Sparks of the same fire [Archive]

SkinWalker

02-14-05, 03:04 PM

ellion

02-14-05, 03:04 PM

the qur'an is a good read too.

duendy

02-14-05, 04:53 PM

The first five books of the Christian Bible are called the Pentateuch. These are the Torah of Judaic belief. The Jewish religion is an historical version of the more evolved religion of Christianity. Islam is yet another evolution of the Jewish religion and has its beginnings after Christianity, though not by much.

All three cults are splintered and divided into sub-cults, though, as might be predicted, not as extensively in Judaism as with Christianity and Islam. Christianity is the most divided of the three cults.

Earlier cults of the Near East have direct correlates to these three, though I'm not as familiar with Islam as I am the Judeo-Christian examples. The Canaanite pantheon of gods can be found in Judeo-Christian literature, though not mentioned as gods but mortals or demons; some Egyptian stories have found their way into the "truth" of christian religion; the Noachian Flood myth has its roots in Sumerian mythology, perhaps in earlier oral traditions.... etc.

Even New Testament mythology has its roots in Buddhist mythology and the Buddhist 8-fold path appears to be imitated in the so-called teachings of Christ.

The common factor: people and their cognitive capacity for belief in specific motifs of the supernatural.

It is interesting to look closer at what 'supernatural' means. From my learnings the concept of 'SUPER'-natural' originates with Indian metaphysicians. Who posited a 'One'. I.e the origins of mysticism. a 'higher' reality than 'mudane' Nature, the 'Many'

Contrary to that belief in a supernatrual is the more ancinet Earth religious udnderstanding, which many Indigenous peoples share.
For example, th concept of an individual 'soul' --as in Christianity. In Indigenous tradition and primal animist insights, soul was not cut off, or transcendent, beyond or above Nature. Rather soul was permeated through Nature

Now--getting to know your views, skinwalker--i assume you will yet still believe a sense of this interconnectedness . a Deeper experience is also merely 'cognitive'. I.e., can't be measured via your scientific method'.

SkinWalker

02-14-05, 05:20 PM

For "supernatural," I'm referring to that which is outside of nature.A. adj.

1. That is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature.

1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 190 Fayth is a super~naturall lyght, & therfore it is indiuysyble, as all graces supernaturall be. 1555 BRADFORD in Foxe A. & M. (1570) III. 1822/1 If a woman that is natural, can not finally forget the child of her wombe,..God which is a father super~naturall,..wyll not forget you. 1561 T. NORTON Calvin's Inst. II. 73 Of nature is giltinesse, and sanctification is of supernaturall grace. 1594 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. I. xi. §3 Those supernaturall passions of ioy, peace, and delight. 1601 SHAKES. All's Well II. iii. 3 They say miracles are past, and we haue our Philosophicall persons, to make moderne and familiar things supernaturall and causelesse. a1619 M. FOTHERBY Atheom. II. v. §3. (1622) 240 Hee flyeth aboue those inferior and naturall concauses, vnto the supreme and supernaturall Cause. 1646 SIR T. BROWNE Pseud. Ep. I. xi. 44 Thus hath he also made the ignorant sort beleeve that naturall effects..proceed from supernaturall powers. 1749 HARTLEY Observ. Man I. iii. §7 412 Inspiration..termed supernatural properly, in Contradistinction to all Knowledge resulting from the common Laws of Nature. 1772 PRIESTLEY Inst. Relig. (1782) I. 319 Testimony..declared in supernatural voices from heaven. 1865 LECKY Ration. I. i. 77 The pestilences which desolated nations were deemed supernatural. 1866 LIDDON Bampton Lect. vi. (1875) 296 Christianity is a supernatural religion. 1892 J. TAIT Mind in Matter (ed. 3) 308 The Apostles considered supernatural power as something resident in Jesus. 1907 J. R. ILLINGWORTH Doctr. Trinity ii. 39 When the Word was made Flesh, a supernatural Being entered what we call the order of nature.

As to my "views," if there were any worldview that I would buy, it would be far closer to that of what you refer to as "pre-patriarchal" worldviews, though the true delineation of gender in society during prehistoric times is a very subjective concept and no clear data can fully vindicate the hypothesis that matriarchal societies existed or that androgynic societies were in existance. I tend to think they did, though not universially.

I say that might worldview would take this form because of the reverence for nature that prehistoric/primative man (I use the term "man" in the gender-neutral, biological sense) had. All things were holy and interconnected. There existed no "super"-natural as everything was a part of nature, including whatever gods or forces man envisioned at the time. Sky Father and Earth Mother were concepts that took various form in various cultures, but there was a universal acceptance that a duality had to exist to bring forth life.

I don't bow down to gods and goddesses, but I recognize that this is the essence of science. Everything exists in nature, even if we fail to understand it. That doesn't mean it is unknowable, it only means that it might take longer for man to learn.

The universe is knowable. It has a common point of origin and cyclic characteristics (chemical reactions, reductions, etc.). Everything is connected... the atoms of hydrogen that exist in my body may have existed in your own at some point in time.

There is much awe in what can be measured and greater awe in what we have yet to measure or to figure out how to measure.

We don't need supernatural explanations for that which is natural just because we don't know the nature of what we observe or experience.

Yorda

02-14-05, 07:17 PM

There are 3 leading world religions, two forms (East and West), but only one source: God (the higher self). I come to think of Religions as colors. There are 3 main colors, then there are many transitions (like Catholism, Taoism, Shitoism etc.), and in reality there are no colors, only one light. A religion is the body of God, a container of HIS wisdom. The outer body must always die and then be born again, the inner self never changes, it's already perfect.

The Canaanite pantheon of gods can be found in Judeo-Christian literature, though not mentioned as gods but mortals or demons; some Egyptian stories have found their way into the "truth" of christian religion; the Noachian Flood myth has its roots in Sumerian mythology, perhaps in earlier oral traditions.... etc.

Because the flood was global, it's not strange that other cultures also wrote about it.
What happened in, what we now call "Sahara", about 5000 years ago, was the cause of the flood.

Even New Testament mythology has its roots in Buddhist mythology and the Buddhist 8-fold path appears to be imitated in the so-called teachings of Christ.

If Buddha and Jesus wouldn't have teached the same things, then one of them would have been a liar. There is only one God and one truth.
He who is no longer affected by the body will clearly see this reality, and speak of it. Wise people can recognize the same truth in all religions.

For "supernatural," I'm referring to that which is outside of nature.

There is no outside nature, it's only (temporarly) outside our understanding.

SkinWalker

02-14-05, 08:05 PM

A religion is the body of God, a container of HIS wisdom.

A religion is merely the superstitious manifestations of ignorance by man. I don't use "ignorance" in the colloquial sense that you probably are thinking, however. I'm referring to the lack of knowlege and understanding, generally by refusal to educate one's self.

Because the flood was global, it's not strange that other cultures also wrote about it.

The only thing "global" about a flood motif is that ancient man was bound to flood-prone regions for survival. Floods are evident in the geologic record but to suggest that a global flood has ever occured in 150,000 to 200,000 years that H. sapiens has existed on the planet as a distinct primate species is superstitious rubbish. This is the sort of ignorance to which I'm referring to with religion.

What happened in, what we now call "Sahara", about 5000 years ago, was the cause of the flood.

Where's the phyisical evidence for this? Never mind, I realize that it exists only in your head....

If Buddha and Jesus wouldn't have teached the same things, then one of them would have been a liar. There is only one God and one truth.

Buddhism teaches that there are no gods (for those that care, I'm speaking of Theravada).

He who is no longer affected by the body will clearly see this reality, and speak of it.

Ironically, this is exactly the teaching of Buddha. Enlightenment will come for those that can give up the material things of life.

Wise people can recognize the same truth in all religions.

And the wisest of these will also see the lies in all religions, for both truth and lies are ever-present in modern religion. Though I've yet to see a provable lie in Theravada Buddhism... not that I'm Buddhist, I just haven't seen it.

There is no outside nature, it's only (temporarly) outside our understanding.

That's what I'm saying.

Yorda

02-14-05, 08:34 PM

Floods are evident in the geologic record but to suggest that a global flood has ever occured in 150,000 to 200,000 years that H. sapiens has existed on the planet as a distinct primate species is superstitious rubbish. This is the sort of ignorance to which I'm referring to with religion.

One day an accident happened, for a "black magician" directed a power which destroys matter (converts it into another form of energy) to his own body. When this process has once started there is no stopping it, the matter which has formed into energy works as a destroying power until everything has been dematerialized.

The whole land (Sahara) transformed into radiation energy, which first ascended to the outmost atmosphere and then came back in all kinds of substances. In constant processes of change this gigantic mass fell down as endless water- mud- and sand rain (even insects and animals). In the place where this fallout met with great mountains, the waters of the oceans 'united' (even above great mountains). The 'other side' of the earth's continents 'separated' from each other and parted further away until they reached balance, until they reached about the point where the continents are today. The 'partly' destroyed continent is now a great desert. 'Nothing sounds here but the wind. Nothing moves here but the sand.'

Where's the phyisical evidence for this? Never mind, I realize that it exists only in your head....

It's known that Sahara suddenly got "extremely dry" 5000 years ago, which is the year of the flood.

Buddhism teaches that there are no gods (for those that care, I'm speaking of Theravada).

Yeah, there is only the "self" (which also is the same as "God", but you don't know what I mean with "God") The self can take all kinds of forms, that's why gods were created, they're only aspects of the self, like red and blue are aspects of light.

And the wisest of these will also see the lies in all religions, for both truth and lies are ever-present in modern religion.

It's natural, religions are _written_ by man.

SkinWalker

02-14-05, 11:36 PM

One day an accident happened, for a "black magician" directed a power which destroys matter (converts it into another form of energy) to his own body. When this process has once started there is no stopping it, the matter which has formed into energy works as a destroying power until everything has been dematerialized.

The whole land (Sahara) transformed into radiation energy, which first ascended to the outmost atmosphere and then came back in all kinds of substances. In constant processes of change this gigantic mass fell down as endless water- mud- and sand rain (even insects and animals). In the place where this fallout met with great mountains, the waters of the oceans 'united' (even above great mountains). The 'other side' of the earth's continents 'separated' from each other and parted further away until they reached balance, until they reached about the point where the continents are today. The 'partly' destroyed continent is now a great desert. 'Nothing sounds here but the wind. Nothing moves here but the sand.'

What the fuck are you talking about? Indeed, the rapid change from "green Sahara" to desert conditions began at around 3750 BCE, but these are linked to the Younger Dryas (12,900 - 11,500 yBP) period and then formation of the North Atlantic Deep Water mechanism that affected climate change by creating dryer conditions in the region.

Just out of curiosity, where did you obtain this other valuable information in geologic history? How do you account for the clear presence of human activity in the archaeological record well past 11,000 years BP in the Near East? The Natufian culture of present day Palestine/Jordan is considered to be one of the first cultures to domesticate wheat somewhere between 10,500 and 7000 BCE... how does the evidence of this culture fit your worldview? Do you deny it actually exists?

It's known that Sahara suddenly got "extremely dry" 5000 years ago, which is the year of the flood.

Its interesting how the human mind works, it truly is. You see, 5000 years BP was about 3050 BCE (I know what you're thinking, but the baseline of "present" in "Before Present" is 1950). It was around this time that writing was introduced. Simple symbols on clay bullae containing "tokens" started at around 3500 BCE in Uruk... followed by rudimentary signs & symbols on clay tablets around 3200 BCE, then full blown cuneiform script by the end of the 4th millenium beginning of the 3rd (3000 BCE). I'm pulling dates out of my head, so I might be off by a hundred years or so.

Writing is also considered by many to be the beginning of "history" since this is when history was finally able to be recorded. Its no wonder that the ethnocentric Judeo-Christian records cling to this as the "new beginning" following the flood. Coincidently, it was around this time that the Deluge, the Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh epics were introduced (probably over a thousand years, in that order, and beginning with oral tradition until writing was accessable).

but you don't know what I mean with "God"

You got that right, bubba. Was he that black magician guy?

duendy

02-15-05, 06:14 AM

For "supernatural," I'm referring to that which is outside of nature.

d__so we both seem to agree with that then?

As to my "views," if there were any worldview that I would buy, it would be far closer to that of what you refer to as "pre-patriarchal" worldviews, though the true delineation of gender in society during prehistoric times is a very subjective concept and no clear data can fully vindicate the hypothesis that matriarchal societies existed or that androgynic societies were in existance. I ltend to think they did, though not universially.

d__ok. you are saying the evidence is hard to find. i am saying this is due to the general patriarchal oppression, and suprresion of a Goddess oriented culture. one has to then read between the lines--wrti BY the patriarchy, and at IMAGERY, which is a central part of the Goddess country

I say that might worldview would take this form because of the reverence for nature that prehistoric/primative man (I use the term "man" in the gender-neutral, biological sense) had. All things were holy and interconnected. There existed no "super"-natural as everything was a part of nature, including whatever gods or forces man envisioned at the time. Sky Father and Earth Mother were concepts that took various form in various cultures, but there was a universal acceptance that a duality had to exist to bring forth life.

d__'duality' in the meanng of complimentarity of opposites, not the patriarchal concept of duality that had the opposites in conglift with one another.
As for th introduction of a 'sky god'. Ward Rutherford, in his book 'Shamanism: The Foundations of Magic', claims that where we see cultures where a sky god mates with Goddess and/or Mother Earth is the indication of Goddess culture undergoing oppression from invading forces who worship a sky god. I.e., first the have 'him' 'marry' her and then we see a dismantling of her power

I don't bow down to gods and goddesses, but I recognize that this is the essence of science. Everything exists in nature, even if we fail to understand it. That doesn't mean it is unknowable, it only means that it might take longer for man to learn.

I am seeingg it rather there is the known, and what can be known, in a scientific sense, but also an UNknown. what simply cant be KNOWN. and i dont mean by this how the patriarchal theists dogmatize this by claiming only an elite can show you 'God' (you know having middle men btween the believer and 'God')...i am meaning there is a mystery, an amniguity about Nature that cannot be known by reason. because it is the SOURCE of reason. SUB-reason (am sure i'll have to xplain this more..heh_

The universe is knowable. It has a common point of origin and cyclic characteristics (chemical reactions, reductions, etc.). Everything is connected... the atoms of hydrogen that exist in my body may have existed in your own at some point in time.

d__yes, but that is its obJECTICE face. there is the SUBJECTIVE interelational experience which is unknowable, and can't be grasped by a scientific method. cant be utilized in a mechanical way!

There is much awe in what can be measured and greater awe in what we have yet to measure or to figure out how to measure.

of COURSe there is. this life, and death , and Nature ,a nd universe, and spiral galaxy, etc etc etc, is utterly profound, and fathomless. but understanding that why cant you understand the SUBJECTIVE experiential connection to this profoundness. in ACTUAL experience?
example. you can analyze a dance, and that is good. but to actually DO the dance.......?

We don't need supernatural explanations for that which is natural just because we don't know the nature of what we observe or experience.

well, i feel we have agreed about 'supernatural'. our impasse now is your interpreation of 'knowing nature' via science, and mine -accepting that-but also accepting a deeper plunging into experiencing reality, away from the textbooks, 'reason', and microscope--ie., the scientific method

Yorda

02-15-05, 07:26 AM

Just out of curiosity, where did you obtain this other valuable information in geologic history?

Where do you think? Where did Socrates, Newton, Jesus and Buddha get their knowledge from? Where do You get your knowledge from? If you get it from reading books, where did the authors get their knowledge from? That's right, they get it from themselves, from the "self", from "God", by observing, by thinking... The self knows everything. Humans can't see the self because they're too much in love with the body.

How do you account for the clear presence of human activity in the archaeological record well past 11,000 years BP in the Near East?

What about it?

You see, 5000 years BP was about 3050 BCE (I know what you're thinking, but the baseline of "present" in "Before Present" is 1950). It was around this time that writing was introduced. Simple symbols on clay bullae containing "tokens" started at around 3500 BCE in Uruk...

Funny. Have you heard that they have found archeological evidence for small hobbit like humans? Myths tell us about giants and hobbits, but because You are so Proud, you won't believe in them! Don't you believe that we will become taller and greater in size as we evolve? Maybe we'll all be 2 metres tall in some centuries, just like the human generation before us were giants, so will we also be. "Like it was in the days before Noah, so it will be on the day of the coming of the son of man." Haven't you seen Egyptian paintings, which paint people will long great heads ("anak"), or high hats? These were Anak, or the descendants of Anak. The Egyptian writing...

I tell you, the place were Sahara is, that was the Home of the "giants", the "Anak", the "sons of God". But as the flood was coming, the sons of God had already died out long ago because they no longer had reasons to live on earth. But because they had children with the "smaller", primitive humans at that time (Genesis 6:4), it was, and IS, still possible that One SON of God could be born (Moses, Jesus, Ptah-hotep). He will be born... in different places, in different times, in different cultures, and in some cultures he will be treated as a God or half God, and in other cultures, they will make fun of him, mock him and kill him. We humans are the Anakim, the descendants of the Greater humans before us.

You got that right, bubba. Was he that black magician guy?

No. But if you want to be simple, you could just say that "God got angry and drowned the humans". Black "magic" means to use one's abilities in a wrong manner. If only a few people could talk, people might consider talking as something "magical". Now, if they would use words to do evil, or gain something for themselves at the expense of others, they would be "black magicians".

SkinWalker

02-15-05, 11:00 AM

Where do you think? [...] If you get it from reading books, where did the authors get their knowledge from? That's right, they get it from themselves, from the "self", from "God", by observing, by thinking... The self knows everything. Humans can't see the self because they're too much in love with the body.

Right... as long as we've established that you're making it all up. While we're on the subject, this is why the christian cult has so little credibility: people are so willing to make shit up and call it truth.

What about it? [human activity consistently present in the archaeological record since the last ice age]

It kind of disproves any "global flood," since only localized flooding is evident in a few places. Expected localized flooding, I might add.

Funny. Have you heard that they have found archeological evidence for small hobbit like humans?

It's ironic that you're willing to believe that. Because at every point of the global flood deception archaeology and geology are their to disprove it. But enter one "hobbit story" and suddenly it's acceptable. There's no indication that the so-called Flores Man, these "hobbits" you refer to, are any sort of new species of human. The tools found in association with the skeletons were of the size you would expect of normal size H. sapiens. It could be that their size was an environmental product, pygmied in the same process that created the pygmy elephants they hunted.

Whatever we find by more investigation, I'm amazed that you even accept the find as valid. It is discovered by the very sciences which disprove all the other nonsense you're talking about.

duendy

02-15-05, 11:16 AM

According to Allegro's investigation of etymological sources in mythology, as described in his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 'Giants' and 'sons of god' were the psychdelic shrooms!

i dont know why people believe in the literalism of myth. it is myth. IF people were giants, guess what, even MORE reources would be needed to sustian a person, right? so it wouldn't be really good for the whole ecosphere. and if they DId live to 999 years...jeeez there'd be no nuthin left. look what happened to the Dinosaurs

so the first explnation makes for more sense to me. more plausible

Yorda

02-15-05, 11:39 AM

It kind of disproves any "global flood," since only localized flooding is evident in a few places. Expected localized flooding, I might add.

I don't think it disproves anything.

Whatever we find by more investigation, I'm amazed that you even accept the find as valid. It is discovered by the very sciences which disprove all the other nonsense you're talking about.

I only accept the Truth. No science disproves what I know. You might be able to understand what I know if I would explain it better.
But I don't care... I'm not supposed to care. Everyone will know what I know... after a few thousand years.

SkinWalker

02-15-05, 12:02 PM

Your self-aggrandizing behavior notwithstanding, the "truth" is the last concept you have understanding of. You appear to wrapped up in the mythology of antiquity to even be in a position to recognize truth.

"I don't think it disproves anything."

It certainly disproves the flood claim of the christian cult, as well as the "young Earth" nonsense that the sub-cult of creationism clings to.

Yorda

02-15-05, 07:16 PM

SkinWalker...

When you think "I" sound self-aggrandizing, I'm only lifting up the higher self (not the personal self coming from the body) in me, the only "God" which lives in me aswell as in you.

It certainly disproves the flood claim of the christian cult, as well as the "young Earth" nonsense that the sub-cult of creationism clings to.

I don't know enough of the Bible to know why you think it disproves the flood. I only know the truth about the flood.

It says nowhere in the Bible that the physical earth is only a few thousand years old. The 7 days creation mentioned in the Bible represents the levels of life/consciousness: matter, plants, animals, humans, prophets, god-men. On the seventh "day" (ie. light, consciousness) I work not, but I rest in myself (self-awareness). The positive and negative pole are in perfect balance, there is no creation. If one could attain this in his consciousness, it would mean the death of the body.

SkinWalker

02-15-05, 10:40 PM

"I don't know enough of the Bible to know why you think it disproves the flood. I only know the truth about the flood."

How do you "know" this "truth?" Obviously not from the text you say you "don't know enough about."

No where in the geologic record is there any evidence of a global flood since the Cambrian Explosion. In many places of this text you know so little about there are literary indications of unoriginal idea and purely mythical thought. There are "truths" in the bible, but they tell us nothing about geology. The creation myth is obviously not meant to be the literal method of man's conception and, if read with a literary interpretation, the book of Genesis is clear about that.

If one looks at the geneologies presented in the bible, a date of about 6000 years ago would mark the beginning of man's reign on the Earth. Archbishop James Usher "computed" this in 1650 and came up with a date of 4004 BCE.

This cannot possibly be true based on the evidence present in the archaeological record. The prehistoric village of Çatalhöyük dates as far back as 9000 BCE. It thrived in 7000 BCE. The cave at Shanidar has evidence of human habitation as far back as 34,000 BCE and another layer below this that was inhabited by Neanderthal Man long before this.

Yorda

02-16-05, 05:18 AM

How do you "know" this "truth?" Obviously not from the text you say you "don't know enough about."

Those who come from the truth, recognizes the truth. The truth comes to everyone who knows themselves.
The universe is in me, and I fill the whole universe.

If one looks at the geneologies presented in the bible, a date of about 6000 years ago would mark the beginning of man's reign on the Earth. Archbishop James Usher "computed" this in 1650 and came up with a date of 4004 BCE.

The Holy scriptures (the Bible and Quran at least) mentions "giants" who were on earth long ago (probably back to 100000 years ago at least). These were loveful and all-knowing people worthy the name 'Sons of God'. They were also called 'Anak', which means long neck. Several skulls has been found.

At the time when these giants were still on earth, at the 'end times' (maybe about 30000 years ago), there were also another kind of "humans" on earth, early primitive humans who were spiritually weak and were also physically smaller ('neanderthals'?). Now, a few male giants made children with these primitive humans so that they also, after aeons, would attain salvation. This cross-breeding made various kinds of humans, since some of descendants inherited the wisdom and love from their fathers side, or only the physical size and then inherited the egoistic primitive nature from their mother's side. Then there were also those who inherited both the "magical" knowledge and abilities and the egoistic nature.

The new human generation was born about 6000 years ago. I would mark the flood as the "new beginning".

SkinWalker

02-16-05, 08:56 AM

Those who come from the truth, recognizes the truth. The truth comes to everyone who knows themselves.
The universe is in me, and I fill the whole universe.

Bullshit. Just a way not to answer the question.

The Holy scriptures (the Bible and Quran at least) mentions "giants" who were on earth long ago (probably back to 100000 years ago at least). These were loveful and all-knowing people worthy the name 'Sons of God'. They were also called 'Anak', which means long neck. Several skulls has been found.

At least this brings things back to the topic. First, to suggest that "Nephilim" skulls have been "found" demonstrates your true ignorance to "truth" and reinforces the first statement I made above. The "Nephilim," giants mentioned once in Genesis 6 and again in Numbers 13, are clearly suggested to be the product of "fallen angels" and men. This is yet another reason why the bible is a collection of myth and allegory rather than fact and history.

Homo neanderthalis appears at around 230,000 years ago and disappears around 30,000 years ago. He wasn't particularly larger than modern man, though his brain casing was somewhat larger. Hardly a "giant." At 30,000 years ago, there was no writing. No one to record history except by use of rudiementary pictures on cave walls. How do you suggest anyone passed on the information about a race of humans that looked for all the world like humans?

Morover, nothing in your wild speculations indicates that the fictional characters of Nephilim/Anak are anything but fiction. Nothing in the fossil/archaeological record as you suggest.

Your speculation represents exactly what the original poster is inquiring about, however: the common point of origin of the modern mythologies we call religion. Its really pathetic that there are those who cannot accept genuine truth and contrive speculations such as your own to protect or maintain their belief systems in light of the evidence that science uncovers. All that rather than just accept biblical texts for what they are: a set of allegorical and mythological literature that is a work of art and can give wisdom and insight but hardly speaks literal truth.

The new human generation was born about 6000 years ago. I would mark the flood as the "new beginning".

Pathetic. But to the original poster, note the reaching attempts that people go to in order to not have to come to terms with the possibility that the very core of their beliefs were created by those that simply had no way to understand their universe and contrived many explanations that fit their current worldviews and limited understandings. Worldviews and understandings that are now thousands of years out of date.

duendy

02-16-05, 09:21 AM

there is also ignore-ance. i see this behavi0ur as a form of taboo. that if one doesn't look it may go away.....

as i have already explained the 'sons of god' and 'giants' have been plausibly explained by Profssor Allegro in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross to etymologically refer to hallucinogenic mushrooms
'Angels' means 'messengers'...ie., you eat and you can become in contact with communication un-familiar to usual ordinary receptions. Other Indigenous peoples may call them "Plant Teachers"
For example sww Wasson about the curandero
Maria Sabina, and also Jeremy Narby's 'The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge

you know SCIENCE--in its more generalized form should also include researching and exploring the very stories we live by.....no? then we wont go breakin our backs lookin for giant's skulls!

Yorda

02-16-05, 01:40 PM

Bullshit. Just a way not to answer the question.

I get my knowledge from GOD.

The "original nephilim" were not "fallen angels". They were honored beings, that's why they were called the Sons of God. But their descendants, the anakim, were "fallen angels" (you could say). You have misunderstood the both me and the Bible, and those who wrote the Bible have also misunderstood something.

Homo neanderthalis appears at around 230,000 years ago and disappears around 30,000 years ago.

Do you now understand why the neanderthals dissapeared 30000 years ago? Because the Sons of God (the giants) made children with them, so they became a new human race - the humans of today.

He wasn't particularly larger than modern man, though his brain casing was somewhat larger. Hardly a "giant."

Neanderthals were smaller than modern man. You didn't understand what I told you.

At 30,000 years ago, there was no writing.

I'm sure "humans" could write "already" 100000 years ago or so... but this was another, more "advanced" human race. The pyramids and the Sphinx are built by the Sons of God. Also several temples and writings in the walls are done by them. The Sons of God didn't need procreate anymore, that's why they're no longer on earth.

Morover, nothing in your wild speculations indicates that the fictional characters of Nephilim/Anak are anything but fiction. Nothing in the fossil/archaeological record as you suggest.

I'm not speculating about it, I just know it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/skull_peru.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/skull_cairo.jpg

Nefertiti (1352-1336 BCE?)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/nefertiti_statue.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/nefertiti.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/nefertiti2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/giants-8.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/giants-6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/giants-3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Skulls/Giants-2.jpg

These are probably not skulls of the original giants, but maybe their descendants. You see, we are the descendants.

spidergoat

02-16-05, 01:55 PM

Just bow before the superior mythology of Yorda.
That information was downloaded directly to Yorda's brain by a pink laser beam from space, there is no refutation.

(Nefertiti had a bit of a gut, didn't she?)

the preacher

02-16-05, 02:05 PM

and all this time I thought Nefertiti was wearing a hat, WOW was i wrong.
thanks yorda, I go home and change all the reference books I have.

SnakeLord

02-16-05, 02:10 PM

It's quite strange to see that the site that apparently owns those pictures is actually a Mexican internet service provider :D

But, as some information concerning the skulls:

"The Paracas culture practiced 'deformation craneana', (cranial deforming), that is a very old tradition in Peru. These deformations took place by means of 'llautos' or ropes moored to the heads of the children. Some of the skulls, called 'long heads' arrive at a monstorous exaggeration...."

http://www.sir.edu.pe/Feria/Eva/paracas.html

Apologies but it's not in English..

In short Yorda, what you "know" has no truth to it at all. The facts concerning the matter is that the heads were 'shaped' that way using medical procedures - for religious or aesthetic reasons. They are not nephilim, anunnaki, or little green men from Mars. No sir, they are simply humans who have been purposely deformed. Your "knowledge from god" doesn't really amount to much.

I feel compelled to re-state Skinwalkers quote:

"Nothing in your wild speculations indicates that the fictional characters of Nephilim/Anak are anything but fiction. Nothing in the fossil/archaeological record as you suggest."

Practices like these are/were actually quite common among tribal people.. who you will know often deform their faces in all manner of ways.. They stick discs in their ears and mouths, have big arrow things sticking through their bodies and so on. Elongating the head is simply another version of this, and does not in any way imply the existence of fallen angels, giants or the abominable snowman.

Have a nice day.

audible

02-16-05, 02:12 PM

no shes not wearing a hat, it's just painted on to look like one.
take a look at them skulls. that proves it ( sticks tongue out, and go's nar nar na nar nar)

duendy

02-16-05, 05:01 PM

Am I allowed to ask this?

Are some of the posters here just joksters? I like a good joke; but I am having a problem; at first I thought joksters for sure - but then again - are they really serious?

Yes. It's true. They looked like the Simpsons.

Yorda

02-16-05, 05:21 PM

The facts concerning the matter is that the heads were 'shaped' that way using medical procedures - for religious or aesthetic reasons. They are not nephilim, anunnaki, or little green men from Mars. No sir, they are simply humans who have been purposely deformed. Your "knowledge from god" doesn't really amount to much.

I know that afterwards there were also people who purposely "formed" their heads that way, only because they wanted to be like the Sons of God, the wise and loveful kings who ruled over them.

SnakeLord

02-16-05, 05:29 PM

I know that afterwards there were also people who purposely "formed" their heads that way, only because they wanted to be like the Sons of God, the wise and loveful kings who ruled over them.

Ok then. So kindly provide fossil/archaeological records of the "real" sons of god as opposed to pictures of deformed "fakes".

Also, I would kindly suggest you stop using the word "know". It is clear you do not know. Your lousy excuse wasn't even worthy of my reply, but I'm bored.

Yorda

02-16-05, 05:59 PM

Ok then. So kindly provide fossil/archaeological records of the "real" sons of god as opposed to pictures of deformed "fakes".

I believe that at least the last skull might be a real skull, not a skull of a "son of God", but one of their descendants. Remember, we humans are the descendants of the sons of God, but our heads and bodies are no longer that way. We are a mix of their race and an early primitive human race. In the beginning there were born many people with great bodies and elongated skulls (and also with special, spiritual abilities - even today), but when WE procreated ourselves among others of our kind (because the sons of God left the earth), the pure "blood" of the sons of God was vanishing...

The sons of God ruled over humans, they were kings. That's why it's always the a family member who becomes the next king, because he was supposed to have "royal blood" in his veins. Of course, no one today has elongated skulls, not even Jesus or Buddha had one, but even so, he was a/the son of God. I have said it before. Because of this cross-breeding between the sons of God and early humans, it's still possible that the "messiah" (a "member" of the sons of God) is born among us.

Also, I would kindly suggest you stop using the word "know". It is clear you do not know.

I know what I know. I know 'for myself'.

SkinWalker

02-16-05, 06:23 PM

I get my knowledge from GOD.

Really, by what process?

The "original nephilim" were not "fallen angels". They were honored beings, that's why they were called the Sons of God.

No, biblical scholars all agree that the word "nephilim," which is from the Hebrew word: הנפלים means "fallen" ones. The Oxford English Dictionary concurs. That these beings are described as being more than men, we have to consider that occording to Christian mythology the only beings that are "more than men" are demons, angels, satan, god, jesus, and the holy ghost. Of those choices, are you suggesting that the mythical Nephilim refers to something other than angels? Demons perhaps?

Also, this bit of mythology is in preparation for the flood myth in Genesis 6 and the word "nephilim" only appears one other time in the bible in Acts 13:33.

Do you now understand why the neanderthals dissapeared 30000 years ago? Because the Sons of God (the giants) made children with them, so they became a new human race - the humans of today.

If H. neanderthalis was a separate species from H. sapiens, their DNA would be incompatible.

But how then do you explain H. erectus? H. habilis? A. robustus? Or the many other hominid species?

I won't dignify your "images" of ancient headbinder skulls with a response. That shit is beneath any discussion of the evolution of man and, indeed, they date to a period after the alleged time of Christ.

You're a misguided and undereducated young person, Yorda... go read a non-fiction book on science. Better yet, get an education... if you're not in college yet, go.

Neanderthals were smaller than modern man. You didn't understand what I told you.

Actually, the stature of H. neanderthalis was about that of H. sapiens (us, by the way), but their cranial capacity was larger (that's their brain sizes).

I'm sure "humans" could write "already" 100000 years ago or so... but this was another, more "advanced" human race. The pyramids and the Sphinx are built by the Sons of God. Also several temples and writings in the walls are done by them. The Sons of God didn't need procreate anymore, that's why they're no longer on earth.

Like I said, go get an education. This discussion is way over your head. The builders of the pyramids/sphinx/etc left a very clear archaeological record. Moreover, the archaeological record is also clear to within a few hundred years as to the invention of writing in multiple cultures in the Near and Far East. Humans did not have the technology to write until around the fourth millenium BCE (that's about 3 to 4 thousand years before the alleged time of Christ).

100,000 years ago, H. sapiens had little technology, and that which they did have was paleolithic. No writing. No agriculture. No domestication of animals. We were hunter/gatherers. We had language and probably some rudimentary forms of art. We were as intelligent as we are today, but the sum knowlege of the total population of humans (I'm guessing at a few hundred thousand people) was limited to hunting/gathering and production of stone tools.

I'm not speculating about it, I just know it.

No... its clear that you don't know Jack. In fact, as speculations go, yours is one of the least informed I've run into. Yorda, I don't know how old you are, but get an education. If you're in grade school, start reading more books on science, art, and social sciences. Challenge yourself to take more advanced classes in subjects like chemistry, physics, etc.

If you're out of grade school, go to college. If you can't afford college, start reading some books. Start with authors like Carl Sagan. He has quite a few books that will give you some valuable information and if you go to a used book store, these can be had for just a few dollars. I'm not saying abandon your bible. Science and religion can co-exist. One need not abandon their faith to understand science, history, and anthropology. I know many people who are spiritual, have christian faith, etc. and still have an intillectual bent. CS Lewis was a good example.

SnakeLord

02-16-05, 06:50 PM

I believe that at least the last skull might be a real skull, not a skull of a "son of God", but one of their descendants.

Ok, and how is that belief warranted? Have you conducted any tests or seen any reports of tests conducted on the specimen? Do you know where the specimen is located, where it was found, what name it has been given, etc, or is it nothing more than a prime example of wishful thinking?

Remember, we humans are the descendants of the sons of God

Can you provide so much as one example of this being true?

but our heads and bodies are no longer that way.

No longer what way? Can you provide any evidence stating that these 'sons of god' had elongated heads?

We are a mix of their race and an early primitive human race.

*Yawn* Can you provide any evidence of this?

In the beginning there were born many people with great bodies and elongated skulls (and also with special, spiritual abilities - even today)

According to who?

but when WE procreated ourselves among others of our kind (because the sons of God left the earth), the pure "blood" of the sons of God was vanishing...

And apparently have remained "vanished", which is why there is not one single piece of evidence to support your ludicrous claims.

The sons of God ruled over humans, they were kings.

Any particular king that you can recall off the top of your head?

I have said it before.

Did you provide any evidence then, or was that time just as pointless as now?

I know what I know.

And seemingly that is very little.

I know 'for myself'.

And that is just a waste of internet ink. It is meaningless waffle.

As a final note:

If you do have an interest in this fantasy, it would be well worth your time delving into Sumerian mythology. The nephilim clearly have their roots in the anunnaki, (those who from heaven to earth came). It is the reason the bible mentions "the children of Anak", "descendants of Anak" and so on. Either way, they are described as giants, not people with elongated heads.

I have said it before. I don't believe in education.

That's somewhat apparent. It's also somewhat tragic.

Yorda

02-16-05, 06:56 PM

Really, by what process?

By listening to my self (which is the same as God).

No, biblical scholars all agree that the word "nephilim," which is from the Hebrew word: הנפלים means "fallen" ones.

For me nephilim means giant. There is a difference between the nephilim and the sons of God.
In any case, if the Bible really calls MY sons of God fallen angels, then the Bible is wrong.
But my Bible doesn't call them fallen angels, instead it says that they are "mighty men".

Of those choices, are you suggesting that the mythical Nephilim refers to something other than angels? Demons perhaps?

The "nephilim/anakim" were alterations of the cross-breeding. Because they attained "magical" abilities from their father's side (the sons of God) and the egoistic nature from their mother's side (the early humans) they degraded their abilities to "black magic" by which they can be called "fallen angels".

The sons of God lived "earlier".

But how then do you explain H. erectus? H. habilis? A. robustus? Or the many other hominid species?

Why would I need to explain them? They can explain themselves. I don't know how the clouds move in the sky, but the clouds know how they do it, and that's the important thing.

Better yet, get an education... if you're not in college yet, go.

I have said it before. I don't believe in education.

Yorda

02-16-05, 07:12 PM

Have you conducted any tests or seen any reports of tests conducted on the specimen? Do you know where the specimen is located, where it was found, what name it has been given, etc, or is it nothing more than a prime example of wishful thinking?

I have done everything. I remember the sons of God. There's your proof, in MY memory. Why do you think I say what I say if it isn't that I really KNOW it?

Can you provide so much as one example of this being true?

I provided about 9000 examples already but you didn't see them.

According to who?

According to ME, of course! :)

*Yawn* Can you provide any evidence of this?

Yeah, just look in the mirror.

And apparently have remained "vanished", which is why there is not one single piece of evidence to support your ludicrous claims.

It seems so because it balanced itself.

Any particular king that you can recall off the top of your head?

Sumerian and Egyptian. Tycho Brahe was also an awakened one, but he wasn't a "king".

Did you provide any evidence then, or was that time just as pointless as now?

How do you want me to provide evidence when there is no evidence? No one believed me then either, no one understood me :( You will not understand ME... not in several thousands of years.

Heehee... Thanks for your reply.

Yorda

02-16-05, 07:14 PM

But I remember it...

SnakeLord

02-16-05, 07:45 PM

I have done everything. I remember the sons of God. There's your proof, in MY memory. Why do you think I say what I say if it isn't that I really KNOW it?

You're either taking too many drugs, or not enough. But either way I shall answer your question..

Why do I think you say what you say if you don't really know it? Hmm..

I think you say what you say because you have a serious problem somewhere in your brain. While I can help cure psychological issues you might have, I can't fix physical damage. Sorry.

I provided about 9000 examples already but you didn't see them.

Ok, I've put my glasses on now. Where are these 9,000 examples?

According to ME, of course!

Do you even take yourself seriously?

Yeah, just look in the mirror.

O...kely dokely.

Sumerian and Egyptian.

That's not a particular king. Name names.

How do you want me to provide evidence when there is no evidence?

Enough said.

You will not understand ME... not in several thousands of years.

Oh, I understand alright.

Medicine*Woman

02-16-05, 08:02 PM

spidergoat: Nefertiti had a bit of a gut, didn't she?
*************
M*W: Rumor had it that the old girl was knocked up at least six times by her babies daddy -- Bro Moses.

locknroll

02-16-05, 08:20 PM

Yorda are you the only person who remember's this?

You sure are special.

Yorda

02-16-05, 08:49 PM

I think you say what you say because you have a serious problem somewhere in your brain.

Maybe I have a big br3in like the Sons of God, so you can't understand me... I think on a different level.

Ok, I've put my glasses on now. Where are these 9,000 examples?

In your head.

Do you even take yourself seriously?

Sometimes.

That's not a particular king. Name names.

Ptah-hotep.

Yorda are you the only person who remember's this?

There are lots of others, but they're smarter than me so they don't talk about it. Everyone can know everything if they just look inside of themselves. A human is like a cube, but inside the cube, there is everything... but he can't see it because he never looks inside himself... he just puts himself in more and more crystalized cages and the cube becomes dusty...

You sure are special.

Nah... Yorda is yorda..

SkinWalker

02-16-05, 10:30 PM

Ptah-hotep wasn't a king. He was the vizier of King Izezi of the 5th Dynasty at around 2450 BCE.

Edit:

It should have been obvious to me from the start, but discussing with someone such as Yorda about religiosity and the reasons for commonalities among the world's major religions is a pointless endeavor. To someone so apparently affected by obsessive-compulsive desire to believe in whatever thought enters his/her head, and attributes these thoughts with narcissistic ferver and self-aggrandization to "god speaking to him," the tested hypotheses and logical reasoning of others is wasted.

It would be far more interesting to discuss Yorda and those like her/him who not only believe religious texts without reading them, but pick and choose the validity of scientific results depending upon whether such results support or invalidate the grandiose/obsessive-compulsive behaviors.

I hypothesize that this is a result of the self-aggrandizing notions, which suggest to those afflicted with this hypothetical (perhaps real) disorder that personal beliefs are right and that the beliefs or knowlege of others is flawed unless it is supportive of contrived beliefs of the disordered person.

In the case of Yorda, what we see is a set of personal beliefs: 1) god exists; 2) god created all; 3) god speaks to those that are able to listen; 4) Yorda is able to listen, therefore god speaks to her/him; 5) the validity of the bible is questionable unless it conforms to Yorda's beliefs because these beliefs were are the "spoken word of god" and biblical passages that do not fit this "spoken word" are incorrect (i.e. the Hebrew word "nephilim," which means "fallen" to all those who are Hebrew [OED, 2005], but means "giant" in Yorda's "spoken word")

The obsessive-compulsive behavior might not be to some, but I would argue that this is present in Yorda's adherence to his beliefs (religion?) in spite of logical arguements that discredit the fallacious nature of them. But the self-aggrandizing behavior is most obvious with the various comments that indicate god speaks to him (and thus "through" him, though he doesn't say this); he has no use for eduction (he's above this sort of trivial passtime of lesser humans); etc.