Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Representations and depictions of the deity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    That comment, apart from being entirely irrelevant, would suggest that either you are reluctant to acknowledge the differences between your pal's two separate remarks, or you did not recognise the difference between them.
    Or it indicates that we are all sick and tired of your double standards and trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Maybe he is just treating you like you treat him and others when they ask YOU for supporting evidence. Hmm?
    That comment, apart from being entirely irrelevant, would suggest that either you are reluctant to acknowledge the differences between your pal's two separate remarks, or you did not recognise the difference between them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



    However, that remark by rogue06 indicates that he has access to this work by Wilson which leaves the question, why could he not simply have typed out some of those names in his reply to my request?

    Maybe he is just treating you like you treat him and others when they ask YOU for supporting evidence. Hmm?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    There are many colloquial usages in English (and I would hazard, almost any language) which do not conform with rigidly formal definitions. Demanding that an entire culture conform to your concepts of what is proper won't achieve anything more than continued misunderstandings and pointless conflicts.
    Qualifying one's comments seems to be a grammatical feature that is unknown to some contributors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The ruins of Great Zimbabwe were attributed to Romans, Phoenicians, Arabs etc. Virtually anyone and everyone that someone could dream up -- except the indigenous people. That was still going on when I was in school.
    That is one site dating from the 11th century CE . Not "Everything" as you initially contended.

    As I wrote this is desperate back pedalling on your part from an initial ridiculously over-extended and generalised statement that you cannot defend.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    It is erroneous and is an excuse for slovenly writing and thinking.
    There are many colloquial usages in English (and I would hazard, almost any language) which do not conform with rigidly formal definitions. Demanding that an entire culture conform to your concepts of what is proper won't achieve anything more than continued misunderstandings and pointless conflicts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Everything: Just another sweeping generalisation that is commonly used and generally accepted as not being intended to mean literally everything.
    It is erroneous and is an excuse for slovenly writing and thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    There seems to be at least some support for Rogue's assertion.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ins-plundering
    Karl Mauch: “I do not think that I am far wrong if I suppose that the ruin on the hill is a copy of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah,” Mauch declared, “and the building in the plain a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba lived during her visit to Solomon.” He further stated that only a “civilised nation must once have lived there” – his racist implication unmistakeable.

    Other European writers, also believing that Africans did not have the capacity to build anything of the significance of Great Zimbabwe, suggested it was built by Portuguese travellers, Arabs, Chinese or Persians. Another theory was that the site could have been the work of a southern African tribe of ancient Jewish heritage, the Lemba.

    In 1905, however, the British archaeologist David Randall-MacIver concluded the ruins were medieval, and built by one or more of the local African Bantu peoples. His findings were confirmed by another British archaeologist, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, in 1929, and this remains the consensus today.

    “How a powerful African empire built a kingdom that covered vast swaths of southern Africa is a source of pride for Zimbabweans – and something that colonial governments tried for a long time to undermine by linking this wondrous kingdom to the Phoenicians.”

    There is no support for Rogue's assertion because he alleged that "Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations" [My emphasis].

    This "Everything" has now been narrowed down to one site built between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries CE. Nor, given its dates, can we entirely eradicate influences from external civilisations in the construction of this city complex as we have no written records from this culture. Furthermore, the idea for building large cities in stone does not appear to have been copied by other indigenous African societies.

    That does not diminish the complexity and organisation of the society that built this huge city but it is not of the same "vintage" as the pyramids or the temple at Luxor.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    I asked for the names of archaeologists and Egyptologists in support of what you initially alleged ""Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]
    Everything: Just another sweeping generalisation that is commonly used and generally accepted as not being intended to mean literally everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    And your repeated insistence that I referred to Wilson as an explorer or archaeologist confirms you have comprehension difficulties.
    I asked for the names of archaeologists and Egyptologists in support of what you initially alleged ""Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]

    You gave me a work by Wilson who was neither. I simply pointed out that what you had provided was not what I requested.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    There seems to be at least some support for Rogue's assertion.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ins-plundering
    Karl Mauch: “I do not think that I am far wrong if I suppose that the ruin on the hill is a copy of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah,” Mauch declared, “and the building in the plain a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba lived during her visit to Solomon.” He further stated that only a “civilised nation must once have lived there” – his racist implication unmistakeable.

    Other European writers, also believing that Africans did not have the capacity to build anything of the significance of Great Zimbabwe, suggested it was built by Portuguese travellers, Arabs, Chinese or Persians. Another theory was that the site could have been the work of a southern African tribe of ancient Jewish heritage, the Lemba.

    In 1905, however, the British archaeologist David Randall-MacIver concluded the ruins were medieval, and built by one or more of the local African Bantu peoples. His findings were confirmed by another British archaeologist, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, in 1929, and this remains the consensus today.

    “How a powerful African empire built a kingdom that covered vast swaths of southern Africa is a source of pride for Zimbabweans – and something that colonial governments tried for a long time to undermine by linking this wondrous kingdom to the Phoenicians.”







    That consensus pretty much was reached by the 1950s but there were still advocates claiming that the native people were incapable of having built it. Many for racist reasons (the Rhodesian government was accused of pressuring archaeologists to deny it was built by indigenous people). That's what the state of affairs was back when I was still in school a decade or so later.

    Interestingly, the first Europeans to see it, Portuguese explorers in the 16th cent., appear to have taken it for granted that it was a native construction. That changed when the German explorer Karl Munch came across it in the 19th cent and who opened the flood gates to the speculation that someone, anyone, other than the native people must have built it.

    Hmm. 1870s to 1950s. Sounds like generations to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    And who are the accredited archaeologists who have made those claims?

    Your citation of a work that includes the likes of Graham Hancock in its bibliography does not inspire confidence.
    And your repeated insistence that I referred to Wilson as an explorer or archaeologist confirms you have comprehension difficulties.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    As you self-evidently have access to this work why did you not just type out some of those names in reply to my question?

    Ah and now we are back-pedalling from our initial categorical assertion that:

    "Everything from the pyramids to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe have been credited to everyone but the indigenous people by European explorers and archeologists for generations ." [My emphasis]


    There seems to be at least some support for Rogue's assertion.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ins-plundering
    Karl Mauch: “I do not think that I am far wrong if I suppose that the ruin on the hill is a copy of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah,” Mauch declared, “and the building in the plain a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba lived during her visit to Solomon.” He further stated that only a “civilised nation must once have lived there” – his racist implication unmistakeable.

    Other European writers, also believing that Africans did not have the capacity to build anything of the significance of Great Zimbabwe, suggested it was built by Portuguese travellers, Arabs, Chinese or Persians. Another theory was that the site could have been the work of a southern African tribe of ancient Jewish heritage, the Lemba.

    In 1905, however, the British archaeologist David Randall-MacIver concluded the ruins were medieval, and built by one or more of the local African Bantu peoples. His findings were confirmed by another British archaeologist, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, in 1929, and this remains the consensus today.

    “How a powerful African empire built a kingdom that covered vast swaths of southern Africa is a source of pride for Zimbabweans – and something that colonial governments tried for a long time to undermine by linking this wondrous kingdom to the Phoenicians.”








    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    You made an emphatic claim and then desperately back-pedalled. Very amusing to watch.
    No back-pedaling. Just clarification after your wild "interpretation" of what I wrote.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The ruins of Great Zimbabwe were attributed to Romans, Phoenicians, Arabs etc. Virtually anyone and everyone that someone could dream up -- except the indigenous people. That was still going on when I was in school.
    And who are the accredited archaeologists who have made those claims?

    Your citation of a work that includes the likes of Graham Hancock in its bibliography does not inspire confidence.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
14 responses
42 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
78 responses
411 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X