you seemed to have missed the :P ie
. in otherwords said in jest :Pyou seemed to have missed the :P ie
. in otherwords said in jest :PJust wanted to address a point that was made earlier in the thread, but I wasn't around to counter at the time. New versions of the bible are original translations of the same early texts (apochrypha/hexapla-forgiving). The Good News, NIV etc. are all as free of chinese whispers as the earliest bibles. Only the selection of content is variable (Lutheran, Catholic, AKJV etc) and of course the different turns of phrase in interpretation of the individual translations. The source material is the same througout.
I wanted to point that out because it's important to be clear about translations of the bible, whether to form an argument or counter-argument on the topic.
I wanted to point that out because it's important to be clear about translations of the bible, whether to form an argument or counter-argument on the topic.
Clearly you've proven it!
You helped me; you must be ill!
I can't stand it when people that really know nothing of the bible state that books and gospels were left out. That's not true. Most of these so-called "lost books" or omitted verses or whatever were what is known as the Gnostic books. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge to go into it any deeper than that. LOL I do know that the process they used when deciding what was actually biblical and what was not, was similar to scientific methods - at least as far as cross referencing and verification goes.
I also can't stand it when creationists claim that evolution tries to claim man came from monkeys or whatever. It's just as ignorant.
I think it actually goes that Man has a common ancestor with apes.
Hmmm... what if all those early tool using homo-erectus types were actually the ancestors of modern monkeys and apes, not Man - only they devolved? Like if some sort of environmental factors cropped up to where taking the time to sharpen a stick just wasn't as effective as screaming wildly and throwing feces to survival. So the tool using ape died off - taking the opposable thumb with it?
Yeah, I know, another stupid far-fetched idea. But not quite. think of a software engineer with excellent mid level management skills that gets put on a deserted island. A similar island next to it has a redneck with a two digit IQ, yet good at fishing. After about two years, a rescue boat goes to both islands
Which one would be most likely to survive long enough to be saved and pass his genetic traits?
The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.
I also can't stand it when creationists claim that evolution tries to claim man came from monkeys or whatever. It's just as ignorant.
I think it actually goes that Man has a common ancestor with apes.
Hmmm... what if all those early tool using homo-erectus types were actually the ancestors of modern monkeys and apes, not Man - only they devolved? Like if some sort of environmental factors cropped up to where taking the time to sharpen a stick just wasn't as effective as screaming wildly and throwing feces to survival. So the tool using ape died off - taking the opposable thumb with it?
Yeah, I know, another stupid far-fetched idea. But not quite. think of a software engineer with excellent mid level management skills that gets put on a deserted island. A similar island next to it has a redneck with a two digit IQ, yet good at fishing. After about two years, a rescue boat goes to both islands
Which one would be most likely to survive long enough to be saved and pass his genetic traits?
The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.
History lesson.
The Catholic ( and Protestant ) church is in reality following the teachings of Paul, not Christ and strictly speaking todays Christianity should be called Paulism. If you actually study what is said in a number of the gnostic gospels ( Thomas, James etc ) you get a far better idea of what Christianity should be and was intended to be than by reading todays Bible which is focussed on the teachings of Paul.
A check on both the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls is a useful start.
The Roman Church ( Catholocism ) was only one of the Christian churches for many years, and not even the primary one. The majority were what are now referred to as Gnostic ( Knowledge ) and became the focus ( as the Catholic church grew in power ) of the first crusades.
http://altreligion.about.com/o ... _Albigensian_Crusades.htm
The sole reason the Catholic church became the primary church was because they effectively 'sold out' under Charlamange, adopted much of the Sol Inviticus religion that the Romans and the Franks followed ( Sunday ! ) and became the state religion. In 46 BC, when the Roman "Julian Calendar" was adopted, December 24th was the shortest day of the year. Therefore, December 25th was the first annual day that daylight began to increase. Thus, the origin of the REBIRTH or Annual Birthday of the Invincible SUN.
Sorry if this offends anyone but history is history, whether you like it or not.
The Catholic ( and Protestant ) church is in reality following the teachings of Paul, not Christ and strictly speaking todays Christianity should be called Paulism. If you actually study what is said in a number of the gnostic gospels ( Thomas, James etc ) you get a far better idea of what Christianity should be and was intended to be than by reading todays Bible which is focussed on the teachings of Paul.
A check on both the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls is a useful start.
The Roman Church ( Catholocism ) was only one of the Christian churches for many years, and not even the primary one. The majority were what are now referred to as Gnostic ( Knowledge ) and became the focus ( as the Catholic church grew in power ) of the first crusades.
http://altreligion.about.com/o ... _Albigensian_Crusades.htm
The sole reason the Catholic church became the primary church was because they effectively 'sold out' under Charlamange, adopted much of the Sol Inviticus religion that the Romans and the Franks followed ( Sunday ! ) and became the state religion. In 46 BC, when the Roman "Julian Calendar" was adopted, December 24th was the shortest day of the year. Therefore, December 25th was the first annual day that daylight began to increase. Thus, the origin of the REBIRTH or Annual Birthday of the Invincible SUN.
Sorry if this offends anyone but history is history, whether you like it or not.
*sigh, i'll be brief, hopefully, sigh*
I think when you use the words 'Gnostic books', you actually mean the Apocryha (which is Greek for hidden, or something like that) The Gnostic 'Gospels' where only a part of the the Apocrypha, a much much larger group of books that also included those not included in the Old Testament. And they were written at least 100 to 200 years after the books that made the final cut into the New Testament canon. And Gnostic Christianity is/was a Christian Cult.
The books in the Apocrypha number at least 60, but maybe over 100 (can't quite remember) Which is more than the 66 books of the canonical Bible itself. No way am i going into detail of what these books included in their text, i'd be here forever. But suffice to say they didn't have the info in them that the believers wanted...
The books that did make it into the final cut weren't chosen biblically at all. In simple terms, all the various tribes, groups, communities, families, especially in Old Testament times, used whichever of the available books as they saw fit. It wasn't until approximately 100 to 200 BC that they all had a 'meeting' and discussed which books they followed, worshiped, and applied in there lives. Then came to a decision on which to include in a single tome, i.e the Old Testament. A very similar thing happened with the New Testament in the 4th Century AD at the time of Emperor Constantine.
As a point of interest, if you search the Canonical Bible you'll find scriptural references to over 60 books that didn't make the final cut.
*sigh, i've been up all night, very tired, can't be arsed to proof read, excuse any mistakes, *sigh*
well in america (i know ur in England) some pastors and preachers kinda push the whole subject of Christianity as being hard. I just live my normal life and i try not to be an arse.
/im not looking 4 a negative reaction.
I'm glad that this is actually an intelligent conversation
And thats kinda what annoys me mainly about the evangelical style preachers/churchs. The fact that they say you can't be good with out being a christian.
Alot of people just want to have a normal life and not act like an arse
well at least there is an understanding between our lives perspectives now. :banana:
I think that's a commandment everyone can agree on:
1. Thou shalt not be an arse.
2. Um, that's it. Carry on.
1. Thou shalt not be an arse.
2. Um, that's it. Carry on.
Well, 2. could be also let other believe or not believe without forcing them to your habits, but I think it includes pretty much to 1. one already.
I remember the difficult times I had when I lost my faith and gained my freedom when I was around 11 yrs.
I was unsure and had feelings of guilt for a long time, at least for a year or two as I recall.
And this was not a strict religous upbringing at all, - so for someone that has had a strong belief into adulthood who is also surrounded by religeous people, it must be very hard to understand why people do not believe.
To spend a good deal of your life believing makes it very hard to come to the opinion that you have been living a lie and have wasted all those years, - I really can understand that.
It must seem to religeous folk that Atheists are missing something in life.
Being an atheist, I actually feel it is the other way around.
What really bothers me is that some religeous folk are virtually wasting their real lives in preperation for a new life after death,
- and this is one of the things that I despise all religeons for.
I was unsure and had feelings of guilt for a long time, at least for a year or two as I recall.
And this was not a strict religous upbringing at all, - so for someone that has had a strong belief into adulthood who is also surrounded by religeous people, it must be very hard to understand why people do not believe.
To spend a good deal of your life believing makes it very hard to come to the opinion that you have been living a lie and have wasted all those years, - I really can understand that.
It must seem to religeous folk that Atheists are missing something in life.
Being an atheist, I actually feel it is the other way around.
What really bothers me is that some religeous folk are virtually wasting their real lives in preperation for a new life after death,
- and this is one of the things that I despise all religeons for.
Hardly wasting their lifes, you are certainly aware of plasebo effect?
Well, even one would believe in rusty nails, when they truly believe in rusty nails from their full hart and with open mind, they will get lot from it, self confidence otherwise missing, hope that might be lost to bottle otherwise and so on.
That is why I can't say that religion should be banned as for some it is very good thing indeed, but what I wish is to have it optional and that those who believe would understand that for others world is different from theirs and as valuable that should be respected as well.
I don't really care what I am as I just am what I am, some could say I'm ateist some could say I'm crazy
I agree that it's not at all a stupid idea, but instead, quite a thoughtful one.
First, however, apes do have opposable thumbs (and opposable big toes, also; using one's feet only for walking, rather than also for grasping, as would be useful for a tree-dweller, is arguably better served by the human form of foot).
Anyway, figuring out evolutionary relationships, can be difficult, and the conclusions are often uncertain (and have, in some cases, been notably revised, as new knowledge - especially, increased understanding of genetics - has become available). The scientific approach to your hypothesis, would be to design an experiment to test it (what would you expect to find, if you were correct or, especially, if you were incorrect?). I'm really not sure what would be an appropriate experiment. However, it seems unlikely that apes would have feet similar to monkeys, if their ancestors had human-like feet; mammals apparently returned to the sea, as whales, but these do not have fish-tails.
But you are certainly correct that what you call "devolution" occurs, notwithstanding the popular belief that "evolution" tends toward greater complexity ("more evolved" organisms; actually, all organisms are equally evolved, inasmuch as having successfully adapted to their circumstances). Examples can be found, especially, among some parasitic organisms, which have adapted to their use of the host's processes, and so have discarded their own, similar, abilities that they no longer need and that would require energy for them to maintain.
Reportedly, Darwin disliked the term "evolution," since he regarded it as falsely implying a directionality to the process that he described ("evolution" would literally translate as "turning outward" or "unfolding," as if connoting the inevitable blossoming of a flower).
No. The vast majority of the gnostic texts I'm talking about were found in a farm in Egypt somewhere. And Gnosticism... well that's a very hard thing to correctly define. I know that to some extent that the members considered themselves as part of the "God Squad"
you know Jews, Christians and later Muslims, but their core beliefs were actually more Pagan-like. Alot of people believe that the Gnostics came up with these texts as a way to justify their beliefs to the Christian community... ehh to try and pass themselves off as Christians in an effort to survive. Similar to the way Voodoo is done.
And no most of those books were definately not biblical in any sort.
Like the so-called book of Mary... LOL that book never said which Mary.
Modern Christians well some anyways, tend to think that some of these books were written in an attempt to discredit Christianity... they think by Satan. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more like from Romans who realized the Lions and Crosses just wasn't doing it.
First, however, apes do have opposable thumbs (and opposable big toes, also; using one's feet only for walking, rather than also for grasping, as would be useful for a tree-dweller, is arguably better served by the human form of foot).
"Anyway, figuring out evolutionary relationships, can be difficult, and the conclusions are often uncertain (and have, in some cases, been notably revised, as new knowledge - especially, increased understanding of genetics - has become available). The scientific approach to your hypothesis, would be to design an experiment to test it (what would you expect to find, if you were correct or, especially, if you were incorrect?). I'm really not sure what would be an appropriate experiment. However, it seems unlikely that apes would have feet similar to monkeys, if their ancestors had human-like feet; mammals apparently returned to the sea, as whales, but these do not have fish-tails."
Sorry, I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing.
I wouldn't know how to begin with an experiment of that nature either.
But Devolution....
Say there was a mutation amongst the Homoerectus. A foot deformity that while slowing the walking speed, helped with climbing so that these mutations could forage in trees for food to survive. then maybe the food supply ran out for the early tool user, or a much more powerful predator arrived in the area. one that could out run the normal homoerectus, yet couldn't climb very well. The surviving members in the trees had to pretty much stay up there, only able to come down for short periods of time, thus losing the ability to make tools.
Oh and I don't think apes do have opposable thumbs, at least not as articulate as ours are. I was told the only other animal that does is a marsupial. An opossum. I watched a show on animal intelligence It showed Chimpanzees and orangatangs using tools and applying problem solving techniques to things. anyways I watched their thumbs. They acted more like a finger if anything. I mean it moved around and all, just not in the same way - it doesn't seem as useful for them as ours is to us. I don't know though. I'm just going off of what I learned in school and saw on TV. And the way they taught evolution theory and biology when I was in school was so bad that the viking version of creation made more sense. and caged apes I saw on TV that never really had the opportunity to move their thumbs about would lack the muscle coordination to do so.
LOL
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey,
butane in my veins so I'm out to get the junkie
I'm not sure why you're saying No ?. But you first claimed there were no books left out of the canonical Bible. Which simply isn't true, as i said above, check out the Apocrypha.
The Gnostic gospels, otherwise known as the Coptic gospels, or the Nag Hammadi gospels (where they were found) Were never even considered for inclusion in the final cut of the Bible. They were written by a cult (The Gnostics) who claimed that Jesus never actually came in human form, but only came as a spirit who appeared in human form. Whether or not they were written to discredit Jesus is doubtful to be honest, rather it was just yet another bunch of nuts stating what they believed, and that what they believed was right. A modern day analogue would be the Mormons.
Besides, there were only about half a dozen Gnostic gospels written, as opposed to the well over 100 texts in the rest of the Apocrypha. So they wouldn't of had much influence or popularity at all.
As i said above, the books included in the canonical Bible (the one we have today) was decided by christian communities 'sharing notes', on which books they used and those which fitted into the overall scheme of what both the Old Testament and New Testament was trying to 'sell'. And the books they didn't like, or didn't fit in with the rest of the story, were simply discarded. A bloke called Atherutier or something (can't remember his exact name or how to spell it) was the acting head of this meeting or meetings (plural), but he wasn't a political figure, just a well respected christian elder or bishop. It's been said that Emperor Constantine tried to influence the decision, but i don't know if he managed it ? Although i wouldn't be surprised if he did.
An analogue of the above would be me saying, Yeah LFS S3, i want to ditch the Oval and Drag strip, but include an Ariel Atom and a Lotus Elise, then Scawen saying, i'll trade you the Oval, but i'll give you bikes instead, but the Elise is no-go i'm afraid. Then someone like SamH saying ok, sounds good, but lets get rid of AS Nat, and have night racing instead. Then Hankster pitching in with a request for a Giant Squid and a tank full of piranhas. At which point we all look at each other, nod, and say collectively....sounds good, lets do it, "and so it was, S3 defined"
NB. i'd just like to point out that I personally have no input whatsoever on LFS S3 or indeed any aspect of LFS, and i'd be most surprised if the Devs would ever seek my opinion on the final content, although i can't vouch for Sam or Hank.
I understand what you are proposing. My point was that the shape of a monkey's (or ape's) foot is likely determined by a very complex set of genes (representing specific nucleotide sequences in DNA), and it is unlikely that mutations (each, a generally random change in a nucleotide sequence - including additions, deletions and substitutions of one or more nucleotides) would occur in a humanoid, so as virtually to duplicate/restore that set of genes and cause a humanoid foot to evolve into, again, a monkey (this time, ape) foot. It is quite conceivable that a humanoid could evolve into a tree-dweller, with a form of foot that was adapted to that way of life, but not likely the exact same type of foot as had been the earlier adaptation.
So, rather than that monkey-like feet evolved into humanoid feet, and then evolved again, and exactly back into monkey-like feet, it is instead more likely that apes simply retain their monkey-like feet, and human feet have evolved from these.
The alternative is not entirely far-fetched, since the hands of humans and apes, and the feet of apes, are pretty similar, and a perhaps-not-greatly-complex set of mutations (or even a single mutation; I don't know the specific details of what would be required) in some basic developmental genes could result in something like a hand growing on the end of a leg, which is similar to what seems to be the case with apes and monkeys (although I don't actually know the precise bone anatomy of an ape's, or monkey's, lower limb).
I would add, however, that the example pertaining to feet, is just one obvious example of what may be many similarities between monkeys and apes, and differences from humans.
Suffice it to say that I don't know exactly why apes and early humanoids are placed in the evolutionary relationship that they are (with the former preceding the latter, rather than vice-versa). I had quite a difficult time coming up with a reasonable explanation, to address your proposition, from the knowledge that I have (lucky for me, you had mentioned thumbs, and that eventually suggested an approach), but there are biologists and anthropologists that have much more knowledge than I have, and I expect that a better explanation can be found.
They do. They have thumbs with fine control - enough to grasp a small insect, among the hair of another ape, and remove it (which "grooming" is a common social behavior). You can Google for images, or go visit a zoo, in order to convince yourself about the form and abilities of ape-thumbs.
Chimpanzees, at least, are also capable of making simple tools (including, at least, stripping the leaves and branches off a stick, and using it to collect insects). Their lesser (compared to humans) technological abilities are perhaps the result of a smaller brain (including abstraction and language areas), rather than a lack of physical abilities such as manual dexterity.
That's not surprising. Muscular coordination is a skill that must be developed through experience. Note how clumsy small children can be.
P.S. - I don't know how to do the multiple-quote thing, either. I just click on "quote" and then split the quote into sections and copy/paste the quote and unquote prefixes/suffixes, in order to quote each section, separately. I think that the "multi-quote" button is for quoting multiple posts; maybe you just click it for every post that you want to quote, and then "quote" the last one, and all are included in your edit window. But you still have to split them and so on, as I described (Edit: yup; I checked it, and that's how it works).
they do indeed but theres not much of a thumb to oppose any other finger to
http://www.max-planck-gymnasiu ... C_zooheinrich13_4.jpg.jpg (mensch = human)
Giant Squid is OK, IFF it uses an H-shifter (and the waving of tentacles, is realistically simulated). But no piranhas, since their inclusion would obviously be blasphemous (please keep in mind that LFS is a racing simulator).
Cool picture. Thanks.
I would interpret it as more of a matter of extra-long fingers (good for holding on to tree branches), rather than short thumb. In any case, apes are quite capable with their hands (and feet).
Earlier there was talk about the ten commandments. Personally im for em
Even if they weren't religious they would still be excellent rules (guidelines) to live by.
Even if they weren't religious they would still be excellent rules (guidelines) to live by.
It's worth noting that Mosaic law was the system of civil laws for the Hebrew civilization, notwithstanding that they are often characterized simply as "religious." Many of them are recognizably reasonable and beneficial ideas.
LOL I don't know why I said No either...
I meant this : the Nag Hammadi gospels
What you're talking about, I really don't know that much of. but I thought there was more than just trading this and switching that to come up with the bible, there was certain things each of these books had to have to be included in the Bible. there was tons of crap that was submitted and reviewed and we're pretty much at the mercy of their judgement as to what really should be there and what's not. Someone once told me that the book of Revelations was barely allowed in. And you know, after reading it over, I find it hard to believe - and don't. I mean it just doesn't really seem to fit in.
It's like you're reading a crime novel and the the final chapter goes into science fiction with little if any revelance to the rest of the book
LOL I Quoted Mazz, replied, Copied all that, hit the back button on the browser and then quoted you.
what a stupid question is that? duh... of course it does not exist
Something [does god exist]
(421 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG