|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 3, 2010 12:46:48 GMT -5
Er, I just mean that "right" and "wrong" have different meanings in different cultures; and the bigger the gap between cultures, the bigger those differences tend to be.
For example, in some cultures it's okay to eat beef, but you must not eat pork; in other cultures, it's the other way around. That's a very superficial example, but it makes the point.
And that's at the level of cultures within the same species; imagine what a completely different species that has essentially no common ancestry at all would be like. So much of human behaviour is based on our common ancestry - the fact that we're mammals, that we reproduce sexually, that vision is our strongest sense, that we're omnivores, etc. Change any of these major details and you'd change human behaviour, perhaps beyond recognition. (I want to give a literary example here, but I don't want to spoil Ender's Game for anyone who hasn't read it. ^__^ Those of you who have read it will know what I'm talking about.)
As for myth, you have to ask yourself: What is more likely? That sentient, civilized life forms from another planet found Earth, traveled untold lightyears to get here, introduced themselves to us in some way, and then eventually left for some reason - or that people have always enjoyed making up and retelling neat stories? In the absence of proof either way, I tend to side with the answer that demands the least effort from my imagination.
~TWF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 12:55:37 GMT -5
According to myth we were created by other life forms, and that would mean Earth was like a lab for them. Also, according to myth they left because they were forced out for cruelties against man. Think space PETA or somethng. I would beleive it was all made up by human imagination if it didn't globally re-accure in nearly every civilization.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but the biggest text that says we were created was in the Bible when God said "let us create man in our own image."
When applied to the ancient atronaut theory man myths talk about people being created by gods, or aliens.
I could see scientist populating a planet, but things going wrong and abandoning it, or simply setting back and observing.
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 3, 2010 13:20:28 GMT -5
Saying "according to myth" is a little like saying "according to my fortune cookie", though. It's fun to think about, but at the end of the day it's just a story. ^__^
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 13:23:57 GMT -5
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but the biggest text that says we were created was in the Bible when God said "let us create man in our own image." Ugh. Okay, so... here's the thing. Please stop reading the Bible. I never thought I'd say this to anyone, but you read the Bible, in English, and draw WILD conclusions that you then adapt to your overarching theory without any point of reference for the original meaning of the the writing. This is much like our discussion of nephilim. Yes. If you take that one verse alone, in English, and ignore all context, every other use of similar language within the Bible, and so on, it seems as if God is saying that he created man to look like himself. But that's not at all what he's getting at. God is talking about the fact that initially, man was blameless and without sin. Not only is this blatant in the original semitic language, it's obvious if you just look at the rest of the similar references throughout the Old and New Testaments (particularly, the writers Luke and Paul, both very well-educated men of their own time who understood not only the religious aspects of the Torah but the historical as well). In a wider sense... you cannot take one verse from the Bible and use it as evidence of something, while ignoring the entire rest of the text. If God's statement regarding his creation of man is meaningful, then how can you ignore every other statement he makes regarding himself. Specifically, the fact that he refers to himself as Eternal, having existed forever, and as being a singular (though triune), unique being, not part of a group. The number of references made by God directly to the fact that he has no equal, and that there are no other God's which are not made of man is pretty daunting. Sure, you can say all of that stuff was written by man, or misinterpreted, or whatever you want to say... but by extension that means that your quote, that God created man in his own image, is equally suspect and therefore, worthless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 13:50:08 GMT -5
Saying "according to myth" is a little like saying "according to my fortune cookie", though. It's fun to think about, but at the end of the day it's just a story. ^__^ ~TWF Of course, I'm agnostic. Nothing in myth or religion of this nature can or can't be proved. I as specifically saying what I wanted to say, because the last thing I want is for anyone reading it to think I actually believed it. I’m just translating the myths by theory that there could be life on other planets, and we could, or did end up meeting up with them. Which was on topic. Okay, so... here's the thing. Please stop reading the Bible. I never thought I'd say this to anyone, but you read the Bible, in English, and draw WILD conclusions that you then adapt to your overarching theory without any point of reference for the original meaning of the the writing. This is much like our discussion of nephilim. It’s free Forum, free country. So, I will read, and say what I want thank you very much. I respect your way of beliefs, so please respect mine, or lack of. Either way, no thank you. I spent eight years in a Christian school, and have went to church more than that. I have as much of a right to quote the bible as anybody. Yes. If you take that one verse alone, in English, and ignore all context, every other use of similar language within the Bible, and so on, it seems as if God is saying that he created man to look like himself. But that's not at all what he's getting at. God is talking about the fact that initially, man was blameless and without sin. Not only is this blatant in the original semitic language, it's obvious if you just look at the rest of the similar references throughout the Old and New Testaments (particularly, the writers Luke and Paul, both very well-educated men of their own time who understood not only the religious aspects of the Torah but the historical as well). That’s all well and good, but it’s not actually what the verse says. It’s just assuming you know what it means rather than reading the text verbatim. The truth is nobody knows, or will ever know the truth. In a wider sense... you cannot take one verse from the Bible and use it as evidence of something, while ignoring the entire rest of the text. If God's statement regarding his creation of man is meaningful, then how can you ignore every other statement he makes regarding himself. Specifically, the fact that he refers to himself as Eternal, having existed forever, and as being a singular (though triune), unique being, not part of a group. The number of references made by God directly to the fact that he has no equal, and that there are no other God's which are not made of man is pretty daunting. Again, I covered that when I mentioned that when the white man first came to the new world they first thought the same thing about them. Shiny armor, booming technology, they just assumed they were gods. Also, assuming God was the only thing why would it say “Let US create man in our own image.” Who else could he be talking too? I mean, verbatim he’s saying that he didn’t do it alone. I’ve read the whole thing, and other text too. I also used examples my Mesopotamian cultures, and the war of the gods spans every mythology. So, don’t say I took the one verse. I know how it is when people take one verse and make an outrageous claim. I’ve seen it at many of church sermon. This isn’t what that is. This is just also including other cultures. There were also the countless times that humans encountered Angels in the bible that looked like humans. If the verse said “Let us create man in our own image,” and then angels start showing up that looked human then it’s a no brainer. According to that religion we look like them. Sure, you can say all of that stuff was written by man, or misinterpreted, or whatever you want to say... but by extension that means that your quote, that God created man in his own image, is equally suspect and therefore, worthless. Of course, I never said that either way was false. I said according to the myth that ancient astronauts were what was here it could theoretically have worked the way I described it. As I’ve pointed out before, nothing can actually be proved or disproved. It’s just a free forum discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 3, 2010 13:52:41 GMT -5
 ~TWF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 13:58:11 GMT -5
I love gummie bears. After seeing this I just may buy some at the store today. I remember when I was kid there was this candy shop, and they had gummie everything. Gummie dinousaurs, dolphins, and chocolate covered candies. Some day I'm going to find a good candy store, and stock up.
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 14:13:13 GMT -5
You're missing the point. I'm not offended. I'm bothered by the fact that you continually claim to be working from a scholarly context when you refuse to acknowledge that "reading something verbatim" is not the best way to interpret... well, anything. Ever. Context, both textual and historical, as well as understanding the differences between the language you're reading it in and the language it was originally published in, are very important.
<Edit> The "we" is a pretty clear reference to the Trinity. Contrary to popular belief, the concept of the triune God is laced throughout the Old Testament.
From Barnes
"The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, "I have dreamed a dream" Genesis 41:15. Nebuchadnezzar, "I have dreamed" Daniel 2:3. Darius the Mede, "I make a decree" Daniel 6:26. Cyrus, "The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth" Ezra 1:2. Darius, "I make a decree" Ezra 5:8. We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression "let us make" is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, "our image, our likeness," when transferred into the third person of narrative, become "his image, the image of God," and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, "let us make." Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being."
In other words... one God, multiple aspects. Trinity.
To use the interpretation that He (God) wasn't solely responsible for creation means that this one quote you've chosen, alone, reveals God's true nature as one of many, while every other statement he ever makes about himself in the Old Testament is a lie. That's a pretty massive stretch, don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 14:17:01 GMT -5
Okay, I'm glad you're not offended, because that was never min intention. Also, reading something verbatim is the only way to know exactly what the author meant. Otherwise it's just guess work.
Also, a very important question to you personally. Have you actually read the bible in its Hebrew language or just translation of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 14:23:10 GMT -5
Also, a very important question to you personally. Have you actually read the bible in its Hebrew language or just translation of it? I'm in the process of learning to read Hebrew, so I can't say I have. Other languages are not my talent. |
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 14:24:24 GMT -5
Also, reading something verbatim is the only way to know exactly what the author meant. Otherwise it's just guess work. Uh... that is so far beyond untrue that I can't even begin to address it as a serious statement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 14:49:01 GMT -5
It's pretty cool you're learning Hebrew. I've been learning French, Spanish, and Italian. They all have a Latin root so it’s not as hard. Also, reading something verbatim is the only way to know exactly what the author meant. Otherwise it's just guess work. Uh... that is so far beyond untrue that I can't even begin to address it as a serious statement. lol, so in other words you think it's okay to just believe whatever, and interpret what you read however you want regardless of what the text actually says, because if you don’t read verbatim that’s exactly what you’re doing. I've seen this happen time and time again. However this is a debate for another time. I’ve got an internetworking book I have to read now. Finals are week after next. |
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 15:09:29 GMT -5
[quote author=kidmarvel board=chatter thread=13237 post=252408 time=1291405741
lol, so in other words you think it's okay to just believe whatever, and interpret what you read however you want regardless of what the text actually says, because if you don’t read verbatim that’s exactly what you’re doing. I've seen this happen time and time again. However this is a debate for another time. I’ve got an internetworking book I have to read now. Finals are week after next.
[/quote]
Uh... no. That's exactly my point. It's NOT okay to take a passage or statement, decide what you think it means, and roll with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2010 15:34:08 GMT -5
Of course, and you admittedly did the same thing by saying "You can't read it verbatim." and assuming the text meant something it didn't say. That is why the truth will never be known, and there are so many different denominations, and ways of beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 3, 2010 15:37:45 GMT -5
Of course, and you admittedly did the same thing by saying "You can't read it verbatim." and assuming the text meant something it didn't say. That is why the truth will never be known, and there are so many different denominations, and ways of beliefs. "The truth" may never be known, but there is such a thing as "proper interpretation." The fact that you believe its acceptable to ignore context is, quite honestly, blowing my mind. I would be less confused if you said you thought that everything ever written was created by Stevie Wonder. |
|
