Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The title of this thread reminds me about a point I've often made about the sort of truths I recognize as compared to the sort of claims lots of other people like to make. A big difference between the two is how the truths I recognize don't involve controversy and polarization like the claims other people like to make...
The title of this thread reminds me about a point I've often made about the sort of truths I recognize as compared to the sort of claims lots of other people like to make. A big difference between the two is how the truths I recognize don't involve controversy and polarization like the claims other people like to make...
your claims are claims.
the claims you like to make are claims.
including the post above. it is a claim. you are discussing the views, opinions, and beliefs you hold. Just like everyone else is discussing the views, opinions, and beliefs which they hold. In that regard, there is nothing which separates or differentiates views expressed in your posts, from views expressed by others in their posts. So, no. There is no "big difference." There is no difference.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-09-2022 at 09:50 AM..
You are not meant to edit other peoples quotes to make them say something they did not say. No, it is (a) evasion, and (b) dishonest. If someone asks me about the source of any of my claims, I will point them to my source, not tell them to do the research I have already done.
At the end of the day, they're still measuring time.
Actually, that's wrong.
The Anangu are new-comers having diverged genetically about 41,000 years ago from other aboriginal groups in Australia.
Their view of time only challenges the stupid. You've also presented the views of White people and not the views of the Aborigines themselves.
I won't even get into the fact that some aboriginal groups think that shunned photography/video because they thought it stole your soul.
That would mean there are 10s of 1,000s of people walking around with no sole, given the number of times they've been photographed/videoed which means you can survive without a soul, but then we already knew that since souls were concocted and never existed in the first place.
One good thing about Aborigines is that thanks to DNA testing, we are now aware of another hominid.
That only serves to reinforce the Multi-Regional Theory, since we have the usual suspects plus a new group that originated in Eurasia.
And they planted crops in the previous year, which is the past, and they will plant crops in the future if they're still living.
Those "environmental cues" are just a disingenuous way of saying "time."
That is not relevant. In the case of your beloved Aborigines, they didn't even have language until illegal immigrants arrived ~4,000 years ago.
The fact that a culture does not have a words to express past, present and future is not proof of the absence of time. It's only proof they didn't have a word for it.
100 years ago there was no word for computer, but no one would be dumb enough to say computers don't exist.
Classical Biblical Hebrew, and the language from which it was born, namely the Ugaritic dialect of Aramaic as well as all Semitic languages did not express past, present, or future.
Thus, when we read Genesis 6, all of the following may be accurate translations:
1) His days were 120 shars
2) His days are 120 shars
3) His days will be 120 shars
While Semitic languages, again, including Classical Biblical Hebrew, did not have verb tenses indicating time, it is also true that time was understood from the context of the conversation.
Time was not invented.
Time always existed. It is the existence of time that allows us to know the distance of stars from Earth.
The speed at which the Earth rotates on its axis results in the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky at a rate of 15° per hour.
I say "apparent" because it is not the Sun that is moving, it is the Earth rotating.
How we define time is an artificial construct, but the concept of time itself is not.
We can call an hour a jujubee but it wouldn't alter the fact that the Earth has rotated 15° and that exact moment or hour can never be repeated.
Why? Because the planets and the minor bodies will not be in the same geocelestial coordinates.
In other words, it's someone's subjective view of how you should live to avoid some post-mortem punishment.
Nope. That is medically and scientifically false.
The fetus becomes conscious at about 22-24 weeks.
Consciousness terminates once the brain ceases to function. The brain does continue to function for up to several minutes after the heart stops beating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
One cannot fear something that does not exist.
And, you're mistaken. That is not how Indians view reincarnation. One is not automatically reincarnated into a better life. The concept of reincarnation was altered after contact with Buddhists and the introduction of the concept of karma.
Can you explain this please? The concept of karma is integral to Hinduism, it is is the Vedas which is so ancient it has no date. So you are saying Buddhism introduced the concept of karma and somehow that changed the concept of reincarnation.
Can you explain your quote please. I am very confused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
