A new member has some questions

[Nick the Pilot]

IG,

It's not that the story was only given to only one group of humans, it was given to the first group of humans. From there on, this one story has been handed down century after century, and has splintered into many versions. The idea that it was given to the Jews but not to the Hindus, Buddhists, etc., is completely wrong. All of these versions came from one, original story. (What could be more unfair than God giving it to the Jews but not to the Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?)

The one thing that always amazes me is how similar the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., stories are. Once you learn how to read between the lines, you can see how Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are all telling the exact same story. This shows how they all originated as one single story. (But look at these stories today!)

As I said before, the original story is a LOT older than 4,000 years. For example, the original story clearly mentions giants who roamed the earth many centuries ago. Modern history barely starts up as the last of the giants were disappearring. (The story of David and Goliath, a "normal" sized human -- by today's standard -- killing a giant actually happened.) The original story goes waaay back, before the giants first appeared.

Take a look at the Bamian statues in Afganistan.

http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/bamian.html

These are life-sized statues, and are a lot older than present-day scientists say they are. (Fortunately, the giant that David killed was not anywhere that big.)

 

[bananabrain]

i kind of wanted to be post #3000 in this forum!

It's not that the story was only given to only one group of humans, it was given to the first group of humans.

we certainly speak about the Torah being given to adam in a sense - but not the Torah we got at sinai, i suspect. and, if you like, it is could be that it's not Torah as we understand it....

From there on, this one story has been handed down century after century, and has splintered into many versions. The idea that it was given to the Jews but not to the Hindus, Buddhists, etc., is completely wrong. All of these versions came from one, original story.

the idea that Torah was given to the hindus is wrong. what was given to the hindus and buddhists was not Torah... that doesn't mean that what was given to them was either a) wrong or b) bad, just that it isn't the same. as there isn't any actual evidence of an ur-story, i presume you'll point to the fact that everyone has a creation myth and a flood myth and so on. however, the evolutionary reason for this is far more convincing than the place you're about to go in terms of 6,000,000 year old scriptures which are somehow floating about in the telluric currents or whatever, accessible only to the Secret Masters, for which we have to take madam blavatsky's word for it. welcome to g.k. chesterton's magic world of theosophical theory, folks.

(What could be more unfair than God giving it to the Jews but not to the Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?)

it would only be unfair if the jews were thereby supposed to be "better" than everyone else, which we do not believe, or that you were somehow wrong unless you got the "true" scripture, which we also do not believe.

These are life-sized statues, and are a lot older than present-day scientists say they are. (Fortunately, the giant that David killed was not anywhere that big.)

oh, deary deary deary me. unfortunately, this is the point at which something which seems like a not unreasonable objection starts to look like an entirely unwarranted assertion; you can't make sceptical interventions unless you are willing to have your own counter-assertions sceptically evaluated. life-sized statues? i'm sorry, nick, but i'm going to have to "roflmao" as i believe it is called on teh interweb.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Bananabrain, you are so knowlegable and open-minded about his, kudos. What do you think of the Lubavichers' outreach program (to modernism and to, as they see it, wayward, beleivers)?
Pax et amor vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[IowaGuy]

It's not that the story was only given to only one group of humans, it was given to the first group of humans....The one thing that always amazes me is how similar the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., stories are. Once you learn how to read between the lines, you can see how Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are all telling the exact same story. This shows how they all originated as one single story.

I agree that certain underlying messages of Islam, Hinduism, Judiasm, Christianity, Buddhism, etc are very similar. Do you think this could be explained any other way besides the "one single story" theory? i.e. sociology, psychology, etc.

How about traditional native american spiritual beliefs (Aztec, Maya, Inca, Inuit, various smaller tribes), do you believe they support or weaken the theory of one single story?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"Do you think this could be explained any other way besides the "one single story" theory? i.e. sociology, psychology, etc."

--> Could they? Yes, they could. Do I believe there is another explanation? No, I do not.

"How about traditional native american spiritual beliefs (Aztec, Maya, Inca, Inuit, various smaller tribes), do you believe they support or weaken the theory of one single story?"

--> I confess I have no knowledge of their belief systems. But I believe it is very possible that their belief systems evolved from the same single source that Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., belief systems evolved from. We cannot automatically say that Aztec, Maya, Inca, Inuit, etc., belief systems evolved from a different source.

By the way, similarities between Egyptian and Mayan pyramids make it very easy for me to believe they may have come from a common previous civilization.

 

[IowaGuy]

You get the same benefit either way. Fruit comes from God or from trees. Your mind does the same thing with information that your body does with fruit. Some gets used, some is ruffage.

I disagree that one gets the same benefit either way, whether the bible has divine influence or not. Someone that perceives the bible as a mandate from God is certain to receive a different "benefit" than someone who belives it is a history book.

For example, when I read fiction, I take away a certain message from the story. Usually it's a big-picture, parable-type message; not usually some specific detail of the story. If I think the source is fictional I skim over the details and focus on the big picture, since I know the details are just made up to make a point about the big picture message.

When I read non-fiction, I take away a different message. Knowing the source is not fictional makes a big difference in how I use that information, i.e. I'm more likely to apply the details to my real life if I think it is a reliable source. I'm also much more likely to study the particular details in the story (i.e. how many mpg the car gets, what variety of tomato seed to plant, the current interest rate of a 30-year T-bill, etc).

If people believe the bible comes from God (how many times have you heard "God's Word"), they will interpret it differently and apply it differently to their daily lives than if they believe the bible was written by historical Jews with no divine influence.

Case in point, notice all the folks using detailed scripture to spread hate or further their political agenda (anti-gay, anti-birth-control, anti-evolution, historical justification of slavery, etc). Do you think they believe the bible was written by historical Jews with no divine influence? Would they be toting around scripture on billboards if they thought the bible was just an historical document?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

By the way, similarities between Egyptian pyramids and Mayan "pyramids" make it very easy for me to believe they may have come from a common previous civilization.

This is off topic but since it came up I have to ask, what is so similar about them? It is a structure with a wide foundation that narrows into a peak. From my very limited understanding of architecture it seems like a very simple and efficient structure. Considering the great number of people in the history of the world, I'm not surprised that it shows up more than once.
I see no reason to connect them at all.
It is not uncommon to link them to a common origin though, and I would like to know why? Is it simply unity-theories or am I missing something?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Tea,

It has been a long time since I watched a documentary on the two cultures, so my recollection of specifics is a little hazy. But from what I remember, there were similarities between the two types of pyramids. And the fact they both had pyramids is significant. (Pyramids seem to be a lot of work and unnecessary trouble for pre-historic civilizations.) I think pyramids are rare in ancient cultures, and I think for both cultures to have pyramids is significant.

But I can see how you would see no reason to connect them at all. It is hard to say whether the idea that the two types of pyramids are related, or whether similarities are a mere coincidence is more commonly accepted.

By the way, I see both Mayan and Egyptian cultures as being remnants of the Atlantean culture. This explains how these cultures could have been so advanced when so many other same-time cultures were so primitive. This would also explain any similarities in pyramids.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Nick,

Ok, but didn't we all have some sort of structure that didn't serve a practical function? Like temples or the Stonehenge. Aren't they all a symbolic structure or a tribute to gods, ancestors or powerful men?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Tea,

Yes, many cultures (perhaps all cultures) have built such structures. But this does not answer the question as to a possible common origin of Mayan and Egyptian pyramids.

 

[bananabrain]

similarities between Egyptian and Mayan pyramids make it very easy for me to believe they may have come from a common previous civilization.

It is not uncommon to link them to a common origin though, and I would like to know why? Is it simply unity-theories or am I missing something?

I agree that certain underlying messages of Islam, Hinduism, Judiasm, Christianity, Buddhism, etc are very similar. Do you think this could be explained any other way besides the "one single story" theory? i.e. sociology, psychology, etc.

convergent evolution can explain both of these. you're not obliged to accept it of course, but it is pretty persuasive stuff and far more plausible than prehistoric giants, for which, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If people believe the bible comes from G!D [....] they will interpret it differently and apply it differently to their daily lives than if they believe the bible was written by historical Jews with no divine influence.

well, quite. you only have to look at the difference between the ways that jews who believe each either live. the difference tends to bear unpleasant fruit, however, when people start being absolutely sure that they are right and that they have found The Truth.

Case in point, notice all the folks using detailed scripture to spread hate or further their political agenda (anti-gay, anti-birth-control, anti-evolution, historical justification of slavery, etc). Do you think they believe the bible was written by historical Jews with no divine influence? Would they be toting around scripture on billboards if they thought the bible was just an historical document?

no, they'd be toting something else around, like theories of ethnicity, class, politics or whatever. if someone wants to be a arsehole to others to make themselves feel better, they'll use whatever they have handy.

Bananabrain, you are so knowlegable and open-minded about his, kudos.

*snort* i'm sorry, nick is basically a very nice bloke, but i'm afraid that once we get into "root races" (yeugh) and the "stanzas of dzyan" (bollocks) territory my coffee will end up coming out of my nose and nobody wants that to happen.

What do you think of the Lubavichers' outreach program (to modernism and to, as they see it, wayward, beleivers)?

meh. i think the loobs do a lot of good in their own way. nobody's as dedicated as they are to the principle of "we'll go anywhere we can help jews be jewish"; they've been hugely successful because they're so dedicated, they really helped jews under soviet tyranny and there's nothing they won't do for you if you really need their help. with that said, their devotion to the last rebbe has tipped many of them over into idolatry, their views on soul-structure and essentialism are reprehensible and i find it hard to ignore such theological raspberries, especially coupled with a view of halakhic norms that is hard-wired into the C19th. fundamentally, i feel they've lost their way since schneerson died (sorry, i meant, "went into occultation" not unlike certain other false messiahs whose returns are eagerly awaited by their disciples cough cough cough) but there's much we can learn from their zeal, commitment and devotion to cask-strength whisky and vodka at 10am. basically, they're all right as long as you hang on to your brain and tell them to get stuffed if they start getting weird or mad. i've got quite a few lubavitch friends (and one or two relatives) so i get the warts-and-all picture.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

convergent evolution can explain both of these. you're not obliged to accept it of course, but it is pretty persuasive stuff and far more plausible than prehistoric giants, for which, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever.

This is what we learn in school over here so it has, of course, influenced my views. Things evolve separately into something very similar to each other simply because it is the most efficient form. And I would say culture follows this pattern as well.

 

[radarmark]

In terms of the main thread: rather than covergent evolution (or, now that I think about it, maybe because of) it is a matter of singular souls discovering the same Divinity, but we here left behind only get their words (or worse yet) the words of the words of their great-grandchildren).

BB -- the loob question was real, and I appreciate your response. I have always found them amenable to a "no thanks, I'm not interested" approach (kinda like by gay friends in the 60s). I will flame on or dance crazily, but the stoic remains aloof.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark

 

[IowaGuy]

the difference tends to bear unpleasant fruit, however, when people start being absolutely sure that they are right and that they have found The Truth.

Agreed. I don't believe "The Truth" exists as a one-size-fits-all.

no, they'd be toting something else around, like theories of ethnicity, class, politics or whatever. if someone wants to be a arsehole to others to make themselves feel better, they'll use whatever they have handy.

Agreed but it's a more convincing argument for them when they can quote the bible and say that God's on their side... Unfortunately some of the discriminatory/inflammatory passages in the bible (particularly the OT) make it easier for religious extremists to make such claims, especially since so many people believe the bible to literally be "God's Word." Even if taken out of its historical context, some people will use a particular scripture to justify their message; and even worse, some others will believe it if it comes from "The Bible."

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard in Sunday School: "The Bible says." In my church (Southern Baptist), we were taught not to question the bible. Unfortunately many people in the world share that same viewpoint...

 

[wil]

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard in Sunday School: "The Bible says." In my church (Southern Baptist), we were taught not to question the bible. Unfortunately many people in the world share that same viewpoint...

I'm finding the 'world' part is actually not quite so correct.

The american bible thumping viewpoint has grown up distinctly american...

the world doesn't buy the short earther scenario...all they do go to that museum to chuckle...

The funny thing, is the museum counts them and anyone else who enters as a supporter....the numbers of visitors validates their cause no matter what reason the visitors come.

 

[IowaGuy]

I'm finding the 'world' part is actually not quite so correct.

The american bible thumping viewpoint has grown up distinctly american...

Hi Wil, I agree Americans are overly bible-thumping/evangelical compared to many other educated Christians I have met such as those in Europe (who may tend to have more exposure to different cultures/ideas/languages and perhaps more open-minded). But I still think many uneducated Christians in the world (outside of Europe, let's say) also take quite a literal view of the bible.

Have you ever traveled to Mexico, Costa Rica, or Venezuela? Many of the Spanish-speaking Catholics I met while traveling in those countries (and I extrapolate to assume throughout Latin/South America since very similar cultures) don't question the bible much and are very literal in their view of the bible. Well, at least the parts the Pope tells them to believe...

 

[wil]

Have you ever traveled to Mexico, Costa Rica, or Venezuela? Many of the Spanish-speaking Catholics I met while traveling in those countries (and I extrapolate to assume throughout Latin/South America since very similar cultures) don't question the bible much and are very literal in their view of the bible. Well, at least the parts the Pope tells them to believe...

I haven't traveled much past the borders...but the folks I've met up here tell me that Catholicism in Central and South America is not unseparbly intertwined and intermingled with ancient rituals and beliefs, especially in the poorer urban and rural areas...

But no first hand knowledge...

 

[bob x]

The one thing that always amazes me is how similar the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., stories are.

No, they really aren't.

Once you learn how to read between the lines

Once you start ignoring the actual content, and rewriting them all to your own taste...

Modern history barely starts up as the last of the giants were disappearring. (The story of David and Goliath, a "normal" sized human -- by today's standard -- killing a giant actually happened.)

Yes, I'm sure that's true. The Bible mentions that his brother had six fingers and toes on each hand and foot, a genetic trait called "polydactylism" which is common among the tall tribes of the Upper Nile (Shinka, Dilluk, Tutsi, etc.) so it appears that the "Anakim" were some Nilotics who had made their way down the river and over to Cana'an. The height was about two meters, tall but not exceptional by modern standards, as you say-- more remarkable then.

Take a look at the Bamian statues in Afganistan.

Bamian

These are life-sized statues

This is where you completely leave the realm of reality. Have you ever heard of the "square-cube law"? Google it if you haven't. An ant cannot just be scaled up to the size of a deer: the spindly legs would not support the weight (the weight a foot can carry grows with the area, that is, the square of the size; while the weight of the body grows with the volume, that is, the cube). Neither can a deer be scaled up to the size of an elephant. A 50-meter-tall creature proportioned like a human could not stand, let alone move.

By the way, similarities between Egyptian and Mayan pyramids make it very easy for me to believe they may have come from a common previous civilization.

There aren't any similarities, except for the tapering. Mayan pyramids were stepped, not sloped. They were designed for climbing to the top. Egyptian pyramids were designed for concealing tombs inside. The two are not made of the same materials (the sandstone of Egypt is of course available in Mexico) and could not possibly have been built using the same techniques. And while the Mayas were building sizable towns as long ago as the 2nd millenium BC, they did not build pyramids until the very end of their civilization, about 500-700 AD, so there is no overlap in time either.

 

[bananabrain]

In terms of the main thread: rather than covergent evolution (or, now that I think about it, maybe because of) it is a matter of singular souls discovering the same Divinity, but we here left behind only get their words (or worse yet) the words of the words of their great-grandchildren).

i believe there are bio-psycho-social systems theories as well as scientific ones like those of steve pinker, sam harris and dan dennett that can explain why this sort of thing happens. the issue with reconstruction from words is that, of course, you only have the words and sometimes, as you point out, words can be read to suit the reader. ideally, one should have a process of discovering the right answer for us, right here, right now. this, at its best, is what halakhah is for, although it very often falls short. without a picture of the complete system you're not going to get the right input and, consequently, the output will be equally flawed.

I don't believe "The Truth" exists as a one-size-fits-all.

to be precise: i believe The Truth Exists, but i don't accept that humans can experience it and remain a) human or b) alive.

Agreed but it's a more convincing argument for them when they can quote the bible and say that God's on their side... Unfortunately some of the discriminatory/inflammatory passages in the bible (particularly the OT) make it easier for religious extremists to make such claims, especially since so many people believe the bible to literally be "God's Word." Even if taken out of its historical context, some people will use a particular scripture to justify their message; and even worse, some others will believe it if it comes from "The Bible."

well, this is what really fecks me off about evangelicals, particularly protestant approaches: it's all so bloody fluffy. when someone says something like that i respond with:

1. oh, really? where exactly does it say that? show me. does it say exactly that, or are you paraphrasing?
2. where else does it address the same subject? does it say the same thing there?
3. are you really, really sure that the two (or more) situations are the same in the Text?
4. are you really, really sure that the situation you are applying to is the same as the one to which the Text refers? because, otherwise, you're misusing it.
5. are you really, really sure that the Text says what you think it says? are you reading it in the original, or in translation? how is the precise phrasing understood by people who understand the original language?
6. who was the original audience? how are they different or similar to you?
7. how has this passage been understood by other people who have looked at it?

generally, i find that the rigour isn't really there.

In my church (Southern Baptist), we were taught not to question the bible.

we're taught that you can't possibly understand it unless you start by asking the right questions. i mean, it's not exactly obvious what it means a lot of the time, is it?

bob_x: hur, hur, hur. honestly, you must tell me if you ever visit the UK - you'd be welcome for dinner as long as you can keep the ould naturism under wraps.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Dang, they call me smart, BB. Like I said somewhere, I'd like to spend some time picking your brain!


Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark