13 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you'd reject the retreating ice sheets and resulting sea level changes around 10,000 BCE as being the basis for some of these myths? I rather like that notion.
The geologic evidence is as clear as any scientific evidence can be: there was no world wide flood - EVER! Unless Satan has messed with the Earth's physical features to hide such evidence, the world wide flood assertion is not credible. Therefore, the derivation of the flood myths must be found in the cultural history of Man, not in non-existent physical evidence.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by David CThose sea level changes were gradual and took place over thousands of years. I find the creation of similar myths of a single, cataclysmic event springing up all over the globe due to this gradual process to be most unlikely. I feel the most logical explanation is the "proto-myth" theory.
So you'd reject the retreating ice sheets and resulting sea level changes around 10,000 BCE as being the basis for some of these myths? I rather like that notion.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the "proto-myth" idea is interesting. Can you recommend a site that goes through it?
Those sea level changes were gradual and took place over thousands of years. I find the creation of similar myths of a single, cataclysmic event springing up all over the globe due to this gradual process to be most unlikely. I feel the most logical explanation is the "proto-myth" theory.
Since my deconversion from xtianity, I've always assumed that the other flood myths that I encountered had different origins(most of them were from ancient S. and C. American texts, since Spanish was one of my majors in college).
I assumed that within regions different peoples may have drawn their flood stories from a similar source, but not every people in the world.
The idea is, much like the "proto-myth" hypothesis, that major flood events are so cataclysmic that recollections of them make an indelible mark on a culture's cultural history. Over time these accounts become legends and eventually, as parsimony would have it, one either dominates the others or they all sort of meld into a super-diluvian myth.
Since floods happen in most places in the world, it should not surprise us that "flood-myths" are common. If a people lives in an arid or high, mountainous region, where flooding is impossible or extremely unlikely, then the myth may have been adopted from another group somewhere in the wider region or descended from an earlier group from which these people are an off-shoot.
Still I would like to see some of these myths from widely-different parts of the world so that I can look at the specific similarities and decide whether I think it lends credibility to many different floods or one unique flood.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by telerionThere is a collection of hundreds of flood myths at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html. There are, of course, significant differences in almost all of them. To me, that doesn't invalidate the "proto-myth" theory; if the original myth developed in Africa or the Middle East early in Man's existence it would be expected that different cultures would change some of the basics of the story over the many millennia that it was spread orally throughout the world. To clarify, the "proto-myth" theory does NOT rely on the existence on ANY single, great flood; it could simply be a early religious story with a tenous basis in reality (i.e. there are floods) but not meant to be a historical description of any one of them.
I think the "proto-myth" idea is interesting. Can you recommend a site that goes through it?
Since my deconversion from xtianity, I've always assumed that the other flood myths that I encountered had different origins(most of them were from ancient S. and C. American texts, since Spanish was one of my majors in college).
I assumed that within re ...[text shortened]... es and decide whether I think it lends credibility to many different floods or one unique flood.
I will try to find a site discussing some version of the "proto-myth" theory, but to be honest, I don't remember where or if I heard the idea expressed. I don't remember if I came across it in readings as the "proto-myth" theory or not. Since Coletti says NO ONE has any original thoughts, I must have "stole" the idea from somewhere, though. The argument for the theory is inductive: A) There are flood myths throughout the globe that are similar in details (mankind destroyed but for a few); B) Geology shows that there is no reasonable possibility of a world wide flood; C) The idea of similar myths springing up in diverse places all over the world seems unlikely; D) Therefore, it seems logical that the myths had a common ancestor and that ancestor myth would have had to have been developed early in Man's existence to spread throughout the world with him. There are places in the argument where evidence, if it exists, could seriously weaken it (proof of significant cross-cultural contacts between MesoAmerica and other parts of the world prior to the European invasions, for example, so I keep an open mind on the subject.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by flyUnityI find it rather alarming that you don't get it. Do you really believe that life doesn't have a value because we (I know we were talking about animals and you probably don't count humans as animals, but if the argument works for animals, why should it not work for humans? ) are going to die anyway, and that it's therefore okay to kill? If you were the one to be killed, do you think you would still keep that standpoint and say to yourself "oh, I would have died some day anyway, so it doesn't really matter"?
Every animal has to die, does that mean its cruel when they die because of drowning? but no cruel when they die of old age, or any other way. I just dont get what your trying to say
Ben
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by NordlysI was never good at agueing with somone who argues for animal rights. I been around wild animals all my life, and I respect them, however I do not veiw them even close to humans, as they have no soul, I can understand why you think so highly of them, If I thought they was my ancesters, I would to lol. I watched wild animals suffer because of diseases and starvation etc, and I dont think God is cruel by allowing them to suffer, thats just a way of life
I find it rather alarming that you don't get it. Do you really believe that life doesn't have a value because we (I know we were talking about animals and you probably don't count humans as animals, but if the argument works for animals, why should it not work for humans? ) are going to die anyway, and that it's therefore okay to kill? If you were the on ...[text shortened]... int and say to yourself "oh, I would have died some day anyway, so it doesn't really matter"?
13 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flyUnityHave you ever seen a Gorilla up close? Have you ever seen them taking care of their young? I would be amazed if you had and yet also maintained that they had no soul. Perhaps this is just ignorance on your part, rather than callousness. I certainly hope so.
I was never good at agueing with somone who argues for animal rights. I been around wild animals all my life, and I respect them, however I do not veiw them even close to humans, as they have no soul, I can understand why you think so high ...[text shortened]... God is cruel by allowing them to suffer, thats just a way of life
http://www.hedweb.com/gorilfam.jpg
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by flyUnityWhile I do believe that humans and some (other) animals have the same ancestors, my point has nothing to do with it. I don't know whether animals have a soul or not, or whether some have and some don't. I am not sure how much relevance that has for the value of life anyway. Actually if you believe that the soul will survive the body's and mind's death, wouldn't life be *more* important for beings without a soul, since they wouldn't have anything left when they die?
I was never good at agueing with somone who argues for animal rights. I been around wild animals all my life, and I respect them, however I do not veiw them even close to humans, as they have no soul, I can understand why you think so highly of them, If I thought they was my ancesters, I would to lol. I watched wild animals suffer because of diseases and starvation etc, and I dont think God is cruel by allowing them to suffer, thats just a way of life
I certainly wouldn't call myself an animal rights activist. I even eat fish myself, and if I don't eat meat, it's mostly because I don't like the taste. I agree with you that suffering is part of life, and it's also part of life that some animals (including humans) eat other animals. But killing an animal because you are hungry is something entirely different than deciding to deliberately kill almost all animals for no reason whatsoever.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrI saw a fascinating feature on elefants some years ago, which among other things showed a mother mourning for her son. She isolated herself from the flock for a long time, and even one year later, she would stop when she passed by the place where he had died, and mourn (at least it's hard to find any other explanation for the very special behaviour she exhibited in these situations).
Have you ever seen a Gorilla up close? Have you ever seen them taking care of their young? I would be amazed if you had and yet also maintained that they had no soul. Perhaps this is just ignorance on your part, rather than callousness. I certainly hope so.
[b]http://www.hedweb.com/gorilfam.jpg
[/b]
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by NordlysHave you ever deliberately stepped on an ant or any other bug, yea I know they are small, but only relative to you, I'm sure you have. Whats the difference between that and an elephant? besides the size.
While I do believe that humans and some (other) animals have the same ancestors, my point has nothing to do with it. I don't know whether animals have a soul or not, or whether some have and some don't. I am not sure how much relevance that has for the value of life anyway. Actually if you believe that the soul will survive the body's and mind's death, w ...[text shortened]... tirely different than deciding to deliberately kill almost all animals for no reason whatsoever.
God created animals for man, not man for animals, so no It wasnt cruel of God
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by flyUnityYes, I have. I kill spiders because I have arachnophobia. I kill midges because the hum drives me crazy and I don't like to get stung. I sometimes kill bugs just because they are somewhat annoying. I am not proud of it, and I know my reasons are not very good. But I never claimed to be perfect. Your god does, and the killing of the animals by the flood had much bigger proportions and, as far as I can see, *no* reason.
Have you ever deliberately stepped on an ant or any other bug, yea I know they are small, but only relative to you, I'm sure you have.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by flyUnityBut my children were recently indocrinated in their school that christians value the word and the creatures in it by the village vicar.
God created animals for man, not man for animals, so no It wasnt cruel of God
I'd guess one of you (flyUnity or the local vicar) is lying. But then I'd expect nothing less from jesus cultists.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou are understanding me wrong, I do value animals, and the world, Very much to say so, I argued with a person once who thought I shouldnt kill a cactus that was in my yard, because it was a living plant, Im saying I value it, but there is no way Im going to keep it in my yard, just because its a living object
But my children were recently indocrinated in their school that christians value the word and the creatures in it by the village vicar.
I'd guess one of you (flyUnity or the local vicar) is lying. But then I'd expect nothing less from jesus cultists.