[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

I do not have ready access to proof of the relative timeline, so I can not post it.

Be careful when you use the word "written", cause some people will go off on a tangent about oral tradition at the mention of writing something down, even though you may not have meant the literal date of when it was put to paper.

Nope. I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.

Actually, Rags did say that the Bible predicted the fall of Babylon and Assyria, though that is all he said about it. He gave no book references or anything like that, and he gave no evidence that the relevenat book of the Bible was actually written/composed/created before those events took place. He made a nice argument from authority though.

[ March 11, 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Puke]

now driving this OT thread OT from its original topic, I have recently been made aware that the famed Grace Cathedral on top of Nob Hill in San Francisco contains a Starbucks franchise.

merchants hocking their wears in the temple? didnt JC throw a fit about that, and kick over a few pop-stands? I dont care if your religious or not, I think this is far more hypocritical and offensive than the recent sex scandals in the church, because its so overt.

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Rigelian:
or (much worse) Von Daniken plug here I hope?

Haha, I never heard of this guy so did a search to see what he thinks, and he seems a loonie, but I do like watching Stargate SG1, you think that is based on the truth? (I mean, its on TV, so it must be true J/K).

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Puke:

merchants hocking their wears in the temple? didnt JC throw a fit about that, and kick over a few pop-stands? I dont care if your religious or not, I think this is far more hypocritical and offensive than the recent sex scandals in the church, because its so overt.

Rigelian mentioned about being dragged kicking and screaming into reforming or evolving towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values, well the sex scandal is such a sick thing it just proves how hypocritical the Cathloic church truly is, if they could have swept if under the carpet (and they tried very hard to do just that) they would have. So a Starbucks in there? Why should that supprise or offend you? It is not about religion any more, it is about money, power and control. If it wasnt, birth control (as an example) would be encouraged by the Church to protect against STDs, over population and unwanted children, but no... that would cut into their money, even if it was the "right" thing to do.

If JC were here today (not debating if he exicts or not) I doubt that the Coffee shop would be the first thing on his list, maybe turning the corrupt leadership into pillar of salts perhaps.

[Krsqk]

I do not have ready access to proof of the relative timeline, so I can not post it.

Fine, but until you do, any posturing about "arguing from authority" rings rather hollow.

For a couple of specific prophecies, try:

• Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.
  
• Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.
  
• Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.
  
• The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.
  Try Google with "Messianic prophecies" or some such.

Now, of course, you're going to respond with "Well, those were all written after the fact." 1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such); 2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed; 3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their works; 4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.
That should be enough to keep this debate roiling until I can check back up on it.

RE: the current state of the RCC (and many churches today)--I don't think anyone's claiming that most churches today even try to live up to the Bible. The vast majority who claim Christianity do not follow the Bible--why is it a surprise when most churches don't? Without a doubt, the intentions of the churches in question are noble (with the exception of those involved simply for power's sake), but that doesn't compensate for the drift away from the Bible. You can only go so far away from its teachings and still really be considered Christian. The word "Christian" as popularly seems to encompass much, much more than its strict definition would allow.

[Fyron]

Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.

If only things were that simple... the predictions on when and how it will be destroyed were not accurate at all. Neither were the "prophecies" that predicted the fall of Babylon. They said that it would fall in a sudden catastrophe, when it took centuris of conquests before Babylon was destroyed. That is just like saying, "the US will fall." It will undoubtedly fall one day; nothing Lasts forever. But, this does not make such a statement very prophetic.

Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.

Again, this is meaningless. I predict that Fort Knox will be plundered. It will undoubtably be robbed one day. But, this does not make me any sort of prophet.

Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.

Considering that Jerusalem has always been in the neighborhood of people that are not very friendly to the Hebrew people, it is a safe bet to say that it will be destroyed one day. Saying that it will be rebuilt is also a safe bet, as it is the holy city of the Jews. Why would they not rebuild it if it were to be destroyed? These are not prophetic at all, they were safe bets for Isaiah to make.

Trying to find legitimate web sites that accurately discuss ancient history and are not steeped full of religious mumbo-jumbo is rather difficult... I just love the internet...

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.

The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.

All of this assumes that you believe both the myth of the prophecy and the myth of JC. It is essentially rather circular reasoning because you have to already believe one part of the Bible in order for the other part to be verifiable. You can not support one supposition with another supposition.

1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such)

Has it ever occured to you that the authors of the books may not have been telling the truth? People often stretch the truth in order to get their message across. Oh no, these mythic figures could not possibly have lied. They were the authors of the Bible, so they had to be telling the truth, cause the authors of the Bible would never lie. (more circular reasoning)

2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed

1000s of years of maintaining the same flawed information that was designed to support their pre-conceived beliefs. Yep, sounds accurate enough to me.

3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their works

Says who? People that already believe what the Bible says, and so are blind to anything that does not support their beliefs?

4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.

No traditionally accepted dates of writing have been presented.

Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.

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 and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong? Because the Bible says so? Because you believe that the Bible has prophetic powers (even though it does not), so it must be true? I am certain that if we looked, we could find other religious writings that have the same sort of "prophecies" as the Bible.

[Chronon]

Just a few points I'd like to throw out there before I pack it in for the evening:

1) "Trouble is, a trawl of sci-fi fans and wargamers rarely results in a crop of historians. So most of us are arguing from a pretty incomplete recollection of what is (at best) a very patchy body of evidence to begin with..." (orginally posted by Rigelian) No need to be modest, you all are making some great historical points (even you Fyron )

2) If you're interested in the impact of non-Western influences on modern science, check out Dick Teresi's "Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - From the Babylonians to the Maya" I haven't gotten to it quite yet - too much other stuff to read at the moment - but I'm looking forward to reading it over the summer.

3) Yes, the Ancients were in many ways more advanced in science than their Medieval successors - thus the importance of the Renaissance rediscovery (in the Near East) of texts lost after the decline of Rome. Just a few examples:

Hipparchus of Nicea (196-126 BCE) calculated the Lunar month at 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 1/3 seconds (less than a minute off our current calculation). He also calculated the year within 6.5 minutes.

Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 BCE) proposed that the sun is the center of the cosmos, and that the Earth and other planets circle the sun. Copernicus knew of Aristarchus' idea - it wasn't original to Copernicus.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (276-196 BCE), librarian at Alexandria, calculated (using sundials and wells in Egypt) the circumference of the Earth to within 200 miles. He was one of the first to suggest the possibility of sailing west to get to the East.

Tying that into our main argument, it's not necessarily bad to hold on to old authorities, because they can be useful. So, the copying of ancient texts, while it did promote perhaps an overzealous devotion to them, was an important Medieval function of the RCC.

Why, then, didn't the Medieval period continue to expand on the work of the Ancients? Conditions just weren't there for it. Philosophizing - and that's what science was until recently - takes free time. There were really only two Groups of people in the Medieval period who had the time to contemplate the universe - the clergy and the nobles.

The clergy sought answers that agreed with the Ancients and their theology. The nobles were too busy fighting to think of much else (with some exceptions, of course). It wasn't until Europeans got wealthy again (in the Renaissance) that they could afford to patronize someone to investigate the heavens on a regular basis. Therefore, I would argue, it was the basic underlying socio-economic structure of feudalism - not the intellectual rigidness of the RCC - that slowed scientific advancement.

PS For those who are interested in sources all my information comes from Judith G. Coffin, et al. Western Civilizations volume I.

[Alpha Kodiak]

If the discussion includes speculation on what Jesus would say about the state of much of what is going on in organized religion today, perhaps some of his own words would be appropriate:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?

"And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. He who swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay a tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside may be clean also.

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocracy and lawlessness.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt.

"Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I assure you that all of these things will come upon this generation."

Matthew 23:13-36

As you can see, he had a thing or two to say about the religious leaders of his day. You can draw your own conclusions about his reaction to some of today's religious leaders. Do not assume that those in positions of power in organized religion necessarily reflect the teachings of Christ.

[Phoenix-D]

"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."

Nice preconception there Fyron. It might actually support his argument, so therefore it has to be wrong.

Phoenix-D

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.

This is a completely unwarranted statement. The bible is not the Gilgamesh epic, or the tales of Hercules. The 'mythic' aspects are pretty much limited to the first book or so. Once you get past the creation story and the parting of the red sea you'll find a rather detailed account of the movers and shakers of the ancient jewish world. It describes the bloody history of a tribe of nomads that eventually settled down, usually through the perspective of the most influential political/religious leader at the time.

The books of the bible (both oral and then written) were passed down as historical records not mere folklore. Just because a lot of their decisions were made based upon what would seem to be bad acid trips does not mean that the bible is a book of fairy tales. If it was it would be a much more interesting read and wouldn't have so many "begat's" in it.

By the way Fyron, I seem to remember you mentioning that you don't even own a bible. Is that true? If so, are you sure that you know what you are actually arguing about? Grossly misinformed statements like the above quote would seem to indicate that you have some kind of aVersion to religion itself, rather than a specific problem with the bible (a book that you appear to be quite unfamiliar with).

Edit: Add smilie

[ March 11, 2003, 07:43: Message edited by: QuarianRex ]