|
Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/16/2006 8:14:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy
Huh? Haven't a clue as to what you are on about here, but Job, like much of the Bible, is a plagerism on the part of the Hebrew. Level headed theologians and Biblical scholars give the story a date of somewhere between 700-200 BCE, while the nut jobs claim it written by Moses and place the date at around 1,400 BCE. Unfortunately for either party, the Babylonians had already written the story of the Suffering Servant somewhere around 1,700 BCE. The poem can be found in any copy of ANET, or you can find it at the link below, as well as multiple other places online. Why is it that the " One True God " resorts to plagerism again and again, from the 10 commandments stolen from Hammurapi's law stele to the Song of Solomon snatched from the Egyptian Song of the Harper? Seems like a " real " god could create his own material.
Maybe someday people will educate themselves well enough to discover that their gods are no more real than the tooth fairy, and we can finally lay superstition in the garbage bin where it belongs.
You seem to complain about the discontinuity of the provenance of these stories, and then about the very continuity of their provenance in the very next breath.
That's interesting, if incoherent.
Here's a hypothetical for you:
If two people read your post, internalize its message (a feat beyond my meager capabilities, I'll grant) and each paraphrases and passes on your message in his own, different native language, please tell us if this proves that
A. What you wrote was false?
or
B. That you do not exist?
I'm not sure if just one or actually both of these outcomes are guaranteed by your implicit theory.
You note evidence that people in widely divergent times and places have documented that they were inspired in one way or another with compelling truths and ideas of great value. Furthermore--and to me quite fairly--you indicate that evidence suggests strongly that they passed these ideas down, re-contextualized them and re-shared them.
Which brings us to the point where your Fonzi jumps the shark, if you'll pardon an Americanism.
The above-stated evidence and reasoning you see as proof of the non-existence of Divinity, or disproof of the unity of Divinity?
Well that's one possible response to the data, I guess.
I don't believe I've ever met an adult so astoundingly naive and credulous as to accept a belief of that sort based on evidence and reasoning of that quality before. But I was born to have adventure so I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.
What was that word you used ... "Superstitious"? Your post is like a primer on how to believe shit wackier than any superstition I've ever heard of.
Does Liebniz's first presentation of the calculus in his own hand prove that he plagiarized Newton? Does italternatively or also prove somehow that Leibniz and Newton were both "on about" something that doesn't exist? I guess that according to you the one thing it can't be taken as evidence of is that a single source of inspiration can make itself felt in two people at different times in different places, or even in two different places at approximately the same time.
I'm just not sure why not.
I'm just not at all clear on how to bring this analytical approach of yours to bear on this analogous case--for the sake of argument, I mean.
Someone was just talking about New Zealand. I'm pretty fond of the work of the Maori poet Hone Tuware. Let's think for a moment about an exhaustive attempt to to find internal contradiction in the body of his work on a literal level, or to find resonance--up to and including long strings of text and central ideas--between his work and that of Pablo Neruda, say, or that of the authors of "Beowulf" or the stories of Tuware's Maori elders in ages past, so as to "disprove" Tuware.
Of course the first thing we'd note is what a myopic waste of time the proposed project is. Then what?
If Pablo, far across the Southern Ocean, expressed certain truths in idioms arising from Chilean culture and Hone expressed the same truths in idioms arising from his culture instead, can we conclude first that one is a plagiarist and secondly that these truths are not true?
If the Brothers Grimm express in a story a truth once made manifest in a fable by Aesop or in a long-forgotten folk tale of the Caucasus or the Congo, does the truth drain out of that too?
And the very possibility that people were inspired by a single Source to appreciate a given truth is otself proof to you that this source never existed?
This is a really a very interesting theory you have seem to have going for yourself.
Your theory is right up there in it's level of credibility with WhiptheHip's pet "Many Worlds" theory that every time an observer observes anything an amazingly vast number of entire universes are spontaneously generated (not sure if this is ex nihilo or not, better re-read the FAQ) in which all possible results of that observation may play out.
Yep. I'll tell ya. You run into all sorts of individuals here on these internets.
|
|
|
|
