No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

Archeology

Middle Eastern Monotheism: a history

Australia currently has members of her armed forces serving overseas in three countries which were or remain theaters of war: Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The conflicts in all these places share one common factor: at least one of the Middle Eastern monotheistic religions is involved.

These religions do seem prone to be involved in conflict, since they are, by nature, exclusivist. If there is only one true god demanding allegiance, then persons of another religion must be in serious error. Furthermore, if allegiance to this one god is the only way to salvation, then it is a duty of the faithful to gather everyone else to this fold. Religions, which have a multitude of gods, on the other hand, do not have this tendency, since there is no theological problem in adding a further god to the pantheon.

This monograph is an effort to understand the history of these monotheistic religions, all of which have originated in the Middle East. It is not a theological work but uses the usual methods of historical review; results of archeological research and study of ancient documents. I cannot read these ancient languages myself so perforce much of the monograph relies on secondary sources. With greater historical knowledge we may better understand the background to the conflicts which engage our armed forces.


Middle Eastern Monotheism: Chris Strakosch


Tags: , , , , , ,

Adams Rib

© Online Opinion Feb. 2nd 2010, by David Fisher:

The clay tablets of the extinct Sumer civilisation were written about 5,000 years ago. According to Harry Gersh’s The Sacred Books of the Jews, the earliest part of the Jewish Bible, “The Song of the Well” was composed about 1200BCE. The Torah (or the five books of Moses) was not canonised until about 400BCE. That means the paradise described by Sumer was more distant in time from the canonisation of the Torah than the canonisation of the Torah is from us.

The Bible in large part merely puts its own spin on much older legends. To study any work of literature one should be aware of the cultural matrix in which that work was produced. To study the Bible as a work complete in itself while ignoring the cultural matrix in which it was written is not studying the Bible.

In Genesis there are two accounts of the creation of human beings (I’m citing the King James Version (KJV) of Genesis which is close to the Jewish Publication Society and Soncino versions.).

The first: Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” shows man and woman created as separate entities.

In the next chapter in a departure from the way other humans are formed woman is created from man:

Genesis 2:20, “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

The most obvious explanation of the two accounts is that the biblical narrative patches together two separate stories of human creation. This is a logical thing to do when you have two conflicting accounts and no way to differentiate between them. In the different accounts God is called by two different names in the original Hebrew. The KJV reflects this difference by referring to God as “God” in Genesis 1:27 and the “Lord God” in Genesis 2:22.

In the Hebrew the God of Genesis 1:27 is Elohim (אֱלהִים). Recent scholarship is that it reflects the common Middle Eastern view of a supreme god, referred to in Genesis 1 by the generic noun “Elohim”, god, which is itself in a plural form. Christians have traditionally interpreted the plural as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.

› Continue reading

Tags: , , ,

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 General 1 Comment

Remixing Darwin: Part Two

tree_of_life

The Tree of Life

Part two of CultureLab’s remix of On The Origin Of Species.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Or download here: © New Scientist.

Tags: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 19th, 2009 Evolution, Podcast, Science No Comments

Remixing Darwin: Part One

New Scientist and Culture Lab have come up with a refreshing idea to raise awareness of the greatest book on Earth.

species_handwritingOn The Origin Of Species opened the eyes of humanity, enabled us to discover our most wonderful traits and forever removed the ipso facto immorality that religion thrives upon.

Charles Darwin may have wondered, but probably never knew that his brilliant and beautiful work would sing constantly and gloriously in the minds of any who reads and understands even single aspects of his factual theory.

Here is the work of a single man who indirectly encourages one to ask why, and to seek more. What one finds is appreciation for reality, humanity, all life, nature and death. Life is certainly an astonishingly improbable privilege that whilst painful, and to some meaningless, is indeed a short opportunity to experience what trillions and trillions never can.

Read more about the ‘long argument’ here and the Creationist rip off of his work. Part One of On The Origin of Species Revisited is below.

  • Introduction:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Direct Download here: © New Scientist.

  • Chapter One:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Or Download here: © New Scientist.

Tags: , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 Evolution, Podcast, Science No Comments

We’re racist and bigoted to ourselves; imagine another species

I often wonder at how wonderful it must have been to encounter another species not terribly unlike our own. The electric thrill our ancestors never knew that would one day occupy our dreams, was perhaps mundane if not unwelcome in the struggle for survival.

Of course, usually this type of thought leads me to contemplate the evolution of species and the wonder of life. We are indeed a mere animal, albeit highly evolved and clever enough to destroy our habitat and deny so. Yet noting the 107 billion humans to have lived on our planet, and that none have ever satisfactorily proven an afterlife nor any person ‘returned’ we are privileged doubly to be alive at this time.

Still, even today toward the end of the first decade of the 21st century the same brains that calculated the age of our universe intentionally and scurrilously lie, deny and discriminate. The ultimate result of this cowardice is the suffering of so many million human beings.

If we scammed up tricks to torture, maim and abuse all humans of every age in every culture at all times in our history, imagine the suffering we would have inflicted on another species – as well as ourselves.

From © New Scientist Why Did Our Species Survive The Neanderthals?

ONCE upon a time, a race of cavemen ruled Europe and Asia, then mysteriously vanished, leaving little but bones and stone tools behind.

The history of the Neanderthals isn’t a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, but much of what has been written about the ancient human species may as well be, says evolutionary ecologist Clive Finlayson in his informative monograph.

Take their disappearance, which a team led by Finlayson has pinpointed to the rock of Gibraltar, between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago. Since the discovery of the first Neanderthal bones in Belgium in 1829, anthropologists have proposed any number of explanations for their extinction.

Some said Neanderthals were too dim-witted to survive climatic upheaval or the arrival of our ancestors from Africa. Others contended that their diet – big mammals that were also becoming rare – did them in, while Homo sapiens‘s more catholic diet gave them the edge to survive. Some even argued that Neanderthals didn’t go extinct at all, but interbred with H. sapiens.

None of these just-so stories quite add up, Finlayson says. There is no clear indication that Neanderthals were any less intelligent than H. sapiens, and genetic evidence has shown that they share with humans key changes in Foxp2, a gene involved in speech and language. The distinction between Neanderthal and human technology isn’t as clear-cut as palaeoanthropologists sometimes suggest, and Neanderthals hunted smaller game and seafood where it was available. Meanwhile, a first-draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome offers no sign that they contributed to our gene pool.

So why did Neanderthals go extinct?…..

Devour the remaining article here

Tags: , , , ,

Monday, November 9th, 2009 Creationism, Evolution, General, Science No Comments
 

logo

Check Your Timezone. Select "Australia - Victoria - Melbourne" in the first field. Select your location in the second. Don't forget to select 23/11pm in the hour field. Amaze and astound your friends in a timely fashion.


free debate
September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
scarlet a