Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 187
  1. #81  
    Well like I said, I don't think it's all over. That's why the few cases where it does happen make the news. Usually it's on the cable news more than network news, when a teacher makes some out of the ordinary request of students.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I think you loose points for taking yourself too seriously. I'm not sure where you were going with the Noah thing. All of his sons had wives. If you're trying to apply today's science to the events of 2348 BC, you'll just get frustrated. It doesn't work. Your talking about a time when people lived to be over 900 years old.

    I'm not quite sure of what your point is. If I took you seriously and answered your questions, you'd only question my answers, and so on, and so on. I could do the same line of questioning when it comes to scientific explanations such as the big bang theory. If it's not repeatable, it's not science!

    While I wouldn't begin to take the bible literally, I also wouldn't dismiss it. The same goes for a good deal of science. Hence, I feel entitled to call myself open-minded.
    You are talking about me taking myself too seriously in the same post you are talking about 900 year old human beings.

    Again back to the question at hand. Do the old testament works fit the definition of Mythology...

    If 900 year old humans, burning talking bushes, and God turning non believers in to salt is not Mythos, I cannot imagine what is.

    As far as dismissing it, you read it and decide for yourself. I will do the same. Just like i did with Beowolf, the Illiad & the Odyssey, & the other works of literature.
  3. #83  
    I'm amused that the western (Christian) culture dismisses all non-Christian religious stuff as mythology. Remember Greek and Roman "Mythology" (Zeus etc?). Same for Egyptian and Indian scriptures ..

    To a non-believer, the Bible is Mythology.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    To a non-believer, the Bible is Mythology.
    There are no people who believe Zeus, or Athena are / were real? None and never? If there were / are, does this mean the Illiad is not Mythology?

    The belief by some or many in Old Testament stories does not mean they do not fit the definition of Mythology.

    They are Mythology, and they are literature.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I'm amused that the western (Christian) culture dismisses all non-Christian religious stuff as mythology. Remember Greek and Roman "Mythology" (Zeus etc?). Same for Egyptian and Indian scriptures ..

    To a non-believer, the Bible is Mythology.
    Why would that be amusing? It only seems natural that someone of one religion would believe that another religion is false (therefore mythological). Hindus consider the idea of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God a myth; Christians to consider the idea of Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu a myth. That's the way it goes.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Why would that be amusing? It only seems natural that someone of one religion would believe that another religion is false (therefore mythological). Hindus consider the idea of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God a myth; Christians to consider the idea of Krishna as the incarnation of Vishnu a myth. That's the way it goes.
    I agree that this is natural. What I find odd is that people cannot understand that others could have such divergent views (gospel vs mythology). With no absolute way to prove oany point of view, this causes trouble. However, I don't want to turn this thread into theism vs atheism thread.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I agree that this is natural. What I find odd is that people cannot understand that others could have such divergent views (gospel vs mythology). With no absolute way to prove oany point of view, this causes trouble. However, I don't want to turn this thread into theism vs atheism thread.
    First, natural feelings about the stories do not change the definition of Mythology.

    Second, there actually have been some attempts to "prove or disprove", and I welcome them.

    I have seen studies done by religious persons in which half of hospital patients were were "prayed for", and the other half was not. Neither the doctor nor the patients knew which patients were which, and the groups were randomly assigned.

    Any good scientist would welcome the study and its results with an open mind.

    If it actually worked, you could even narrow down which types of prayers are more or less effective.
  8.    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well, I guess because from a biological standpoint we know today that there would not have been a sufficient gene pool from which to repopulate the species....
    Interesting. Doesn't current understanding trace all species back to up to 3 distinct single-cell entities (i.e. a considerably smaller gene pool)?
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I agree that this is natural. What I find odd is that people cannot understand that others could have such divergent views (gospel vs mythology). With no absolute way to prove oany point of view, this causes trouble. However, I don't want to turn this thread into theism vs atheism thread.
    Well, you won't get an argument from me that there is a leap of faith involved in any religious system. However, since we now know, for example, that there's nothing at the top of Mt Olympus and there's no turtle at the bottom of planet, I think many views once held as religion are properly categorized as mythology.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Well, you won't get an argument from me that there is a leap of faith involved in any religious system. However, since we now know, for example, that there's nothing at the top of Mt Olympus and there's no turtle at the bottom of planet, I think many views once held as religion are properly categorized as mythology.
    Exactly, at least their stories.

    Well, I just agreed with hoovs and the sky did not fall. Perhaps when I hit submit. Cringe.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interesting. Doesn't current understanding trace all species back to up to 3 distinct single-cell entities (i.e. a considerably smaller gene pool)?
    Current understanding traces all genetic biodiversity on earth back to some simple protien strings, so yeah, i guess you could say that is a small gene pool.

    But I don't think protein strings can build arcs.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    ...However, since we now know, for example, that there's nothing at the top of Mt Olympus and there's no turtle at the bottom of planet, I think many views once held as religion are properly categorized as mythology.
    Of course, this brings up one of the important characteristics of any religion. They are impervious to disproof because they require no basis in fact or observation.

    For example, creationist could argue that homo-erectus fossils were planted by demons. There is no counter argument.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Well, you won't get an argument from me that there is a leap of faith involved in any religious system. However, since we now know, for example, that there's nothing at the top of Mt Olympus and there's no turtle at the bottom of planet, I think many views once held as religion are properly categorized as mythology.
    In the same way we know there is no upper and lower water, and the stars arnt stuck in the firmament, and there is no god orbiting with the ISS.



    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 06/11/2006 at 06:01 AM.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    In the same way we know there is no upper and lower water, and the stars arnt stuck in the firmament, and there is no god orbiting with the ISS.



    Surur
    ISS?

    Anyway, it always strikes me that those who rail against literalists are themselves the first to read every word of the Bible in a literal fashion. But, okay, can you explain your understanding of the word "firmament"?
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Well, you won't get an argument from me that there is a leap of faith involved in any religious system. However, since we now know, for example, that there's nothing at the top of Mt Olympus and there's no turtle at the bottom of planet, I think many views once held as religion are properly categorized as mythology.
    I wish it was that easy. The TRUE believers will rationalize anything. When man landed on the moon, which is considered to be a religious object by muslims, many believed that a) this was a hoax by US b) thtis was on a fake moon created by God to fake out humans.

    There is no reasoning with TRUE believers. Suspension of rationality and empericism is an important part of the religious experience.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    ISS?

    Anyway, it always strikes me that those who rail against literalists are themselves the first to read every word of the Bible in a literal fashion. But, okay, can you explain your understanding of the word "firmament"?
    Definition: Firmament
    celestial sphere: the apparent surface of the imaginary sphere on which celestial bodies appear to be projected
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    Hebrew mythology saw the world very much the same as the Greeks, except minus the turtle. The world kind of floated in a sphere half filled with water, with the top having stars and the moon stuck to it, and the bottom having the sun. The aerth was flat and had 4 corners. Of course the sphere rotated around the earth, leading to day and night. The firmament was the structure of the sphere.



    Freedman, David Noel (Ed) Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000):

    “Firmament – A thin sheet, similar to a piece of beaten metal, that stretched from horizon to horizon to form the vault of the sky. In the Hebrew cosmology, the universe consisted of three parts: the waters above, the earth below, and the waters beneath the earth (cf. Exod.20.4). Job 37.18 describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them “as hard as a mirror of cast bronze” (cf LXX stereoma, suggesting an embossed or hammered-out bowl).
    http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Thr...edUniverse.htm

    The mainstream Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries are agreed. It is only apologetic works which try to defend the Biblical writers as having the same knowledge about the Universe as we do today.
    There is no doubt that these passages were meant to be read literally.

    Surur
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    There is no doubt that these passages were meant to be read literally.

    Surur
    Then tell me how Genesis 1:20 is to be read?

    And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    Where birds actually flying in that same sphere in which the moon and stars were "stuck"? My point here is that much of Genesis 1 was written in observational language. Its not, in my opinion, to be read like a science text but a narrative with certain underlying principles. Just as today we don't think that a person who uses the term "sun down" really believes the Sun is moving in a downward direction beneath the earth, I don't think that the writer of Genesis actually thought there was a hard sphere called Heaven surrounding the Earth.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Then tell me how Genesis 1:20 is to be read?


    Where birds actually flying in that same sphere in which the moon and stars were "stuck"? My point here is that much of Genesis 1 was written in observational language. Its not, in my opinion, to be read like a science text but a narrative with certain underlying principles. Just as today we don't think that a person who uses the term "sun down" really believes the Sun is moving in a downward direction beneath the earth, I don't think that the writer of Genesis actually thought there was a hard sphere called Heaven surrounding the Earth.


    The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us. Thus the Egyptians conceived the heavens to be an arched iron ceiling from which the stars were suspended by means of cables (Chabas, L' Antiquite historique, Paris, 1873, pp. 64-67).The Hebrews entertained similar ideas in numerous biblical passages. In the first account of the creation (Gen., i) we read that God created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters. The notion of the solidity of the firmament is expressed in such passages as Job, xxxvii, 18, where reference is made incidentally to the heavens, "which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass." The same is implied in the purpose attributed to God in creating the firmament, viz. to serve as a wall of separation between the upper and lower of water
    http://www.geomancy.org/labyrinths/chartres/char-1.html

    I think they mean inside the firmament (as inside the space it encloses) as apposed to crawling on its surface. Remember, we are only reading a translation.

    Genesis 1:20
    And said | God, | Let swarm | the waters | (with) | swarmers | (having) | a life | living. | And birds | let fly around | | over | the earth, | on | the the surface of | the space of
    http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/literal.htm

    The above is a literal translation from Aramaic

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 06/11/2006 at 06:20 AM.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I wish it was that easy. The TRUE believers will rationalize anything. When man landed on the moon, which is considered to be a religious object by muslims, many believed that a) this was a hoax by US b) thtis was on a fake moon created by God to fake out humans.
    I'm guessing an Iranian moon-landing is not forthcoming.

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    There is no reasoning with TRUE believers. Suspension of rationality and empericism is an important part of the religious experience.
    Just because that is often the case doesn't mean that it is always the case or even necessarily the case. Not every "religious experience" follows the same rules.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I think they mean inside the firmament (as inside the space it encloses) as apposed to crawling on its surface. Remember, we are only reading a translation.

    Surur
    Oh, so you mean there is some room for interpretation? Then why be so literal about it?

    Regarding Hebrew cosmology, I would only argue for Biblical Inspiration. I can't vouch for the accuracy of all of the views of the ancient Hebrews. They were as likely to misinterpret as we are.

    Oh, and geomancy.org? Would you let me use a similarly questionable source?

Posting Permissions