Right, we were talking about multiple places that all had high populations. What differentiated one as a city and another as not was the lack of class stratification. I picked an applicable one. Not a preferred one.
Yeah, dishonest people. Iām not looking to confirm a preferred ātruthā. What would be the point of that? I can just believe whatever I want without all the effort.
Iām not sure how apparent it is to you at this point, but Iāve put a lot of work into this. For all of that work to be dismissed by just calling my whole method of inquiry into question is infuriating.
Mainly because it doesnāt take work or knowledge to dismiss by these means. Itās easy. Just throw out that accusation and go have a smoke.
Right, but population density alone, without class stratification, isnāt enough. To have class stratification there has to be at least some population. But to have population doesnāt require classes.
I donāt believe you have shown such a thing.
No, plenty of people. Itās a common human failing and requires no dishonesty.
Iād say that a large and concentrated population does require classes, laws, organization, etc. much more than a small and dispersed population does. Do you disagree?
Oh I did. Both sites weāre talking about I brought up. Eridu I specifically cited a reference that speaks of it losing itās egalitarian culture over a short period of time and becoming stratified and male-dominant. The other sites, the large farming communities, Catal Huyuk, Lepenski Vir, these were egalitarian.
History disagrees. Note the two sites above. Two examples that show that to be false.
" Exceptionally large settlements developed in Catal Huyuk(7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey and the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC) located in the central portion of the Balkan peninsula. The Lepenski Vir culture gave way to the VinÄa-TurdaČ culture (5,000-4,500 BC), which at one point had populations estimated at 2,500 or more in some of the larger sites."
But see, this is a good example. In your mind, you get that many people living that close together, of course thereās class stratification. A perfectly logical assumption. But wrong. Youād be right of humans nowadays, but thatās the point. Humans back then were different.
Yes, and did they have the same population sizes and densities as Eridu?
But you have shown no such thing. There are several independent places in which cities have arisen without any contact with Mesopotamia. You have shown no genetic correlates of class stratification, only cultural correlates. Your assumption that this all comes from the spread of genetic features out of Mesopotamia is not supported. Your assumption that ānativeā people today are different from other people today is not supported. Very little of what you say is actually supported.
1 Like
Are we really going to get into it at that level? Weāre going to try to quantify the tipping point of population size/density? Do you really want to go there?
I just did. Just now.
Do the work. Donāt just say there are several independent places, show. Where? What are you talking about?
Iāve sited two books that support it. Itās not an assumption. Itās based on copious amounts of data.
Ditto. Iām showing the evidence my conclusions are based on. Youāre just stating your objections as if fact, with no support behind it, other than that one google search. I give credit where itās due.
Another interesting coorelation between early Sumer (Ubaid period) and pre-flood Genesis ā¦
One of Cainās descendants ā¦
Genesis 4:20 - Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.
One of the factions that made up early Sumerian society ā¦
ātent-dwelling nomadic pastoralists dependent upon their herdsā - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period#Society
ĆatalhƶyĆ¼k
āThe population of the eastern mound has been estimated to be, at maximum, 10,000 people, but the population likely varied over the communityās history. An average population of between 5,000 and 7,000 is a reasonable estimate.ā
āĆatalhƶyĆ¼k has strong evidence of an egalitarian society, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far.ā - ĆatalhƶyĆ¼k - Wikipedia
Are you really thinking that the Image of God does NOT include free will?
1 Like
Free will is what makes evil possible. What do you think?
Totally off topicā¦
Question for the theologians ā¦
Gen 4: 20-22 - Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brotherās name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.
Itās been thought for centuries the flood was global. People have combed over every bit of this. What did they make of this?
This is Cainās seventh generation. Next to the list in Gen5, Methuselah, who died the same year as the flood (possibly in it), was the 7th generation.
So, whatās the point of this? Theyāre each the āfathersā of these other groups? They all died in the flood, presumably, right? So, why?
And then, the writer refers to them like the intended reader will know who theyāre talking about. Assuming this was written sometime after the flood, how would they know who theyāre talking about? Who alive would know them by this description other than Noah and his wife or sons?
Just curious.
No, but thatās what would be required in order to make your claim reasonable.
At a minimum, China, Central America, and South America. India seems like a safe bet too, and even Egypt. Other hierarchical societies without cities also seem like good bets; Hawaii comes to mind immediately.
Doubtful. Where, for example, is the genetic evidence? What do you have, other than a vague resemblance of some Olmec stone to Chinese characters and a vague statement by somebody about missing Shang dynasty Chinese?
Does God have free will? Iāve heard that he doesnāt. He never makes decisions, he just is.
1 Like
Thankfully thatās not true. If it all hinged on this, then maybe I could see that. But this is a very small chip of a very large iceberg, so no need.
So you donāt know. Yet your poo-pooing off what Iām saying because ā¦ it just doesnāt feel right?
All of thatās in those books. Am I supposed to read it to you? Besides, it apparently doesnāt matter. Youāll just dismiss it anyway. You really expect me to put some effort into it at this point?
I donāt. Feel free to convince others.
Iād say no, but thatās based on my view, which is apparently flawed, though I still donāt know why.
God can only do Godās will and cannot do evil, so technically, no.
You say that as if theyāre incompatible. Why?
I think you know what i think. I think free will does not differentiate Gen 1 humans from Gen 2 humans.
Free will is the ability to do within Godās will or do outside of Godās will. How does God do outside of Godās will?
Genesis 1 humans were included in the rest of creation as being āgoodā according to God.
Free will is āgoodā AND āevilā. Gen2 humans did evil.