Robittybob1

I've heard of the phrase you reference, but I'm just saying that only once reality is shared does it get better; people who lived 1,000 years ago are anyone who's using the internet today, so therefore it's error that 1,000 years later I'm needing to write this sentence.

1,000 years from now, anyone of that time will be anyone of today: the end of the United States and all other nations could've existed 1,000 years ago, therefore it's wrong that they still exist today.

 

My point is that political leaders should speak in public how I'm speaking on this post.

They wouldn't have time for that.

 

 

How else does he pay?

Is that payment enough? Present your full solution dimreepr please?

@Ten oz - you have begun to demonstrate how complex the allegiances are. Add in a few more countries and you've got it.

 

 

Then peace has won and Assad will pay.

Do they trust him to pay? No one will ever trust Assad again.

Wasn't Ahkenaten the first to promote Monotheism?

So they said in a documentary but it didn't last. Whereas it is repeatedly said Abraham is the father of monotheism but I don't see the reasons for that.

What is it you think they've won?

If all rebel groups surrender Assad has won, and then will he hunt down those who contributed to the chaos? He will feel he has won the war but who is going to pay?

Over the last few months we've been lead to believe they had a ceasefire, but every time it gets broken by the Russian backed Assad regime. They seem to equate a ceasefire with surrender, and when they don't surrender the rebel held areas are turned into a bloodbath.

 

 

Nope, but it is a start.

Would the winning side expect retribution, or must they also forgive the former rebels?

Yes. Political leaders across the world should say that either anyone is why reality exists, or that no one is; the political leader can be from any country, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that once viewing publics had heard this kind of talk, problems such as you've referenced would no longer have reason to exist.

 

More precisely: whoever does the talking, in public, that talk should try to consist of ideas like all people being formula and context, or trees and forests, or this or that kind of specific life experience (e.g. the speaker could detail a life experience that's either theirs or someone they know, and then say that all people on Earth are that very experience).

There is the saying "you can't see the forest for the trees". Does that fit in with what you are saying?

 

 

Forgive those who seek to create hatred/fear.

So that is that a total surrender by all the rebel groups?

 

RobbityBob1

The question as to the extent to which we can gain from the wisdom of our ancestors way of looking at the world (e.g, as expressed in scriptural accounts of the Abrahamic tradition) while, at the same time, discarding the chaff of ignorance and superstition of the times is not an easy one. Personally, I am not a big fan of the sort of blind obedience to what one thinks is God's will or plan for you; however, this seems to be a big part of the Christian heritage. If we boil it down, I would suggest that what this really means is that we should try to be more open to what seems to be best for ones social and physical environment, and not just focused on ones own goals. Perhaps, transcendence really just involves making the effort to extend ones sense of identity beyond ones immediate concerns (as per Tajfel and Turner social identity theory) to include, for example, ever widening circles of humanity.

 

I think that the Abrahamic narrative, and in particular, literal fundamentalist/literal/elitist interpretations of this narrative, is essentially a militant view, given its ethos of blind obedience to higher authority, its claim that a particular group of people has a right to take over certain lands, putting the nation and its interpretation of God's will first over even love of family, its patriarch/patriarchal attitude, its insistence on the superiority of certain people, etc. Again, Freud had a lot to say about the insidious nature and dangers of ethnocentrism...In this sense, I think that Ten Oz has a good point that we look for the metaphors in the Bible (and perhaps update such metaphors in light of modern science, politics, economics, etc.).

 

...

 

You certainly show a high level of research into the topic. Are you studying the topic or even teaching aspects of it? Care to share some of your background for it has been a very interesting discussion. Thanks.

It breaks my heart seeing what is happening. What is the solution?

If the problem arises from this we have no hope of a solution: Disarray http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95413-who-was-abraham-that-religions-get-named-after-him/page-5#entry924786

 

The distinction between Shiite and Sunnis goes back, of course, to differences in interpretation as to such things as to whom is the spiritual successor of Muhammed. Again, it seems to be all about who is in line of descent, who has rights to land, who has rights to rule

 

@RobbityBob1

Well, yes, it is a matter of clarifying what the focus is, ....

This is only a small forum, but I think that any and all efforts to clarify the value that the Abrahamic tradition might have for all people (e.g., their common effort to find meaning by examining the events and myths recorded throughout the ages by those seeking to create some sort of dialogue with God), and not just for a few who claim to have the right interpretation of divinely inspired scriptural accounts, might help reduce inter-national conflict.

So, I guess all that I have gained is a sense that I have helped clarify such value, and hopefully helped others a little to clarify their own contributions towards finding common value in the Abrahamic narrative and tradition.

 

The topic is dear to your heart. "Blessed are the peacemakers". Do you have a solution for peace in Syria? If you care I think we should discuss it in another thread, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95631-do-you-have-a-solution-for-peace-in-syria/.

Gobekli Tepe - why was it built and then buried?

12,000 years ago when humans were still hunter gatherers. Did they have tools that could make this?

 

......

Again, as far as I am concerned, the really crucial passages in the Bible (be they considered details or nuggets), are those in which God speaks to a character and/or those in which miracles are performed. These are the sorts of passages that determine who God gave the land to (e.g., via Moses, Joshua, Abraham, etc.) and who can more easily achieve salvation (e.g., descendants of Isaac or Ishmael), what are the right morals (e.g., 10 commandments), and how they can be saved (e.g., Allah or Jesus/God/Holy Spirit) and just what God is like (angry Yahweh or forgiving Jesus, etc.).

 

.....

 

What have you gained from this focus?

Why not; we don't have enough information to make an informed assumption about their motives. We often don't even know for sure how how much of the writings attributed to them was actually written by them. Determining a motive is a leap of faith. Determining a benevolent motive, considering the history of violence and oppression linked to religion, a blind leap of faith.

Well it appears to have paid off for the descendents of Abraham for they can now claim ancestral ownership of that piece of dirt.

I'm trying to understand why more nations haven't done a similar thing?

It is also interesting that Haran is close to Gobekli Tepe. Googled Gobekli tepe and Haran:

 

Another piece of evidence that we uncovered—the once-fertile plain to the south of Göbekli Tepe is the site of the biblical Haran, a mere 25 miles away. This is where Abraham lived for several years during his family’s migration from Ur of the Chaldeans to the land of Canaan. It is where Terah settled and died, and from whence Isaac and Jacob both obtained their wives.

Was there a connection?

Thanks Disarray - I'll look into researching "The Bible Unearthed Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Finkelstein and Silberman" there are lectures on YT. to start with.

@Velocity_Boy - Clicked the rep point in error sorry.

In other parts of the OT it goes on to say the firstborn (of a woman) had to be given to the Lord or redeemed. Ishmael we are not told if he was a first born son of his mother or not, but with Isaac we are told.

Is this part of the story recounted in the Quran? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael

 

At the age of 14, Ishmael was freed along with his mother. The Lord’s covenant made clear Ishmael was not to inherit Abraham’s house and that Isaac would be the seed of the covenant: "Take your son, your only son, whom you love and go to the region of Moriah." (Genesis 22:2-8) Abraham gave Ishmael and his mother a supply of bread and water and sent them away. Hagar entered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba where the two soon ran out of water and Hagar, not wanting to witness the death of her son, set the boy some distance away from herself, and wept. "And God heard the voice of the lad" and sent his angel to tell Hagar, "Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation." And God "opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water", from which she drew to save Ishmael's life and her own. "And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer." (Genesis 21:14–21)

It doesn't tend to lend itself to turning Ismael into a child sacrifice, but Abraham sure put the child's life in danger when he freed the mother (Hagar) and son.

Under the law of Hammurabi what was his responsibilities to her? Did he do wrong releasing her as he did?

PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael#Ishmael_in_Muslim_literature The above is mentioned and nothing about Ishmael being sacrificed.

My textbook said that Moses made the Hebrews monotheistic, preceded by veneration of the Mesopotamian pantheon.

I would tend to agree with that a bit more than saying it was attributed to Abraham. The first four of the Ten Commandments does tend to make them focus on one God. http://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-commandments/the-ten-commandments/10-commandments-list/

 

 

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2. You shall not make idols.

3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

"You can have other Gods but none ahead of me". Is that what it says? So that is not strictly monotheistic either then is it?

I was looking for the bits that would be evidence whether it was true or not.

Rams caught in a thicket was common.

Child sacrifice was common.

The burial places of Sarah and co seem to be well preserved even if they are out of bounds.

The laws written by Hammurabi seem to attribute lots of interaction between the leaders and their gods. So looking into the extent of Hammurabi's kingdom, I can see why Abraham would need to travel out of that area of influence if he felt he wanted to start his own area of influence. (Haram is up in what is currently Turkey)

The fact that the Muslim story of Abraham has variations does not carry weight in this investigation.

 

The Code of Hammurabi is a law code of ancient Babylon, set down by King Hammurabi around 1,750 BC. The code survives on several large stele and clay tablets, none of which are fully intact so there are occasional lacunae in the text.

I'm not really wanting to know about angels or saints but the common statement that keeps coming up that Abraham starts up a monotheism. I'm just wondering how they come to that conclusion.

A long long time ago, protoJudaism was polytheistic. They worshiped the Canaanite pantheon. Over time, they shifted from polytheism to henotheism. At that point, they still believed in all of the pantheon gods, but YHWH was they're tribal god. That gave way over time to monotheism where they believe in only YHWH. Though, hints of the henotheistic and polytheistic past of the tradition are still apparent in the texts if you know what you're looking for.

I think this is along the line I need to examine. What I have tried to understand is how does anyone know who you are dealing with, how does anyone (including Abraham) know which "god" is giving Abraham his experiences?

 

.....

RobbityBob1:

Judging from your last post, you seem to be assuming that the account regarding Abraham and Isaac is fact. I am surprised that you ignore the fact that Muslims think that the account of the almost-completed sacrifice involved Abraham and Ishmael (their progenitor), not Isaac. Then you try to start an irrelevant dialogue about whether or not we should forgive our parents. Somehow you seem to think that scriptural history is so accurate as to be able to say whether the son actually stopped speaking to his father for whatever period of time. All in all, it seems as if you have crossed over into the twilight zone of religious proselytizing here. As I mentioned before, if you take away the assumption that a real God was involved in this story, then all you have left is a story of a bizarre culture in which human sacrifice to a God is acceptable and/or a story of a demented parent who hears voices telling him to "slaughter" his son with a knife.

 

I was commenting on the bizarre concept of surviving a child sacrifice and what sort of effect that would have on that child. How would anyone know whether that child never spoke to his parent ever again, but one could easily imagine that happening.

I have not said whether I accept this incident as true or false, yet you have recorded me saying this! All I can see from my study is that human sacrifice was an accepted historical practice for people from Ur. So if it is reported in Genesis that Abraham sets out to commit child sacrifice it may not out be of the ordinary for that time.

They attribute monotheism to Abraham but is this really so? Does anyone understand that?

 

.... What is relevant, I gather, are such things as the following:

• Whether someone called Abraham did, generally speaking, perform the deeds attributed to him in various scriptures (e.g., almost killing one of his sons because he heard God's voice)?
• If so, was the voice Abraham heard the voice of God, or was it just a voice in his (perhaps own demented) head?
• If the story is pure fiction and there was no Abraham who ever existed in history to whom an imaginary or real God promised land, then why did the authors of the scriptures make the stories up?
• And finally (as something of an aside), what would happen if people around the world agreed that the stories were pure fiction?

 

I read the other day that it was the Lord who stayed Abraham's arm. Now what that would feel like I have no idea, but I don't think it is just like getting cold feet and changing your mind.

Someone pointed out Isaac never spoke to Abraham again after that experience. I don't blame him, yet today we are meant to forgive. Do we always forgive our parents?

In a tomb of the Queen of UR they found a ram in the thicket statue, so whether this was a common image or some sort of meme for the people of Ur I'm looking reasons the same image comes up in the story regarding the sacrifice of Isaac? It would hardly be some reference to the Abraham legend.

Inside the same tomb there was some twenty odd servants sacrificed to be with the Queen in her afterlife. So the culture of human sacrifice definitely was common place. Described in

if you read this link;

 

http://www.gardensalive.com/product/rock-your-garden-with-rock-dust/you_bet_your_garden

 

You need it to be mixed with soil that has a lot of microbes. It might benefit the microbes that benefits the plants. The idea does make sense but you've just got to make sure the conditions and materials are right to allow mineral availability. It mentions basalt dust as good and I've read granite dust is as well. Note the particle size it recommends as well; that wants to be your maximum.

That link gave me some names to use when I go down to the quarry. Thanks.

 

Our OG article sources recommended that you call up a few local 'sand, rock and gravel' suppliers and tell them you want "a very fine material you can add to your soil as a source of plant mineral nutrients." They might call it pond sand, pond silt, pond fines or swamp sand; crusher screenings, crusher fines, bug dust, float, fill sand, or flume sand. Most gravel workers, we were told, will not call it 'dust'.

I would think the mineral content is important, or else, what's the point?

Rock dust and Biochar Field Trials did not show any advantage.

@Essay - there's no shortage of rocks in Colorado!

Some science mixed with ???

 

 

Gradation, or particle size, is an important factor in choosing a material. The smaller the particle, the more easily it is broken down by microbiology and the more readily available it is. A quality powder will contain particles from 100 to 200 microns, up to sand and rice sized particles where density will hold a higher paramagnetic charge.

Think of paramagnetism as a measure of a rock powders ability to transmit and hold subtle or spiritual energies, either from the sun and planets, or from your own positive intentions.