Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you are saying they all communicated information through clay tablets?They have found thousands and thousands of clay tablets in Dilmun, Ras Shamra and Sumer so somebody could read and write.
So you are saying they all communicated information through clay tablets?
Because I am arguing that without a doubt information in antiquity was overwhelmingly communicated orally between individuals. And that whatever important lesson there was that needed to be remembered or passed down, was done so in the form of a story. So that it was memorable because that made it easier to remember and pass down or share.
Ok, but the stories were told and that's how they were known. So whether or no there were tablets to preserve the story, the stories themselves were about sharing knowledge and information. That's how it was done in antiquity. So rather than dismiss the stories, the stories should be examined for the intent of the author keeping in mind that there are important lessons that were being transferred. So when one reads the account and only sees things to ridicule or dismiss, he is missing out on the truths of the account. These were not stupid people. There is depth to these accounts, The key is in discerning that depth.The tablets preserved the stories.. and in the case of the Ugarit in several languages that scholars now study as an aid in interpreting ancient Hebrew.
Ok, but the stories were told and that's how they were known. So whether or no there were tablets to preserve the story, the stories themselves were about sharing knowledge and information. That's how it was done in antiquity. So rather than dismiss the stories, the stories should be examined for the intent of the author keeping in mind that there are important lessons that were being transferred. So when one reads the account and only sees things to ridicule or dismiss, he is missing out on the truths of the account. These were not stupid people. There is depth to these accounts, The key is in discerning that depth.
GM and Ford are led by people too but are competitors. They don't cooperate and they are not honest with each other, they do the exact opposite. That seems like a more accurate description of nations than of marriages.Think about it. It's no different. Nations are led by people. Dialogues are between people. Agreements are reached and honored by people. Allies treat each other with respect. The more acrimonious the relationship, the less chance it has of being a successful partnership.
You're abusing the term, this is not mathematics.There are no studies that I am aware of to the contrary either. Like I said, this can be solved through inspection. Are you familiar with that term? Solved by or through inspection?
I think both you and ding are correct. Many stories are recorded on tablets and buildings and statues but the vast majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate and depended on oral histories for their knowledge and entertainment. Also most of the 'literature' we've found are records of taxes paid, property ownership, contracts, etc.The reality is that these clay tablets are a thousand years older than the emergence of the Hebrews.
When do you think the Hebrews "emerged?"The reality is that these clay tablets are a thousand years older than the emergence of the Hebrews.
I think both you and ding are correct. Many stories are recorded on tablets and buildings and statues but the vast majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate and depended on oral histories for their knowledge and entertainment. Also most of the 'literature' we've found are records of taxes paid, property ownership, contracts, etc.
When do you think the Hebrews "emerged?"
I wouldn't expect GM and Ford to necessarily cooperate. How do you know they are not honest with each other? I think you are missing the point. You need to look at this from a comparative analysis. Would you say that nations that are dishonest and disrespectful to each other have better relationships compared to nations that are honest and respectful towards each other? Seems self evident to me.GM and Ford are led by people too but are competitors. They don't cooperate and they are not honest with each other, they do the exact opposite. That seems like a more accurate description of nations than of marriages.
You're abusing the term, this is not mathematics.
I'm sure they have their proprietary secrets they won't share.I wouldn't expect GM and Ford to necessarily cooperate. How do you know they are not honest with each other?
We are probably Israel's closest ally but they still spy on us and try to influence our government. Like all countries they operate first and foremost in their own self interest.I think you are missing the point. You need to look at this from a comparative analysis. Would you say that nations that are dishonest and disrespectful to each other have better relationships compared to nations that are honest and respectful towards each other? Seems self evident to me.
You're on dangerous ground when you claim "self evident answers".It doesn't need to be mathematics. Any problem or question which avails itself to be solved by inspection can be solved through inspection. Not all problems or questions avail themselves to be solved through inspection. Just the questions and problems which have self evident answers.
Virtue is fine but Machiavelli would not put it as the most important quality in a Prince. How many Princes and commoners became king through regicide?If you study the great philosophers opinions on virtue you will find that they placed value on virtue and recognized the importance virtue played in relationships.
Virtue is a subjective term. Slave owners may be considered virtuous by their peers.But if you need an example of what I am talking about... the early Chinese dynasties would be a good example. In fact, they served as a basis for the teachings of Confucius.
Then you should test it with your wife, family and friends. Let me know how that turns out.I'm sure they have their proprietary secrets they won't share.
We are probably Israel's closest ally but they still spy on us and try to influence our government. Like all countries they operate first and foremost in their own self interest.
You're on dangerous ground when you claim "self evident answers".
Virtue is fine but Machiavelli would not put it as the most important quality in a Prince. How many Princes and commoners became king through regicide?
Virtue is a subjective term. Slave owners may be considered virtuous by their peers.
The Supreme Court may say corporations are people, I don't agree. Nations are not people either. Our US states don't get along, why would you naively expect nations to be any different?Then you should test it with your wife, family and friends. Let me know how that turns out.
They don't get along for the very same reasons I mentioned.The Supreme Court may say corporations are people, I don't agree. Nations are not people either. Our US states don't get along, why would you naively expect nations to be any different?
As soon as I get elected King I'll put it to the test.They don't get along for the very same reasons I mentioned.
Like I said... you can test this yourself.
No reason to wait until then. Something tells me you already know virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man.As soon as I get elected King I'll put it to the test.
Only if you consider self-interest as a virtue.No reason to wait until then. Something tells me you already know virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man.
You would have to have a very broad definition of self interest to deny the 5th and 6th stages of the morality progression; 5. we do things because we genuinely like others; 6. we follow the dictates of our conscience regardless of the consequences to one's self.Only if you consider self-interest as a virtue.
Denied. You sound like a socialist. We (and all nations) do what is in our own self interest. What we have to consider very seriously is what effect our actions will have on others and how that will affect our self interest. Hitler invaded Poland and Russia in the interest of the German people, a major miscalculation on his part. Bush made the same mistake in Iraq.You would have to have a very broad definition of self interest to deny the 5th and 6th stages of the morality progression; 5. we do things because we genuinely like others;
Maybe, assuming you mean for individuals and not nations, but this can be a very dangerous ideology to follow. It was one followed by the hijackers who flew their planes into the WTC.6. we follow the dictates of our conscience regardless of the consequences to one's self.
If everyone did that who would fight wars?But maybe you can't relate to that. Maybe you only do things for self interest.
Denied. You sound like a socialist. We (and all nations) do what is in our own self interest. What we have to consider very seriously is what effect our actions will have on others and how that will affect our self interest. Hitler invaded Poland and Russia in the interest of the German people, a major miscalculation on his part. Bush made the same mistake in Iraq.
Maybe, assuming you mean for individuals and not nations, but this can be a very dangerous ideology to follow. It was one followed by the hijackers who flew their planes into the WTC.
If everyone did that who would fight wars?
