I agree it isn't about picking sides, and I would certainly concur that in the case of the film what is "exact history" isn't well represented....but! What is exact history anyway?
You misunderstand. The question should be "what precisely is history?"
From what I have gathered much is known, and perhaps much will yet be revised. Perhaps it could never be proven, but I think there is at least some merit in the proposition that perhaps predating the journey out of africa so long ago, certain seeds were planted that stuck with human groups and evolved as the people journeying across the globe saw fit, something that would in theory account for the differences as well as the similarities....but that is speculation.
Speculation with no proof. Further, it's speculation that doesn't account for parts of the world like New Zealand and Australia. I wouldn't necessarily word "the journey out of africa" like you did, either, because that is deceiving. There is no evidence of large migrations of human beings in pre-historic man except the obvious evidence that pre-historic man developed in numerous locations. We know
something happened, but we're not exactly sure what, when, or how.
In regards to the highlighted passage, how do you hold that view in light of the influence of mystery religions, which unfortunately the film never came close to examining(that of course wasn't the point). This is a nice little paper by martin luther king on the subject that is at least thought provoking:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/..._of_the_Mystery_Religions_on_Christianity.htm
Nice paper, but there isn't anything extraordinary in it. The paper is repeating back the conventional historical theories that were held over half a century ago. Many have since been considered without merit, and others have been altered to not resemble the same form. Once again, this paper was written before the discovery of things like the Nag Hammadi, which caused a vast re-examination of assumed theories on the origins of Christianity. It's still being examined today. If you'd like a suggestion, look up some books by
Elaine Pagels, as I have found some of her writing on this to be helpful in explaining many of the currently debated historic discussions about the very earliest (first through third century) Christians. In many arguments from newer examinations, the actual deification of Christ didn't actually happen until a century after Christ would have existed, and was more heavily influenced by the Romans (through converts), not Greeks or Egyptians. Earliest stories of Christ have him ranging from a pauper's rabbi to a divinely inspired prophet.
I'm not telling you to ignore things like the paper you linked. They are very pertinent to having context on how our understanding of things change in the face of new discoveries and further examination. I am simply saying to not be too heavily influenced by claims that were made before more recent discoveries turned many assumptions that led to those claims on their head.
I think there are some theories that hold merit, albeit they are controversial and in essence unprovable beyond those that believe in them. I don't think that confirmation or hard evidence would ever surface regarding these origins either, and as a result one is left to speculate in a fashion guided by the retrieved data from the past.
Well, my whole problem is with those who make claims about things that are unprovable. Without the proof, the claim has no weight with me. As a skeptic, I want anything that I know to be supportable with proof, and as much of it as possible. If those proofs change, then my understanding will change and what I know will change. Otherwise, I am gambling on faith, and faith is often harder to change in the face of new evidence.
This is why I don't delve into the practice of arguing with anyone whether their (religious) faith is "true" or not. Religion has had the corner market on the question of "why?" for longer than humans have had the invention of writing. I may as well pick a fight with the ocean. Instead, I have no problem not being concerned with the more esoteric "Why?" questions of the universe, and am more concerned with being able to find out "how" and "where" and "what" in my search for understanding.
---
Thank you. I think you have to bear in mind, however, that the movie is intended to attract a large audience, something it is doing very well, given the circumstances. It's needed to pack a punch, cut corners, and accept that academics won't like it. You also have to really make it tight. I think the movie's been created along these lines and I applaud it completely.
I never applaud exercises in misinformation.
Hi GreNME,
OK, I checked out the links.
You wrote "Linguists have shown that completely unrelated languages with completely different roots and origins can have words that sound similar. That is a fairly strong case against the tendency to use similarities as implying relationship when dealing with cultural phenomenon." (italics mine)
Personally, I would say that, where the option exists, it is far better to apply comparative evaluation to the field in question, rather than to attempt to evaluate it through looking at how a related field has been analysed historically. What's been learned in the past is of course useful, possibly relevant and could be taken into account particularly in selecting the method proposed for analysis. But it is no substitute for direct analysis of the field in question, where it is feasible to undertake the same.
The fact that prior beliefs about languages from different parts of the world sharing a common root may be overturned does not, imo, make a meaningful statement about whether other cultural beliefs are likely to be the same. I personally would not consider this premise a "strong case," as you put it.
Interesting links, btw. Thanks
Why would you not consider it a strong case? Language is pretty much the strongest case of all. Religion cannot exist without a language to convey it, and cultures don't develop separately from the ways in which people communicate. If nothing else, language is the glue which holds societies together. Civilizations would not have developed without first developing a language. If these separate cultures managed to develop without sharing linguistic heritage with another possibly similar culture, what kind of proof can you have that the similarities imply these cultures shared religions? It's a preposterous claim to make, with no evidence to support it.
Example: The semitic cultures of Mesopotamia and the African cultures in Egypt developed separately from each other, and until around the time of Sumer (and the Hyksos migration in Egypt)-- which developed separately from Babylonian and Akkadian societies-- the main contact Mesopotamia and Egypt had with each other was through battles. Attempts to draw lines of delineation from Egypt to Mesopotamia, and as such to the cultures which survive today, completely ignores the known history of that region. No other cultural phenomena passed from Egypt to Mesopotamia during this time-- farming was different, engineering techniques were different, clothing and dress were different, religious iconography was different (Mesopotamian iconography depicted scary ghoul-like gods compared to Egypt's human-like gods)-- and yet still claims remain that Egypt influenced the cultures that became the semitic cultures we know of today (Jews/Heberws, Bedoins and other Arabs, Chaldeans and some Persians). It's unsupported and ridiculous.
