If theism stands and falls with theists ...
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
river. Didn't you know?
Ancient peoples formed a global conglomerate, and one of the items on the agenda was to compose global drama class, with the idea of a massive global performance at what is now known as ''Christmas''
Anyways, one guy saw the global scipt, and this gave him an idea....
To cut a long story short, he got a few mates together, and they came up with all of the known scriptures. Unfortunately, and all his mates got killed in a horrific horse and carriage pile up (the height of luxorious travel), soon after it's completion, and never got a chance to see the impact it made.
jan.
Last edited:
In what sense? What are we ignoring about the "cuniforms in the Ancient past"? Let's get specific.
Devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
As noted, religion requires "specialized jargon," so expect differing views on this.
for starters , from Zechharia Sitchins' book The 12th Planet pg.182;
'' Were the earlier Greek astronomers, living in Asia Minor, better informed than their successors because they could draw on Mesopotamian sources ?
Hipparchus , in fact , confirmed in his writtings that his studies were based on knowledge accumulated and verified over many millennia. He named as his mentors " Babylonian astronomers of Erech, Borsippa, and Babylon " Geminus of Rhodes named the Chaleans ( the ancient Babyloians ) as the discovers of the exact motions of the Moon . Diodorus Siculus, writing in the first century B.C. confirmed the exactness of Mesopotamian astronomy ; he stated that " the Chaldeans named the planets ... in the center of their system was the Sun , the greatest light , of which the planets were ' offspring ' , reflecting the Sun's position and shine "
Yes, Hipparchus was a great astronomer, and yes, he drew on the Chaldeans. So did Ptolemy, for that matter. So what? This doesn't answer my question.
It isn't as if the Babylonians had some sacred knowledge, it's just that they were good astrologers. What is your point?
my point , further;
" While some have called Copernicus the " Father of modern Astronomy " others view him more as researcher and reconstructor of earlier ideas. The fact is that he pored over writings of Greek astronomers who preceded Ptolemy , such as Hipparchus and Aristarchus of Sanos. The latter suggests in the third century B.C. that the motions of the heavenly bodies could be better explained if the Sun....not the Earth ... were assumed to bein the center. In fact 2000yrs before Copernicus , Greek astronomers listed the planets in their correct order from the Sun, acknowledging thereby that the Sun, not the Earth, was the Solar Systems focal point. "
" While some have called Copernicus the " Father of modern Astronomy " others view him more as researcher and reconstructor of earlier ideas. The fact is that he pored over writings of Greek astronomers who preceded Ptolemy , such as Hipparchus and Aristarchus of Sanos. The latter suggests in the third century B.C. that the motions of the heavenly bodies could be better explained if the Sun....not the Earth ... were assumed to bein the center. In fact 2000yrs before Copernicus , Greek astronomers listed the planets in their correct order from the Sun, acknowledging thereby that the Sun, not the Earth, was the Solar Systems focal point. "
Copernicus certainly did his own work, even if he was inspired by earlier sources. All scientists are inspired by earlier sources, that's how science works. The same advancements can be made independently, of course, but in any case the advancement is impossible without the work done by others who came before.
You seem to think (probably thanks to the hack Sitchin) that these men simply uncovered old discoveries and claimed them as their own. This is not the case.
I have no idea what "Uruk method" is supposed to be, but we have no first-hand knowledge of Sumerian astronomy. All we have are the Babylonia star charts, which give the stars Sumerian names, being suggestive of Sumerian origin.
At any rate, what point are you getting at? Are you saying it's somehow impossible that these people could have been this good about astronomy? Are you saying they had access to some secret knowledge? They weren't as accurate as we are today, so what are you trying to say?
I think you overestimate it. But again, I think this comes from your reliance on Zecharia Sitchin for history lessons.
you have no idea about Sumer history , hence why Uruk became something you didn't know
and what have you got against Zecharia Sitchin ?
No, I know what Uruk is, I just don't know what you mean by "the Uruk method".
Um, everything? He's a fraud and a liar and a crank. If you read any legitimate historians, you'd know this. Instead, you'd rather read the ones who talk about ancient aliens and conspiracies and other soft-minded crap.
You mean Zeus?
Must be your Panhellenic roots flourishing again ....
Pay attention James. Your question asked about theism, not religion.
Zeus is described as a ''god'' not God.
Theists are so called because they believe in God, and no
amount of denial on your part is going to change that.
jan.
Pay attention James. Your question asked about theism, not religion.
Zeus is described as a ''god'' not God.
Theists are so called because they believe in God, and no
amount of denial on your part is going to change that.
jan.
That's a false distinction. Believers in the Greek pantheon and the skymonster Yahweh are both theists. The difference is merely the poly- and mono- prefix.
So the bloke who wears his green, unwashed underpants every lottery night because he believes it will bring him luck, is a ''theist'' because he worships 'Lady Luck'' (goddess of fortune), despite his lack of belief in God?
jan.