[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Alpha Kodiak:

quote:

---

Actually, what I am about to post is not some grand proof of Christian theology, and will probably not convince you of anything much, but it is the story of how I came to be where I am in my spiritual walk.

This is fine. In fact, this is infinitely better than ignoring my query, which a lot of people have done so far.

So essentially, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe. That might work for you, but not for me. I could go into a long schpiel about how wrong that is, but it would definitely fail to convince you of anything, so I won't at this juncture. That, and I must leave now for hours of riveting classes.

---

I would only modify that slightly: I believe what I was taught to believe, verified by personal experience. Think of it this way, I doubt that you invented the scientific method, rather someone taught it to you. It has served you well (as it has served me well, it is not an alien concept to me, either) and so you trust it for future use.

I have trusted in the Lord, and He has proven Himself faithful to me, so I continue to trust Him.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is a good thing that I have never once made a claim or argument as to whether the Christian God exists or not, isn't it?

You haven't done so directly - however, many of the statements you make presuppose a total denial of the possibility of some of the attributes of God, thus indirectly saying He doesn't exist. For example:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct.

Saying real prophesy is impossible is to deny the possibility of One who knows past, present, and future and who is able to communicate with mortals, some of the attributes attributed to God. Further, that quote is a logical fallacy in the context it appeared in - the debate at that point was over whether or not there was legitimate prophecy in the Bible, and the apparent reasoning in that passage lies in the assumption that prophecy cannot truly exist, yet you use this to support your claim that the specific prophecy in question was false. While I couldn't quote the Latin name for the fallacy, it is one.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?

Near as I can tell, the prophecy chain started because people used it as support for the Bible being correct, which would be an attempt to answer that very question.

As for my response -
I am a Christian, partly because that is what I grew up with, and partly because everything in the Bible that can be concretly tested and has been has come up in support of the Bible. For example, on the modern Mt. Ararat, buried in a glacer or two, there is a large wooden barge-like structure broken into three major pieces, of extreme age, which witnesses who have been inside say is filled with rows upon rows of what appear to be animal stalls. If you read of the flood in Genesis, specifically, the end of the flood, where Noah's Ark came to rest, you will find that it says the Ark came to rest in the Mountains of Ararat. Now, technically, this does not proove that the Bible happened. However, technically, nothing can be proven about the past. At best, evidence is "consistent with" or "inconsistent with" a particular tale of events. I find the bulk of the evidence to be consistent with the Biblical Version of events, and inconsistent with the most commonly postulated alternative, the tale of evolution. Mind you, this is a long post, so by the time I am done with it this post is likely to be outdated. C'est la vie.

[Phoenix-D]

I'm not even going to TRY to follow this entire discussion, however one Last comment..

"No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus)."

Circular reasoning Fyron. Nothing but; this doesn't respond to my argument at all.

I'm going to point out again that the sound BARRIER was named that for a reason, originally. It was proven wrong more quickly than some assumptions, but logical doesn't always equal correct. Especially if you don't have all the data. And if you're dealing with a godlike force, you DON'T have all the data, because almost by definition a god would be able to break the rules of reality.

So the only way to prove it wasn't predicted is to prove it was written afterwards.

Phoenix-D

[Mephisto]

It's a bit sad that you ignored my Last post, Fyron, because I would really like to know what you have to say about my point there.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The Odyssey is, for the most part, visions by various ancient Greek prophets and environmental effects attributed to the Greek gods.

IIRC the Ilias and the Odyssey are both "written" by Homer who was surely no prophet and never claimed to be one. He was a poet. There was no prophecy in the Ilis or the Odyssey whatsoever, it was already history. In large parts it is a very good description of various parts of the mediteran a story about how fruitless and destructive war is. The Ilias and the Odyssey are no religious text. True, the Greek Gods have an appearance but they only serve the story, the story is not about them.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?

There is some scientific evidence that Jesus has really lived and had some influence around the year 30 of our time. He is mentioned in several different texts, some of them not religious but official roman Messages from Palestine to Rome. As all persons in history without their own coins you have to believe that a source text is valid about the circumstances and persons it reports about. How do we know that Lucius Cotta fought in the Roman-Gallic war? Well, Ceasar tells us so (Liber quintus, 37, (4)) and either we believe in this source or we don't. Just the same for the historical Jesus.
That said, the spiritual Jesus is a matter of believe and again sources. Either you believe it and trust the sources or you don�t. There is no other proof until we invent a time machine.

Many other claims from the bible we cannot prove and some are, as it seems, just wrong and fictions. To say that every part of the bible is true will most certainly fail the test but this is at least not my point.
Maybe we both, Fyron, were talking along different lines. But I got the impression that you rejected the possibility that at least parts of the bible could be right even if we cannot proof it scientifically. And that is IMHO just as false as to say that every part of the bible is true.
There are sources that talked/wrote about Jesus in old books (old Testament) and we have sources that claim that just what was told to happen in these books came through in their time (new Testament). Either you believe in these sources or you don�t. You will never get any harder proof. How could that even be possible? What proof would make you believe a source and what doesn�t? Do you believe in Cesar when he tells us about Lucius Cotta or don�t you? Why?

[QuarianRex]

Fyron:

A mythology does indeed relate the moral values of a culture.

Cultures have been extracting moral value out of everything that they can, including myths. Myths are not inherently moral though. They are pre-scientific explanations for the world. Find a dictionary. Look it up.

Your insistance that all myths are moral is a tool to 'prove' that the moral basis of religions, in this case specifically the bible, are myths and so can be easily dismissed. You cannot prove a point by using false definitions. I know that you have not used these exact words but this is the actual implication of your statements.

quote:

---

The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with.

I fail to see the purpose of saying such a thing. All religious mythology was written by religious people. Care to enumerate?

---

The point of saying such a thing is that historical documentation, if based on religion, is not necessarily myth. While the bible does contain myths (garden of eden, etc.) saying that "Bible = mythology", as you not so eloquently stated, is dismissive and shows your ignorance of the books actual contents.

quote:

---

Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance.

...and within the realms of ancient comprehension and acceptance. What is your point?

---

My point is that people having visions and attributing a fortuitous storm to the power of god are events that we can accept within our modern paradigm and do not require belief in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural may be required to justify to results but not to accept that they happened.

If you would stop being so provincial...

Is that ever the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you need to learn more about other cultures. Well... the Bible was written in a language steeped with metaphor, and was not actually meant to be taken wholely literally. That is just an error made by people that speak a literal language.

You seem to be quoting a post that I made in the Alien Contact thread. How amusing. Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. This seems to point to your tendancy to argue from points of authority that you don't really understand. As with any document you must know the context of the time in which it was written. Once youn understand how they were saying things you can understand what they are saying. Then you can literally interpret what is said. Its quite like learning the slang of a close dialect. Once that is done you will find many interesting bits. For example, much of the bible is filled with barbs directed at the ruling oppressors of the day.

I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading what I posted, and not what you want me to have posted.

And I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading your own Posts so that you understand what people are responding to. I even bolded some of the parts of your quote so that you could see exactly what I was refering to. Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water...

Basically, your error here is a common one of arrogance. Because you believe the Bible, and not other religious works, you refuse to see that the Bible is mythology, just like the Odyssey, the Koran, etc. You have wrongly associated the term with meaning falsehood, because you believe that other religious works are false. You have attempted to belittle them and isolate the work you believe from them to make it unique. Irregardless of any arguments about the veracity of the Bible, it is most certainly not in a separate Category as other religious works; they are all mythology. The term mythology has nothing to do with falsehood.

Where on earth did you dig up this minor rant? Please read my previous Posts and tell me where any of this applies. And who says that I an even christian? I have extensively studied christianity, hinduism, and buddhism and have lesser knowledge of many others. This, if anything, has broadened my understanding and appreciation for all religions. My argument is not that the bible is true while other religious texts are false (where you got this mistaken idea I do not know), but that your attempt to claim that all texts with religious roots (or do you just have something against the bible?) are myth is a false (and cheap) way for you to prove your point (whatever that may be). The term mythology has everything to do with falsehood. The word myth is filled with connotations of falsehood (here is the myth and here is the truth) and you are trying to play that up. I am trying isolate historical religious works from ancient fiction, since you seem to be claiming that they are one and the same.

Throwing the Odyssey into the same Category as the bible, koran, or rig veda is unwarranted as well. The Odyssey was never considered to be a religious work. It was an epic performed by bards (composed by The Bard) and in theatres. It contains religious figures, yes, but is not a religious text. That would be like saying that Marlowe's Faust is a religious text. You are trying to make new categories so that you points can be justified.

If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.

[Fyron]

I am tired of my Posts being wildly misconstrued and also of words being placed in my mouth that I never said (nor typed). So, I am no longer going to respond to any Posts about religion. I will continue participating in the few discussions about non-religious matters in this thread though, as they are actually interesting.

Mephisto:

Actually, the Romans were quite �liberal� as someone else already posted. Give me your money and live as you like. And for that matter, it were different times. The Celts weren�t better or worse in treating their enemies. Heck, they burned the Last warrior to come to a raid to death as a sacrifices to the gods. Better not be late, eh?

Maybe we should implement that in classes at College... those Celts were on to something... j/k

The Celts did have an egalitarian society for most of their history in which the women and men were fairly equal though. In fact, women were allowed to be chiefs and kings, and I recall that property was inherited through the mother's side, not the father's.

The Celts also did not enslave anyone, unlike the Romans.

Mephisto:

You are correct, �barbarians� is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means �bearded�, which was uncommon for Greeks.

BM:

Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them. That's why the long, repetitive, multi-voweled 'trance' words in the Gnostic texts are called 'barbarous names'. They're huge, confusing messes of letters to us, but they were apparently representing some form of chant for the ancient people who wrote them down.

Greek, Roman, the point is still there, even if the technical details are slightly off. Barbarian still did not mean savage.

[QuarianRex]

How disappointing.

[tesco samoa]

MY GREAT GREAT.....GREAT Grandparents were once the rulers of Ireland.... 300 BC or 300 AD. I cannot remember exactly...As the documentation is not here but back in ireland

It is as far back as we can trace our family tree on my mothers side...

WOW eh

[DavidG]

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.

Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.

[Chronon]

Since Fyron has left it lying on the ground, I suppose I will pick up the secular humanist banner and carry it for this discussion. Since it's late (almost midnight local time) I'll try to keep these brief.

1) In our modern scientific culture "myth" has a negative connotation of falsehood and superstition - thus the reluctance to associate myth with the Bible. I think Fyron has a a good point about this, though, and I don't think he was trying to be gratuitously dismissive. "Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

2) I think the Bible can be quite a useful historical document (if used correctly and not taken literally on all accounts), especially when corroborated with other sources. The information on the Hebrews and Philistines, for example (Saul, David, etc.) can be very useful in sorting out the history of the Ancient Near East. The Babylonian Captivity is another clearly historical event, as is Cyrus the Great's restoration of the Hebrews to Israel. I recognize, though, that using it as a historical tool is a completely different endeavor than using it for personal salvation (if one believes that is possible).

3) I think the question of reading the Bible literally has actually been quite a problem for theologians and scientists for quite some time. It certainly created tension between Galileo (arguing for a metaphorical reading) and his Jesuit enemies (arguing for a literal reading "the sun moves through the sky") - eventually resulting in his trial. On the other hand, such highly admired theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have urged caution in reading the Bible literally. For example, St. Augustine wrote, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians" De actis cum Felice Manicheo Or Saint Thomas Aquinas, "First, hold the truth of scripture without wavering. Second, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon if it proved with certainty to be false: lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers and obstacles be placed to their believing."

I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).