein and the quantum world of Schroodinger, has not quite gelled yet and a Theory of Everything is still somewhere out there in the horizon, with String theory not quite going up to its potential of being that combinational theory. Until such time, we have intelligent, sentient and conscious entities on earth who in my perspective were created, purposely and intentionally by a supernatural creator. And what purpose and intent would that be?
Humans are here to be the observer of the world that the creator created, and in the process of observing, become witnesses to the existence of that creation. The simple fact is... if something was created but absolutely no one is there to observe and give credence to that creation, does that creation exist? The answer is NO whether that world be relativistic or quantum mechanistic, or both.That's an interesting point. It seems odd to me that we humans would exist as we do with brains that are basically recording information from the moment we're born until we die. Physically processing and storing that information in the physical matter of our brains. So much of what's going on here would be lost if not observed. So much of the wisdom we glean from what we observe would go totally unnoticed and unaccounted for.
It just seems to me to be a lot of uselessness for all that had to happen to realize us humans and our brains, only for that to cease and everything we recorded over that time to just disappear when we physically die. Is that all really just in the service of our survival? Seems to me to be a bit of overkill to have a brain capable of putting a rover on Mars just to keep us alive in the natural world. It's like buying a top of the line computer just to use the calculator function.Both yourself and A Villarasa have stated how you perceive the nature of things to be. And you have both shown by your own words that is how you want to perceive the rationale. For example, you don't want things to "just physically disappear when we die." Your desire colours your perception. I am ok with that.
Obviously my own perceptions come from my own desire to understand things from my perspective.
I am not calling your perspectives absurd; that tends toward insulting. I cannot expect nor do I ask you to change your ways of thinking in order to accept mine instead; because mine is open to other views and all views can be seen as "right" or "wrong," depending on each point of view. For sure it all depends on the observer.Where did I say I don't WANT things to "just physically disappear when we die."? That was never stated as a want. Never intended as a want. Yet we're back to me only being able to see things as I want them to be. No matter the logic I present along with my statements. That's all ignored in favor of what you "want" to be true. For me to be delusional and way off base. However you have to rationalize it so you don't have to consider it seriously I guess.
Yes, it's your perspective. And you certainly have that right to see things as you wish. But I also don't think it's a foul for someone else who's been made privy to your viewpoint to point out things they find off about it. Why else share it with anyone other than to get their reaction?
Why would you spend the time and energy it takes to publish your views in a public forum only to get defensive about it when someone criticizes it? Personally, I'd feel like I was doing you a disservice to not say anything. It's like a friend of yours letting you walk around all day with a booger hanging out your nose because they were afraid telling you about it might hurt your feelings or embarrass you.
Well JCL, you've got a booger. I'm sorry if that offends you. I'm sorry if you feel somehow violated by my observation, but it's true. From my perspective I can see it. In fact, from any other perspective other than your own it can be seen. Your perspective is the only one that can't see it. Would you just rather go on not knowing about it?
I'm told on almost a daily basis that I'm delusional, basically. That I only see things the way I want to see them. Meaning I'm unable to see things as they are. I'm too screwed up for that. Screwed up by indoctrinated conditioning early in life. And you're one of the ones telling me that. You clearly think how I see things is "wrong", and most times don't hesitate to tell me so.
And yes, as I've said before, I do find being told I'm just seeing things how I want to, or that I'm twisting things around to make what I want to be true sound true, I find that insulting. I'm basically being called a liar and a delusional/crazy person. Especially given the copious amounts of empirical evidence I give to back up each statement I make. But I'm the one that chose to share, so I can't exactly call a foul now.If you are being confronted so often and get angry at people (not just myself) pointing out that your empirical evidence is not evidence, just your interpretations, then maybe, just maybe, it's not others (including myself) who are in error of judgment.
Neither "God," nor historical writings or so-called obvious interpretations of those scriptures with the presumption a mystical God instigated them, can ever amount to evidence.
I enter and remain in these discussions partly for entertainment/amusement.
But there is a serious reason. I feel it my duty to offer you, Headly and all other theist, the option of another way of thinking. Take it or leave it. Does this match your duty to inform me of your God?No, my duty as a fellow human being is to offer insights and wisdom I have gained through life experience to help course correct the trajectory of the discussion involving human existentialism. If I come up with a hypothesis that passes extensive empirical testing, and that hypothesis has to do with the origin of modern humanity, then it is my duty to share my findings. This is our collective history. This is what makes us what we are today. This offers insights into why we are what we are and why we do what we do. No matter if you're an atheist, a theist, or a Capricorn, this is relevant to you.
Not to mention it offers explanation and clarification on one of the single most divisive topics we face today as a collective society.
And no, I don't get angry at people who try to say my evidence is my interpretation. I get angry when I'm accused of being delusional. Big difference. One is a criticism of an idea, the other a criticism of me and my mental stability.
So, if you go into a forum full of believers and they all collectively tell you that your viewpoint is wrong, then should you consider it is you who is in error of judgement? Of course not.
I know, and I have shown, that what I'm showing is not my interpretation. Take the two cut/pasted bits I put side by side earlier. That's not my imagination, nor is it my will, that makes those two explanations match each other so closely. I didn't change a word. You can see for yourself, free of any of my "twisting" or "interpreting". It's undeniable. If you deny it, then that is an error in YOUR judgement. That is you seeing only what you want to see. I don't want to say it's delusion, but .....
My perspective had been labeled delusional by folks whose approach to understanding human existence is purely materialistic and mechanistic. So in your opinion, what is a worse "insult"... absurd or delusional. IMO those are not insults... just differing interpretation and introspection.
I certainly am not in this discussion to sway anyone to my line of thinking... I am here to present as passionately as I can, those beliefs I hold close to my heart, and my brain, and ultimately my mind. The heart and brain might just be material objects to some, but to me they are the ones that keep my mind attuned to a level of consciousness that is second to none in the material world, but which consciousness then allows me to perceive my existence not only physically, but more importantly....transcendentally."So in your opinion, what is a worse "insult"... absurd or delusional. IMO those are not insults... just differing interpretation and introspection."
I disagree. "Absurd" is an observation. A result reached through observation. One scientist will often refer to another scientist's assertion or conclusion as "absurd". It's not meant to be an insult. Just a critique of an idea or explanation.
Delusional, however, is not an interpretation of one's conclusion or assertion, but of their mental state or ability to see things rationally. it's a criticism, not of an idea, but of the mind that formed it.
Are you not familiar with the Earth's water cycle?
"The water cycle, also known as the hydrological cycle or the H2O cycle, describes the continuous movement of water on, above and below the surface of the Earth." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
What do you think clouds are? See, my interpretation is grounded in actual fact. Yours is just your wild imagination tethered to nothing. It's not my imagination that it lines up. Here, let me repeat myself in case you missed it ....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From http://palaeos.com/hadean/hadean.htm#Oceans
"These processes began to occur as soon as the surface cooled enough to allow the water cycle to establish itself. In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions. When temperatures finally cooled sufficiently, the clouds began to melt into rain, and the primordial atmosphere produced storms of unimaginable proportions, under which the Earth groaned and flowed. At first, falling on incandescent rock, the rain evaporated, but the evaporation gradually cooled the crust until the water could accumulate in the depressed regions of the Earth's surface, forming the first oceans....
"Fragment by fragment, formed in the beginning from island chains similar to modern-day volcanic island arcs, the continental crust was born, and so the external land cover of the planet. -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 1:2-7 - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
Genesis 1:9 - And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only ones seeing only what they want to see is you and JCL. I'm seeing a definite comparison that shouldn't be ignored.Sorry. You are wrong and should know it. Only you see the comparison because you are putting words in the bible's mouth. No one else sees it. That should tell you something. It's your imagination, not reality.
You see exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't change a word. The cut/pasted bit from two different sources, both talking about the same period in primordial Earth's history, are undeniably similar. You can't not see it. But you can rationalize away the similarities because you don't want to see it.Why, I don't know. Except in this case your rationalization that I'm changing words doesn't fly because my words aren't in there. No matter your beliefs, that should impress and if you're intellectually honest you should just admit it. There's obviously a strong similarity there. Even if you dismiss it as pure coincidence, you can't deny how similar they are.
I realize you're dealing with a really jacked up preconceived version that's hard to unsee. Something about water floating in nothingness. You go with your assumption that these are just ignorant desert dwellers talking out of their ass about something they know nothing about and go with it. Basically you're not giving it a chance, passing judgement and answering questions prematurely, causing you to see it totally wrong. It's an intellectual flaw. A common one. You take your own interpretation, not studied, not informed in any way, just an amateur reading of an ancient text translated roughly. And in the face of undeniable evidence that should show you your interpretation is clearly wrong, you go with it anyway.
And yes, it's clear the authors aren't knowledgeable. But it's also clear that they're mentioning specific things in a very right order. Here you've got oceans at the start, correct, shrouded in darkness, correct, then light, correct, then the water cycle, correct, then land, correct. After that it's just plants and then animals. All correct. Humans at the end, correct. That's not me. Those things are specifically named. In the right order.
You can't pin this on me. I showed it here uncut. Both specifically say they're speaking about the early Earth, and both explain all these things within a single paragraph, specifically naming half a dozen things right in line with the scientific explanation. Why you won't just acknowledge that is something you're going to have to deal with. But I know you see what I'm talking about. It's painfully apparent. Why you'd even try to continue arguing it is beyond me. Case is closed.What is the objective of your argument, just supposing those Scribes of Old somehow guessed rightly, and we found undeniable proof they did.... what further conclusions would you be suggesting we could draw from that?
Well, first off, I think we're well beyond these simply being lucky guesses. I don't know how else to put it other than what I've said before. This story, if true, is telling our modern human origin story. Science, philosophy, various other schools of thought, are all about discovering ourselves and our place in this world.
There can be no more relevant information than actual recorded history of the age when modern humanity first emerged. Whether or not you buy into the God aspect of the story, it's apparent that what this story is describing is the change in humanity that ushered us into the new modern world of civilizations we know now. It's describing the emergence of the ego and how it affected the world.
When I first started out I wanted to show that a believer's beliefs don't conflict with science. I actually find myself in agreement more often than not with atheists. With the idea of questioning what's established. One of the biggest mistakes I see being made in the atheist movement is the either/or argument they're making. They insist science and God can't co-exist. So, they're basically asking believers to drop their beliefs and embrace science. This is a losing effort from the start. If believers are made to feel they have to give up their beliefs to get on board with science then that's a losing battle even before it begins. We'll still be trying to get evolution taught in schools 20 years from now.
It's all about better understanding. A better understanding of who we are and where we come from. Ultimately, it's about making the world a better place. Offering a view that can be embraced by everyone no matter their beliefs.
Headly, despite our differences of opinion, please don't take the view I am totally against your opinions.
I would offer you reference to a book written by a genius of man, who has a beautifully free yet inquiring mind. He is able to look all the various alternative concepts and demonstrate/compare/describe those concepts in a warm and gentle manner.
He is Malcolm Hollick, and his book "The Science of Oneness," O Books, 2006.
From this I do understand your points of view and your focus although at times you might doubt it.
Happy reading.Thank you for the referral. My list of books to read is growing beyond my ability to keep up, but this one has definitely made the list.
"Rather than the mechanical, alienating, meaningless vision of reality bequeathed to us by classical science, I found a living, conscious, interconnected, meaningful and purposeful universe of which we are co-creators."
"In exploring the emerging worldview, my intellectualism became balanced by an appreciation of experiential, intuitive, spiritual and other ways of knowing. I began to understand the limitations of human knowledge, and to look for ways to test the reliability of what we think we know that complement the scientific method. So the science of oneness is more than a coherent portrait of reality; it is also a holistic way of knowing that comes from personal experience, intuition and an inner sense of rightness as well as from reason and modern science." - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004WDIXFK/re … amp;btkr=1
The two statements above come from that author. They basically say exactly what I've been saying for months. That there are limits to science and what can be known through those methods. That inclusion of everything to be considered requires expanding beyond those limitations. Finding new ways to establish truths. That through classical science alone there's only a "mechanical, alienating, meaningless vision of reality".
This is why I kept pressing you about those contradictions. You were clearly allowing for more, but you'd never get into the specifics of it. This helps me understand. Maybe you don't quite understand yet, but what this guy is talking about is exactly what I've been talking about.I am blessed with knowing Malcolm and his wife as friends.
Yes, you are right, his book is eye-opening to the Inner World of questioning, revelation, awe and wonder. I have no fear of finding my precepts found in error but need time to work through and reach my own conclusions, without feeling pressure by another's presumption.
Going along with the crowd can satisfy our gregarious instincts but also opens the way to socially ostracising those individuals who don't conform in thought, word and deed. It is this that primarily distances me from those who promulgate a judgmental God in their defence. I hope this helps you to further understand my points of view.
Malcolm's book is designed to be approached with a contemplative mood and I am taking it very slowly. Very!I certainly don't mean to pressure. Challenge, yes. Pressure, no.
It's the traditional concepts of religion that pushed me away as well. The pressure to conform to what they insisted was the "right" way... or else. I don't respond well to those types of approaches in general. I tend to rebel. Push back. I'm incredibly stubborn, as I'm sure you've noticed.
That's why I often push into my stance on Satan and hell and all of that, though it's not really relevant to any of this. It seems obvious to me that this whole concept from conception on up is designed to control behavior through fear. To force conformity. Though it's totally counter-intuitive to the whole theme of the biblical stories.
I don't fit the traditional Christian mold very well. For one thing, I cuss like a sailor, and love to do so. I honestly don't know where the idea came from that cussing is somehow anti-Christian, or that if you're going to be a Christian you have to watch your mouth. While I'm sure God will have issues with me and how I've lived my life and choices I've made and such, I certainly don't see Him getting onto me for my fowl mouth.
I also like to question, and the whole concept of traditional Christianity is built on taking what others of the past have determined to be the "truth", and sticking to it at all costs. Like poor Copernicus. I understand his excitement at taking his new knowledge of a sun-centric solar system and pouring back over biblical passages that speak of the sun and the Earth to find further insights.
Even though the church was partly founded by Saint Augustine who stressed the importance of evaluating biblical passages in light of modern demonstrable knowledge, it was still the church and their pride that found issue with Copernicus having the gall to interpret scripture without their "expertise". I find that, and many other things about the church, completely appalling.
That's cool that you know that author. I'd love to have the opportunity to have a discussion with someone who's done the research he has. Maybe you can talk him into stepping into this mess of a forum.Well now that you've seen or discerned a flickering light in the distance... would you go full throttle towards that light?
No Sir, I prefer to take it easy, sampling each and every new experience that presents itself on the way.
There's time to do so. Yet there are things I dream of doing that will have to remain as dreams. Which ones will remain I will not know for certain until the last moment of consciousness.
Compare it with modern-day technology: e.g., anyone who wishes to know what Azolla is can quickly use a digital device and bring up a picture complete with description - and suddenly think of her/him self as well informed. But then comes the work, slowly, carefully, methodically growing it, teasing out each plant and its roots, observing cohabitants such as tiny shrimps, snails; being aware of surrounding life forms, temperature.....and so on, yet speed is not of the essence in study, and the University of Life is no different. Likewise the pursuit of One-ness. At least, that's as I currently see it, for now.The decision to go study something that you have not had the predisposition to study is what I meant by going full throttle. Now that you have decided, sure... you should go as slow as you want, but since time is linear in a relativistic world, you should be mindful of the fact that you may not have all the time there is to complete the task.. Now in the quantum world, the past, the present, and the future could be in one and the same point in the space-time continuum so your slow meandering may fit better in that world.
Who is in a position to determine whether I have completed my task?
You of course. But then again there could be extraneous factors or exigencies that you may not have foreseen which could cut short the time you may have assigned for that task.
Yeah sure. Right order. The sun and stars created after the earth? That the right order? An ocean over our heads because the sky is blue. Is that correct? 13 billion years or 7 days?
Birds born in the sea? Really?
They got sequences right that are obvious sure. No food for us, no water, no space between the ocean and we couldn't live. That had to come first. Even a moron could figure that out if they thought about it.
There is an apparently infinate ocean to those who never sailed it. A small bit of known land. Not a planet. They couldn't guess that.
And stop pretending I'm saying you change the words on the page. You know I mean you interpret them differently than they are written. They don't mean what you claim they mean. They are pretty precises and scholars for the last 2000 years have had no problem reading the text as written. There is no controversy about the first part of Gen.
All you are doing is reinterpreting it in a way you think matches last centuries science. It clearly doesn't.Um, yes, birds did come from the sea. And yes, the bit about the sun/stars throws off most. But that also happens to be the age when the atmosphere changed from translucent (no visible sun/stars) to transparent. Plus, between the emergence of plants on land and the emergence of animal life the continents moved from beneath the planet around the south pole to between the poles, which of course would actually "set" the sun/moon/stars in the sky just as it describes. Of course I'm probably just being overimaginative again.
"They got sequences right that are obvious sure. No food for us, no water, no space between the ocean and we couldn't live. That had to come first. Even a moron could figure that out if they thought about it."
Yet, scientists didn't put this sequence together until about 20 years ago, but you're probably right, these "ignorant" desert dwellers probably did put that all together themselves.
"There is an apparently infinate ocean to those who never sailed it. A small bit of known land. Not a planet. They couldn't guess that."
No, they couldn't guess that. What's described is described from a human (from the surface) point of view.
"And stop pretending I'm saying you change the words on the page. You know I mean you interpret them differently than they are written. They don't mean what you claim they mean. They are pretty precises and scholars for the last 2000 years have had no problem reading the text as written. There is no controversy about the first part of Gen."
It's not interpretation. With the exception of the water cycle (a modern name) all the things listed are called by name. There's no interpretation. Beyond that it's a simple matter of reading what's there. It gives a specific point of view. It says God's spirit was on "the surface of the water" when He said "Let there be light". From that point of view, just as the scientific explanation supports, what is described is what would be seen. In that order.
I know it's easier for you to believe that a believer just wants it to be true so bad that he'd twist it all up. What you're clearly not considering is the high improbability of me actually being able to do that just by twisting the meaning of a few words. I'm taking 30 something consecutive verses and tying them to a consistent and sequential series of events as described by the scientific explanation of the Earth's formation. It's just absurd to think I could actually do that. Especially considering how many things are specifically named. Oceans, the water cycle, land, plant life, life in the sea, life on land, humans, all in order.
So we've got two competing explanations. One lines up 30+ consecutive verses with consecutive history, the other supposes these people were so ignorant that they thought the ocean was the blue sky, but were smart enough to figure out the sequence of creations. One is much more likely to be true than the other. It's common sense."They got sequences right that are obvious sure. No food for us, no water, no space between the ocean and we couldn't live. That had to come first. Even a moron could figure that out if they thought about it."
"Yet, scientists didn't put this sequence together until about 20 years ago, but you're probably right, these "ignorant" desert dwellers probably did put that all together themselves."
Is that the silliest thing I've heard yet? Pretty close. It's obvious, and has been for a long time to thousands of cultures who all pretty much say the same things. Many where the universe starts with water, and water over us. Native american cultures for example.
And what are you talking about when you say scientists didn't put this sequence together until about 20 years ago?If you go and read any encyclopedia or science text from roughly 40 years ago you'll see very different explanations about the formations of the oceans and land. It was always thought that the continents were just the crust of the Earth that stuck up above an ocean that filled in the low spots. They didn't know about plate tectonics. And they didn't think the oceans formed first. They knew about how the planet formed as a hot mass and cooled, where water even came from was a bit of a mystery for a long while.
You're talking like they're obvious, yet they weren't obvious to this age's greatest minds.No, plate tectonics have nothing to do with the bible. What is obvious is that space, land, water food etc has to exist before we can That's what they figured out.
Well, fine. At least you're acknowledging the accuracy of Genesis without it being my word twisting wizardry at work. I'll take that.
But yes, with plate tectonics, you've got a process that much more resembles what's described than what was thought before. It says, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" So, like so many other things, the more we in this modern age figure out the more it lines up with what's described. This is another example of something only recently realized that helps make the accuracy of Genesis more apparent.Well don't be too happy about it. It's obvious and many cultures figured that out.
But plate tectonics do you no good. “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear” He doesn't use plate tectonics, he gathers water into one place and dry land appears. Doesn't sound like tectonic plates to me.Again, the proper context is the actual events of the Earth's creation. The description says, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."
Well, here's an artist's conception of the supercontinent Rodinia ...
Again, it would seem what happened very much resembles what's described.
"No, they couldn't guess that. What's described is described from a human (from the surface) point of view. "
Only to you. But your interpretation doesn't make sense since it's before the earth was created. I don't buy your interpretation that the earth is already there before the book starts. No one but you reads it that way.
The opening line tells you what was done, the rest tells how. That's obvious, and your strange interpretation depends on that not being the case. Right from the first lines your interpretation fails, but you refuse to accept that even though you know no Jewish scholar supports your view.How else do you read "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth"? It was created 'in the beginning'. Then, the next line starts with "And the Earth...." and it describes it. It describes it as "formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep". So there's an Earth being described. It exists because it has oceans. Or what it calls "the deep".
Like the Jews read it. It tells us what he did and then how, God hovered over the ocean of heaven, not planet earth. He made a space in that ocean. A bubble. He calls the bubble sky. In the bubble he raises land from the ocean below on the third day, and calls it earth or land. Not 9.5 billion years after he creates heaven or sky.Not before he hovers over ocean.That's what it says.
It doesn't matter the language, when you read a text without the proper context, leaving only the imagination to fill in the gaps, then you're going to come up with something like this. However, the proper context of the text is that it describes itself as an account of the creation of the Earth. So the only proper way to actually read it is to do so against the account of the Earth's actual formation. And when you do so there are definite markers in the text to account for each era of the Earth's history. In order. And where detail is given, like in the water above/below description or the firmament coming from the 'midst of the waters', those things prove to be accurate as well. Just as the land coming after oceans, from the midst of the oceans, is also right.
" and it describes it. It describes it as "formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep".
And so tell me how an ocean is on something formless and void?
Makes no sense. It didn't happen that way in reality either. A star went nova creating a massive dust and gas cloud. As the cloud cooled it condensed. When it reached critical mass it became our sun. The ignition caused a solar wind that blew part of the cloud away from itself. Those clouds condensed, but didn't reach critical mass and became the planets.
The earth was hot, unable to contain water. No evidence exists to say the earth was ever completely covered with water at the same time, though most has been covered with water at different times, including places covered in ice.
But there was always, as far as we know, dry land once the earth cooled enough.
So, the bible story doesn't match reality.As a matter of interest, where would most of the water have come from?
From combustion? (Water is a product of combustion.)
From fusion, (lightning in the electrically-charged atmosphere)?
Was it produced from O2 and H2 already present in the Earth's gaseous mass?C. The water vapor that helped form the Earth's first atmosphere came from all the heavy volcanic activity.
Actual combustion like fires wouldn't happen unit biology. Trees burn, rocks don't. Hydrogen can't be ignited without oxygen, and oxygen wasn't in the atmosphere in enough quantity to allow combustion until bacteria started producing it on a massive scale. Methane ignites only at 14 to one. Lower and little chance of ignition. No air, no ignition Too much, same result. Same with any combustible gas. They all have specific air to gas ratios for combustion.
Water would have come from ice in the gas cloud that formed the earth along with comet strikes during formation.
You're, again, reading it with a modern mind. You're thinking of "formless and void" as the Earth itself having no form. Imagine you're standing outside. You see trees, the sea, some animals, grassy hills, etc. The person doing the describing is pointing to each thing, describing how and when each thing came about. At the beginning, none of that was there. It was "formless and void". Void of any trees or grass or land. Nothing had formed yet.
The creation account never says the planet was completely covered by water. But because the crust of the Earth today is completely submerged, and we can only see the continental land masses, then it stands to reason that before the formation of those continental land masses the crust of the Earth was completely submerged initially. But, even if it wasn't, it was primarily covered with water. Oceans, or "the deep" existed, which is all that's required for the Genesis account to be accurate.The creation account never says the planet was completely covered by water.
I think it does. He hovers over the water, divides it creating a bubble, then moves the water under heaven, showing some dry land. He had to move water to show land, and that means the land was covered with water.I can assure you it never says bubble.
Well, that's what happened. The tectonic activity that spewed forth the continental land masses were under the sea. The land literally came up from the sea, gathering the sea into one place since the entirety of the Earth's continental land mass initially formed into one gigantic supercontinent. One giant continent, one giant ocean.Yeah, but the earth wasn't all covered in water. And no, it doesn't say bubble, it says sheet. But it amounts to the same thing. The sheet is bent, holding an ocean at bay. He creates a firmament between the sheet and the ocean below. He puts stars in it
There's not a single translation of Genesis 1 that says "sheet". Try searching for "Genesis 1 sheet". Not a single hit has that word in the text. Both the "sheet" and the "bubble" were added by you.
"Most of the Earth was covered with oceans..." - http://quatr.us/geology/eras/archaean.htm
Nothing in the text contradicts that.
The text says nothing like what you said. You have to remove your own stuff and just see what's actually there. No, Earth's history doesn't line up with your version, but your version doesn't line up with the text either.
And here's the rest of the paragraph that above quote is from as it's relevant to the discussion ...
"Just a little bit of land was forming as volcanoes began to poke out of the water. Most of the rocks were igneous or metamorphic like granite or quartz. But the earliest sedimentary rocks like sandstone also formed, mainly in the oceans, during this time." - http://quatr.us/geology/eras/archaean.htmReally? I thought you knew the mechanical translation.
And Elohiym (powers) said: a sheet will exist in the midst of the water, and he existed making a separation between water to water.
And Elohiym (powers) made the sheet, and he made a separation between the water which is under the sheet and the water which is upon the sheet, and it existed so.
And Elohiym (powers) called out to the sheet sky, and morning existed a second day.
And this is what the Jews believed and perhaps still believe. Your interpretation just doesn't work here, as I've been telling you for months now. This is clear. There is an ocean in heaven. we sit in a bubble under a sheet between the ocean of heaven.
Obviously rubbish, but that's what the bible says, and up to 2 or three hundred years ago, so did Christian scholars. Even Aquinas said it was clear that the sky was solid.Well, one interpretation is complete jibberish, the other lines up consistently and in order with over a dozen speficially named events. One was formed before the events of the Earth's history were known, the other after. Which is the only correct context according to what the text itself claims to be.
The text claims to be an account of the events of Earth's history, and I have shown that it lines up. So even people who knew even less about the natural world than those who came up with the translation you're talking about, were able to give a much more accurate account.Right. you know more than the Jews about how to translate Hebrew. Sorry, clearly you are just trying to fix something was bad when it was conceived. But you can't. It says what it says and they believed what they believed and your interpretation lines up with nothing. You fail with the first words.
I could show you web sites that contradict yours, but you know too well they exist. As far as I know there is no actual evidence of a completely flooded earth. At first there was no water, only very hot molten rock. Never mentioned in the bible.
I'm not sure what your fascination with this totally covered ocean Earth is about. Yes, at first it was hot molten rock. Completely shrouded in dense atmosphere made up primarily of water vapor. The atmosphere actually helped cool the surface of the Earth enough for the outer crust to harden. Once it did the water vapor condensed into oceans and formed on that crust.
It's not mentioned in the bible because the explanation of the Earth's formation begins after that point. But from that point on it lines up correctly with Earth's history. When it describes it as having oceans and shrouded in darkness, that is indeed a period of Earth's history that happened before land, the "firmament", etc.
Yes, there are a number of translations that contradict mine. Most all of them were formed without the correct context of the Earth's history. As St. Augustine one said, "interpretation of scripture must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge". The current state of demonstrable knowledge in the time when I came up with mine is much more informed than it was when others came up with theirs.It, among other things proves Gen wrong. Simple as that.
Sure, keep telling yourself that. Now that I've shown you you can see it. You won't be able to unsee it. It's all right there. You can try to act like it isn't there, but now you know better. Face it.
Here, this, among many other things, proves Genesis right. It's as simple as that.
See, the real issue here, I think, is what comes next after acknowledging this is true. The ramifications of what that means might be a little jarring. So, naturally, you want to reject it initially. But your logical/rational mind will only let you neglect it for so long. When it all lines up like this, you can't ignore it forever. Eventually, you have to face it, and all that comes with it.
The truth can be jarring, especially when it turns out to be something other than what you thought.
