- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't deny that writing serves a number of purposes. I did not say that writing develops only out of a desire for commercial self-preservation. Religion is obviously another powerful motivation to develop a writing script. In fact, historically, the oldest written records have tended to have been religious in nature. Even epic narratives, like Gilgamesh, probably had some religious orientation.
the point about technology has been made previously, that writing was not needed until commerce took place or laws were established to protect certain interests growing from the establishment of large cities. I find this a little unsatisfactory for clearly there are instances of writing having been committed for other purposes, for example the roset ...[text shortened]... ple may argue that we are getting taller, living for longer, but we are still essentially human.
However, even acknowledging that, I do not see why any society until recently would want to invest in writing. Indigenous Australians, who have inhabited this land for 50,000 years or so according to the prevalent scientific opinion, never developed any writing script. Why? Because there was no functional purpose. Indigenous Australians had a very advanced oral tradition which they had committed to memory. There was no need to write.
I can only imagine writing would become a necessity until the development of large poleis, that is, cities or towns. The written word could then serve as an authoritative standard when there is disagreement in a religious, legal or commercial matter.
21 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes i understand, its the same with the ancient Celts, they wrote very little down, however it appears that indeed with the Celts, they saw necessity to invent the Ogham alphabet (in reality markings made on a tree/stick) although no one really knows why and fairly recently too , dated from 1-4 AD i think, even the ancient indigenous populations of Australia have a pictorial and symbolic representation of their society and ideals, that the earliest remain from the top of my head being dated to about 10,000 years or so ago, its simply so hard to reconcile this if we have apparently been human for so long. 🙂
I don't deny that writing serves a number of purposes. I did not say that writing develops only out of a desire for commercial self-preservation. Religion is obviously another powerful motivation to develop a writing script. In fact, historically, the oldest written records have tended to have been religious in nature. Even epic narratives, like Gilgames n authoritative standard when there is disagreement in a religious, legal or commercial matter.
21 Nov 10
1 edit
The myth of Adam and Eve is a rich one full of significant mythic meanings. But to try and make it scientific is ludicrous. The attempt arises from the false claim that the compiled book of ancient writings known as "The Holy Bible" is the direct "Word of God" and not ever to be messed with, and whatever interpretation the particular group has is the sole and only legitimate one.
It is not to destroy faith that is the object, but to confront the arrogant assuming of total infallibility on all areas, scientific, moral, social, psychology, archeology. etc. based on an ancient collection of writings compiled over thousands of years. This is not meant either to disparage them for what they are and the spiritual importance they hold in various degrees to three religions from the same region.
There is often little respect shown towards the spiritual/philosophical journeys of other ancient (and modern) cultures. No wonder people react to such blithering ill-studied arrogance!
Another form of science, the science of archeology, shows that the claim that somehow the Bible popped into existence leather-bound from heaven is also totally at odds with ancient literary analysis and archeology.
One finding has been the discovery that the ancient Babylonians had myths with very many similarities to the Adam and Eve myth, the Garden of Eden, and the Noah story. These are some of the earliest stories from some of the earliest human civilizations and are very important in human history, but science they are not! They contain some spiritual meanings but in the form of ancient myths.
edits:typographical
21 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Taomanyou have stated that scripture is uninspired, evidence, nil. Indeed archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy. It appears to me that you know not of its contents, for it contains not only so called 'myths', (your term), but history, proverbial utterances, cultural aspects, prophecy, poetry, practical principles, moral and ethical principles etc etc . To state that its 'myth', is well, you know, rather ignorant to be honest.
The myth of Adam and Eve is a rich one full of significant mythic meanings. But to try and make it scientific is ludicrous. The attempt arises from the false claim that the compiled book of ancient writings known as "The Holy Bible" is the direct "Word of God" and not ever to be messed with, and whatever interpretation the particular group has is the sole and ...[text shortened]... science they are not! They contain some spiritual meanings but in the form of ancient myths.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI didn't use that word. Some writings in the collection from numerous ancient cultures, written in different languages and dialects, known as the Bible, do have inspired and wonderful bits. One section that I like are the Psalms of David. Another is the Creation stories, read as mythic poetry.
you have stated that scripture is uninspired, evidence, nil. Indeed archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy. It appears to me that you know not of its contents, for it contains not only so called 'myths', (your term), but history, proverbial utterances, cultural aspects, prophecy, poetry, practical principles, moral ...[text shortened]... ciples etc etc . To state that its 'myth', is well, you know, rather ignorant to be honest.
If by inspired you mean given by "God" directly, no, I do not think that of any sacred writings. I do however believe in all the sacred writings of humanity there are profound segments that speak to the spirit of man.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanSome of the evidence I referred to can be located via this page:
I didn't use that word. Some writings in the collection from numerous ancient cultures, written in different languages and dialects, known as the Bible, do have inspired and wonderful bits. One section that I like are the Psalms of David. Another is the Creation stories, read as mythic poetry.
If by inspired you mean given by "God" directly, no, I do not ...[text shortened]... the sacred writings of humanity there are profound segments that speak to the spirit of man.
http://sh1.webring.com/people/np/paul_tobin/babylonian.html
Look up Babylonian history if you wish.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by Taomanok, i apologise for my harsh tone, you see one gets a kind of siege mentality.
I didn't use that word. Some writings in the collection from numerous ancient cultures, written in different languages and dialects, known as the Bible, do have inspired and wonderful bits. One section that I like are the Psalms of David. Another is the Creation stories, read as mythic poetry.
If by inspired you mean given by "God" directly, no, I do not ...[text shortened]... the sacred writings of humanity there are profound segments that speak to the spirit of man.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by Taomani have read many accounts of comparisons of ancient creation accounts, indeed i am sure there was a thread on here at one point specifically detailing a comparison between the Biblical account and others 🙂
Some of the evidence I referred to can be located via this page:
http://sh1.webring.com/people/np/paul_tobin/babylonian.html
Look up Babylonian history if you wish.
21 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet me further comment to your further edited post.
you have stated that scripture is uninspired, evidence, nil. Indeed archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy. It appears to me that you know not of its contents, for it contains not only so called 'myths', (your term), but history, proverbial utterances, cultural aspects, prophecy, poetry, practical principles, moral ...[text shortened]... ciples etc etc . To state that its 'myth', is well, you know, rather ignorant to be honest.
My knowledge of the scripture are based on significant study. I have a Licentiate in Theology. Indeed, the archeological record does at numerous points support the factual basis of many accounts in the collection of Judaic-Christian scriptures. Because it supports these historical facts does not allow the extension to cover everything found in these writings nor allow for unwarranted interpretations of how thee writings are to be understood.
The Genesis accounts are not a modern scientific textbook but a beautiful mythic story of the origins of humankind as seen by a theistic faith. Myth does not mean "lies" (unless you somewhat unrealistically stick to them being scientific), it can be a form in which spiritual meanings are expressed, as in art.
edits:typographical
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by Taomanok 🙂
Let me further comment to your further edited post.
My knowledge of the scripture are based on significant study. I have a Licentiate in Theology. Indeed, the archeological record does at numerous points support the factual basis of many accounts in the collection of Judaic-Christian scriptures. Because it supports these historical facts does not allow the ...[text shortened]... it can be a form in which spiritual meanings are expressed, as in art.
edits:typographical
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThank you. Nor is my intention to attack you or your faith, but to put another viewpoint for consideration, albeit vigorously. Have a nice day (or evening).
ok, i apologise for my harsh tone, you see one gets a kind of siege mentality.
22 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Taomanno worries, in retrospect i was thinking what spiritual points of interest you might take from the account of Adam and Eve, perhaps if you have the time one day you may elucidate upon it 🙂
Thank you. Nor is my intention to attack you or your faith, but to put another viewpoint for consideration, albeit vigorously. Have a nice day (or evening).
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't have to disprove evolution. It does that by itself very well.
You don't deny nuclear bombs, but you do deny evolution.
You don't deny the ozone layer, but you do deny evolution.
You use your very little knowledge about evolution to try to disprove it. You fail.
My point I have already declared.
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75And you still continue to show your non-knowledge about evolution.
I don't have to disprove evolution. It does that by itself very well.
It doesn't disprove itself. It follows sound scientific methods. There is currently no other theory that describes the diversity in biology better than the evlution theory. And this you should know if you know som evolution and scientific methods.
If you don't know about species, then evolution should be a mysery to you. And then it is impossible to discuss evolution with you. Yet you hold your ears when you are tought.
Your opinions about evolution is not worth much if you don't know much about evolution.
But you have right in this: You don't have to disprove evolution. You cannot. You don't know enough to be able to do that.
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhatever. Go ahead and believe in "maybe, could be, could have happened, possibly, we percieve" stuff. Your on a sinking ship so you'd better hang on.
And you still continue to show your non-knowledge about evolution.
It doesn't disprove itself. It follows sound scientific methods. There is currently no other theory that describes the diversity in biology better than the evlution theory. And this you should know if you know som evolution and scientific methods.
If you don't know about species, th ...[text shortened]... don't have to disprove evolution. You cannot. You don't know enough to be able to do that.