Page 45 of 50

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:49 am
by john
Minimalist wrote:Then why would he have told his followers that they were made from little piles of dirt. Would have saved us all a lot of trouble is Genesis read like a microbiology textbook.


(Of course, then it probably wouldn't have been the money-maker that it was down through the years.)

minimalist -

many, many creation myths worldwide ascribe to exactly that. humans were made out of little piles of dirt - although the translations usually use the word "clay".

and - not to change subjects here - there's a fairly famous quote about jews being "clay pots in an iron pot world" (can't remember author - except that they were jewish - or provenance).

perhaps an ur-memory here?


john

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:56 am
by Minimalist
many, many creation myths worldwide ascribe to exactly that. humans were made out of little piles of dirt - although the translations usually use the word "clay".


Probably because of observation of the way bodies decompose.

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:06 pm
by john
yet another definition........

anthropomorphism

1. Ascription of a human form or attributes to the Deity, or a human attribute or personality to anything impersonal or irrational.

2. The use of terms applicable to men in speaking of God 1833.



thus, ascribing human attributes to process is a classic example of mis-attribution as demonstrated in the fable of the emperor's clothes.

the emperor has no clothes, nor is process driven by human proclivities.


john

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:08 pm
by Frank Harrist
Clay, because it can be molded, by god presumably. Also it's more poetic. :roll:

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:10 pm
by Frank Harrist
john wrote:yet another definition........

anthropomorphism

1. Ascription of a human form or attributes to the Deity, or a human attribute or personality to anything impersonal or irrational.

2. The use of terms applicable to men in speaking of God 1833.



thus, ascribing human attributes to process is a classic example of mis-attribution as demonstrated in the fable of the emperor's clothes.

the emperor has no clothes, nor is process driven by human proclivities.


john
Yeah! That's kinda what I said.

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:12 pm
by Minimalist
Yeah! That's kinda what I said.

But you didn't use the word 'proclivities.'

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:13 pm
by marduk
the sumerian myths dont say mud
they say mankind was made out of a gods blood and clay
the word for clay they use is generic not specific and so is being used in a manner that would indicate "widely available resource"
when you consider that the gods described looked fully human and the local widely available resource at that time were the semitic ubaidians its fairly easy to see exactly why they put it like that
and why people copying their creation myth from them much much later got it wrong and just said
Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground
see by the time they came about the canals had all fallen into misuse and there wasnt any decent clay to be had
:lol:

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:38 pm
by LadyV
Minimalist wrote:Then why would he have told his followers that they were made from little piles of dirt. Would have saved us all a lot of trouble is Genesis read like a microbiology textbook.


(Of course, then it probably wouldn't have been the money-maker that it was down through the years.)

I have no idea....I'm not Christian. I do think the bible holds truths and I think maybe the "made from clay" could perhaps be referenced to something else...it also states man was made in "our" image...meaning others besides. There are a lot of translation problems in the bible, not to mention it has been added to and parts left out and changed. I find it interesting that the Koran, the Muslim bible....says that he that is putting the laws down to them, is the same God as that of the Christians and the Jews, and that since the Bible of the Christians had become corrupt, it is needed to be given to man once again....that Jesus was real and a profit, that he was born of a virgin, but that he was not the son of god and that he did not die on the cross....that a look alike did, that God had taken Jesus up to heaven.
Aaaaaanyway......

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:40 pm
by bandit
If the first beings were molded out of dirt, mud, clay ect. why did they have belly buttons??

and why only humans? I can't think of any animal that has one...

If humans were fashioned after his image, did he have one? and if so
who were his parents?

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:45 pm
by ReneDescartes
Well ,if humans were made of clay,god messed up ,he should have used marble and taken some beginner course from Michelangelo or Rodin ,can I sue him for that ,he didn't do a good enough job on me .Anybody knows a good lawyer ? :wink:

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:50 pm
by Minimalist
Anybody knows a good lawyer ?


Good Lawyer is an oxymoron.

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:52 pm
by marduk
can I sue him for that ,he didn't do a good enough job on me

you can't actually sue god because he has no solid presence on earth
so it would be like trying to sue a non entity with no corporate identity
you can however sue anyone claiming to be his representative
so take it up with the pope or the chief rabbi depending on which god you think has the most money to lose
of course the pope could get out of the claim at any time by admitting he doesnt actually represent god
hey i just had a thought
you could sue Arch
:lol:

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:27 pm
by ReneDescartes
Allright Arch ,I finally discovered who you really are :quoting you -

thus you are saying that the process can, without possessing any of those things nor has the ability to even conceive of those things, 'create' something out of nothing.

also, it has no ability to know when it got something wrong thus it has no ability to make 'corrections' so there can be no transitional species because it would just be impossible for the process to know when it got something right so it could move on to the next species. -

You are Basil ...from Fawlty Towers !

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:34 pm
by bandit
ReneDescartes wrote: You are Basil ...from Fawlty Towers !
More like Manuel...que? que? :wink:

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:23 pm
by john
ReneDescartes wrote:Allright Arch ,I finally discovered who you really are :quoting you -

thus you are saying that the process can, without possessing any of those things nor has the ability to even conceive of those things, 'create' something out of nothing.

also, it has no ability to know when it got something wrong thus it has no ability to make 'corrections' so there can be no transitional species because it would just be impossible for the process to know when it got something right so it could move on to the next species. -

You are Basil ...from Fawlty Towers !

that's a low down rotten despicable insult.

to basil.


john